D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[mamba]

OK. So we agree that by your standards it is entirely reasonable for the players to say "I refuse to have orcs as adversaries". Because that doesn't limit what the DM does.

no, I said nothing about that part. Why is it that the ‘DMs are evil tyrants’ side always have to twist words, is that just coincidence…

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, but how about including this part???

Since without it you are implying that the players can't even offer input.

"Providing input" is irrelevant if the GM can just go on their merry way doing whatever they like and players are expected to put up or shut up.

Yes. Players can walk away, and DMs can ask players to leave.

Then I have no idea how you are not saying that players are always expected to compromise, while DMs are never expected to.

I am only replying because you took my quote. We had several posts going back and forth and I repeatedly said that the best way is to compromise.

If the DM does not budge, you playing a different cool concept is perfectly acceptable in my book however. That was the premise of that statement.

You now turning this into me saying ‘the DM is always right, get used to it’ is absolutely dishonest, I reject that notion completely. That is not what I meant, it is not what I said, and you should know better

Then your statement was, in my opinion, an extremely poor fit for the message you wanted to communicate. It absolutely read, to me, as saying that if the DM is not immediately in agreement then the player should always capitulate on their preferences, no matter what, and that it is both normal and reasonable for the DM to, as you say, not budge.

I'm going to suggest again that you find another debating style. Cherry picking lines from quotes, multi-quoting like this... it's tiresome to read through and it leads to others ignoring any valid points you might have.

You asked me to provide examples of people saying the thing you said no one had said. I provided them.

I only trimmed the quotes down because I had presumed that full-length quotes would, themselves, have been a problem.

I, personally, think I've done quite enough to show how the attitude of "DMs never need to compromise, players always do" has been present in the thread from literally page 1, and that multiple posters have said something at least like that here. You asked for demonstrations. I've provided them. If what people meant by the things said was something other than "DMs never need to compromise, players always do," it would have been nice for them to say that. I have addressed, above, those who have said they feel I mischaracterized their statements. I clearly did at least in part misunderstand what was said, but I also think it is incumbent upon the speaker to be clear as to what they meant--and I did not at all get the impressions that they have since clarified.

Or consider, for example, the two or three different people who have advised me that, if I want to play something, I should...run a game where people can play that. As if that did even one thing to solve the problem! Except that it does, if and only if you presume that the problem is "having to capitulate" and further presume that DMs don't compromise, but players always do (and thus capitulate). Because if you do assume that, then the answer actually makes a twisted sense: "Well, if you don't want to capitulate, take on the role that forces others to do so. Problem solved!"

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The ability to play the character they want to play. Something that is going to have far far more influence on them because it is all they are doing every single minute of play than anything the DM could potentially be giving up. Meanwhile all the DM is giving up is the ability to control and pre-predict every aspect of the universe they are all sharing.

There are more considerations here than just this player and the DM. See below.

The setting does not belong to the DM exclusively. If you want to control everything write a novel.

In this case, it seems more like the player wants to write the novel, at the expense of the DM and everyone else at the table (italics... where have you been all my life?).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

no, I said nothing about that part. Why is it that the ‘DMs are evil tyrants’ side always have to twist words, is that just coincidence…

Mamba. My words have been twisted, repeatedly, in this very thread, to depict me as some horrible nasty player that is actively trying to destroy other peoples' joy.

The word twisting began several dozen posts ago.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are more considerations here than just this player and the DM. See below.

In this case, it seems more like the player wants to write the novel, at the expense of the DM and everyone else at the table (italics... where have you been all my life?).

Yeah, italics are pretty cool.

 

[Oofta]

One thing I never understand about this whole argument is how freakin' obsessed people are with picking a race. Compared to all the decisions you can make during the character build phase, much less the freedom of direction and choices you make during a campaign, it's really danged insignificant.

I run a very open game when it comes to the decisions the players make for the PCs. The PCs have real impact on the world for the campaign they're playing and future campaign developments. Compare that to the Curse of Strahd campaign I'm playing right now. I can be any race because it's Forgotten Realms but it's a linear campaign. On top of that I can't purchase anything, there really aren't any subplots to speak of, my choices are really "how do I achieve the one goal that's been set in front of me."

I have no problem with linear campaigns, I knew what I was agreeing to when I signed up for the game. But it's also vastly more restrictive as a player than in my campaign where PCs can't be Warforged. As long as the DM is upfront about what kind of game they're going to be running, I have no problem with restrictions. If I have an issue with the restrictions (I'll never join an all evil campaign because I wouldn't enjoy it), I don't join the game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My experience suggests otherwise. Grandfathered exceptions for "whatever was in <insert edition here>" are by far the norm. Particularly from folks who are eager to ban things.

Such as banning historical games with human PCs?

 

[bedir than]

The big lesson from this discussion is that many of the people here hate the people that they play with. They'd rather fight with them about D&D then actually play D&D.

 

[mamba]

Then your statement was, in my opinion, an extremely poor fit for the message you wanted to communicate. It absolutely read, to me, as saying that the player should always capitulate on their preferences, no matter what, and that it is both normal and reasonable for the DM to, as you say, not budge.

that is what happens when you cherry pick one sentence out of several posts between us… let me refresh your memory

“

I am not sure why anyone should be "any more right here" than anyone else.

agreed, no one is more right, but if neither one is willing to compromise, then I tend to side with the DM, it's their game after all

It should, instead, become a dialogue--people working out their differences respectfully, like adults, rather than anyone stamping their feet and declaring their way is the only possible way that things can happen.

ideally that would be the case”

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Mamba. My words have been twisted, repeatedly, in this very thread, to depict me as some horrible nasty player that is actively trying to destroy other peoples' joy.

The word twisting began several dozen posts ago.

Easy there. No one is trying to permanently depict you in a negative way. You have an opinion that many folks disagree with. They also take exception to the way you disagree back at them. That's all.