D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[pemerton]

@EzekielRaiden

I think I'm a bit uncertain as to whether you're expressing your preferences for how to set up a D&D (or other RPG?) game, or setting out what you think are generally applicable norms for the setting up of games.

If the former, well your preferences are what they are, and good luck!

If the latter, I think you are being more prescriptive than is warranted given we are talking about voluntary participation in a leisure activity. If someone is only willing to GM a D&D game if it's set in their favourite imaginary world with no PC options but Dragonborn paladins, Tiefling warlocks and Human barbarians, well good luck to them too! If you find that game not to your taste, then you're not obliged to play in it and are free to find some other way to spend your time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How I see D&D, or indeed any ruleset, is that it is a toolkit. Though with D&D this is even more obvious than with some game with a narrow focus and bespoke setting. There is no "default D&D", not really. It is a set of stuff for constructing a game. Now sure, the available toolkit informs what sort of stuff is sensible to construct with, but each creation can still be an unique combination of parts.

So that I choose to use D&D as basis of my rules framework to run a game in my setting, doesn't mean I need to be willing to port everything someone at WotC decided to print in some book into this setting, any more than deciding to run an Austenian romance in Regency England using GURPS rules requires that I need to include futuristic power armour and aliens from GURPS ScifI into it.

 

[Maggan]

A DM saying "no" is a positive thing to me.

I want the GM/DM/Keeper/Referee to set limitations in their games. To me that is more interesting than "anything goes" because I feel that nothing becomes special when everything is available.

Also, I feel that as my PC might well croak anytime I don't really hang my hat on complex character concepts that demand special allowances from the GM/DM/Keeper/Referee. A bit of old school reasoning, maybe.

But then again my favourite RPGs are Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

 

[Oofta]

Oh come off it. "This brand-new campaign has an established world of a dozen years!" Gimme a break.

What does that even mean? I've run all my games in the same campaign world for decades. PCs from past campaign become NPCs, PCs are frequently descendants of old PCs.

So where do you get off telling me that we can't have a new game in an existing homebrew campaign world?

 

[Oofta]

And that last part is literally all I asked for. For which I was vilified and explicitly treated as trying to "blow up" everyone else's fun, as being an active saboteur to the DM's efforts.

I have, explicitly and repeatedly, said that what I want is a discussion. This has been repeatedly and consistently transformed into "Oh, so you get to ride roughshod over the DM every single time? Wow, you're such an naughty word."

Except you've also stated that there is never a good reason to not give you what you personally want. Give one reason, one example of why there should be a curated list of races. Just one.

I'll ask a related question for the umpteenth time. You want to play an evil PC. The DM says no. What happens? What's the result of your magical conversation other than the DM telling you they don't want to run a game with evil PCs?

 

[Umbran]

Oh come off it. "This brand-new campaign has an established world of a dozen years!" Gimme a break.

Mod Note:
It is unclear what positive developments you expect to see from the dismissive, derisive tone you are using here.

Maybe it is time to reconsider this approach, before folks get cheesed off by it.

 

[Oofta]

A DM saying "no" is a positive thing to me.

I want the GM/DM/Keeper/Referee to set limitations in their games. To me that is more interesting than "anything goes" because I feel that nothing becomes special when everything is available.

Also, I feel that as my PC might well croak anytime I don't really hang my hat on complex character concepts that demand special allowances from the GM/DM/Keeper/Referee. A bit of old school reasoning, maybe.

But then again my favourite RPGs are Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

If a DM is using an established setting like Forgotten Realms, they get kind of a pass on what is allowed, they're just abiding by the assumptions of that setting. On the other hand if a DM has a handful of restrictions and limitations it tells me they've put thought and effort into designing their world, they've done their homework. It's more likely to be a cohesive world that's not just thrown together.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Oh come off it. "This brand-new campaign has an established world of a dozen years!" Gimme a break.

I'm a lazy guy. I've used the same game world since 1989 (created at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA!). While I have made a few changes to accommodate some D&D changes or when I modify it to fit a different rule set, I tend to not change very much of it. Very little, actually. I pretty much stick to the same core races (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Hobbi... er... Halfling and Half-Orc) I like how it feels. Like a pair of worn sneakers.

So, yes, I do tend to run "brand-new campaign in an established world of 30 years." And, no, I'm not particularly accommodating to changes because I advertise what the game world I'm running is like. If a player doesn't like my restrictions, don't play.

And I take the same view as a player. If someone is running a game I don't like (for example, I refuse to play FATE. I really, really don't like that game system), I'll do something else and let the group have their fun.

If it's D&D and I want to play an elf but there are no PC elves, I just pick a different race and still have fun OR I don't play.

 

[MGibster]

And that last part is literally all I asked for. For which I was vilified and explicitly treated as trying to "blow up" everyone else's fun, as being an active saboteur to the DM's efforts.

I'll need to stress again that I don't curate my D&D list of acceptable races save for not allowing creatures that fly naturally. For me, this just isn't an issue that comes up when I run D&D games and is more likely to happen in other games. I've long been of the opinion that what race you pick in D&D doesn't make much of a difference one way or the other. That said, working with the player doesn't necessarily mean they get what they want. If dwarves are extinct in the setting, I'm not going to allow anyone to play a dwarf character. I'll ask them what it is about the dwarf they like so much and see if we can incorporate those traits into a character, but no dwarf.

 

[Stormonu]

Over the years, I've been pretty open about allowing various races into my game, whether it's my homebrew (Amberos), Greyhawk or FR (there's been a few others, like Dragonlance or Eberron, but I play those rarely). There's rarely been a race I've said no to, I've had more negative reactions to classes (especially the proliferation in 3E, initially including Warlock), personally.

These are the races that I recall that have shown up in my games:

Spoiler

1E (Greyhawk)
Dwarf, Hill
Elf, High
Elf, Drow
Dragonman
Halfling, Stout
Half-Orc
Human

2E (Amberos)
Dragonman
Satyr
Nymph
Gnome
Halfling, Stout
Elf, High
Elf, Gray
Elf, Drow
Elf, Avariel
Minotaur
Wemic
Werebear
Half-orc
Human

3E (Greyhawk, Amberos)
Dragonman
Dhampir
Dwarf, Hill
Halfling, Stout
Gnome
Elf, High
Yaun Ti
LizardFolk
Genasi, Fire
Gnoll
Human
Human, Illumian
Half-orc
Warforged
Shifter
Aasimar
Tiefling

5E (Amberos, Forgotten Realms)
Aarakocra
Owlin
Changling
Warforged
Goliath
Minotaur
Centaur
Satyr
Goblin
Kobold
Dwarf, Hill
Kenku
LizardFolk
Dragonborn
Half-orc
Elf, Drow
Elf, High
Tabaxi
Triton
Eladrin
Human
Human, Mageborn
Human, Hellchilde
Tiefling
Aasimar

There's probably a few more for 5E I've forgotten

A good many of the unusual races have been one-offs (such as the Wemic & 2E Minotaur character - the latter was a human under a curse, the former was the lone survivor of his clan). I have had some requests that I denied over the years, but those were generally due to the race being unbalanced in some form or fashion. Some of the unusual choices I've had to work closely with the player to make fit, most others we just inserted without a bunch of forethought - the adventurers were often out in the wilderness, possibly far from native homelands so coming up with some deep reason why the race was around never needed to come up. When in doubt, it was up to the player to come up with an explanation that was reasonable.