D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Jack Daniel]

It seems to me that there's a lot of unjustified universalizing going on here.

Not everybody creates new settings for the sake of new campaigns.
Not everybody creates settings or campaigns for the sake of players realizing character concepts.
Not everybody runs or plays RPGs for the sake of players realizing specific character concepts.
Not everybody wants to collaborate on campaign or setting creation, or invest that deeply in a campaign.
Not everybody wants to both play a character and invest in a campaign as deeply as the DM has invested, or contribute creatively as much as the DM has contributed.

And not wanting to do one or more of the things listed above does not automatically make for bad DMs, bad players, bad people, or bad games; nor does it abrogate player agency or reduce players from active participants to passive "observers."

 

[mamba]

It seems to me that there's a lot of unjustified universalizing going on here.

something does not need to be universal to be a counter to a universal claim

 

[Jack Daniel]

something does not need to be universal to be a counter to a universal claim

Yes, that's the nature of hasty generalizations. A single counterexample is enough to explode them.

That was sort of my point.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Yeah, I don't get it either. Sometimes DMs and players/DM curate options for a setting or campaign. And sometimes that curation won't be liked equally by everyone.

I mean how this plays out should be basic adult conversation.

Perhaps the next campaign will feature gnomes. Perhaps the DM will change their mind if it is super important to a player. Perhaps the DM is a jerk and the player should find another game.

As with many of these issues, if people are basically reasonable then some solution can be found. If people aren't then I'm not going to play an rpg with them. Because of the nature of ttrpgs and the give and take that is almost always necessary during play, it's just not worth it.

 

[Jaeger]

It's patently ridiculous to claim that just because Sam the DM decided to run a game last week, and personally doesn't like gnomes, that means we should treat that perfectly identically to the claim that because something is in Barsoom, it doesn't have gnomes. The "but this world has IRL history" excuse only applies to worlds that, y'know, actually have IRL history. Which the vast majority of campaigns don't.

Sam the GM decides to run a game using The Lord of the Rings™ Roleplaying for 5e.

Because it is a D&D based game; do you feel it is valid for a player to be able to create a PC from the D&D PHB that would otherwise not be typical in the setting of Middle Earth?

If not, why?

 

[cbwjm]

Some of my basic house rules are no evil alignment, no loner characters or characters that have "no reason" to adventure, often no monstrous races like orcs or goblins since these races tend to be the baddies.

I prefer to run games where the players are heroes, loner characters who don't want to adventure with the party will ruin the experience for others unless someone steps in and says "okay, you stay behind then". Like I said earlier, monstrous races, what I tend to call beastmen, are usually the baddies in my games.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Sam the GM decides to run a game using The Lord of the Rings™ Roleplaying for 5e.

Because it is a D&D based game; do you feel it is valid for a player to be able to create a PC from the D&D PHB that would otherwise not be typical in the setting of Middle Earth?

If not, why?

Well I really want to play artificer with a robot dog. Are you saying this is going to mess up the LOTR theme and it’s not just the dm being selfish?!

I kid I kid but the LOTR example is a very good example…

 

[bedir than]

If I was looking at your world I would be interested in what races you allow and why.

It started as a pastoral land where there was nearly no magic, except the powers of bonding with animals and an eternal river that has healing powers. At that point I only allowed humans, halflings and goliaths -- calling them the Kin.

After that group met the fey peoples who knew magic and wished to control it the players asked if they could be those peoples of knowledge, the Ken. Dwarves, elves and most gnomes were allowed. Eventually dragonborn were added when a player created a backstory that dragonborn and kobolds are created as shards of a dying dragon.

Finally, there is a smog-punk region of oil and springs. These are all goblinoids who were banished for turning their backs on magic. These peoples of construction are the Kon. Only one goblin has appeared at the table, but they've been popular NPCs because of the unique story elements. Our next campaign may be 100% these peoples.

Eventually a warforged was added when the player created a backstory that connected a dormant warforged to the time more than 3,000 years ago when magic and peoples were common in the land.

My campaign world exists for two reasons. To explore what it means to love our pets so much and to understand who wants to control knowledge and why. Every allowed species works towards one or both of those themes.

 

[Oofta]

Well I really want to play artificer with a robot dog. Are you saying this is going to mess up the LOTR theme and it’s not just the dm being selfish?!

I kid I kid but the LOTR example is a very good example…

Oh c'mon, who could say no to this cute little doggie?

 

[pemerton]

Because the discussion always ends with you getting what you want, and you see no problem with that.

You say this like it's a bad thing! If someone will only play a RPG if they get to do what they want, I don't really see a problem.