D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[CleverNickName]

There's a lot that I like about BG3--but the killer for me is the @^&#@& camera. Why, in the year 2023, are triple-A game studios not including a menu option to invert the Y axis? Why must I reconfigure Steam itself just to be able to look up when I pull back on the controller?

And another thing: why can't I roll my friggin' stats? Why even bother with "point buy" at all, since 90% of us are going to pick the same set of stats anyway. What, there's a half-dozen different renderings of genitals to choose from, but rolling our stats was too much to ask? Pppbbbbth.

(ahem) Seriously though.

Of your list of things that "we all would hate," I wouldn't mind:

• getting rid of 'races' altogether, and just using the custom origins from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Work with your DM to come up with a character that fits the setting and the general vibe of the gaming group.
• capping all characters at 12th level. Heck, I could go even lower, like 8th or 9th level. I find that the game starts to bog down at that point. At the very least, I'd be rid of spells higher than 6th level (keeping the slots, of course, for up-casting those lower level spells.)
• and maybe I'm a tyrant, but I feel like all DMs should curate all materials that get used in their campaign. Not everything ever printed needs to be available in your game.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Sounds good. Would play.

 

[pemerton]

Because it's not necessarily what the DM wants. If the compromise is always that the player gets what they are after, and the DM has to bend to accommodate, it's not a compromise.

This is just as overly prescriptive as some of @EzekielRaiden's posts. If there is a GM out there who wants to accommodate a player's requests every time (eg maybe they really enjoy playing with that person), well that's their prerogative. They're under no obligation to push harder for their first choice if they don't care to.

It's only a problem if the person wants to play something at my table I don't allow and they argue about it. It's their choice, but the DM has the final say as far as I'm concerned.

But if some other GM takes a different view from yours, and allows the prospective player to have the final say, well that's their prerogative!

 

[mamba]

But if some other GM takes a different view from yours, and allows the prospective player to have the final say, well that's their prerogative!

I don’t think that was ever in question, of course any DM can decide however they want

The argument was against @EzekielRaiden’s ‘there is never a good reason to deny a player’s wish’ line of reasoning

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don’t think that was ever in question, of course any DM can decide however they want

The argument was against @EzekielRaiden’s ‘there is never a good reason to deny a player’s wish’ line of reasoning

Yeah, I'm done.

You, and several other people, keep doing exactly this, when I literally never said that and explicitly rejected it. And of course when I then say that, I'm put to yet further inquisition. Nope. I'm done. I'm not going to be trolled and then told to dance a tune.

 

[Oofta]

...

But if some other GM takes a different view from yours, and allows the prospective player to have the final say, well that's their prerogative!

Yep. Different people take different approaches, do what makes sense for you and your table. It's why I'm very clear on my choices when I invite someone to my game.

 

[mamba]

You, and several other people, keep doing exactly this, when I literally never said that

yes, you never said it, but you repeatedly walked right up to that line, you just never brought yourself to say it so explicitly

and explicitly rejected it.

plausible deniability

Given how often you ended up almost saying it, I concluded that it is what you really think, but that you also know it is not smart / strategic to outright say so.

You also never managed to provide an acceptable compromise that was not ‘the player gets their wish’, which is pretty telling as well.

I am not the only one who concluded that, given the thumbs ups I get when I do spell it out

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to what is allowed, not allowed, how campaign is run, I think every table should decide what they want to do. I don't care for evil PCs, others do. Some want kitchen sink races, others don't. There's no right or wrong here.

However, when you get 7 people together there are bound to be different preferences. In addition, it's great if all the players are truly invested in and excited about the campaign. But the one person who is most important to the campaign? The one that should be enthusiastic, truly buying into the campaign in order to make it fun for everyone? The DM.

Add in that with 7 people there's bound do be disagreements on rulings now and then. You can argue about it or, once again, designate one person to make the final ruling. The guidance in the books and the practice at most tables makes that person the DM.

None of this means you shouldn't have discussions, it just means that every table I have ever played at, the way I run the game and the guidance in the books, is that the DM makes the final call. I don't really understand why this is particularly controversial. A DM who makes a decision I don't care for may not be the DM for me is not a dictator or a control freak, they aren't "lording their power" over poor helpless players. It doesn't make them wrong. I may leave a group if it isn't the right fit for me and have. Some people have left my games because I wasn't the right DM for them. That's not a bad thing, it's just accepting that no DM, no group, is for everyone.

It just means that I think the game functions better when one person makes the final call.

 

[Morrus]

yes, you never said it...

I concluded that it is what you really think,

I am not the only one who concluded that, given the thumbs ups I get when I do spell it out

This is not OK, however many 'thumbs ups' you get. Address a poster's words, please, not what you decide they 'really' mean.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't want evil PCs because it's not a game I would enjoy running. If you want to play an evil PC, find a different group because I'm not interested in playing in games where they're allowed either. I don't care what your backstory is, a redeemed villain an be interesting but you will not continue to play the villain if I'm DM. You can't play a necromancer in my game because I consider it evil, as would all of the NPCs. If you want to summon the spirits of the ancestors, there's a barbarian class for that. I'm okay with some homebrew and changing the description of spells but it only goes so far. You can put lipstick on a pig, I still won't want to kiss it.

Dress it up any way you want, you aren't talking about compromise. It's the player getting what they want and the DM has no say.

Huh? Isn't exactly one of the compromises I stated the one you would apparently go for as DM if the player says he wants to play an evil character?
You wrote:

I don't care what your backstory is, a redeemed villain an be interesting but you will not continue to play the villain if I'm DM

I wrote:

Maybe the player says he wants to play a criminal that did bad stuff, and he believes he must be evil to justify this back story. But he doesn't need the character to actually still be doing all that.
So maybe the compromise is that the character maybe was evil once, or just neutral and thought his actions were acceptable or necessary to the manipulation of others. But he realized it wasn't okay and is now trying to atone.

Sounds like the same thing?

Als, props to the spirits of the ancestor Barbarian idea, that might indeed work, depending on what drove the player to want to deal in necromancy.