D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Oofta]

• You're an odd reptiloid no one has seen before, but happens to look exactly like that cool Dragonborn on that long-forgotten roleplaying game cover you found on the flea market.
• You're a cybernetics/magic/genetic/zeno experiment gone wrong/right.
• You fell through a portal from a world where your kind exists.
• You're member of a cult that worships fire or the god of fire, and that's why you can breate fire and use Dragonborn stats.
• You're a changling that assumed this form based on a description from a book of made-up animals, but got hit by lightning and can't end it now.
• You drank an unlabeled but probably spoiled potion and that's the result.

What the compromise could look exactly will depend on what makes sense to DM and the player (and possibly others in the group) in question. There is no universal answer. But there is much more likely to be an answer than it is that the DM's campaign and the player's character idea are 100 % incompatible and unmoveable.

If you want to add dragonborn or any other race when you DM, go for it. I personally don't care for that kind of world building, which is why I tell people when I invite them what my restrictions are.

If that means I'm not the DM for you, so be it, I have no problem recruiting or retaining players.

 

[Oofta]

I know I'm supposed to say something like "we fight about it until one side gets mad and the other side puts their foot down." But what if it had gone the way you describe? I would have probably offered to retool a dragonborn or some other reptilian character race that's already in the campaign, and describe them as having descended from dragon turtles.

And since this is a game of what-ifs, the next question might be "What if I failed to convince the player to play something else?" It would then be my turn to compromise: I'd let the player play a tortle, but I wouldn't add the whole species to the campaign. I'd write the character as being from a small island far off the map, and the player's tortle would be the only one of his kind in the story. Interesting origin story about a shipwreck maybe, or a teleportation accident. NPCs reacting to him with all of the fascination and distrust that one would expect.

The next round of what-ifs might be "What if the player wants a huge, tortle-centric backstory? an extended tortle family and tortle-controlled territories? a tortle-based pantheon?" (I realize this is getting unhinged, but that's how what-ifs go.) In this increasingly-unlikely yarn, I'd try to find out why tortles--and tortles alone!--were so important to the player. I'd ask why turtle-people were needed so badly that I'm being asked to rework the entire campaign setting for them. And I'd endeavor to keep an open mind because who knows? Maybe they're right, and I've been missing out on the vast and colorful contributions that turtle-people could bring to our table.

There are more what-ifs, I'm sure. But what happened was, the player was only interested in tortle mechanics and so we found a way to make it happen to the satisfaction of all. That's the important part. Any what-ifs that come up are just steps in that process.

Obviously, other people have had different experiences. But I can't really speak for anyone else.


Nobody seemed to mind. The player was still playing a Tortle, as-written by Wizards of the Coast, in every way except the name and descriptions. It wasn't a "tortle," it was a "lake elf." He didn't "retreat into his shell," he "went into a defensive stance." Nothing was added or removed, and none of the math or mechanics changed. He still couldn't benefit from armor, still had disadvantage on Dex saves when in his "defensive stance," all that.

So just to be clear, I'm glad you found a way that worked for both of you. I'm not sure why it matters after a certain point, adding a "lake elf" isn't really much different to me than just allowing them to play a tortle. Although I may limit them to being monks named after classical players.

That's not the issue I have with some of these conversations, it's that if the DM can't come up with an idea how to make something work that the DM is the bad guy. I've allowed some non-standard races because I could figure out how to integrate them into my game, in my case because the race could pass as human and/or because there was a cool story to go along with it. For example I allowed a goliath to join because they joined the group when they were in Jotunheim, land of the giants. So having some giant blood in a clan that otherwise looked human made sense in context of the game. I get that other people wouldn't give a fig about that kind of thing, but it happens to matter to me.

What I have an issue with is when people imply or basically state that if you're a good DM there is always a way to say yes. Everyone has different expectations and preferences, I defer final decisions to the DM because it's their campaign world.

 

[CleverNickName]

So just to be clear, I'm glad you found a way that worked for both of you. I'm not sure why it matters after a certain point, adding a "lake elf" isn't really much different to me than just allowing them to play a tortle. Although I may limit them to being monks named after classical players.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,
Heroes in a half-shell! (Turtle power!)

That's not the issue I have with some of these conversations, it's that if the DM can't come up with an idea how to make something work that the DM is the bad guy.
...
What I have an issue with is when people imply or basically state that if you're a good DM there is always a way to say yes.

Ah, gotcha. Sorry for giving that impression--I was trying to stress that both the player and the DM need to make it work. Sometimes it's an easy yes or no, other times it's a lot of give-and-take. That's what I meant by "there is always a compromise."

 

[Jaeger]

Another way to read it is that the player should ultimately accommodate the DMs request, to not add tortles to the campaign setting regardless, and the discussion is to find a way for the player to do what the DM wants in a way that the DM can live with. Actually having the answer still be "no tortles in this campaign," but in a way that doesn't shut the player down.

Yet another way to read it is that everybody was told what the campaign was about before hand, and all the other players agreed to accommodate the GM's request. But come game time, one player still wants to have a discussion about playing a restricted race, and expects the GM to come up with something that allows him to live with it.

How is having the answer be "No" wrong?

 

[CreamCloud0]

• You're an odd reptiloid no one has seen before, but happens to look exactly like that cool Dragonborn on that long-forgotten roleplaying game cover you found on the flea market.
• You're a cybernetics/magic/genetic/zeno experiment gone wrong/right.
• You fell through a portal from a world where your kind exists.
• You're member of a cult that worships fire or the god of fire, and that's why you can breate fire and use Dragonborn stats.
• You're a changling that assumed this form based on a description from a book of made-up animals, but got hit by lightning and can't end it now.
• You drank an unlabeled but probably spoiled potion and that's the result.

What the compromise could look exactly will depend on what makes sense to DM and the player (and possibly others in the group) in question. There is no universal answer. But there is much more likely to be an answer than it is that the DM's campaign and the player's character idea are 100 % incompatible and unmoveable.

while these are all plausible viable reasons why an individual [insert species here] might pop up in a campaign part of the reason why the people who do curate species don't like doing it IMO is that it sets a precident, do you then have to let the next person who asks for a dragonborn play one? or say no and explain why the first person got special allowance to play it, it's easier and fairer to not take that first step and keep the blanket ban for everyone equally.

how many times can a random portal open up and spit out a lone dragonborn without having to get to the point where you actually have to incorporate 'the dragonborn plane' if any of them are interested in going back home, how many times can a spoiled potion randomly mutuate people into the same never-before-seen creature.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Ah, gotcha. Sorry for giving that impression--I was trying to stress that both the player and the DM need to make it work. Sometimes it's an easy yes or no, other times it's a lot of give-and-take. That's what I meant by "there is always a compromise."

Yet another way to read it is that everybody was told what the campaign was about before hand, and all the other players accomodated the GM's request. But come game time, one player still wants to have a discussion about playing a restricted race, and expects the GM to come up with something that allows him to live with it.

How is having the answer be "No" wrong?

It seems that @CleverNickName is saying that sometimes 'no' is an acceptable answer. But I definitely agree with you in the sense that when a table has already agreed to its rules and dos and don'ts, etc., a player approaching the group with a request like this is definitely imposing on the goodwill of others. If, as a player, you decide to make this sort of request, I would hope that you've first considered the feelings of the rest of the group, the time the group will have to spend accommodating or otherwise dealing with your request, the importance of your request, etc. before you do this.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yet another way to read it is that everybody was told what the campaign was about before hand, and all the other players accomodated the GM's request. But come game time, one player still wants to have a discussion about playing a restricted race, and expects the GM to come up with something that allows him to live with it.

How is having the answer be "No" wrong?

It's only wrong if it's causing friction, or hurt feelings, or other problems. As several people have said in this thread already, some folks really struggle with being told "no" in a game of make-believe. And when/if that happens, my players and I have to do a little bit more work.

It doesn't happen often. But it does happen.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It's only wrong if it's causing friction, or hurt feelings, or other problems. As several people have said in this thread already, some folks really struggle with being told "no" in a game of make-believe. And when/if that happens, my players and I have to do a little bit more work.

The only issue I have with this a person who struggles with being told 'no'. Let's say Jim approaches the DM or group and says: 'I really want to make an aarakocra PC'. The DM says: 'Well, the game world has a set group of sentient races, and that's not one of them.' A couple of players pipe up that they're not happy with PC races with the ability to fly. The DM agrees: 'That does up the challenge of planning encounters, good point. Sorry Jim!'

If at this point Jim realises that his desire to play an aarakocra is going to intefere with the enjoyment of the game for two other people, not to mention creating additional work for the DM, and he backs down, good for Jim. If, however, Jim struggles with being told 'no' and belabours the point... well, there's now a problem, and Jim is it. If that group is willing to accommodate this behaviour, that's up to them. For a significant segment of society, though, Jim's behaviour would be considered mildly irritating, if not outright anti-social.

 

[Jaeger]

Nothing at all.

Ok then. Settled.


I do think a lot of the back and forth is due to the way the word 'Compromise' has been used.

I believe that it is causing some confusion, and mutual frustration.

Because a lot of us seem to be thinking this:

Compromise
noun
An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

When we read something like this:

I was trying to stress that both the player and the DM need to make it work. Sometimes it's an easy yes or no, other times it's a lot of give-and-take. That's what I meant by "there is always a compromise."

In my opinion; the word used here should be: Accommodation.

Accommodation
noun
Something supplied for convenience or to satisfy a need:

Because, while these are all reasons to "make it work":

But what happened was, the player was only interested in tortle mechanics and so we found a way to make it happen to the satisfaction of all.

You're an odd reptiloid no one has seen before, but happens to look exactly like that cool Dragonborn on that long-forgotten roleplaying game cover you found on the flea market.
You're a cybernetics/magic/genetic/zeno experiment gone wrong/right.
You fell through a portal from a world where your kind exists.
You're member of a cult that worships fire or the god of fire, and that's why you can breate fire and use Dragonborn stats.
You're a changeling that assumed this form based on a description from a book of made-up animals, but got hit by lightning and can't end it now.
You drank an unlabeled but probably spoiled potion and that's the result.

This is no real 'compromise' to be found; it's all accommodation. The GM is really just accommodating the players request in a way that lets them sleep at night.

Because in each case, the player is getting what they want, without having to make any fundamental concessions.

That's how I see it.

But I definitely agree with you in the sense that when a table has already agreed to its rules and dos and don'ts, etc., a player approaching the group with a request like this is definitely imposing on the goodwill of others. If, as a player, you decide to make this sort of request, I would hope that you've first considered the feelings of the rest of the group, the time the group will have to spend accommodating or otherwise dealing with your request, the importance of your request, etc. before you do this.

One would hope.

Though there are certainly plenty of anecdotal examples of gaming groups accommodating 'that player' just to avoid friction at the gaming table...

 

[MichaelSomething]

Again, Consciously Useless Advice for 1000.

Telling someone to run a game when they want to play something is like telling someone to start their own basketball team if they want the home team to play well. It's completely pointless. I want to PLAY! How does RUNNING a game help me PLAY something?

Seriously. You are giving advice that is intentionally irrelevant and acting like it's somehow profound or useful or in any way revelatory. It's not. It never has been. You already know that.


So, no elves, dwarves, nor halflings? No magic of any sort? Because I find that extremely unlikely.


So it isn't actually "if it wasn't available in 432 BC." It's "If it wasn't available in 432 BC, and I haven't grandfathered it in."

Go to www.startplaying.games if you can't find a group irl!