D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Umbran]

Yes, when one person controls virtually everything, and can't suck it up on something based on taste, they're usually being selfish and petty.

Mod Note:
The language being used here is getting pretty broad, losing nuance.
And that means it is apt to get insulting.

Let us be a little more careful about the rhetoric in here, people, and allow for other people to enjoy games the way they want to, please and thanks.

 

[Jaeger]

You make this sound like a bad thing.

Not necessarily. I just feel that we should tell it like it is with plain speech.

I believe that when people used the word 'compromise', when what is really happening is 'accommodation'; it has caused undue confusion, and frustration when it comes to understanding where people really stand.

Suppose that everyone accommodates Jim's desire to play an aarakocra.

How is this anyone else's business?

It's not. I don't care.

But that specific situation is not what the OP was talking about, nor what has been under discussion for many pages.

I just don't see why we need normativity here.

We need to set out our standards to try to avoid confusion. Because we want to be clear where we are coming from when we express our opinion, so that others will hopefully correctly understand our point of view.

 

[Umbran]

Bit hypocritical of you, isn't it?

Hey, can we keep this from becoming personal, please and thanks?

 

[Jaeger]

Oh, won't someone think of the integrity of my bespoke Tolkein ripoff world! Muh v-tude!

I'm curious where the line is here...

Let's say a 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?

 

[The Sigil]

I should note that in the last campaign I ran, my Session Zero included handing the players a document that gave them several pages of backstory on the setting to indicate no small amount of work had already been put into preparing for the game, and included "the following classes/races do not exist in this setting and should not be selected" and also "the following other classes/races are rare in this setting; if you wish to play one of these, that's okay, but we need to talk about them as there is some extra backstory information we will need to create in order to logically integrate the character into this setting." It also contained "these new custom subclasses exist in the setting, if these interest you, please see me and let's talk about how you can use them."

So, basically, a menu.

I was asked about going off-menu for one race, and I patiently explained some of the in-world reasons that the race does not exist in this campaign. The player was disappointed, but since I wasn't just saying "no" to say "no" - it would have required re-creating several aspects of the setting - the player understood why the denial took place, was respectful of the preparation I had put in, and chose something else. I don't think the player was offended by my refusal, and I certainly wasn't offended by the ask.

(Easy example, though not the one that came up: If angels/demons/devils and other extraplanar creatures based on alignment don't exist in your setting at all, perhaps because alignment doesn't exist, it is not unreasonable to say that aasimar and tiefling characters don't exist either as there is no way for a character to have an angelic/demonic/devilish ancestor if angels/demons/devils don't exist - and a player insistent on playing such a character now forces the DM to re-think the setting and/or possibly have to accommodate alignment mechanics - the "small change" of "oh, just one character" ripples quickly out to world-changing consequences the DM may not want to deal with).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

When people are demanding and angered about a particular limitation, their biggest issue is not going to be the inability to play a robot in ancient campaign world.

It’s going to be that many tables won’t tolerate the righteous indignation regarding campaign parameters.

 

[Oofta]

No, I'm OK with the no evil policy because it impacts other people in a tangible way beyond what color your elf is. I was pretty clear on that.

I really don't know why it's so offensive that I put thought into my campaign world and want things to be logical and consistent. I know where races come from, I know at least an outline of their culture and history. I have a hard time taking kitchen sink campaigns seriously.

You may not agree with my decisions, but I make them for a reason. And yes, heaven forbid, I take pride in my work. So yes, what people play, what kind of campaign I run, has a tangible impact on me. You don't have to get it, you don't have to understand. But I also hope you understand how insulting your statements are.

 

[MNblockhead]

Yes, when one person controls virtually everything, and can't suck it up on something based on taste, they're usually being selfish and petty.

It can be. I don't think when I have put such limits in my games I was being particularly petty. Selfish, a bit, sure.

For example, I'm starting a new Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e campaign for a group of players that I've been playing DnD 5e with for years. None of them have played Warhammer before.

One of the players asked if he could play a vampire because he read online that this was an option.

I said that it might not work well with the setting and the game I was going to run but I would look into it because there were no options for it in the core rules. Under some of the lore there were examples of vampire that could possibly make this work, but the only mechanics for a vampire character were in an older edition's rules and, even there, it was highly discouraged (kinda weird--hey here are some rules to do so, but you probably shouldn't ). It seems that even in that older edition setting, the rules were more for an entire party to play vampires in a vampire-centric game.

Even then, I could see working with this, but there was no mechanical support for vampire characters in the new edition. I did look into how I could convert the older rules into the newer rules. It didn't seem like it would be too difficult. But, one reason I wanted to run WFRP4e is the excellent Cubicle7 modules for Foundry. So not only would I have had to convert an older edition's class to 4th edition, I would have had to try to kludge a custom class in Foundry.

I finally told the player that this was the first time I was running this system, the adventure location and story was not well-fit for a vampire character, and I was worried that having to mess around with custom classes in Foundry creating issues with the automations etc. It just was not something I wanted to deal with right now, but we can revisit after I've had time to get more comfortable with the new system.

So, basically, it was a "no." It was a no BECAUSE I control everything and would have to do a lot of extra work that I just didn't want to do when I was starting a new campaign with a new system. My decision was certainly selfish, but I certainly do not feel that I'm being petty.

I've also run D&D campaigns with strict race and class limits due to my homebrew setting. That may have been more on the petty side. But I think that is stretching the definition of "petty." When I have spent a lot of time creating a world that I find interesting and would like to share with a group of players, I'm not adding limitations to spite the players. Whether one feels that my limitations are trivial or small-minded depend on whether you value my work and vision for that world or just roll your eyes and feel I'm taking my make-believe game world too seriously. I'm certainly selfish in that this is what I want to play. I don't see it as any more selfish than inviting people over to engage in any other social activity.

I've run and had fun with anything-goes campaigns, but I don't always want to run those kinds of campaigns. It may be selectively selfish, but it feel like an exaggeration to label these choices as petty.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You make this sound like a bad thing.

It can be a bad thing because, first of all, compromise is as mentioned not the right word to use, and second, it implies that giving the player what they want, by one means or another, is the top priority.

 

[Oofta]

It can be a bad thing because, first of all, compromise is as mentioned not the right word to use, and second, it implies that giving the player what they want, by one means or another, is the top priority.

For me my top priority is running the best game I know how that will be enjoyed by everyone at the table, including me. That may mean I make some design decisions that others may not agree with, but I long ago accepted that I can't be the right DM for everyone. On the other hand, my players regularly praise my world building and campaigns. Gives me a bit of imposter syndrome, but it makes it worthwhile.