D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Dausuul]

Yeah, I did notice how the DM's dictatorship suddenly got framed as something 'everyone else' agreed to in order to position the person who wants agency as the bad guy going against the group.

"The DM's dictatorship?" I missed the part where @Doc_Klueless was rounding up their friends at gunpoint and forcing them to play.

Shall I now accuse you of wanting the DM to be the players' slave?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Shall I now accuse you of wanting the DM to be the players' slave?

Go for it. I'm not assuming any authority over your choices.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So are we all OK with the idea that games have premises? Because to me a game having some sort of a premise seems rather normal. And it also seems rather obvious to me that not every character idea is suitable for any premise.

 

[mamba]

A DM has that authority if the players voluntarily cede that authority to them. Again, each group sets up its interpersonal dynamics as they wish, and some may elect to do this. And that's OK.

sure, if it is ceded / assigned. As a universal statement, not so much

“by being DM, you do have special authority” is as universal as it gets

 

[Vaalingrade]

DMing isn't often a volunteer role.

I lost this and finally found it to replay to, but... what? Are you being forced to DM against your will? IF you don't want to DM, then... like stop. No one benefits from someone forcing themselves to run a game. Ever been to a show where the performer clearly hates doing it? Same deal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"The DM's dictatorship?" I missed the part where @Doc_Klueless was rounding up their friends at gunpoint and forcing them to play.

Shall I now accuse you of wanting the DM to be the players' slave?

It seemed the the point here was that the conflict seems different when it's between

"The group agreed to use this setting with these restrictions for the campaign, one player has an idea that goes against it"
and
"The DM decided the setting and restrictions for the campaign, and one player in the group has an idea that goes against it"
In one case, everyone presumably participated in the decision-making, and suddenly someone doesn't agree anymore. In the other, the DM made all the decisions and there is actually no group consensus behind it.
Calling that a dictatorship might be a bit much, though. Especially since a lot of consensus in groups is implicit - like "OKay, Bob is going to DM, we'll trust him to come up with something we like" or "Hey Bob, didn't you say you had some big ideas dea with stuff for a campaign, Pete and I also had some stuff for such a thing, maybe we can work something out that you'd like to run?"

Of course, in the end, it always just means keeping to negotiate. Just because the group once agreed to something doesn't always mean that it can never be changed. Some things you only figure out as you go along - hammer out the campaign details and think you are done, but then it is up to making characters or adventures and someone has an idea that he likes but doesn't quite work with the pre-established ideas. Maybe his idea is really outrageously unfitting, but maybe it can be tweaked once we worked out the aspects that feel essential but still fit the consensus?

Interesting question maybe, or maybe not: once we have "the group agreed to run this kind of campaign with this kind of restrictions and features", what if the DM decides he has an idea he likes more but doesn't fit the original idea?
"Did I say no Jedi/Sith/Force for this Rebellion era game? I have a plot idea that needs a force user... What if Darth Maul didn't die, survived, cybered-up and became crime lord?"

 

[Oofta]

It seemed the the point here was that the conflict seems different when it's between

"The group agreed to use this setting with these restrictions for the campaign, one player has an idea that goes against it"
and
"The DM decided the setting and restrictions for the campaign, and one player in the group has an idea that goes against it"
In one case, everyone presumably participated in the decision-making, and suddenly someone doesn't agree anymore. In the other, the DM made all the decisions and there is actually no group consensus behind it.
Calling that a dictatorship might be a bit much, though. Especially since a lot of consensus in groups is implicit - like "OKay, Bob is going to DM, we'll trust him to come up with something we like" or "Hey Bob, didn't you say you had some big ideas dea with stuff for a campaign, Pete and I also had some stuff for such a thing, maybe we can work something out that you'd like to run?"

Of course, in the end, it always just means keeping to negotiate. Just because the group once agreed to something doesn't always mean that it can never be changed. Some things you only figure out as you go along - hammer out the campaign details and think you are done, but then it is up to making characters or adventures and someone has an idea that he likes but doesn't quite work with the pre-established ideas. Maybe his idea is really outrageously unfitting, but maybe it can be tweaked once we worked out the aspects that feel essential but still fit the consensus?

Interesting question maybe, or maybe not: once we have "the group agreed to run this kind of campaign with this kind of restrictions and features", what if the DM decides he has an idea he likes more but doesn't fit the original idea?
"Did I say no Jedi/Sith/Force for this Rebellion era game? I have a plot idea that needs a force user... What if Darth Maul didn't die, survived, cybered-up and became crime lord?"

I've run my campaigns in the same world forever, so there are some things I decided long ago. I don't do collaborative world building outside of figuring out where people fit into the preexisting world. Then again, I've never played a game where the world was designed by a committee. It's always been a campaign based in FR or some established homebrew. I have no idea how common building a world together is, I haven't done it since I first started playing and we rotated DMs in a shared world but that was back in the dark ages.

On the other hand, the players do have a lot of say on themes and direction of the campaign both before we start play and during the campaign. I create the basis for the world and what is possible and at the start of a campaign generally give people a handful of ideas. I'm far less restrictive, much more open on what actually happens in the campaign than most games I've played in. It's one of the benefits of never using mods and having a homebrew world.

So yes, if you want to join my game I have a curated list of races. On the other hand I also have a custom cosmology based on Norse mythology (admittedly I blatantly stole non-human gods from Deities & Demigods) and a world with history. The only question is how your PCs are going to impact future history of the campaign world.

 

[CleverNickName]

I was gonna post this in the D&D Memes thread, but it felt topical here.

(with apologies to Sarah Anderson of Sarah's Scribbles)

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Reading through this thread, I'm sure that both sides of this debate have had a similar thought "thank God I don't have to play with these people".

I would have left the hobby long ago if I encountered this stuff regularly.

Have a discussion with all parties and come to some acceptable solution for all (common in my experience) or walk away if you feel like you are not going to get enjoyment out of this volunteer leisure actively (as someone aptly called it).

Acceptable does not mean everyone gets exactly what they want every time.

It's no different than any other social situation with competing preferences. If people get together to play cards and one person really wants to play blackjack and the others want to play poker.... Well, maybe the blackjack person says fine, I'll play poker if we can play blackjack next time. Maybe the blackjack person reminds the others they played poker the last 3 times, and convinces them to play blackjack. Maybe the others stick to poker and never play blackjack, and the blackjack person finds new people to play cards with since they really don't like poker. Who knows? But usually it can get worked out in an mature manner and life goes on?

 

[Jaeger]

On a personal level, I honestly don't care.

Thank you. I know exactly where you stand now.

LotR is really not the best example of a setting that can't handle a wholly unique super-special weirdo just showing up one day and playing against the established aesthetic.

Like Tom Bombadil, Beorn, Bard Bowman, Aragorn, Sauron, Gollum, or the literal entire point of The Hobbit.

When you are listing main characters like that - this standard can apply to any fantasy setting:

Game of Thrones?
John Snow, white walkers, Danerys, 3 dragons, Tyrion, Arya, that red flame lady, etc,...

The Witcher?
The Witcher, Yennifer, Elves, Dwarves, etc,...

Pendragon?
Arthurian Mythology, French and English mythology, etc,...

Would it be accurate to say that due to the presence of mythological/fantastical elements; No fantasy setting (established or homebrew) has any aesthetics that would preclude not accommodating a players PC wishes?

If you do not feel this is an accurate assessment, please let me know. I do not want to put words in your mouth.