D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Oofta]

Exactly this. A GM that puts in a bunch of restrictions, or railroads the party, or includes a DMPC, isn’t necessarily acting in bad faith. I honestly believe that they think their ideas are awesome or groundbreaking. Or that if they give an inch their players will walk all over them.

Telling them “it’s their game” and that “when the rubber hits the road, it’s their decision” ultimately does a disservice to them.

The biggest thing that bugs me about all of this is the conflation of DMs that have a curated list of races or any restrictions with "a bunch of restrictions, or railroads the party, or includes a DMPC" that people do constantly. I'm playing Curse of Strahd right now and it is far, far more linear than any campaign I will ever run but because it's set in FR any race goes.

Which goes back to this thing that always seems to happen on these threads. On one side we have the extreme of DM as tyrant forcing the players to submit to his will. These games are always toxic because the DM is a cruel dictator.

Of course we have the people who think compromise can always be reached. Just add the new race or let a PC run whatever race they want but change the fluff. For most of this group, there is never a reason to say "no" except perhaps no flying PCs or no evil, although that varies as well. Compromise really means "Give the player what they want, the preferences of the DM don't matter".

Then we have people that have given reasons for why they have a few minor restrictions when they DM. They let people know ahead of time what those restrictions are. The setting restrictions are not done on a whim, they do it because they're just trying to run a campaign that works for them and that they will enjoy running.

I know where I stand, and what I've always seen. I've had good, bad and mediocre DMs, whether they limited some choices was no indication of what their game would be like. I've limited races for a very long time and my player retention rate is probably 90%, higher if I didn't count people that stopped because they moved (which sadly I've done too often). I have a curated list of races because I've put a lot of thought into my campaign world and that's part of what makes it work for me so that I can run the best game possible. I'd rather have a DM that's enthusiastic about the game they run than play a tiefling in a campaign where fiends don't exist.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Does anyone remember when this thread was about BG3?

Re-read the first post. It was never about BG3. It was specifically about baiting a flame war, and by that token, it succeeded admirably.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I see. Something else can certainly exist, the notes can never be exhaustive. But one might assume that they would contain major points and we should extrapolate from those. Tolkien not mentioning warforged doesn't mean that them existing in the Middle-Earth is a logical extrapolation; quite the opposite.

And this is a difference in mindset; if it can work I want it to. If a player really wants to play a warforged and comes up with an explanation "Feanor, Morgoth, or Saruman made a handful as an experiment" to me that would not be out of line for Middle Earth at all. It's something they might have done - and the actual world being modelled is much deeper and richer than any one author or handful of authors can convey. Just because Tolkien didn't mention something doesn't mean it can't work.

And a little googling tells me that my understanding of the themes of Middle Earth is entirely correct here and Tolkien explicitly did mention Morgoth (then going by Melkor) creating something not too far from warforged.

[O]n a time Melko assembled all his most cunning smiths and sorcerers, and of iron and flame they wrought a host of monsters such as have only at that time been seen and shall not again be till the Great End. Some were all of iron so cunningly linked that they might flow like slow rivers of metal or coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them, and these were filled in their innermost depths with the grimmest of the Orcs with scimitars and spears; others of bronze and copper were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire, and they blasted all that stood before them with the terror of their snorting or tramples whatso escaped the ardour of their breath; yet others were creatures of pure flame that writhed like ropes of molten metal, and they brought to ruin whatever fabric they came nigh, and iron and stone melted before them and became as water, and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds

History of Middle Earth II: The Book of Lost Tales Part 2 Chapter III: "The Fall of Gondolin"

It's also worth noting that dwarves were explicitly made by Aule and were initially soulless. Iluvitar then objected and gave them souls.

 

[ezo]

Very well put, @Oofta !

Then we have people that have given reasons for why they have a few minor restrictions when they DM. They let people know ahead of time what those restrictions are. The setting restrictions are not done on a whim, they do it because they're just trying to run a campaign that works for them and that they will enjoy running.

Yeah, this is me as well. I am not a tyrant DM, but I won't let my players do things that are prohibited from session 0.

Every person I play with abides by my restrictions (though in the past there have been very rare issues, in which we came to a compromise or I told them not to return). Troublesome players bring me headaches I don't need.

If a player wants to do things I restrict, they are welcome to run their own game or find another--I don't hold grudges.

Also, anyone I was friends with before this happen, it has never "strained" or ruined that friendship. Mutual respect allows for great disparity in preferences and tastes.

Either the DM or player can compromise, certainly, but there is nothing wrong with either side standing firm and finding games they can play that they will enjoy.

 

[Maggan]

Having given this some more thought I figured that my stance is different between game systems. In the examples below I'll specifically adress dragonborn as it is an example that's been brought up in the thread.

D&D - much anything goes, that's what players often want, eg. all the monsters in the MM are there to be used, the more the merrier. Also the world has a plethora of different fantasy kin. Dragoborn are in.

D&D Special case 1: Classic Dragonlande campaign - elves, dwarves, kender, humans, half-elves, the classics. No dragonborn UNTIL the dragons are reintroduced properly, probably after DL4 or maybe DL6. And if they are introduced they will be feared and shunned and vilified even if they are good.

D&D Special case 2: Ravenloft campaign setting - humans preferred for resonance with gothic tone. Elves, dwarves, halflings allowed because that was the setup when we played I6. No dragonborn.

WFRP - I prefer human player characters, it blends best with the campaign setting. Dwarves, elves, halflings at a pinch due to the settings inherent prejudices (that is, the humans of the Old World hate or distrust all other kin). Ogres ... nah, unless the whole party is built around the ogre storywise (and that group might cramp my intrigue-laden style involving courtly intrigue). No dragonborn or lizard people PCs. No vampires. Note though that I did create a WFRP warforged variant that could work within the constraints of the setting if paired with at least another PC dwarf ("oh, so this is your heavily armoured bodyguard? Does he ever take off the armour? No? Well, back to the poisoning of the nobles ... oh sorry, did I say that last thing out loud?"). Allowing skaven might be fun, but only if everyone else play skavens.

Forbidden lands - Humans, elves, dwarves, goblins, orcs, wolfkin. No dragonborn, but I might allow reptilekin if the group is ok with them being shunned by all other kin.

Pirate Borg - anything goes. PCs die with abandon and are easily replaced. So if anyone wanted a dragonborn it would be ok, there are more weird PC options. But no 10 page PC background unless the player is ready to lose that PC within 15 minutes of starting the game. This is not me being a killer DM, it is a really lethal system and setting and the players play pirates doing pirate stuff in the undead Caribbean (sort of) so players shouldn't get too attached to their PCs.

Dragonbane - all of the official player kins are allowed. Frogpeople, catfolk and reptilefolk are available for those who wish to play them. Dragonborn would be in if a player wrote them up as a playable kin. But even so I prefer players chosing the classic kin to play.

The One Ring - as per the rulebook although it doesn't specify "kin" but instead "heroic cultures". Bardings, dwarves, elves, hobbits, humans, rangers of the north. No Dragonborn. The starter set has everyone playing halflings, btw, so no other kin allowed there.

Call of Cthulhu - only humans need apply.

Star Wars - anything goes as long as it fits in the Mos Eisley cantina!

I also have a "no evil PCs" rule, but I might allow an all evil party and adapt accordingly. But one or two evil when the rest of the party is good is too much of a headache to me.

Your milage will wary.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Dragonborn have never existed in my world, creatures that look somewhat like dragonborn have always been antagonists. Yet somehow people are just supposed to shrug when what they consider a monster (right or wrong) walk into the local tavern?

So what you are saying is that there are creatures that pass for dragonborn in your world.

Which is one of the issues I have with drow and Drizzle Drizzt. First, I've had an issue with how drow are represented which is a whole other topic. But in the FR it was established that drow are the boogeyman, the knife in the dark that sneaks into houses at night killing everyone, perhaps leaving one innocent alive to increase the terror and suffering. They only appear on the surface world to go on murder sprees. Yet a drow walks into town in broad daylight and the people that react negatively to what should rightly be considered an imminent threat are the bad guys. In a world where there are literal monsters, treating a monster with caution and suspicion is logical.

There's a difference between "treating with caution and suspicion" and simply attacking. If a drow is going into the tavern it's going to cause a commotion but that doesn't mean you attack. This goes double when they are part of a non-drow party who vouch for them.

And honestly the really exotic races like Plasmids are easier. They just claim to be from far off Djelibibi or wherever and are too exotic to be a problem. Look in medieval manuscripts for what people actually thought people from far off lands were like.

So while I didn't use drow at all for a long time (theoretically they existed, I just never used them) I simply couldn't square the circle so to speak. Much like a wild tiger walking into a village would be killed on sight because they were an imminent danger to all individuals, a drow would also be attacked on sight.

A lone solo drow, possibly. But if Joe Exotic rolls into town with his pet tigers people may decide he's a twit - but there's a huge difference between that and wild tigers. And a key thing is tigers don't talk. If a tiger headed person walked into town, smiling at people and being free with their money then people would look suspiciously - but attacking would be foolish and there's money to be made. And if they walked in with a group of people who vouch for them (and are heavily armed and not worth fighting)?

Whether that was ethically good or evil wasn't the issue, it was just a logical extension of the lore of drow and every previous interaction people had ever had. I want NPCs to have realistic reactions to races they encounter, it's part of what adds depth to the world for me.

And I don't think that the reactions you describe are realistic. I think they are hard line xenophobic and there are going to be a range of reactions.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Sometimes there simply isn't a compromise. If someone wants to play a dragonborn where dragonborn (or dragons even) don't exist then what possible "compromise" is there?

Human circusfolk using dragonborn mechanics;
Human victim of a curse or wild magic surge;
Traveller from a different world with dragonborn;
Lizardfolk draconic sorcerer;
Character is a foundling - they don’t know why they are different, neither does the DM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This makes no sense. All the people posting here, @Neonchameleon, @EzekielRaiden and me, are DMs ourselves.

Why would we think DMs are evil?

Clearly we are self-loathing DMs.

Dragonborn have never existed in my world, creatures that look somewhat like dragonborn have always been antagonists. Yet somehow people are just supposed to shrug when what they consider a monster (right or wrong) walk into the local tavern?

Perhaps. I can't say stranger things have happened IRL--there are no other sapient species on this planet, to my knowledge--but the idea that a particular group could be a hated enemy, but some specific person among them could be friendly, has much precedent in both history and fiction. Othello was a "Moor," explicitly quite dark of skin, in an age when dark-skinned people were vilified in England (the dawn of the chattel slave trade, to be precise)--and yet here is a genuinely noble, heroic "Moor" character, depicted as respected by his subordinates and trusted by his superiors.

I could certainly understand folks having a negative reaction if they, personally, have been subjected to violence from a reptilian being. But given how quickly humanity has adapted to all sorts of non-sapient beings so long as they act peaceably, I find the "bigotry would mean you'd always be hated, feared, and subject to constant violent attack" response at least somewhat implausible. Some folks will surely be hateful, fearful, even violent. Some will be inconsiderately curious instead, asking hurtful questions or behaving in unkind ways. A lot will likely simply be fearful and avoidant; outright attacking a creature you consider dangerous is not, generally, something undertaken lightly. A rare few may even be genuinely respectful, whether out of a "worthy enemy" perspective or an attempt to make things better or the like.

If the party is essentially always on the move, that would probably make things a lot harder. But if they're able to return to the same places on the regular, then a true rapport can be developed, which could lead to some really awesome roleplay moments over time, e.g. I have an image in my head of...

Spoiler

A reptilian character is minding his own business, perhaps whittling or preparing rope or the like with the help of a new joiner, and a grizzled old tradesman walks by, saying, "Heard ya saved Ol' Miss Taggart, an' her granson. Pity ya lost the pigs...take summa this coin an' get some new ones a'fore ya come 'round these parts agin."

"Absolutely. Thank you, Master Cooper." He holds the pouch to his chest tightly. "It shall be done as you say."

New hire says, "Wow, you really let him talk to you like that? Guess for a...guy like you, gotta take the jobs you can get, huh?"

"Certainly not. I have known Master Cooper three summers. He just spoke more words to me than in the entire year before today. He also thanked me, in his way, and most important of all, he trusted me. To earn so high a prize is worthy of the risk we took. I shall have to write a song of it, for when I leave these lands."

This is, obviously, a daydream and not something one can plan, let alone expect. Things like this must arise naturally from a context. But I really do love this kind of thing, where there are mixed and muddy reactions and human(oid)s being disappointingly human...only to then build toward something noble and beautiful over time. To show that it is possible to appeal to the better angels of humanity's nature.

And honestly the really exotic races like Plasmids are easier. They just claim to be from far off Djelibibi or wherever and are too exotic to be a problem. Look in medieval manuscripts for what people actually thought people from far off lands were like.

This, too! Both Antiquity and the Medieval Period had some WILD ideas about what people were like just a few hundred miles to the east or south or whatever!

 

[FrozenNorth]

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:


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":

This seems an unfruitful way of looking at situation described.
Both parties got what they wanted:

• the DM doesn’t have tortles in their world: they are willing to live with lake elves that dovetail with established elf communities;
• the player got what they wanted: a character that is “close enough” to the tortle they wanted to play.

Both also gave something up:

• the DM created a new race of lake elves;
• the player doesn’t get to play a turtle-based humanoid.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think the vast majority of people would be willing to try a 'yes, but/and'. Your group is quite representative of the world at large. It's those who don't take no for an answer, or who insist on things that are clearly upsetting to others that I'm taking issue with.

So, who’s on the other side of that issue? @EzekielRaiden has adopted the most extreme position, but even he is arguing that only a good-faith discussion is required.