D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Mecheon]

Brings to mind shelves full of action figures you can't play with or take out of the box.

This isn't for playing with. It's for admiring from afar.

action figures remains part of why I rule that Yuan-Ti are snake people. Like in He-man or those Lego Ninjago sets

But that's more "I have cracked open all the Lego sets, strewn them about, and am letting you go nuts"

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Nothing in there is a statement about setting integrity.

The entire post is about how unimportant the framework of the setting is e.g. "I'd get out the map and me and my sister and/or my buddies would decide "Well, hey, maybe there's killer kangeroos over here!" I mean so what?"

I'm sure that's the definition of setting integrity that @Micah Sweet was using (he can correct me if I'm wrong) i.e. the game world has parameters/rules. @AbdulAlhazred 's post was basically saying, hey, don't worry about those rules, just have fun! Which is a perfectly acceptable way to play. Other tables aren't down with that.

So, yes, everything in the post is about setting integrity, by the definition of the poster who used that term in the first place.

Yeah, 'setting integrity', what does that mean? I mean, say, the players and GM are aiming to run a game in a very specific genre or setting, I think it is perfectly understandable that this would mean only certain things are going to be in that game. Sure. I wouldn't describe that in terms of 'setting integrity' though, I'd describe in terms of the premise of the game having certain characteristics. Its a superhero game, you don't have ninjas as PCs or something like that (well, superheroes certain can have a lot of weird stuff, but lets say Arthurian Romance, there aren't ninjas).

Right. You might not describe that in terms of 'setting integrity', but the post in question is describing it that way. Hence the pushback.

 

[Umbran]

Guys, stop being so stuck on yourselves and go have fun.

Mod Note:
It would be really, really excellent if you didn't ascribe differences in play to personal character flaws. That's insulting.

It would also be really excellent if this whole conversation stopped trying to suggest that having a few restrictions is some kind of crime for which people should be shouted down or berated. It reads as rather OneTrueWayist, to be honest.

Leave space in the world for folks to play in ways that maybe you wouldn't, and have that be okay.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well I can accept that. But it read as “why would you be so X? You’re missing the point.”

It has existed because of everything Gygax wrote. Also it is still there in small print up to Tasha’s at the least. “Consult with your DM.”

Why? I know I want to do it. I think it should be available. The subtext continues to be the DM has some say so.

It’s all good either way. I just don’t see it as an “attitude” as much as a campaign specific choice. all good either way. But each is valid as far as I am concerned. I would like to try both approaches.

Yeah, I hear you, ideally I agree. I've been around a long time though, and I've seen a lot of GM entitlement in some quarters. I personally am not overly picky

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, I hear you, ideally I agree. I've been around a long time though, and I've seen a lot of GM entitlement in some quarters. I personally am not overly picky

GMs are generally entitled to be entitled.

Restrictions are really only bad when they're arbitrary and inconsistent.

If they're somewhat planned and worked into the story it's fine. Eg no XYZ they never existed or got genocide.

Or no XYZ because they are the "phantom menace" or are undiscovered/cut off. They're playable once PCs discover them (retirement/replacements).

Topic sort of came up today talking about wildshape and polymorph because ultimately it depends on what DM allows eg Dinosaurs.

Curse of Strahd some magic spells just don't work due to the setting.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, 'setting integrity', what does that mean?

My setting has no integrity. Just last week I overheard it telling some young female settings that it was Dark Sun. Apparently it thought that they would like bad boys more. Tsk!

 

[Zardnaar]

My setting has no integrity. Just last week I overheard it telling some young female settings that it was Dark Sun. Apparently it thought that they would like bad boys more. Tsk!

Setting integrity is just mostly whatever defines said setting.

Eg might be technology or themed. Darksun has a heavily curated race list that didn't improve much by its second set. It added 3 races iirc.

Generous DM might allow whatever as a new race. You might be the only 1.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why not just use Race as Class to mechanically emphasis how unusual a race is? If it's good enough for Gygax it's good enough for me!

Edited to fix typo

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sometimes they do. I think laziness is an entirely valid reason for a DM to impose restrictions on their game. Only running a game to a certain level comes to mind. My last campaign went from 0-20 and lasted 5 years. Running high-level games is a lot more work than low-level games (for me at least). I feel fully justified to state that I'm going to run a shorter, lower level campaign for no other reason than I don't want to put in the work.

I'm just as comfortable not allowing classes or spells that I'm unfamiliar with or am familiar with, but find more difficult to run games where they exist, for no other reason than I find it harder to do so and don't feel like putting in the effort to familiarize myself with them or work around them.

Actually, laziness is perhaps the best reason for me to disallow something in a game I'm running. I'm doing this for fun. If it starts feeling like work, I'm not doing it.

I wouldn't call that "laziness." To me, "laziness" as the reason to disallow something is more like...
"Eh, too much effort to go look up the rules, so I'm gonna say no."
"But...you own the book! It's right over there!"
"Yeah, I know. I just didn't feel like getting up to read it."

"I am not prepared to deal with the added DM responsibilities entailed by high-level characters" is rather a different beast--that is specifically setting out in advance that you do not wish to do that work, before it is required of you, rather than shirking it on the spot.

So one thing that strikes me odd that some people simply seem to want to play some species in a vacuum. Like they don't know or care what the setting is like, they just want to be an elf or something. But certainly elves of different worlds are pretty significantly different things? Tolkien's elves are not Pratchett's evens and Athasian elves are nor Faerûnian elves and so forth. So even if we assumed that elves existed in the setting, I still would first want to know what elves of this world are like before I would decide playing one.

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. I find that the vast majority of campaigns that stick to the "core four" races haven't bothered to make them in any meaningful way different from "Tolkien-esque with the serial numbers thoroughly filed off." It's one (of several) reasons why I expect, as part of any pre-campaign discussion, that the DM actually...y'know, make a case, sell me on all this stuff they've put so much time into. And why the rather dogmatic "I'm the DM so what I say goes, like it or lump it" attitude leaves me so cold--that very specifically reflects a refusal to bother selling the player on stuff, and from what I've seen, a rather lethargic attitude toward having the stuff you'd need to make a sales pitch in the first place (beyond, y'know, "I wrote it," which...yeah that's not exactly a great sales pitch.)

I say "almost" because, in serving the utilitarian purpose of serving up both high fantasy/JRRT-esque tropes and pulp/S&S/REH-esque tropes, it does convey some of the same aesthetic as those works of fiction. But the fact that it does both at once in itself betrays its limits as a work of art - it has no real depth at all.

Which is fine - the depth can be brought in play; that's part of the point and pleasure of RPGing.

Indeed, that's precisely where I prefer to see it. That's one of the other reasons why I'm left pretty cold by someone declaring that they've nailed down every possible culture, race, political faction, etc. for the entire globe (or equivalent, for non-round worlds.) It communicates to me that I'm not supposed to find (or see) much depth through play--other than by witnessing the depth that's already there.

I don't fully understand though why people drop into these behaviours instead of choosing other routes. Is it a defense mechanism of some kind? Probably, but I couldn't say for sure.

As someone with social anxiety, I can promise you that it is a defense mechanism. Think of it this way: People you do not know are threats. Unknown people will hurt you. Hence, you must keep unknown people at arm's length, so they can't hurt you. But if you've forged a connection with someone, if you've been able to lower your guard enough to let them in, well. Now they're inside the castle. Letting someone in, only for them to then do something upsetting, feels like the same hurt that caused all this fear and anxiety to begin with. Hence, to "betray" friendship is a pretty horrible offense. Likewise, if you trust person A to be good to you, and you trust person B to be good to you, well, they have to get along, right? You know they're people who don't hurt others, therefore they can't hurt one another.

Almost all of this is rooted in maladaptive coping mechanisms, often as a result of ostracism and unresolved feelings of inadequacy, coupled with a particularly pointed desire for socialization (since the avoidant behavior leaves the person starved for social interaction and, in many cases, regular human affection, outside of family members.)

To sum up, in a non-geek/nerd group, someone bringing up the request I mentioned upthread would be met with first, consideration. If that request went against the grain of the group, it would be politely rejected. At that point, the requestor would either accept the fact that they were part of a social group and go with the group's decision, or take the initiative to find another group who more closely fit the parameters of their request. There would not be any sort of social trauma resulting from this. Some of the responses in this thread suggest a different result to that interaction, hence my link to the Five Geek Social Fallacies.

As said, I don't personally think it's relevant. For me, this is not about identity, but rather, about being respectful to one another. A respectful person does not throw their weight around in this way, regardless of their position within a group. Many here have made a great deal of the extra "work" or "responsibility" of the DM, which I personally think is more than a little overblown (having been a DM for several years now). Further, I think such harping on that to the exclusion of other information is ignoring the fact that the DM is the one with most of the power in this social dynamic. Thus it is incumbent upon them to use that power judiciously, with caution, restraint, and magnanimity. I see rather a dearth of all three in most descriptions of blanket bans, particularly given the disinclination, or even outright hostility, to the very idea of the player asking for a good-faith discussion with both sides trying to achieve consensus.

In the real world everyone at the table should be looking out for the enjoyment of everyone else. That means that if a player knows that the DM's fun would be negatively impacted by playing a dragonborn, it would be crappy for that player to arrive at the game the DM set up and try to play one. Similarly, if it doesn't really matter to the DM or setting for a warforged to exist, but the DM has said they don't exist, it would be crappy of the DM to deny the player his fun character.

I guess I just find it really hard to believe that "one person is playing a dragonborn" is such a horrific, onerous burden that it would "negatively impact" the DM's fun. That notion is genuinely baffling to me. They have an entire world--an entire universe--at their fingertips. But one player playing a race they aren't into is now, apparently, enough to spoil the experience. That's just...I genuinely cannot think of any other way to describe that but "petty." It just feels petty to have an experience irreparably damaged by something that small in comparison to what the DM personally is engaged with. As if the mere presence of an avocado dish at a banquet were enough to ruin the guest of honor's appetite, because they find avocado greasy and mealy. (Which, for the record, I do!)

And, because I'm sure someone will make one, check your slippery slope arguments at the door.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why not just use Race as Class to mechanically emphasis how unusual a race is? I'd it's good enough for Gygax it's good enough for me!

Believe it or not, although RAC is very much not my cup of tea, I have in fact done exactly that. And the DM was quite gracious about it!