D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[pemerton]

All placed by the "DM".

?

JRRT's books aren't recounts of FRPG sessions.

If we attribute all authorship/creativity to the GM, what are the players even doing at the table?

 

[Maggan]

?

JRRT's books aren't recounts of FRPG sessions.

If we attribute all authorship/creativity to the GM, what are the players even doing at the table?

I am, believe it or not, aware of the fact that Tolkien wasn't a Dungeon Master, and that he didn't create Middle-Earth as a D&D campaign. Putting DM in quotation marks and adding a smiley was my feeble attempt at conveying a tounge in cheek post.

With that said, in the 5e Middle-Earth RPG, all the things you listed are part of the campaign setting from the get go, although I believe that neither Tom Bombadill nor Sauron is an option open for the players to explore as player characters.

But if anyone would want to do that and the DM thinks it would be fun, I say go for it. But I would absolutely accept a DM saying "no, you can't play Tom Bombadill and no you can't play a dragonborn in my Middle-Earth campaign."

 

[Oofta]

I find that one way to be respectful, and to avoid insulting others, is to not imply that those GMs and groups who easily accommodate player requests lack pride in their work, do not care if the fiction is logical or consistent, or a playing "kitch-sink" campaigns that are hard to take seriously.

As I just posted, I easily accommodate Golin, his explosives cult, his nemesis Golin, and the other elements of that PC's backstory, into our Torchbearer campaign (which is set in Greyhawk). And anyone who wishes to confirm the logic, coherence and depth of the campaign world can do so by reading the actual play reports.

I've said it repeatedly but I'll repeat again. Different people have different likes, dislikes, approaches, things they want out of the game. Someone doing something I don't personally care for is not doing anything wrong. I can't stop you from reading things into what I say that are not there, but I have never said that people that do things I don't do are somehow less committed or take less pride.

You simply have a different preference and tolerance. Your point? I'm sure I could allow someone to play an alien from the planet Krypton that flew and shot laser beams from their eyes if I wanted to. It's all fiction after all. Still has nothing to do with what makes the best campaign world for what kind of campaign I want to run.

 

[Demetrios1453]

no, you really don’t have any authority to tell them what to play, that is a lot stronger wording than I would use

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.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I don't put limitations on things my friends find fun because I'm their friend too.

Uh, that's what you took from my message? Dude, try reading the whole paragraph. Especially the part where I said " the limitations we all agreed on when they said they wanted to play in my established world."

I said that we'd all agreed on something. As in the group. If they (the group) didn't want to play in my established world: Sure! I'd be happy to let someone else run something else so I could play. Ecstatic actually. But I won't run what I'm not interested in running. I've done that several times before. It all ended miserably and early as I ran out of the creative energy to come up with more stuff.

I have ZERO friends who would show up to a touch-football game and then insist we play tackle after we all arranged to play touch.

But, hey, I guess I'm just an ass for expecting people to actually follow what they said they were going to do.

EDIT: I was just imagining what would happen in my group. I actually wouldn't have to say a thing. I have two players that would turn to that person and say (paraphrase), "WTF, dude? That isn't what we agreed on at all!"

 

[Dausuul]

In that instance, the player clearly wanted the mechanical benefits of being a tortle; they didn't actually want to play a turtle-person. What if they did?

Yeah, there are quite a few cases where there really isn't a compromise position. If what you want is to play a character who looks like an anthropomorphic turtle, and I do not want to have creatures that look like anthropomorphic turtles in the campaign, we are at an impasse where the only possible solutions are "One of us yields to the other's preference" and "You don't play."

Personally, I am one of those who likes curated settings even when I'm not the curator. I almost always play spellcasters, but if the DM said, "I want to run a campaign where none of the PCs are casters," I would happily whip up a martial PC.

So if a player was willing to write up twenty thousand words of setting material and/or general game aids then they would have the right to play whatever race they wanted? Since they undertook some of the DM 's prep load off of them?

Since many people argue that all the extra work DMs put into running the game entitles them to restrict PC options??

If the player is taking some of the load off the DM, then yes, they should get more of a say in what the world contains. In my current campaign, I basically handed the players a sketch of the setting -- just a couple of paragraphs -- and told them to make up whatever background elements they wanted for their characters.

As a result, my setting is much more kitchen-sinky than I would normally prefer. (Gnomes, guys? Really?) But in exchange, I don't have the burden of devising all the hooks to get the PCs engaged with the story, and I have a bunch of NPC villains and allies with pre-fabricated ties to the party.

However, "taking the load off the DM" does not mean dumping 20K words of amateur setting material on their head unasked-for. That's adding to the load, not reducing it. First rule of helping people is ask them what they need you to do, and do that.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

So if a player was willing to write up twenty thousand words of setting material and/or general game aids then ...

Oh, God, No! If they're going to do that then they should really be running the game so I can enjoy their vision. I have a hard enough time remembering all the stuff I came up with. If I had to use 20,000 words from a player, the game would be total confusing disaster.

But that's just my own mental limitations rearing its head.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Uh, that's what you took from my message? Dude, try reading the whole paragraph. Especially the part where I said " the limitations we all agreed on when they said they wanted to play in my established world."

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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

All placed by the "DM".

If Aragorn and Bilbo aren't players, who the heck is in this scenario?

 

[Oofta]

No. What I said is that notions like "OK" or "standards" have no work to do here. We are talking about people coming together for a voluntary leisure activity. So normativity - beyond the general norms for any human social interaction - just isn't applicable.

There is no being upsetting - it is not upsetting to let someone play a dragonborn; nor is it upsetting for someone to not want to GM a dragonborn. All there is a difference of preferences - for the aesthetics and/or mechanics of play - which has to be resolved the way any similar difference of preferences would be resolved.

If the GM sticks to their guns - or in other words, puts their wants above others' - that's their prerogative. If the player sticks to their guns - or in other words, puts their wants above others' - that's their prerogative too. Maybe the GM yields because they also want the player. Maybe the player yields because they also want the GM. Maybe everyone finds some middle way. Who knows? The stakes are incredibly low, and it's no one's concern but the individuals involved.

I let people know before a session 0 what races are allowed. During session 0 we review things a bit and, for instance, I recently told someone that I wouldn't allow a necromancer. If that means that some players don't accept the invitation or don't join the group, no harm no foul. Personally I can't imagine a restricted list of races being a reason to not join a game. On the other hand a game that is intended for evil PCs wouldn't be my cup of tea so I wouldn't join.

I used to be an anything goes DM. Show up at my table with a 7 foot tall albino elf (back when elves topped out at 5'6")? No problem!* But eventually I accepted that approach simply didn't work well for me and decided on a standard set of restrictions. That likely means I'm not the right DM for everyone, I'm okay with that.

I see no issue with any of this as long as it's communicated up front.

On a side note, one of the main reasons I DM is because I've moved a lot and D&D is a good way to socialize and make friends. So I make friends by playing D&D, it's not that I (in most cases) invite friends to play my game. But can we please stop saying that if you actually like your players you'd let them run whatever they want? I like my players so I run a curated campaign because I want to be the best DM I can be.

*The fact that the albino elf carried no weapons, had no way of contributing in any way other than "People were afraid of him" for no mechanical reason actually was an issue but that's another story.