D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[Warpiglet-7]

To be fair, BG3 chargen makes it so you kinda have to go a bit out of your way to get to and view the results of these settings. You really have to opt into it.

As for X/Red card mechanics in videos games, I guess that would be skipping dialog and cut scenes and some settings.

I wish you could change the settings to exclude nudity and sexuality if you wish…along with graphic violence.

(So my kids could play too). Ah well…

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm no prude, but I can see myself red-carding because there is a difference between being amusing and just being creepy. Occasional jokes because the opportunity is just too good to pass up vs. making that type of your comment your main method of interaction with the group.

I don't mind the occasional crotch reference or the "your mom" joke at the table, but when I'm trying to build dramatic tension in the story and my players keep diffusing it with a fart joke, I get annoyed.

And I certainly don't want to narrate (or listen to someone narrate) a sexual encounter of any kind. It makes me uncomfortable (and three other players, apparently) so I put a hard stop on it. The scene always fades to black and we move on.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don't think there is always a compromise. I let people know what I limit when I open an invitation, it's up to them to decide if the game is right for them.

I think there is a big difference between “we cannot arrive at a compromise in this case despite both sides making a good faith effort” and “this is a game with curated races. Don’t ask for a compromise because none will be given”.

Which is why I keep coming back to the examples in this thread where compromise was achieved despite it being a campaign with curated races.

• No tortles, but hey, there are a thousand elf variants, so a lake elf is OK;
• No elf PCs, but if you give up the “magic can’t put you to sleep ability”, you can play an elf.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I don't mind the occasional crotch reference or the "your mom" joke at the table, but when I'm trying to build dramatic tension in the story and my players keep diffusing it with a fart joke, I get annoyed.

And I certainly don't want to narrate (or listen to someone narrate) a sexual encounter of any kind. It makes me uncomfortable (and three other players, apparently) so I put a hard stop on it. The scene always fades to black and we move on.

"Fireballs"... I literally just LOLed again.

 

[MNblockhead]

Not just "not for me." If the DM earnestly responds to any player's request for a reasonable, good-faith discussion about something they've said or done with "I'm too tired to talk about it, just do what I say or leave," they shouldn't be DMing. Period. They don't have the energy to do one of THE most important things a DM needs to do. If it's "let's do that later," that's one thing. But to just reject it, or pretend such a discussion will be forthcoming and then infinitely defer it? No. That's a clear sign this hypothetical person does not actually have the energy to do critical parts of the DM's role.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. If I set certain restrictions for a campaign I'm running, I feel no obligation to engage in discussions about those restrictions.

We can start a hundred arguments over various table rules and make similarly unhelpful and judgmental characterizations. "A DM who doesn't have the patience to wait for a slow player to take a turn, shouldn't be DMing, period." "A DM who refuses to accommodate any player's phobias, shouldn't be DMing, period." "A DM who refuses to be flexible with scheduling and start times shouldn't be DMing, period." Etc.

I've played with GMs with a wide variety of styles, campaign settings, and table rules. If they set out their rules for the game up front, I either join the game and happily comply with them, or I don't join the game. If they don't set the rules up front, and if I'm called out for breaking some table rule that I was unaware, same thing. I'll generally say, "okay", and follow the rule of that table now that I'm aware of it, or I'll stop playing in that game.

I'm not saying that being flexible and willing to have discussions is bad. Generally, I'm in favor of most of what you have suggested in your posts. But when you take it to the extreme of "if you don't do this, you shouldn't be DMing", I can't take it seriously.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

A tadpole entering my brain through my eye.

It's enough of a horror for me that I stay away from playing BG3. I would probably not play in a tabletop D&D game using that premise. But that's just me, I guess, given the success of BG3.

That particular incident has virtually no impact on the story at all. To the point of being disappointing. I would not let that dissuade you from playing the game (there is a cutscene early on where that physical act takes place... other than that, it's just an excuse for your party to gain 'tadpole powers').

 

[MNblockhead]

That particular incident has virtually no impact on the story at all. To the point of being disappointing. I would not let that dissuade you from playing the game (there is a cutscene early on where that physical act takes place... other than that, it's just an excuse for your party to gain 'tadpole powers').

Yeah, it can be skipped. But without giving spoilers, there are some other scenes and an entire mechanic that involves imagery with the tadpoles and eyes/brain. If someone is exceptionally sensitive, it would be hard to totally ignore. Maybe if you have all PCs completely refused tadpole powers.

 

[Maggan]

That particular incident has virtually no impact on the story at all. To the point of being disappointing. I would not let that dissuade you from playing the game (there is a cutscene early on where that physical act takes place... other than that, it's just an excuse for your party to gain 'tadpole powers').

"Tadpole powers" ... Aaaaaargh!

 

[CleverNickName]

Yeah, it can be skipped. But without giving spoilers, there are some other scenes and an entire mechanic that involves imagery with the tadpoles and eyes/brain. If someone is exceptionally sensitive, it would be hard to totally ignore. Maybe if you have all PCs completely refused tadpole powers.

Yeah, I can imagine that scene would be hard to watch for someone sensitive to body horror. (Another good excuse to use Safety Tools in your game.)

That said: "tadpole powers" would be a pretty cool origin story for an Aberrant Sorcerer.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, that's certainly how it seems from this side. "Nuh-uh" isn't exactly a meaningful response to the criticism, "So...you forbid players from using things you didn't specifically plan for, but you allow yourself to use things you didn't specifically plan for." Or, succinctly, "Rules for thee, not for me."

And the gotcha question continues. The DM builds the world. Of course they don't predefine every single aspect. The role of the DM is different from the role of a player.

Not to my knowledge. I have, repeatedly, said that I think there are reasonable limitations. I have given an example of one that applies to myself.


It would seem so. For being--allegedly--so unimportant, it sure seems like people get rather a bee in their bonnet about saying absolutely no not ever, no discussion, like it or leave it.


Or illusionists, for that matter.


So you ban Druids? Classes with access to polymorph? The entire school of illusion?


I really wasn't expecting anyone to be so up-front about it being a double standard.


Not just "not for me." If the DM earnestly responds to any player's request for a reasonable, good-faith discussion about something they've said or done with "I'm too tired to talk about it, just do what I say or leave," they shouldn't be DMing. Period. They don't have the energy to do one of THE most important things a DM needs to do. If it's "let's do that later," that's one thing. But to just reject it, or pretend such a discussion will be forthcoming and then infinitely defer it? No. That's a clear sign this hypothetical person does not actually have the energy to do critical parts of the DM's role.

If I've decided I don't want evil PCs in my game then there's not a lot of "conversation" to be had. If someone wants to discuss it, the answer is still going to be "no" and it doesn't really matter. There is no "conversation" to be had.

But it was one of the rallying cries against 4e--explicitly. People were really bent out of shape about it, and made a huge stink.


I should think there would be rather a big difference between, "We are using this system, which happens to share the absolute rock-bottom underlying mechanics, but only one particular splat" and "Well, we're actually using the exact same book as everyone else using this system, and most of the same contents, but I'm picking and choosing which ones in that book, and I refuse to ever even slightly entertain a moment's discussion about why I picked some and not others."


Perhaps not always--but it is very close to being so. Accommodation is almost always possible, so long as everyone is willing to make, and work with, good-faith discussion and compromise. (I repeat, everyone, all persons, each individual participant, every player and every DM, genuinely actually all sapient intelligences involved, hopefully that's specific enough so that I won't be told yet again that I'm somehow only talking about DMs when I say that even though I've literally never said anything other than "everybody needs to play ball" and "nobody gets a free pass.")

So you have reasonable limitations. You've stated that you don't allow evil PCs when you DM. You made a judgement call that allowing evil PCs would make the game less enjoyable overall, and it's simply not something you want to allow. I'm sure that if you advertised a game for evil PCs, you could find plenty of players but I'm assuming it wouldn't be a game you would enjoy running.

Now replace "evil PCs" with "PCs can be any race". We're both making limitations based on our best judgement of what will lead to a game we want to DM and will be enjoyable by our players.

Along the same line, I don't really see a lot of compromise on evil PCs. What they write on their character sheet doesn't really matter to me, if your PC is LE* but all of your acts related to the campaign would align with the acts of a LG character then as far as I'm concerned they're LG. Even if you tell them that at the very least they have to be LN, you've still told them "no" on an evil PC.


*I'm only using standard D&D alignment notation for simplicity here.