D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

[SpaceOtter]

I'm with Mistwell. I pitch a given campaign to my players first. They then create character concepts appropriate to said campaign and we discuss how it'll all work. They don't come to the table with preconceptions as to what they are going to play before that point because it would be a colossal waste of time. They trust me to run fun, interesting games. I trust them not to create campaign-inappropriate characters.

Not that it has ever happened in my experience, but if someone wanted to play something that really didn't fit the campaign, I'd suggest alternatives as close conceptually as I could (if possible) that did suit, but I'd still have no compunction in saying, "Sorry, that concept just doesn't fit." if they continued. If they still continued, they'd be shown the door. Being so wedded to a single character concept that you're prepared to ignore the setting and potentially ruin the feeling and theme for the DM and the other players means you're not the sort of person I'd want to play with. Fortunately, that has never been an issue in my groups.

 

[Hussar]

It's never a question though. Like I said, nobody ranks their character concept above what the DM has in mind in terms of the setting, going in. Nobody would consider leaving, as it's a very good DM and so they know no matter what character they end up playing it's going to be a lot of fun.

Plus, we're all friends, there to hang out. The idea someone would leave over not being able to play some concept they had in mind is just foreign to me. It would be like leaving Karaoke because they didn't have the song you wanted to sing in their machine. Since when did "came to the fun event with a specific idea in mind and I will leave if I cannot enact that idea" become a "thing"?

Heck, I go in to every new game with probably 10 character concepts in mind anyway, and one of them should be good for that setting, or adaptable to it.

The problem with that analogy is that you typically only sing karaoke for a couple of hours. Not hundreds of hours. Imagine going to karaoke with your friends every week for three or four hours at a time and the karaoke machine only has a kind of music that you don't like. Is it inappropriate to request that the group go to a different karaoke place and, if that group refuses to change karaoke places, is it inappropriate to say, "Sorry guys, I'll catch up with you later"?

I'm with Mistwell. I pitch a given campaign to my players first. They then create character concepts appropriate to said campaign and we discuss how it'll all work. They don't come to the table with preconceptions as to what they are going to play before that point because it would be a colossal waste of time. They trust me to run fun, interesting games. I trust them not to create campaign-inappropriate characters.

Not that it has ever happened in my experience, but if someone wanted to play something that really didn't fit the campaign, I'd suggest alternatives as close conceptually as I could (if possible) that did suit, but I'd still have no compunction in saying, "Sorry, that concept just doesn't fit." if they continued. If they still continued, they'd be shown the door. Being so wedded to a single character concept that you're prepared to ignore the setting and potentially ruin the feeling and theme for the DM and the other players means you're not the sort of person I'd want to play with. Fortunately, that has never been an issue in my groups.

But, this works both ways. I'm not interested in playing with a DM whose enjoyment of the game is so fragile that choosing something for my character will ruin the feeling and theme of the game for him or her. Nor am I interested in dictating to the players that my personal preferences are always going to trump theirs simply because I'm sitting behind the DM's screen and if they don't like it, GTFO.

I'll give another example. I was running a 3e campaign years ago and said, "Good only". Standard reasons, mostly didn't want to deal with the intra-party crap that comes up with someone trying to play an evil character. I wanted heroes. One of the players insisted on playing a CN character. And he was ready to walk over this. He was not going to play a good character and he, in his words, "wanted to be free to do whatever I want to do". So, I caved. I didn't want to boot the player, so, I told him he could play the character provisionally and if it became a problem, we'd be having another conversation.

Couple of months and a few levels go by. I turn to the player and say, "Your character isn't really CN. He's reliable, dependable, always does the right thing, isn't selfish or whimsical. This character is pretty much textbook Lawful Good". The player very strongly insisted that his character was CN despite the fact that at no point had the character ever acted in a chaotic manner. But, then I started reading between the lines. He wasn't interested in playing CN to be a disruptive player. He quite obviously had been burned by previous DM's who would force him to do certain acts (or prevent him from doing things) and bludgeon him over the head with the alignment rules. He simply did not want to give me, the DM, any sort of lever or hook to hold over him during the game. He wanted his character to belong to him and him alone.

Fine by me. I stepped back, realised that changing the C to an L on his character sheet would make zero difference to the game and having that C meant a lot to that player. Was it perfectly kosher by the rules and did it make in game sense? Well, maybe not. It wasn't consistent after all. But, then, at the end of the day, at little inconsistency would mean a happy, engaged player who was an excellent participant in the game. Very much not worth being right about.

See, ten years ago, I'd be standing right behind you patting you on the back and telling you how right you are. Ten years ago, I believed EXACTLY what you do. But, I changed over the past ten years or so. Began implicitly and explicitly trusting the players and became confident in passing off responsibility for the game onto the players. I never, ever want passively consuming players ever again. Give people respect and trust and responsibility and they will do far, far more for you than I could possibly do on my own.

 

[SpaceOtter]

I do trust and respect my players and that's exactly why it has never been an issue, and I absolutely know it works both ways. We work together for everyone's enjoyment, and that also means that no one (DM included) has to take guff from anyone else. We discuss it all and hash it out before play even begins. If my players said they didn't like a given campaign pitch, I'd discuss with them what would work instead.

However, going theoretical again, if I've pitched a game where the characters are various members of a human community, and the players (bar one) are really happy and excited with that concept, then yes, that player either needs to work on a concept that will fit (thankfully my players only ever having a single concept has never been an problem) or be mature enough say, "This campaign isn't for me." It's an absolutely valid response and one I'd be happy to accept if it ever happened.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'll give another example. I was running a 3e campaign years ago and said, "Good only". Standard reasons, mostly didn't want to deal with the intra-party crap that comes up with someone trying to play an evil character. I wanted heroes. One of the players insisted on playing a CN character. And he was ready to walk over this. He was not going to play a good character and he, in his words, "wanted to be free to do whatever I want to do". So, I caved. I didn't want to boot the player, so, I told him he could play the character provisionally and if it became a problem, we'd be having another conversation.

Couple of months and a few levels go by. I turn to the player and say, "Your character isn't really CN. He's reliable, dependable, always does the right thing, isn't selfish or whimsical. This character is pretty much textbook Lawful Good". The player very strongly insisted that his character was CN despite the fact that at no point had the character ever acted in a chaotic manner. But, then I started reading between the lines. He wasn't interested in playing CN to be a disruptive player. He quite obviously had been burned by previous DM's who would force him to do certain acts (or prevent him from doing things) and bludgeon him over the head with the alignment rules. He simply did not want to give me, the DM, any sort of lever or hook to hold over him during the game. He wanted his character to belong to him and him alone.

Fine by me. I stepped back, realised that changing the C to an L on his character sheet would make zero difference to the game and having that C meant a lot to that player. Was it perfectly kosher by the rules and did it make in game sense? Well, maybe not. It wasn't consistent after all. But, then, at the end of the day, at little inconsistency would mean a happy, engaged player who was an excellent participant in the game. Very much not worth being right about.

See, ten years ago, I'd be standing right behind you patting you on the back and telling you how right you are. Ten years ago, I believed EXACTLY what you do. But, I changed over the past ten years or so. Began implicitly and explicitly trusting the players and became confident in passing off responsibility for the game onto the players. I never, ever want passively consuming players ever again. Give people respect and trust and responsibility and they will do far, far more for you than I could possibly do on my own.

Let me second your example with a Neatrul Evil sorcerer who wanted to over throw a necromancer... started with useing non detection becuse there was a paliden in the group, and became one of the most heroic characters ever.

Why did this happen, becuse he grew in power fast, always knew it was better to have the PCs on his side, and liked being seen as the hero of the land, so he saved people to upgrade himself... the fact that he and another player tortured and rituel sacraficd people went un noticed for almost 12 levels...


I also played a lawful evil warlock once in an evil campaign that if you didnt know i was dealing with demons and throwing vile damage on my eldritch blast, you would think I was lawful neutral with good tendinces... probably having something to do with being born a slave and hateing slave holders...

 

[Mistwell]

The problem with that analogy is that you typically only sing karaoke for a couple of hours. Not hundreds of hours. Imagine going to karaoke with your friends every week for three or four hours at a time and the karaoke machine only has a kind of music that you don't like.

We're talking about people going home if they cannot play the character concept they had in mind. So no, it's not like the music in general.

Is it inappropriate to request that the group go to a different karaoke place

If everyone is having a great time and wants to go there every friggen week it's so good for them? And the company is awesome despite the music? Yes, quite inappropriate. Lots of people really do not care about the music at Karaoke, it's generally not about that. It's about hanging out with your friends and goofing around.

and, if that group refuses to change karaoke places, is it inappropriate to say, "Sorry guys, I'll catch up with you later"?

Like I said, for us at least, our DMs are so good this is not going to come up, ever.

 

[SpaceOtter]

What he said.

Plus, I find it interesting that so many people assume it's just player vs. DM when these things come up. If someone came up with a character concept that was utterly at odds with what we were going for, I wouldn't be the only one rolling my eyes and saying, "Dude, that really doesn't fit." My other players would too. It's not just a question of a DM's enjoyment being so fragile. Are you really arguing that said player's ego and frailty (not to mention lack of creativity or flexibility) in wanting to play something not campaign-appropriate should really trump everyone else's enjoyment?

I have played and run campaigns where everything goes but I've also played and run games very set within certain settings and themes. Both are enjoyable, but thankfully my players are not so egotistical or frail that they will play things that really don't fit whatever sort of game we've agreed we are playing.

I also did find it interesting that someone also assumed my pitching ideas equals lack of Player involvement. They are not the same thing. My players help craft elements of the campaigns we play, discuss them beforehand, and even in play I take a hands-off approach ala Feng Shui in letting them describe plausible things in a scene even if I have not mentioned them, e.g. in a fight in the street outside a tavern, I'm cool with a player saying something like they duck behind a broken cart, even if I haven't said there's a cart there. If it's something plausible or likely to be there, it's all good.

 

[Hussar]

r be mature enough say, "This campaign isn't for me." It's an absolutely valid response and one I'd be happy to accept if it ever happened.

Note, this is at odds with Mistwell who would think it unacceptable to bow out of a campaign because the player wasn't interested in what the DM is putting on the table.

 

[SpaceOtter]

That's one area we'd disagree then. We're playing games, after all; if someone wouldn't enjoy X game at all then actually having them playing could ruin it for all concerned. There's little worse than a damp squib. That said, I'd have to wonder at someone who didn't play because they couldn't play one single concept. It'd be one thing not to play because a setting, theme, or what have you held no appeal or made you uncomfortable. It'd be another thing if you didn't because you couldn't play a Tiefling Monk in the Hastings 1066 game we're playing.

 

[Grainger]

A player ad-libbing that his/her PC will get aid is not creating backstory. It's dictating action resolution.

A standard technique for that is "say yes or roll the dice". If the GM doesn't think the ruler would provide aid, then engage the action resolution system.

As per my exchange with [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] earlier in this thread, some GMs also will "say no" without rolling the dice. I think this has to be handled with care, and that it's better done at the point of framing, rather than resolving, the action resolution attempt.

On backstory, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] noted if it hasn't come into play yet then there's no contradiction; if it has, then someone needs to remind the player.

On competing backstory, that's part of play. Eg PC 1's backstory states that ruler X was a benevolent overlord, and it was the death of X that left PC 1 adrift as a child, ending up as a rogue on the streets. PC 2's backstory states that ruler X was a rakshasa in disguise, living off the people like a parasite, until the sect of holy avengers assassinated him one day; now PC 2 carries on the sect's traditions, less the rakshas be reincarnated into another position of power.

I guess we'll find out in the course of play whose version of events is correct (perhaps both, or even neither).

Thanks for the clarification - sounds interesting. I certainly haven't done this, but players have never tried (the never-mentioned-in-play incident I mentioned before notwithstanding). I'll ponder whether to move in this direction in my campaign.

 

[Sadras]

Presumably the GM has some reason for proposing the campaign as X rather than Y.

Whatever the nature of that reason is, the players can be motivated by the same sort of reason to want to play character A raher than character B.

There's no reason to think that trust, or lack of trust, is a bigger factor in one case than the other.


My take on these examples, and on KarinsDad's in the quote above as well, is that the player isn't choosing a setting based on distinct canon, lore, etc.

I mean, practically by definition a player who wants to play a halfling in Krynn, or a minotaur in Karameikos, isn't committed to the canon of the setting.

So if the GM is very into a setting and its canon, and the player is not, compromise of some sort will probably be required.

Setting is a peculiar thing in RPGing. From here:

Setting therefore becomes a one-step removed education and appreciation project. There’s a big book about the setting. The GM reads the book. Then, the players enjoy the setting, or rather enjoy the GM’s enjoyment of the setting, by using play as a proxy. As one text puts it, the GM is the lens through which the players see the setting.​

There is obviously a very real risk that the players are not going to get the same enjoyment from the setting as the GM. After all, only the GM got to read the book.

From the same author:

Perhaps this is what leads to those monstrous textual setting histories in the books, with the only people who read them (or care) being their authors and the GMs.​

If you want to avoid that outcome, the players need to be dealt in to the setting. There are different wasy to do this, but strong enforcement of PC archetypes won't always be the best way.

Agree with all in your post.
Like you said, persuasion works both ways and no I definitely do not promote 'strong enforcement'

Recently I offered up different setting locations within Mystara at various timelines for our next campaign. We all like the setting and the players made their selection. Based on the nationalities they chose and the backgrounds they had, I told them that there was a strong probability that adventuring would more than likely see them leaving their desired setting given that they all had chosen nationalities and drafted backgrounds which did nothing to anchor them to such setting.

Well one reworked his background to be married and work for a local noble, another desired to be a locally born, and a third established a relationship with a respected elf of the setting. Problem solved. There was no enforcement, just a friendly statement.