D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[Fauchard1520]

Suppose your group is playing a module. You all agreed to play a module. Halfway through that module, half of the group decides to knife the primary quest giver and head off for Saltmarsh to become a pirates or whatever. They've rejected the premise and substituted their own.

At what point should player agency take a backseat to campaign style? Does the answer change if you're playing a homebrew sandbox game vs. a published adventure?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

 

[commandercrud]

If they wanted to play a module and you took the time to read and prepare running it, then that's kind of crappy of them to do that. If it's a homebrew sandbox, then that's totally normal.

 

[billd91]

I've done it to a DM before. We were given the task of clearing out a fortress of orcs. Instead, we went prospecting for 3 years (hey, we were a party of dwarves - it made sense to us at the time).

That was back when I was a kid, however, these days I'm much more willing to play along or flat out tell the DM that the premise isn't working for me. If it is, however, working for the other players, I'll either play along or sit out (and catch up on my binge-watching online).

 

[Jediking]

At what point should player agency take a backseat to campaign style?

Never, but players and DM should be mostly on the same page about the tone and nature of the game., especially a published module.

Does the answer change if you're playing a homebrew sandbox game vs. a published adventure?

Hard to say, but at that point it isn't "player agency" that's the problem. If the whole group (including the DM) wants to stop running the module and continue on with the campaign in a different direction - that's fine.
If any or all of the players want to stop playing the module but the DM is still invested in running it, the game will break down eventually. If this happens it's best to talk as a group out-of-game to see what everyone wants to play.

 

[Umbran]

At what point should player agency take a backseat to campaign style?

After a discussion like mature adults.

There was, at least implicitly, an agreement made at the beginning of play setting expectations of style and buy-in and such. Before violating that agreement, you owe it to everyone at the table to talk about it first.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I had (emphasis on the past tense) a player that would do this for everything - homebrew campaign and module alike. Whatever the group decided to play or the characters decided to do, he would deliberately try to sabotage it. Not every session, but he would pick the times when it had the most impact. When other players were absent, when we were at the penultimate moment, when his character was the only one interacting with an NPC. It was a deliberate monkey-wrenching and the game got a whole lot after I booted him.

I think it goes back to the social contract. This was a case of one player trying to be disruptive, breaking that social contract. Now, if the whole group says "we want to go do something else," then I think that the DM should always be prepared to rejigger their campaign and seek out what the most amount of people will have fun with.

 

[EscherEnigma]

As a GM, if I'd straight-up told the players that I wasn't feeling up to running my typical homebrew campaign, and was going to run this module, and they did that... I'd be, at the least, annoyed. The entire point of running a module (rather then your own homebrew) is that it's less work for the GM†.

Which is to say, it's all about expectations between folks at the table. If everyone talks ahead-of-time about what they're expecting from the game (including how rail-roady, or not, it will be) then you can avoid this kind of problem. Then again, feelings change. If the players just aren't loving a module, then instead of acting-out in-game, talk to the GM about it. The GM might end up dropping the module and going doing something else... but it won't be a surprise to them that the players are unhappy with the module. Or the GM might explain that it's this or no game because they just don't have the time... which can lead to any number of solutions.

Point being, don't try to solve game-group problems with in-game solutions. It never works.
________
†For me, at least. I'll concede that other people may run modules for different reasons.

 

[Tonguez]

Thats one reason why I dont stick to modules - I’ll use them as ‘elements’ but liberally shift things around. If the PCS go off script I’ll just move the elements around so that the encounters and mcguffins still appear, just in a new context.

I really like the 5-Room Dungeon layout because it caters to a flexible approach (Entrance Guardian - Roleplay/Skill puzzle - Trick/Trap - Climax - Twist/Cliffhanger)

 

[aco175]

If I agree to play in a module the DM asked if I wanted to play, then I would play along. It is more to the group of friends and not the story. Same as when a new person wants to DM and has a railroad with fantastic things all happening at once. Sometimes you go with the gonzo instead of causing friction.

 

[Umbran]

Now, if the whole group says "we want to go do something else," then I think that the DM should always be prepared to rejigger their campaign and seek out what the most amount of people will have fun with.

I'd say "willing" rather than "prepared", insofar as a GM ought to be okay with a change in direction that "kills their darlings" in terms of NPC and plot, but that doesn't mean they have new material ready at a moment's notice. "Okay, folks, you really want to run off and be pirates rather than save the town from the Halfling Hordes? We can do that. Let's adjourn for this week while I put together something for this new direction."

And, willing, to the limit of what they themselves find fun in a game. You don't owe players a game that's not your jam.