D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[Oofta]

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.

I had a guy like that at one point as well. No matter what hook I set up, he would ignore it. Have a side-plot that should be right up his alley? He'd reject it. Building on fire and collapsing? He'd run in just to see if I'd kill his PC even though his PC had no reason to do so*.

It didn't make too much of a difference because I run a very sand-boxy game with a lot of improv, but eventually it got to the point where I'd throw things out now and then just to see how hard he'd twist to reject things. Like when he visited his clan (the PC was a dwarf) and they heard that the king was organizing a group to explore some lost ruins. He went to the king and told him he wasn't interested. The confused king pointed out that he hadn't asked for the PC's help.

The player literally laughed while gloating that he had ruined another story arc. He didn't last much longer after that but we should have just parted way then and there.

But back to the OP, I don't run modules for a reason. In my campaign the PCs would wander off and do what they want. Of course the allies of the NPC would be pissed and hunt them down but that's another story. If that meant that their home base burned to the ground because they didn't stop the invasion then it does. Actions or lack of actions have consequences.

But if I were playing a module I would just call a time out and decide what we wanted to do. Agreeing to play a module is a social contract and one I'd expect them to adhere to or at least discuss like adults. If they didn't like the campaign we'd discuss what they did want to do.
*Eventually it worked, I just had a hard time believing a player would have a PC that was so suicidal.

 

[Weiley31]

It kills me when, say if your playing Out of the Abyss, there is the idea of the players going "Hey lets get outta dodge here" and instead of doing something about the Demon Lords, they just flipping off and left. But then the argument of "The DM, saying the world was destroyed shortly after because nobody gathered the necessary heroes/forces to confront them, is a terrible DM for taking choice outta the player's hands" happens and suddenly the DM is the "bad DM" for showing something of an actual consequence because of a choice, on the player's part, being made.

I mean, its not the DM's fault that the Demon Lords got so strong, after being left unchecked, that Drizzit and his peeps weren't able to step in and do the job. It's the player's fault. And Elminster is too busy banging chicks that he's probably too hungover, especially after smoking that pipe of his, to do anything bout it until it's too late.

"But why would I charge into a town being attacked by the Dragon at the start of Tyranny of Dragons 2019?"

Cuz then three weeks later, Tiamat erupts outta a Dragon Volcano and eats your g.f. whole before your eyes and then farts on your kitten, killing it instantly. Oh yeah the world become's Tiamat's plaything while she eats people, bangs her dragon posse, and just ruins all your future campaign ideas.

The point is: The DM tells the story, your PCs/Heroes/Jerk-wads have to make sure the world is a-okay if ya wanna continue dicking around in it.

 

[Zardnaar]

No big deal. If the players do it all if the time it's a problem. Booted some players because they didn't want to do anything.

Some modules just don't work out.

 

[iserith]

People should be held to their agreements. The players going off-plot are in the wrong here. It's time for the group to have an out-of-game chat to resolve this.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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?

After eliminating "don't be a jerk", I would say they're likely bored with the adventure. Talk to them to find out what's missing or tedious about it. Why are they not invested? If it's a dull adventure, I wouldn't try to force them to keep with it. If they're just being flakes, that's something else altogether.

 

[Zardnaar]

People should be held to their agreements. The players going off-plot are in the wrong here. It's time for the group to have an out-of-game chat to resolve this.

They need to have a discussion but a lot of 5E adventures aren't very good. Not everyone likes long AP path type adventures either.

Consider "hey guys want to play a dragon themed campaign". Sounds great but then you end up playing HotDQ.

 

[iserith]

They need to have a discussion but a lot of 5E adventures aren't very good. Not everyone likes long AP path type adventures either.

Consider "hey guys want to play a dragon themed campaign". Sounds great but then you end up playing HotDQ.

A mismatch in expectations, a shirking of one's agreement, or a desire to renegotiate is in evidence here. It just takes some hashing out. But if someone is just shirking an agreement, they can go in my opinion.

 

[Zardnaar]

A mismatch in expectations, a shirking of one's agreement, or a desire to renegotiate is in evidence here. It just takes some hashing out. But if someone is just shirking an agreement, they can go in my opinion.

Depends on situation. I've had players bail on Tomb of Horrors.

I usually do sandbox and let the player pick the theme from say 5 options.

 

[dave2008]

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?

In most situations I believe player agency is more important. I find that to be more enjoyable for the group than forcing my (the DM) plans on them.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't run stock modules because I prefer to let players go wherever they want... not be constrained in their character choices by real world. However, if I did, and the players decided to abandon the purchased storyline, I'd stop the game where they leave the "path" and have a conversation about what was going on. Then I'd adapt to what the players want to do, but quietly resent them and make sure the next session featured a lengthy crawl through an overly described, but very consistently similar maze.