D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[TaranTheWanderer]

Does every clever idea have to work or be appropriate for you to ‘have an influence’?

It’s not very clever if it doesn’t work, is it?

and no, it doesn’t. Sometimes it gloriously goes to naughty word.

 

[Scott Christian]

Couldn't agree more. Too many adventure paths (both Pathfinder and 5e) are full of filler designed to do nothing but waste your time. I was playing in a curse of Stradh game a while back, a prime example of how not to run an adventure path IMO- BBEG is in castle on top of hill only way out of this helhole is to kill him but no we can't go straight up there are deal with Strahdy Von Stadh Pants as we called him, we need to be led round and round in circles so we go to C,D,E and F (with a semblace of choice in the order we deal with them)- got frustrated as hell not being able to get on with what we were there for- killing the BBEG so if i were to ever run it it would be with 8+ level PCs and run it closer to the original version with them arriving and trying to get out of dodge ASAP and get stright to the meat of the advenure with the castle.

So stories should just jump straight to the ending if the ending is obvious? Jon Snow should become King of the North in the first season? I mean, everyone knew it was going to happen. Aragorn should have become king in book one? Anyone reading knew it was going to happen. And because I see the main bad guy in a story, I should just be able to go fight them? If I do, even though I'm not equipped for such a task, I should be given a chance to win?

This is not the AP being boring. This is you, as a player, not sitting back and enjoying the ride and finding flavor in the little surprises on the way. It has nothing to do with the AP.

Now, I will say this on your behalf: Maybe your DM wasn't doing a good job. Maybe the players you were with weren't buying into the storyline, which caused you to not enjoy it. Maybe there were external factors at the table making it an unenjoyable experience. I don't know. But it should not be blamed on Curse of Strahd.

 

[MNblockhead]

No it is not. Not all games or groups are equal.

To be clear, I think these answers tend to be very clear and easy to pick up in a face-to-face group. However, the OP doesn't provide the information we would to get the answers we would intuitively get from such an interaction. My only point is, as written in the OP, the terms of the "agreement" can be very different. Even if it is under the umbrella of "playing a game."

Listen, I am just being pedantic. I have already given my personal answer , I was just exploring the wide implications (or lack thereof) of the OP

I'm a lawyer in life and I actually like rules lawyering, because I'm wired that way. I also work, specifically, in legal technology and so that even further wires me to like assumptions challenged, agreements explicit, and terms well defined. But even my eyes glazed over with that level of parsing out the nature of the social contract that brings a group of people around a table to play a game.

 

[Scott Christian]

The OP never mentioned it, but I am going to infer that since they finished half of the adventure, that they players were not murder hobos throughout. Not that I have anything against the murder hobo adventurer, but I do take issue when it's played inconsistently.

Which is why I feel some people find this rude. There are few things worse than a player that doesn't play their character consistently. But instead, they use it as a conduit to ignite whatever whim of emotion they have in RL. They may think: This is fun, I'll save the village. This is fun, I'll help these druids protect the forest. Then think: This is not fun. I'll just kill the villagers. This is not fun, I'll burn the whole forest down.

I think some (myself included) feel that this is what the OP was alluding to.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I'm a lawyer in life and I actually like rules lawyering, because I'm wired that way. I also work, specifically, in legal technology and so that even further wires me to like assumptions challenged, agreements explicit, and terms well defined. But even my eyes glazed over with that level of parsing out the nature of the social contract that brings a group of people around a table to play a game.

Agreed. Non-explicit agreements are not agreements. They're assumptions. Social contracts are contracts I didn't sign. I am, therefore, not beholden to them.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The OP never mentioned it, but I am going to infer that since they finished half of the adventure, that they players were not murder hobos throughout. Not that I have anything against the murder hobo adventurer, but I do take issue when it's played inconsistently.

Which is why I feel some people find this rude. There are few things worse than a player that doesn't play their character consistently. But instead, they use it as a conduit to ignite whatever whim of emotion they have in RL. They may think: This is fun, I'll save the village. This is fun, I'll help these druids protect the forest. Then think: This is not fun. I'll just kill the villagers. This is not fun, I'll burn the whole forest down.

I think some (myself included) feel that this is what the OP was alluding to.

Which is why CN is the best alignment. Pure excitement and mayhem. Climb the ladder of Chaos.

 

[dave2008]

I'm a lawyer in life and I actually like rules lawyering, because I'm wired that way. I also work, specifically, in legal technology and so that even further wires me to like assumptions challenged, agreements explicit, and terms well defined. But even my eyes glazed over with that level of parsing out the nature of the social contract that brings a group of people around a table to play a game.

As I explained, it is not something we (the collective we, i.e. everyone) do at the table; however, all I was trying to suggest is that more information is needed to accurately answer the OP. I gave multiple examples of possible questions hoping one or two would ring true to the person I was responding to. It was not intended as a formal inquiry.

Now, personally I don't like rules lawyering in RPGs, because my general philosophy is there are no rules, just advice and guidelines.

 

[MNblockhead]

Agreed. Non-explicit agreements are not agreements. They're assumptions. Social contracts are contracts I didn't sign. I am, therefore, not beholden to them.

Well, not exactly true. Most of our life is governed by etiquette, social norms, implicit expectations, assumptions, and stereotypes. If you live life as if you are not beholden to them, life will be more challenging.

I gathered together my existing group of players by posting to a meetup group a synopsis of the type of game I'm going to run, the kinds of players I was looking for, and some basic table expectations. Most of this was to avoid honest misunderstandings or disappointment over what I felt would be the most common areas where different players may have conflicting expectations. But that still left a vast number of assumptions and expectations unwritten and not discussed. In the rare instances where that led to interpersonal issues or gaming disappointment, course corrections were made with discussion and agreement.

So, if you were in my game and your actions were causing issues for me or other players, I'd discuss it with you. You can say that you are not beholden to them and I can say that you can find another game to play in. I suppose you may argue that by having that discussion I've just made an explicit offer that you can choose to agree with or not. But, in any event, a social contract is not one that you sign. Social contracts are, by definition, implicit.

 

[MNblockhead]

As I explained, it is not something we (the collective we, i.e. everyone) do at the table; however, all I was trying to suggest is that more information is needed to accurately answer the OP. I gave multiple examples of possible questions hoping one or two would ring true to the person I was responding to. It was not intended as a formal inquiry.

Now, personally I don't like rules lawyering in RPGs, because my general philosophy is there are no rules, just advice and guidelines.

Fair enough.

As for rules lawyering, I'm a big fan if you have the right group of players. Maybe I'm unusual in that I DM for players who are far more experienced than I am. I went a long time (from 1991 until 2014/5) without playing TTRPGs. Also, work and family life keeps me to playing one Saturday a month. But that Saturday game is about 8 hours long, sometimes longer other than nature breaks and a short lunch break, pretty much all gaming. Early on, I heavily relied on, and to some extent continue to rely on players to help with the rules. Further, except where I explicitly introduce a home rule, I try to play RAW and let the dice fall where they may. The rules are the structure that makes it a game for me as well. Maybe it is more of an old school approach, but I'm not just leading the players through an interactive novel. I like not knowing where the game will go.

For me that means rolling in the open and letting players challenge my rulings. Ultimately, I'm the judge. Players can make their case but a decision must be made so we can move on. I may revisit and we can discuss more by e-mail between games, but we almost never ret con.

 

[Mort]

Fair enough.

As for rules lawyering, I'm a big fan if you have the right group of players. Maybe I'm unusual in that I DM for players who are far more experienced than I am. I went a long time (from 1991 until 2014/5) without playing TTRPGs. Also, work and family life keeps me to playing one Saturday a month. But that Saturday game is about 8 hours long, sometimes longer other than nature breaks and a short lunch break, pretty much all gaming. Early on, I heavily relied on, and to some extent continue to rely on players to help with the rules. Further, except where I explicitly introduce a home rule, I try to play RAW and let the dice fall where they may. The rules are the structure that makes it a game for me as well. Maybe it is more of an old school approach, but I'm not just leading the players through an interactive novel. I like not knowing where the game will go.

For me that means rolling in the open and letting players challenge my rulings. Ultimately, I'm the judge. Players can make their case but a decision must be made so we can move on. I may revisit and we can discuss more by e-mail between games, but we almost never ret con.

My philosophy is similar though rules lawyering at the game table is one of my biggest pet peeves. If I make a ruling, you can tell me I'm wrong with a brief explanation, I'll then decide and move on. If you keep pushing from there, then we have a problem - game time and flow are much more important than the minutia of a rule. Now if you really want to discuss it, I will gladly do so after the game or over email (in every possible detail, I love rules discussions - just not at the table)