D&D 5E As a Player, why do you play in games you haven't bought into?

[Vael]

Specifically about the Forgotten Realms and the "Wall of the Faithless" ... honestly, I hate it, and ignore it when at all possible. I only adventure in the realms because 90% of material just punts you into FR, it's the default setting. So having the Wall be part of the lore feels like a bait and switch, FR, to me, is a generic DnDish setting, and a cursory glance does not tell you about the Wall, it's a piece of lore I only know about because of forums like this. To my knowledge, none of the people I actually play DnD with even know the Wall is a thing.

-----------

I was once asked to play in a "low magic" campaign ... well, not exactly low magic, more a "world that fears and oppresses magic users". What did I roll up? A Wizard. But I did play within the confines of how do I study wizardry in a world that would oppose that? Obviously, I made my PC a criminal. They learned magic from underground, ie, criminal organizations. My spellbook is encoded to look like a bad journal, spells are written up to resemble recipes and bad poems.

My very first DnD campaign ever, back in 3.5, we had a session 0, where the DM wanted to do an Arrakis style desert world, and was very human-centric, non-humans are an oppressed minority, and we were starting in a military camp as fresh recruits. Then, during session zero, one player joked we should all role up Elven women, and that's what we did, a squad of elven women.

See, here's the thing that I've noticed, DMs put things into the world that players are supposed to interact with. A treasure chest is there for the players to try open it. So any facet of the setting is almost made to be messed with.

So, if I were to play in an FR campaign that put that darn Wall of the Faithless front and center? I'd probably roll up a Great Old One Warlock who's anti-religion and made their pact purely in the hopes of destroying that Wall and freeing those souls.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

???
Isn't that the topic of the thread - that there will often be players who will agree to the play the game knowing the DM's description and guidelines but still pitch their character contrary to it?

I’m replying to his use of my words to make that point, when my quoted statements are being given in a misleading context.

 

[happyhermit]

Call them what you will; special snowflakes, contrarians, boundary pushers. IME there are certain behaviours like these that are giant flashing warning beacons that a player is going to have a high likelihood of sapping the fun out of a group game.

Common signs include; Agreeing to something, but then quickly trying to subvert the agreement one way or another. Only playing specific races or types of races (almost always exotic ones), or even better specific race/class combinations. Needing to re-skin a whole lot of stuff, to make this "awesome" concept, rather than playing what is actually in the game. Etc.

The majority of "problem players" I have seen (more outside of my games than in) have done things like this. I have had a great time playing with people who have a specific concept or idea they really want to play BUT, IME the test is what happens after. If the GM or the group indicates that it doesn't fit and the player keeps pushing, tries to change the initial premise, or finds some way to subvert the premise then it is a HUGE red flag. It shows the player doesn't really respect the agreement (and even to some degree the magic circle) because they either; believe they know better than the Gm/group what will make the game fun, or are willing to put their fun ahead of the others, or (and IME this seems common) they lack the self-control/awareness to stop themselves from breaking the premise.

I still play with/run games for people like this on occasion, but it's just more work and less fun than playing with people who don't have these hangups. More like having fun at one of those family/business things where half the people I don't really want to spend time with, but they aren't bad people so everyone tries to make the best of it and hope it's not terrible.

 

[MNblockhead]

Funny thing is that I've never had this issue playing as an adult in real life. I make a pitch, usually several pitches, and we discuss it.

The only time I get any grief over campaign-related restrictions is when I mention them in forums. Not allowing dragonborn or tieflings in my campaign apparently makes me an awful DM whose table would be shunned by a large number of EN Worlder's.

In real-life, however, I think people are less steadfast in these attitudes. Or at least the vociferous denouncers in public discussion boards are a small vocal minority who don't reflect the majority of players.

If there are issues in real life, it is almost always a communication issue. If there is good communication before the campaign starts and the DM regularly touches base with the players, than any players refusing to except the premises of the campaign has more bigger issues than poor gaming etiquette.

 

[Umbran]

If the players have agreed to play a game where faith matters (which very much doesn’t describe all FR games), there’s no need to browbeat them into it.

And, moreover, if you are playing a game where faith matters, the question of "What if I don't have faith?" would seem to matter... a lot, actually. In a world where how much money you have matters... when you are dead broke, that's pretty serious, right? And an issue worthy of exploration.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And, moreover, if you are playing a game where faith matters, the question of "What if I don't have faith?" would seem to matter... a lot, actually. In a world where how much money you have matters... when you are dead broke, that's pretty serious, right? And an issue worthy of exploration.

Yep. The last thing such a character would be is a stubborn refusal to play the game they agreed to play.

And of course, that wasn’t even what my quoted response in the OP was responding to.

The flipside of this question is, if you’ve got players that don’t see any appeal in a world where they have to worship the gods or face terrible punishment, why are you so dedicated to that idea that you like the idea of a hamfisted “clue bat” to force them into playing what you want?

A campaign should be something everyone at the table wants to play and is engaged with. That goes both ways.

 

[jasper]

Which brings me around to the basic question: If you, the player, isn't engaged by the premise of the campaign, why are you still playing in that campaign?
0. I answers with these answers three. Of the Answers there shall be three. Four shall not preceded by three.
1. Because you have a friend in me.
2. Because I want to help you to learn to dm.
3. Because if either playing in your sucky game or not play at all. AKA D&D Addict reason. Which is why I occasionally say no gaming is better than bad gaming.
4. There is no four. See 0-.

 

[BookTenTiger]

As a teacher, I am always thinking about this question from a teacher - student perspective.

Is it my responsibility as a DM to respond to the needs of my players, or is it the player's responsibility to meet the expectations of the DM?

Of course, it's a little bit of each.

I find that the best campaigns come about when the DM is really excited by an idea ("I've always wanted to run a Curse of Strand game!"). However, it's also very natural for players to want to play against type. It's fun to go against the norm. So the best solution, in my experience, is when a DM starts with a premise, the players figure out their characters, and then the DM adapts the story to match the narrative needs of those characters - even when it doesn't match the original vision for the campaign.

For example:

DM: I am so excited to run Curse of Strand! I've been reading Gothic literature, watching vampire movies...

Player1: I rolled up a classic Van Helsing vampire hunter.

Player2: I'm a light cleric who doubts his faith.

Player3: I've always wanted to play someone from the distant future who gets trapped back in time and all his "spells" are future technology.

DM: ...okay...

Now in this situation, it would be okay to say No! The 3rd player's character doesn't match the campaign setting.

I would argue, though, that a better game is created when the DM adjusts and creates narrative opportunities for that player.

DM: Let's say the mists of Ravenloft sometimes create portals in time, and your character got pulled through. To make things easier though, let's say you've been here a year, learned Common, and made friends with another character.

(DM starts figuring out which NPCs in Barovia are also from the future)...

 

[Blue]

This to me is completely avoided by Session 0. This is where we both go through the setting, and also come up with character concepts as a group. It's something I do anyway, never realized that players would green light a setting but not want to adhere to it.

 

[ph0rk]

As a teacher, I am always thinking about this question from a teacher - student perspective.

Yep - this is a good way to think about it. The DM needs to provide a syllabus of sorts that explains the setting, broad themes they plan on (subject to change) and outlines things that flat-out won't work (evil characters, the faithless, whatever). I'd suggest making it a document and passing it out, so the DM and players can refer back to it later (hey, that is like a syllabus! Only you can drop rocks on players that don't read it).

If the DM cannot be this explicit about these things beforehand, the fault is partially theirs.