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

[happyhermit]

Just as someone asking to reskin Firebolt to cold damage, (because they want to play an Ice Wizard), is a warning sign to you of a "Problem Player"...your post is a warning sign to me of an "Eeyore Player". Just reading your post sucked me of vim and creative vigor. Being told to "play the game my way" is often times, just not fun, for someone else.

Sooo, I say: "Needing to re-skin a whole lot of stuff, ..." within a certain context, and you say that it means the same thing as "someone asking to reskin Firebolt to cold damage, ...". It doesn't, that should be absolutely clear with a cursory reading, one thing is not a whole lot of stuff.

As for me being an "Eeyore player", maybe I guess. I certainly have a hell of a lot of fun with ttrpgs, but to be honest I have a lot of fun with most activities I engage in, and I laugh more than just about anyone I know, so it isn't saying much really. I don't have a lot of things that can "suck the vim and vigour" from me with regards to ttrpgs though, so I don't really have that problem (there are a few but they are mostly unrelated to this topic). Certainly there are a lot of campaigns/GMs/Systems I have ABSOLUTELY no desire to play in right now, but it doesn't cause me any issues, I just don't play in them and everyone is happy. I don't agree to join them, then try to turn them into the kind of game I actually want to play.

FWIW though, most people who have played in games I have run would find it hilarious to have someone put "play the game my way" into my mouth. My preferred style of game lets the characters do whatever they want to an apparently (looking at other games) extreme degree, and there is no such thing as "a plot" that the GM has prepared. But that's in-play, anything prior ie; group/gm world building can have any restrictions, mostly because anyone can simply opt out and make room for somebody else who is more interested in "buying in" and respecting the magic circle.

 

[Don Durito]

Since nobody's biting, I'll say it less sarcastically.

I feel that the argument put forward in the OP is only a problem with games where meta-level narrative control is entirely vested in the position of GM. It creates an adversarial structure between the GM and the players, which exacerbates any creative differences between them that may exist, causing alienation from the creative flow, which spawns all the oft-repeated complaints about control freak GMs and unattentive players.

Games which grant meta-level narrative control tools and mechanics to the players don't seem to have as much of an issue with this, as they generally encourage a more engaged and collaborative mindset and structure within the play group. Buy-in and cooperation is obtained through narrative collaboration, buy letting the players have a hand on the wheel. This is something that D&D's design could stand to learn from, especially as the big streaming push is influencing the general play culture towards a storygame-lite direction.

Or if you prefer a harsher delivery:

As a GM I find most players most of the time don't want this. There's really not that many that are up for actually collaborating in the game space.

As a player I was into the idea of it for quite a while, but having finally got a chance to try it I found it rather dull in practice.

In any case, the players who've brought the most disruptive characters to the table have not generally been frustrated storygamers. They've been players who want impossible things. They want to be fully immersed in the character in the moment with no level of ironic or dramatic distance or author stance AND they want the game to play out exactly in line with their personal fantastic wish fulfillment.

 

[Guest User]

"play the game my way" into my mouth

That line in my post was not meant for you specifically, which was unclear.
I will also state, I personally adore Eeyore; my post was a bit tongue in check, as I found your initial post dour in tone.

You have my sincere apologies, if you were insulted.

My point of actual disagreement is labeling someone that wants to re-fluff existing mechanics as a "problem player".

The whole intent of the Artificer's spell casting focus being Tools, was so the player can describe, differently, how a spell is cast and cosmetically how the spell takes effect.
Are all Artificer players "special snowflakes" (as I believe was being bandied about before)?

Cosmetic changes to spells or class ability is like cosmetic changes to the fenders of your car. Fenders are not structural components. A Magic Missile spell that looks like giant Wasps flying like unerring darts..makes not one whit of mechanical difference.

Swapping Energy types out on a spell can make an impact, but overall such swaps, are mostly an equal trade.

The books openly state that re-skinning the weapons in the game is expected.
The 5e system, in multiple books, states one can, and in some cases, should change the fluff to meet one's needs.

The system encourages "Special Snowflakes".

I am also going to state, anyone who uses the term "Special Snowflakes" seriously ...has Disadvantage on CHA checks with me. Give me a break people....we are amateur RPG referees....write a story if you want to control everything.
The people that use the term "Special Snowflakes" in a pejorative fashion, are the biggest flakes of "special", of them all.

 

[ccs]

The only reason I can think of for me to be playing in a game I'm not bought in to would be if I'm doing so in order to try out the system

 

[TheSword]

If you have a GM willing to put a lot of time and effort into creating and bringing to life a campaign, then you should try and accommodate their vision within your character concept. A lot of campaigns have themes... certainly published ones do. If the pitch of that is accepted then the players should absolutely try and create a character concept that complements that theme.

I’m all for unique and interesting characters. However, while Geralt of Rivia may be unique, and Witcher’s rare, he absolutely complements the monster hunting, witch burning, superstitious themes of that setting. They aren’t making themselves incompatible with the campaign.

I once ran a Skull and Shackles campaign, a gritty, subtropical pirate campaign with a large amount of time on board ship. One player (relatively new) said be wanted to play a ranger with a wolf companion. I nixed the idea and asked him to pick a setting appropriate creature. I was later glad I did because he planned on riding a wolf when he was high enough level. (Pathfinder rules) A giant wolf riding fighter was not in keeping with the themes of the campaign. He was being influenced by a sci-fi/manga version of pirates - which while making sense to him - would have really got on my wick.

The lessons I learnt from this is - what you think is clear may not be clear to everyone else, particularly if you have different sources of inspiration.

You should never be afraid at the start to nix something you’re not comfortable with. These things grow, they don’t recede as you might hope. It will all work our in the wash is wishful thinking at best. It’s much harder to correct problems at level 7 when the player is invested which can either result in losing a player or the campaign ending.

To the original example, if the GM expects the gods to take an active hand in the world and the players to take an active hand in the gods affairs, and the wall of the faithless exists in that world then the players should get on board with that idea. The concept is not that atheists shouldn’t exist in the FR - they clearly should. However a player creating an atheist character in that game should be prepared for and embrace the censure of the gods and the concept of the wall of the Faithless... they shouldn’t trash the idea, claim to be picked on, say it’s a crappy concept that undermines their character atheism etc etc etc.

If a player creates a witch in WFRP and starts lobbing hexes at watchmen in the street they shouldn’t complain that Witch hunters are picking on them, or that corruption rolls are spoiling the fun of witches.

In a samurai campaign, a low status follower could make a fascinating character in contrast to the rest of the samurai party. Able to do things the samurai players couldn’t. However they shouldn’t complain about how the Daimyo doesn’t listen to them or how they are treated with arrogance by other samurai.

I’m a big fan of the Player pitch, where after the DM has pitched the campaign. The players pitch their character concept to be discussed and commented on by the other players and DM. This can avoid conflicts and duplication and make for a more enjoyable/effective party.

In short by all means create a unique, interesting and in some cases contrasting character. However do it in such a way that is plausible and that leaves you enjoying the ramifications of that contrariness not railing against them.

 

[Hussar]

Any one or more of a number of reasons:

--- the other players are your friends outside of game and this is the most reliable place to see them
--- it's the only game going (that you can be a player in rather than a DM)
--- you're hoping to ride it out and that once that premise has run its course the campaign will eventually get to something more interesting
--- the character you've got is just too much fun to abandon
--- your interest in the campaign lies in actively trying to upend, twist, or change the premise
--- the same DM has run good campaigns in the past

Run it as scheduled. The players will either succeed or fail in whatever they're trying; if they succeed the DM might have to adapt.

In your example with the casters in a low-magic game: let 'em run. Unless the party's unusually large, having 3 casters means they've less of a front line, and melee combat - a common enough occurrence - will soon be their nemesis. They'll either learn or they won't...

That's a huge and often-wrong assumption, that there's a) thousands of other games out there and-or b) that said player wants to play with anyone else.

I can fathom it all day long, as if my character idea or concept makes me that player then that player I will be.

Pitch a heroic game where the PCs badn together to defend the world from threats and you could end up with the D&D version of the Avengers, who - even though they were all 'heroes' - fought like cats among themselves. In D&D half of them would have died at the hands of the other half at some point.

That said, a single player usually can't make that much difference. A goodly party can usually either rein in or take out a single evil PC, for example. The DM might have a headache when half or more of the players go rogue in the same direction, as in your three-caster example above, and again my answer is to just let it run, be flexible, and see what happens.

I play online. There are literally thousands of games to choose from. If you don't want to play in mine, it is perfectly fine. The idea that we're held hostage to geography hasn't been true for decades.

And, as far as "let them play casters", well, the point of the game was to play a LOW MAGIC CAMPAIGN. If they didn't want to play that campaign, fine, no problem, just say no thank you. Don't come back to me with casters and the expectation that you can play them when they are specifically told, no, don't play casters. I mean, how hard is that?

 

[Hussar]

So you think a player not understanding what you meant when you were vague is the player's fault?

Because "religion is important" does not preclude nonbeliever characters until you specifically state it does.

Though, really, how hard would it be for the arc to accommodate a nonbeliever character? This is a high fantasy system - the gods can hold a character up by their heels and literally dangle them over a flaming pit and tell the character to believe the hand holding them up exists, right?

They probably can't inspire devotion that way, but what the hell sort of arc requires a table full of characters devoted to a particular god to work?

Player comes to the DM with his unbeliever character. The DM says, no.

Now, what does the player do. You're are presuming that this is the DM not being clear enough. The DM is being absolutely clear - your character in this campaign MUST be religious. End of discussion. Now, what do you do?

 

[Hussar]

You are communicating very poorly.

Religion being important simply does not mean "everyone is positively religious". I can't fathom why you think it does, but it objectively does not.

So, why am I not offering to DM instead of the DM (I'd never go near your actual table)? Why on Earth would I? No DM I have ever met in my life would be unwilling, or even reluctant, to have any of the characters I proposed in the text you dismissively erased from the post you quoted, in a game where religion is important.

And of course, you haven't addressed your rudeness toward me in the OP of this thread, wherein you put me on blast in a cross-thread snipe without my consent, while misrepresenting what I said in the other thread, nor have you even bothered to address multiple challenges to your spurious notion that FR is a world in which most people expect religious devotion to be an important campaign element. IME, and judging by reading any threads I've ever seen about other folks' FR games, the vast majority of FR campaigns only lightly feature religious devotion, if at all.

Umm, rudeness? Dude, I'm even sure what "blast" means in this context, nor "snipe" nor am I misrepresenting anything other than simply giving an example. Again, I was simply using that example as a jumping off point. I'm not trying to "win" a conversation. I already stated in the other thread that you won. You won. You beat me. You have defeated me sir. You win the discussion.

Now, can we move on from the pointless faffing about arguing minutia of an example and actually discuss the issue at hand, which was the question in the title of this thread? Or, would you like me to keep repeating that you won? Does that help? I'd say some pretty interesting discussion about DM and Player responsibilities is coming out here without having to stroke your ego over a rather minor example. But, if it helps, I will repeat it again. You won that argument. You are the winner. Now, can we move on?

 

[Don Durito]

I play online. There are literally thousands of games to choose from. If you don't want to play in mine, it is perfectly fine. The idea that we're held hostage to geography hasn't been true for decades.

And, as far as "let them play casters", well, the point of the game was to play a LOW MAGIC CAMPAIGN. If they didn't want to play that campaign, fine, no problem, just say no thank you. Don't come back to me with casters and the expectation that you can play them when they are specifically told, no, don't play casters. I mean, how hard is that?

Are there? I've only experienced Roll20 but I found that...as a GM I have no problem getting players on Roll20. When I've looked at Roll20 as a player (not too much I admit, I'm not that interested in playing online), I've found it was actually quite hard to find a game.

Certainly I was a bit surprised when I ran a game a while back to find that two of the players were in the US playing a game until 4:00 in the morning their time. Presumably they couldn't find a game at a more convenient time?

If this is common then it's probably part of the issue, people really want to play D&D so perhaps they seize on anything they can.

 

[amethal]

Especially to the point where I'm supposed to either play a thing I don't like, run the game instead, or leave. No. It's a group activity, we are either all onboard or we play something else.

That's how we play as well, which probably explains why I find this kind of discussion so strange.