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

[Shiroiken]

This is why communication is important with session 0. If the DM clearly states concepts of the campaign, and the players agree to it, then the onus is on them to create characters that fit within the setting. If the players don't agree to it, then there's a two options: the DM runs the game they want with fewer (or other) player who do agree, or the DM modifies/discards their campaign concept completely. Players who agree then make incompatible character are a type of problem player, albeit one of the rarer ones.

 

[Hussar]

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

That's because he continues to misrepresent the question. The question is, AFTER the group has agreed to play something, why do players play games they haven't bought into. The group is on board with the DM's concept, or, at least, tell the DM that they are on board with the concept, and then deliberately make characters that don't fit with what the group has agreed to play.

 

[Hussar]

This is why communication is important with session 0. If the DM clearly states concepts of the campaign, and the players agree to it, then the onus is on them to create characters that fit within the setting. If the players don't agree to it, then there's a two options: the DM runs the game they want with fewer (or other) player who do agree, or the DM modifies/discards their campaign concept completely. Players who agree then make incompatible character are a type of problem player, albeit one of the rarer ones.

IME, they are not rare at all. In fact, I find them probably one of the most common of players. The DM pitches a game, the players all say, yup, we're on board, and then go off and make characters which are completely opposite of whatever the DM pitches because they all want to be that "exception" character.

This has been an issue for a long time and something I've run into a LOT of times. Whether it's the caster in a noncaster party or the luddite anti-technology guy in a game about Transhumanism. Or the guy in Scarred Lands that insists that HIS elf has a god, despite the fact that the god of the elves is dead and that's the basic concept of elves in Scarred Lands is that they specifically DON'T have a god. Jeez, that's going back nearly twenty years now. The guy who wants to play a cleric in Dark Sun. The guy who insists on playing the tavern owner that never wants to travel in a hexploration game. On and on and on. I've seen this so many times.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Yeah, one thing that I truly miss about OpenRPG was the online common room that OpenRPG had for recruiting players and finding DM's. It made things so incredibly easy. To be fair, I've almost always been a DM in a group of DM's, so, finding players has never been an issue. I went from walking away from a group in May (or June, I forget which) to having 7 new players the next month (we're currently down to 5 from a high of 9 at one point). I can't imagine it's hard to find a group.

 

[Shiroiken]

IME, they are not rare at all. In fact, I find them probably one of the most common of players. The DM pitches a game, the players all say, yup, we're on board, and then go off and make characters which are completely opposite of whatever the DM pitches because they all want to be that "exception" character.

Honestly, I think you might want to find higher caliber of players; I only game with one group for a reason. I've played a lot of games, with a lot of different problem players, and I now have a group with very few issues. I've only run across a few player that deliberately go against an agreed upon campaign concept, however. One who never listens to the concept/setting (feeling that player agency allows him to do whatever he wants), one who always plays the same type of character (even when inappropriate), and one particular jerk who felt it was his job as a player to ruin the DM's campaign plan (he was a problem player in pretty much every way).

 

[DEFCON 1]

IME, they are not rare at all. In fact, I find them probably one of the most common of players. The DM pitches a game, the players all say, yup, we're on board, and then go off and make characters which are completely opposite of whatever the DM pitches because they all want to be that "exception" character.

This has been an issue for a long time and something I've run into a LOT of times. Whether it's the caster in a noncaster party or the luddite anti-technology guy in a game about Transhumanism. Or the guy in Scarred Lands that insists that HIS elf has a god, despite the fact that the god of the elves is dead and that's the basic concept of elves in Scarred Lands is that they specifically DON'T have a god. Jeez, that's going back nearly twenty years now. The guy who wants to play a cleric in Dark Sun. The guy who insists on playing the tavern owner that never wants to travel in a hexploration game. On and on and on. I've seen this so many times.

I suspect that part of the issue is that a good number of players just really aren't that creative when it comes to creating character backgrounds. They aren't authors or storytellers in their own right, and thus won't think up completely original ways for their PCs to stand out or be different. Instead, all they have is to take what the DM gave them as the campaign premise and then build their character off of that-- oftentimes "playing against type" in order to make their character have a bit of narrative bite in their mind.

It's really no different than the fact we get thousands of character concepts from players that are either just carbon-copies of other actual characters (the Drizzt-clone syndrome), or are the same four or five cliched starting concepts (the orphaned character, the secret heir to the throne that was stolen from the king & queen, etc.) That's oftentimes the best they can come up with to make something supposedly original or "cool".

I wonder in the campaign premise you proposed about the theme being all about religion if the DM almost needs to partially trick their players into playing it by offering up a different big thing as the campaign's "theme" that isn't about religion. That way they all create characters who riff on being the antithesis of the campaign's premise (like many players are conditioned to do because it's the only way they can think of to make their PC stand out)... and then you just have them fill out the "Deity" line low-key like. Then as you play the game the Deity line starts gaining more influence and the fake theme you threw out falls by the wayside.

Of course, I'm sure there will be responses from some folks here about how it's horrible to set up a game under somewhat false pretenses like that... but hey... if you as a player refuse to buy in to my ideas when I want you to, why should I be the one forced to buy into yours?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Other than as a temporary concession to bloody covid for as short a time as possible, I will not play online. It's horrible.

The whole point of playing is to interact with real people (preferably friends) in a real place in real time. To share a beer and a laugh, and see the expressions on each others' faces when someone says or does something ridiculous, and enjoy each others' company. Playing online provides none of that, particularly as for a bunch of reasons (mostly technical) we're audio only, no video.

Which means yes, the people involved in the game need to be geographically close; and yes, within that area there's likely a limited number of games going at any given time.

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?

Even if they all play casters the campaign - as defined by its setting - can still be low magic...and they'll have brought upon themselves the annoyance they feel when they can't find any new spells, can't find anyone to train them into a new level, and can't find the array of magic items a more typical game might provide.

You've warned them it'll be low magic and thus you've done your job; if they go ahead and play casters anyway, on their heads be it when things don't work out for them.

 

[Lanefan]

IME, they are not rare at all. In fact, I find them probably one of the most common of players. The DM pitches a game, the players all say, yup, we're on board, and then go off and make characters which are completely opposite of whatever the DM pitches because they all want to be that "exception" character.

Perhaps because when the DM pitched the concept, they agreed on the (probably unspoken) basis of "Yeah, that's a campaign concept I'd love to play in because it's just ripe for being stood on its ear and I've already got ideas on how."

My take is that it's on the DM to neutrally run whatever setting she was going to run, regardless of what the players bring in as long as those characters fit within the stated rules of the setting.

If something's flat-out banned as a setting element (e.g. no Elves because they don't exist in this setting) then nobody's playing an Elf. But a more open-ended requirement of "religion must be important to your character" leaves the door wide open for a character to whom religion is extremely important in that as a hard-line atheist he's spent his whole life trying to decry and destroy it; and here the DM has only herself to blame for not being clear enough.

This has been an issue for a long time and something I've run into a LOT of times. Whether it's the caster in a noncaster party or the luddite anti-technology guy in a game about Transhumanism. Or the guy in Scarred Lands that insists that HIS elf has a god, despite the fact that the god of the elves is dead and that's the basic concept of elves in Scarred Lands is that they specifically DON'T have a god. Jeez, that's going back nearly twenty years now. The guy who wants to play a cleric in Dark Sun. The guy who insists on playing the tavern owner that never wants to travel in a hexploration game. On and on and on. I've seen this so many times.

One by one:
--- if casters exist in the setting then a PC caster is good to rock.
--- just because a game features lots of tech doesn't mean a luddite can't be played.
--- the Scarred Lands Elf who thinks he has a god* where none exist opens up huge swathes of story room for the DM. Maybe he's cursed. Maybe some other race's deity has tinkered with him. Maybe he's the one foretold to bring the Elven deities back, either as part of this campaign or at some future unplayed time.
--- if Clerics don't exist in Dark Sun then no Cleric for you, my lad. But if Clerics exist in the setting then you should be able to play one.
--- the non-travelling tavern owner can be a PC no problem, but the player will need to roll up another if he wants to be involved in any parts of the game other than downtime.

* - I initially misread what you wrote as "...insists that his Elf is a god..." which opens up all kinds of other cans o' worms...

 

[Laurefindel]

Ok, bit of context here. In another thread: Anyone here met any cataclysm wall of the faithless defenders I posted this:



to which I got this reply:



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? To me, this is one of the most frustrating parts of being a DM. You pitch a concept, the concept gets okay'd by the group who agrees to play in the campaign, you do the work preparing and whatnot, and then you have a player or players who insist on doing the exact opposite thing.

One example from a few years ago, I pitched a low magic campaign where none of the PC's were casters. The first three character concepts to cross my desk were all full casters. "Oh, I'm the exception!" was the refrain.

My point is, if you agreed to play the game that the group agreed to play, isn't there some onus on the player to get with the program and not deliberately set out to sabotage the game? Am I totally wrong here? What should the DM do in these cases?

As an aside, on a purely personal note, if a player came to me, and actually was up front enough to say, "Yeah, sorry, no thanks", I'd probably change my campaign to accomodate that player, since any player like that has my complete respect. But, players who aren't bought in, or are at best only tenuously bought into a game, but, continue to show up, and do nothing but try to short circuit the campaign are, IMO, some of the worst players to deal with. If you don't want to play in the campaign, that's fantastic. I have no problems with that. There are thousands of other games out there, and, well, maybe next time around.

I just cannot fathom a player who would deliberately go into a campaign, knowingly playing a character that is 100% opposite to what the group agrees to play. It's the tavern owner PC in the travel campaign. Or the evil character in the heroic group. I don't really see the difference.

Sometimes I do get involved in a game that isn't my favourite cup of tea. Usually because I get caught in the enthusiasm of the DM then realize it doesn't play out the way I thought. Sometimes to get along with the group with whom I play. Sometimes because the DM wants to try something that I end up not liking.

Most of the time however, being with my friends is enough for me to play along, especially if others visibly enjoy the game. That's being a good sport.

I don't try to sabotage the game however. That's being a jerk.

Don't be a jerk is the only "hard" rule we play by.

 

[jasper]

..... Why play in a game that you don't want to play in?

Because the DM is my play thing. With out me, They just sit in their room and pretend to play D&D.