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

[DEFCON 1]

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."

Some players ought to actually try playing and creating within the confines of a premise because nowadays that's actually more original and innovative than trying to upend it.

 

[jasper]

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.1. One who never listens to the concept/setting (feeling that player agency allows him to do whatever he wants), 2.one who always plays the same type of character (even when inappropriate), and 3.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).

Um UM Do you live where I live? And did we have the same people at our table? You do know Randall ( Player type 1) died last year.

 

[ph0rk]

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?

I'd play in a different game because that sounds like crap to me; and I have a hard time imagining their arc is good enough to merit that restriction. That seems, to me, an utterly unreasonable restriction, and possibly stupid enough of one to disrupt. You'd have 2-3 sessions to win me over, but if that fails, boom. You are forcing values on characters that players (players, not characters) might have an issue with - and that is a course with risk.

But: as noted many pages ago - lots of people find themselves in games because of social ties in much the same reason that one's friendships and other personal relationships are network dependent.

DMs don't get to determine the values and beliefs of player characters by default; you can speak in generalities (this is not an evil campaign), but to demand that all characters are religious believers sounds like powertripping to me.

You aren't talking about limiting mechanics or classes or races, but specific worldviews and beliefs. That arc better be Hugo worthy.

 

[jasper]

....

DMs don't get to determine the values and beliefs of player characters by default; you can speak in generalities (this is not an evil campaign), but to demand that all characters are religious believers sounds like powertripping to me.

The question is AFTER YOU HAVE AGREED TO X during SESSION 0.
You already got on the freaking bus during session 0. If you had problems with his power tripping, why did you show up after session 0? Get off the bus, pay the DM 200$ for wasting his time. And start your own bus.

 

[ph0rk]

The question is AFTER YOU HAVE AGREED TO X during SESSION 0.
You already got on the freaking bus during session 0. If you had problems with his power tripping, why did you show up after session 0? Get off the bus, pay the DM 200$ for wasting his time. And start your own bus.

Because of social networks.

Look, if a player's first reaction at session zero is "that's crap" and it takes an hour to convince them - they've already told you what they think of the restriction.

If it is so easy to replace the player - do it.

However, I'm still in doubt as to whether or not the DM was as clear as they think they were.

And further - telling the players what their characters must believe and value sounds like a pretty bad game to me. I can absolutely see being a player and not having a problem at all if another player was disruptive in such a game.

 

[jasper]

Because of social networks.

Look, if a player's first reaction at session zero is "that's crap" and it takes an hour to convince them - they've already told you what they think of the restriction.

If it is so easy to replace the player - do it.

However, I'm still in doubt as to whether or not the DM was as clear as they think they were.

I have. In fact Hey DMS. Do you have less than 5 years under you belt, or been DM for 10+ years?
You have a problem player you don't mesh with but they are a good joe otherwise? Save the heart ache. Don't DM for them. Have them over for Taco Tuesday and Uno. Remember No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Social networks, social contract, you have let PhOrk play because he part of the club, etc is not a stick for BAD PLAYERS/ Non MESHING PLAYER/ GOOBER/ETC to beat up a DM or force a dm to run their way. THIS is not Burger King. It took me 20 years to learn this. Don't take that long.

 

[ph0rk]

Sure, and this comes down to vetting players. Do oneshots before inviting them to a campaign - talk to them.

However: This whole thread really makes me wonder why, once you have a group of people picked for a long campaign, why would you make players play characters they don't want to play? Even if they play along - how are you figuring out if they are into what you're selling?

Because the bulk of this setup has been: here are the rules, follow them or leave.

Well, they just might.

 

[happyhermit]

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

IME (and to be transparent I should state that most of my "experience" with "problem players" is observation and not in my own games) Someone starting off by wanting to re-skin a whole bunch of things to make a very specific concept is a warning flag. What really matters is what happens if they get any pushback, it shows whether or not they are going to "go with the flow", step aside because they might make the game less fun, etc.

...
The system encourages "Special Snowflakes".

Maybe, to some degree, but it also says it's all up to the GM.

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.

Thing is, I don't need to make a Persuasion check to convice someone to be in my game, because they probably wouldn't be happy in it if they weren't intrigued by the concept. Yes, to be fair I have convinced people to play games in the past, family and friends who are very much not into such things and we often had a great time, it's just I try to keep that to a minimum.

In my initial post I said "call it what you will" because I don't have a better term for it and I know some people take exception (like some people do to any term that has ever existed). Some players will go with the flow or walk away, others need a very particular character to have fun. My preferred type of game can certainly be called a special snowflake, it's a very particular type of experience and not very popular. So I consider myself a special snowflake in terms of preferences, it's just that there are a lot of games outside of my ideal that I can also have fun with.

 

[Blue]

It's funny. But these threads always focs on the importance of clear and explicit communication.

I'm somewhat bemused, because really anyone who posts on internet forums should know how badly explicit communication can fail.

The message you give is not the same as the one received. Twenty years of teaching have taught me explicit communication is only a very small part of what you need to do to set expectations.

If you say "no elves in this campaign" that may be interpreted as "No elves unless I have a really cool concept", or "No elves in the fiction but I can reskin the race as something else", because that is what happened in the past when GMs said similar things. If you say "low fantasy and low magic," that will likely be ignored because it's really not particularly clear and doesn't communicate any real expectations to the players about what they will do. If you say "this is a sandbox game, it's up to you be proactive and drive events - there will be no overarching plot", the players may not see how this is different to other games in the past where the GM has given them a clear direct plot but emphasised that they can always choose not to follow it if they really wish.

A lot of the time we gesture at the thing we want, rather than say it explictly - even when we think we say it explicitly. If you want to run a "highly political urban game involving the machinations of a small city state" you might be imagining bards and rogues and lots of characters with local ties - maybe a Fighter or wizard with an aristocratic background - but from the players perspective you haven't actually told them what you need them to do, so you get Druids and Barbarians and Dwarves from the mountains.

Session 0 can help of course - but that has it's own problems and can be too late if players come already thinking they know what they want to do and feel suddenly deflated.

Edit: Nothing communicates gaming better than gaming. If you have some unusual setting idea often the simplest thing is to make some pregens and run a oneshot. By the end of the session players know what you're trying to do, and they know if it actually interests them. You can then let them make characters and start the game proper (and it's surprising how often players ask to continue with the pre-gens).

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree.

Yes, being clear and explicit isn't perfect. However, it's 90% of the fight - just because sometimes people doesn't listen doesn't mean it carries no value. It works in a majority of times, and when it doesn't it's an already communicated expectation so when they go "I have this cool elf concept" you can point back that it really means no elves.

Clear and explicit communication is your very first line of making your players understand, and it's an effective one -- effective doesn't require 100% to be not useless. That there may need to be other lines for some players doesn't make it unneeded or a poor choice.

 

[Blue]

Somebody forgot to tell Bilbo's player that Hobbits don't like adventures.

What, they devoted more than one session to getting Bilbo to adventure. Seems like he was playing reluctant adventurer to the hilt.