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

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

Sure, take the quote of me that isn’t even an example of what you’re complaining about in this thread and I’ll drop it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Yep. I’d leave any table where the DM had the attitude being displayed in the OP and by many replies. The whole attitude of “the DM sets down a campaign brief and if a player doesn’t like or isn’t interested in some part of it, there is no compromise or room for modification, that player should just leave” is BS. Sounds like a terrible game, regardless of the specific campaign premises.
I wouldn’t even want that DM at my table when I run a game.

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.

That isn’t what was being referenced in the post of mine you quoted in the OP. I’m responding to the OP.

pay the DM 200$ for wasting his time.

Gross.

 

[Blue]

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

Consider these:

• The only game in town, with players and a DM you enjoy, is starting a game that really isn't your cup of tea. You get invited. Do you join, or do you not play for a few months/years?
• Several good friends are starting a game and want you in it, but the premise doesn't excite you.
• You're in a regular group and the DM moves away. One person is willing to take up the mantle of DM, but they are proposing Dark Sun, which doesn't allow arcane casters - your favorite and what you're really in the mood to play since you didn't last campaign. They are really psyched about it, it's why they are willing to try DMing. No one else is willing to step up to DM. Do you continue with the group?

 

[MGibster]

The whole attitude of “the DM sets down a campaign brief and if a player doesn’t like or isn’t interested in some part of it, there is no compromise or room for modification, that player should just leave” is BS. Sounds like a terrible game, regardless of the specific campaign premises.

Many, many years ago we got our hands on GURPS Martial Arts and several people in our group were onboard with a campaign heavily influenced by 70s/80s martial arts movies like Enter the Dragon, Bloodsport, The Five Deadly Venoms, American Ninja, etc., etc. We had one person in our group who was adamant that he could be the "gun guy" and the rest of us could act as his support. Nobody else thought that sounded like fun and we couldn't convince him to change his mind so we scrapped the campaign idea and played something else instead. Which was fine, because we never made it past the initial pitch.

The premise of the thread is that the player has already agreed to participate in the campaign within the established parameters but is insisting on a creating a character that does not fit in. The time for negotiating is past.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree that intentionally trying to go against the campaign premise stated by the GM is problem behaviour, but more often than not it is not intentional, it is a failure in communication. Like to me 'religion is important in this campaign' would instantly communicate that playing a heretic or an atheist would be an interesting choice. Same with playing a caster in a campaign where 'magic is rare and mistrusted.' I once played in a game which the GM pitched as a 'fantasy western'. I made a cardshark/swindler wizard with great social skills and trickery based magic, another player made a go-go-dancer/thief and third a grim gunslinger. (Not a D&D based system.) The game was basically about fighting things and my character and the dancer were pretty useless whist the gunslinger was super effective. It was still a fun game, but there certainly had been some failure in communicating the premise with a sufficient clarity.

 

[TheSword]

Yep. I’d leave any table where the DM had the attitude being displayed in the OP and by many replies. The whole attitude of “the DM sets down a campaign brief and if a player doesn’t like or isn’t interested in some part of it, there is no compromise or room for modification, that player should just leave” is BS. Sounds like a terrible game, regardless of the specific campaign premises.
I wouldn’t even want that DM at my table when I run a game.


That isn’t what was being referenced in the post of mine you quoted in the OP. I’m responding to the OP.

Gross.

I don’t think you would be at the same table, because if you were and had expressed dislike of the premise Hussar has already said he would have changed the concept.

 

[TheSword]

Consider these:

• The only game in town, with players and a DM you enjoy, is starting a game that really isn't your cup of tea. You get invited. Do you join, or do you not play for a few months/years?
• Several good friends are starting a game and want you in it, but the premise doesn't excite you.
• You're in a regular group and the DM moves away. One person is willing to take up the mantle of DM, but they are proposing Dark Sun, which doesn't allow arcane casters - your favorite and what you're really in the mood to play since you didn't last campaign. They are really psyched about it, it's why they are willing to try DMing. No one else is willing to step up to DM. Do you continue with the group?

You make a decision - is your desire to play greater than you need to play a wizard. That’s a simple choice you can make. do you except something your 90% happy with or do you accept nothing.

You also need to assess if you are an outlier in the group and how strongly peoples feelings are.

For instance our long term group has a player who is completely opposed to far eastern samurai/ninja/monk style game’s. The naming conventions and tropes destroy the experience for him and make it hard to get in character. He gave it a go one time but won’t again. His determination not to play that campaign is far far greater than everyone else’s minor interest to play in one.

Ultimately everyone has to make compromises. But once they do, they should be held to them, and not sabotage or spoil others fun. In that circumstance I’d be looking to boot the player.

 

[Oofta]

First, not every campaign will work for every player. While the DM should make reasonable allowances, there's no guarantee that you can make everyone happy. For example I appreciated that at the end of one campaign a player bowed out of playing the next one because I have a hard rule against evil PCs and for him that made the game not worth playing. I'm okay with that.

On the other hand I've had players that went out of the way to disrupt and derail the campaign. I still have no idea why. Instead of just asking if he could play a different PC he just started taking suicidal risks (eventually the PC was killed because of it). But even beyond that, any potential plot hook I dangled for his PC he would reject and then literally gloat about it. Players always have the choice of direction, so that's not what bothered me. It was that he assumed I had carefully planned something out (I hadn't and never do) and it made him happy that his PC didn't bite.

If that happened now, I would just have a chat with the player and in all likelihood we'd part ways. It happened eventually anyway because the player wanted a campaign where "the PCs sat around in a tavern and things happened." Still have no clue what that means other than maybe he just wanted to be a dungeon crawling murder hobo. Even though he rejected dungeon crawls when I floated the idea. Suffice to say I wasn't the right DM for him.

Other players wanted the game to revolve around them, and when the spotlight shifted to them they would hog the stage. As in spending several minutes on their combat turn giving grand speeches ... which never involved other PCs or even necessarily the current events. I'm happy when people RP, it's a big part of my game. But this guy was a wannabe thespian with sometimes bizarre tangents like his PC showing up to a costume party showing up to a costume party naked. Just ... odd stuff.

Then there's the guy who just went out of their way to be abrasive because their favorite anime character was a jackass. What they didn't understand is that what works in fiction does not always work at the game table.

So I talk about all in my campaign intro page and in my session 0. That there are events going on in the world, but it will always be up the players whether they do something about it. I'm up front about no evil PCs and that I prefer heroes, not thugs. That this is a cooperative game so don't play an a-hole. I also include a fair amount of background on my campaign world and ideas for the next campaign.

End of the day, there are going to be times when someone is not a good fit for a variety of reasons and that's okay.

 

[Greg K]

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.

Pretty much this. I learned it pretty much in my first five years of gaming D&D while still in high school. Years later, my roommate and his best friend had brought a co-worker into the group while they were running (the co-worker was long time friend of my roommate's best friend). Despite please from my roommate and his best friend (whom I was also friends with) for me to resume a campaign, I refused due to their insistence that I include there co-worker who was disruptive (they didn't want to cause issues with him at work).
Six months later, the co-worker, bored of "talky NPC interaction" derailed the campaign that my roommate was running and strained the friendship between my roommate and another long-term player. My roommate, whom had given the co-worker several "second chances" had enough as had his best friend (whom, as a GM had also made allowances for disruptive behavior). Neither was willing to game with the guy any longer, but they enjoyed his company away from gaming and made time to hangout away from the gaming table. They also realized that their time GMing would have been much more enjoyable had they listened to me and dropped the player earlier.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yep. I’d leave any table where the DM had the attitude being displayed in the OP and by many replies. The whole attitude of “the DM sets down a campaign brief and if a player doesn’t like or isn’t interested in some part of it, there is no compromise or room for modification, that player should just leave” is BS. Sounds like a terrible game, regardless of the specific campaign premises.
I wouldn’t even want that DM at my table when I run a game.

Good! If you wouldn't want to be there at the table, then that solves the problem! If you were so offended by the request to make a character with a certain thing highlighted or made important but you deliberately wished to not do that because reasons... then it's just as well that you decided to leave. Saves us the time later on.