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

[billd91]

i've played a lot of games I didn't "buy into" for me it's a social thing I go to play with my friends and sometimes meet new people.

I think a lot of people play in games that they don't buy into because they are friends or it's the only option they have for gaming. I only see it as a problem if the player in question starts to act out because they aren't enjoying themselves. The few times i've had that issue as GM or as player I have a conversation GM to player. I've left a game because that was the best thing for the game and I've asked a Player to either get with the program or not come back. But games are social events that tend to bring friends so that makes it dicey sometimes, a player may not want to tell thier friend the DM they think his story sucks, a DM may not want to tell his friend, wife etc that their roleplaying style is annoying everyone else. In my experience stuff like that is why it happens the most.

I think, ultimately, there's a continuum here.
1) Buying fully into
2) Buying into but not really 'getting' it
3) Not buying into but playing along
4) Not buying into and, in fact, buying against

1 and 3 work just fine. 3 might not get out of it as much as 1 because they're more along for the ride even if they're not an enthusiastic partner in the premise.
2 probably needs correction if it can't be accommodated (it might represent an interesting, if slightly tangential, thing that still works).
It's 4 that's the big problem.

 

[nevin]

When a DM pitches me a game and starts listing restrictions, I have to decide as a player if what the DM seems to be going for sounds fun, or stupid. It's often stupid.

I've played too many games where the DM sets arbitrary restrictions on race, class, or character concepts thinking they are setting up a unique and interesting game, where really they are setting up a standard D&D game with unnecessary restrictions.

The situation in the OP reads that way to me.

"FR is a setting where religion is important, so your character has to follow a deity". Why? The wall? That's stupid. What about the FR setting really supports the idea that faith is an integral aspect of the setting? Nothing.

This morphed into, "I want to run a game focusing on religious characters". Why? Convince me this story really requires everybody to have faith in a different fantasy religion. Why wouldn't a heretic or atheist be an interesting character concept here? Otherwise, it just sounds like more stupid restrictions.

If you came at me with, I want to run a "Catholic horror" style D&D game (like "The Omen") where the PCs are priests fighting the incursions of devils onto the material plane . . . okay, now we have a specific theme that seems like it's going somewhere! But, do I have to play a priest? Or even a religious person for this to work? I just finished the tv show "Evil" where the protagonists all work for the Catholic church debunking demonic possession and prophecy . . . and stumble into real evil . . . and none of them are priests! One is a priest in training who struggles with past substance and sex addiction, another is an atheist psychologist, and the third is a non-practicing Muslim tech guy. There are a lot of priests in the show's supporting cast.

Even really good campaign ideas and themes can be flexible and open to group discussion so that everybody has fun. Doesn't mean that as things develop, certain ideas or concepts can't be nixed. But the DM and the group should be open and flexible for me to want to spend any serious amount of time with them.

D&D has this "tradition" that the DM is the driving artist, God, King, or what-have-you, and gets to lay down the law and call all the shots. Ugh. I got enough of that in middle school, don't need that anymore regardless of which side of the screen I'm on.

no I've read a lot but not all of this thread. It seems the OP has a moral problem with the idea of souls being stuck there and simply removed existence and thinks that any being that would let that happen is evil. Which would assume gods in FR are like our modern concept of gods.
But they aren't and they can't control everything, and bad and neutral gods get to do whatever they can get away with. And just like in real life at that level of religion there's probably not a lot of remorse over a few crazy people who ignored the gods and did what they wanted to do till they died. FR is a setting where religion is important. That doesn't mean you have to play a religious character but I'd warn you in a game I ran in forgotten realms that religions are powerful and a common part of life for most people. If you walk around bashing Lathander for instance, his clerics probably wont retaliate, but the local's might. If you cause problems for an evil or neutral god they or their followers will come after you. Now that being said most people are not heavily "religious" they go to church tithe, get healing occasionally and go about their lives. But I think in a setting like FR an atheist would be rarer than really High level Clerics. The Proof is shoved in your face over and over and not believing in gods really just makes you clinically insane. It's the same as being a flat earth theorist in our modern world. The preponderance of proof has been provided you just chose to not believe it.

But if you want to play that character and deal with the consequences of how people treat you when they find out you don't believe in the Gods who am I to say no. It takes all kinds to have a game. It sounds to me like you just have a problem with authority in General and don't think the DM who is running the game should be able to set boundaries. Your post sound more like I've had bad DM's that gave me limitations I thought were stupid so everyone needs to do it my way or I'm out. Maybe that's not what's your saying but that's what I'm receiving.

If I don't like a DM's game I don't come back, but I don't begrudge him and his players enjoying something that I don't.

 

[Blue]

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.

Since that isn't what was put forth at all, I'm really confused. The players were presented the setting and actively told the DM they were good with it. Then the DM and the players put in a bunch of work based on the setting they all agreed to. Are you complaining that everyone should need to revisit what that did, players and DM, because one player who had agreed to it now has flipped and no longer agrees to it?

 

[Don Durito]

As always, power dynamics require context.

If I'm running a game for strangers on Roll20 then the game I want to run is the game I will run. The premise is the premise, and I see no reason why I would change it. I would work with a player within reasonable bounds of course, but in this kind of context there are always more players, and it's better to be safe than sorry; if a player doesn't look like they'll play along then it's probably safer to draw a hard line and move on.

If I'm GMing for a group I've played with for years, then of course the situation is different.

Similarly, if I'm a player in a group I've been with for years then I would expect more influence on what we play and be more vocal about it. On the other hand, If I'm a player in a group I don't know I would make a character that fits and try to play along and learn what the GMing style is and see how the group dynamics work. Then if I didn't like it I would quietly leave.

The GM role is very different in the two different situations as well. In the first the GM is much more in a position of leadership. They usually get the group together and people will expect them to lead. If two old friends in a group have an issue with each other about something that happened in the game they'll often work it out among themselves. If it's a new group they may well expect the GM to intercede.

The GM role is not a fixed thing and we can't discuss it as if it is and if players could have the same expectations in all situations.
..

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Since that isn't what was put forth at all, I'm really confused. The players were presented the setting and actively told the DM they were good with it. Then the DM and the players put in a bunch of work based on the setting they all agreed to. Are you complaining that everyone should need to revisit what that did, players and DM, because one player who had agreed to it now has flipped and no longer agrees to it?

The OP twisted the original disagreement.

 

[Raunalyn]

I once had a DM who pitched a game for my group. It was a low magic campaign, so the DM requested that we not make characters that could cast at-will type spells (i.e. cantrips). The party was reticent, but because we had all been gaming together for a while, we agreed. A few of us came up with interesting concepts with the knowledge that certain play styles would be accommodated.

We tried it...turned out that it wasn't fun, especially because the DM didn't do anything with some of the interesting concepts some of us came up with; he refused to budge from his vision. Then, the DM went a step further and blamed the players because his campaign just wasn't very interesting. I remember dropping out of the game because I just had no interest in it.

I gave him several chances. Thing is, this didn't just happen once...it happened several times. Each time, I dropped out of the game because I just wasn't interested. And, instead of the DM stepping back and evaluating player feedback, he blamed the players, going so far as to accuse them of things that were just simply untrue (and then acting like a coward and blocking them so that they couldn't defend themselves). Turns out, this was a common failing of this particular DM...my current group, many of who have played together for years with him as both a member and a DM, now refuse to game with him. Again, though...his campaign failings were always the players' fault, not his.

Players have to buy in to the campaign, yes. I agree 100%. But if the DM doesn't deliver, then why would the players continue to want to play? It is also the DM's responsibility to adjust their campaign to accommodate the players' particular play-styles and interests. It is a cooperative story-telling experience, but if the DM pitches an idea, then doesn't use what the players provide to expand the story, campaign, and ideas and instead is rigidly ensconced in his "vision" instead of trying to cooperate with the players, then he needs to stop blaming players and evaluate himself.

 

[Blue]

When a DM pitches me a game and starts listing restrictions, I have to decide as a player if what the DM seems to be going for sounds fun, or stupid. It's often stupid.

I've played too many games where the DM sets arbitrary restrictions on race, class, or character concepts thinking they are setting up a unique and interesting game, where really they are setting up a standard D&D game with unnecessary restrictions.

The situation in the OP reads that way to me.

Okay, since the entire premise of the thread is the player who agreed to what the DM was proposing but didn't actually and caused a problem later on, the rest of what you have to say is only on topic if it continues with "I didn't agree with the DM, lied to him I did, and here's why".

I checked - it wasn't.

I am confused why person after person misses the point of the thread and gets on a high horse about something different.

The thread is on THE PLAYER SAYING THEY LIKED IT, THEN TRYING TO DERAIL IT.

 

[Blue]

The OP twisted the original disagreement.

I have no idea what was going on in the other thread, but this thread is pretty clearly about when a player agrees then goes against it. I don't know what was in that other thread, but that's not the context for this one.

 

[Blue]

no I've read a lot but not all of this thread. It seems the OP has a moral problem with the idea of souls being stuck there and simply removed existence and thinks that any being that would let that happen is evil.

When you said "I've read a lot but not all of the thread", it's reasonable to assume that "a lot" of the thread actually includes the first post.

Here's the thesis question from is:

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?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have no idea what was going on in the other thread, but this thread is pretty clearly about when a player agrees then goes against it. I don't know what was in that other thread, but that's not the context for this one.

Eh, as long as my quote from the other thread is being used as the impetus for this thread, it's relevant.

Further, the OP's scenario is a red herring, IMO. What actually happens is that the DM says something vague like "religion is important" when they mean "all PCs have to be actively religious" and then incorrectly treats them as equivalent statements, and the players don't, leading to players the DM doesn't like, and then the DM gets bent out of shape and either gripes at the players or doesn't want to run the game anymore or whatever.

Which is why I suggest instead getting a group together and presenting them only with the most basic premise you're interested in, and then having a conversation from there. As well, even in the online game-with-strangers community, groups form over time if there is good communication between DM and players. There is no reason that the vast majority of DMs should be playing with strangers indefinitely.

The entire structure of a "DM presents a complete campaign brief and players take it or leave it" is a structure that leads to the kinds of problems described in the OP. Not, mind you, to anything related to what I said in the quoted text, which has nothing to do with what OP describes in their first post, but it does lead to the thing OP is actually apparently talking about.