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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

People are trying to have a reasonable discussion, but the premise is unreasonable. It is an incredible premise, and it is presented poorly, with an inciting example that doesn't even fit the already flawed premise.

However, there is a discussion to be had that is related to the premise, and deals with things that actually happen.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

4) Not buying into and, in fact, buying against

Now this, I have seen. It's just the same behavior as the player who always makes PCs that don't trust anyone and cause disruption because of it, PCs that have no reason to cooperate with the group, etc.

Some players want the experience of playing a character who is adversarial to the rest of the group, but has to be part of the group anyway, and often this is in order to let the character have a character arc that brings them into the group fully in the end, but other times no real thinking ahead has occured and it's just that this is the type of character they like in fiction. Their favorite X-Men character is whichever one was always on the verge of leaving the team when they were reading X-Men comics.

What unfortunately often happens because of these players, is that DMs knee-jerk against any character that subverts any trope or premise, because they assume that they will just be that player/character. Which is sad, because often the most interesting character a player could play is the one Eastern Orthodox Knight in Divine Musketeers game, or the Varangian Guard assigned by the Emperor to accompany and aid the Templars, or the Moorish Alchemist entangled in the plot against her will who must help the Divine Musketeers or else perish. These sorts of characters require mature players, but so does a game wherein faith is genuinely important and will be explored as a major campaign theme.

 

[Don Durito]

I'll say it again. The best way to communicate what you actually want to do is to run a one-shot with pre-gens. For one, this forces you to actually be clear to yourself about what you want to do and to make the kind of characters you would like to see. It also establishes things that rarely get established before the game otherwise, such as issues of tone, which don't get communicated by lists of what's available to play, and are far more important in ensuring the game you end up with bears at least some resemblance to what you wanted. (It also answers some of the bizarre questions players might ask such as "will this be a rp heavy campagin?") It communicates to your players the unusual things about your setting or premise that they actually need to know, which in my experience are otherwise rarely communicated clearly. Showing is much more powerful than telling.

Otherwise players will end up creating characters for the last game they played, or for a critical role campaign run by Matt Mercer or something like that.

 

[ccs]

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?

Why? None of those apply.

*Only game in town & it's not my cup-o-tea? What an absurd hypothetical. But no, I'd rather not play in a game I won't enjoy. And I've got plenty of ways to fill that time while I wait for it to cycle around to something I do like. Wich it will.

*Friends + premise I'm not excited by? (shrugs) I have that going on right now. A friends trying to recruit me into a Cthulu based PF1 game (Strange Eaons AP). Cthulu's not really my thing. They know this. Right now, for the next several weeks, I'm busy on the evening their playing & they know this as well. But once my schedule clears I'm likely going to pass. They know this too. There'll be games in the future.

*That's not how I decide what characters to play, so an even more absurd hypothetical than the 1st...
Not all characters/concepts fit all games. So if I've got an idea that doesn't fit? Then I'll just save it for a game where it will. There's plenty of other options I enjoy & there'll be games in the future. So it doesn't hurt anything to put the idea on the back burner for now.
On the assumption I was bought into playing in this DS game? Then I'd create a character that A) fits within the parameters I'd bought into & B) fits the more specific region/city/adventure/party details.
If I'm not bought into this DS game it does not follow that I'm not continuing on with this group. I play these (and other) games with friends. We'll still be friends & still be playing games together wether or not I'm trekking across Athis or playing Strange Aeons with them.... And eventually the game will cycle to something I like or it'll cycle to my turn to DM.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I just will not that relatively authoritarian GM assumptions are far from limited to D&D. In fact, unless you are counting metacurrency as eroding that top-down (which I guess you could, but in most cases it only does it a minor way) I'd say its still more common than not even if you entirely exclude the D&D-sphere.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

If you're assuming online play is an acceptable substitute for face to face play for even a simple majority of players, I think you've made a categorical error.

 

[TheSword]

Now this, I have seen. It's just the same behavior as the player who always makes PCs that don't trust anyone and cause disruption because of it, PCs that have no reason to cooperate with the group, etc.

Some players want the experience of playing a character who is adversarial to the rest of the group, but has to be part of the group anyway, and often this is in order to let the character have a character arc that brings them into the group fully in the end, but other times no real thinking ahead has occured and it's just that this is the type of character they like in fiction. Their favorite X-Men character is whichever one was always on the verge of leaving the team when they were reading X-Men comics.

What unfortunately often happens because of these players, is that DMs knee-jerk against any character that subverts any trope or premise, because they assume that they will just be that player/character. Which is sad, because often the most interesting character a player could play is the one Eastern Orthodox Knight in Divine Musketeers game, or the Varangian Guard assigned by the Emperor to accompany and aid the Templars, or the Moorish Alchemist entangled in the plot against her will who must help the Divine Musketeers or else perish. These sorts of characters require mature players, but so does a game wherein faith is genuinely important and will be explored as a major campaign theme.

A moorish alchemist in a medieval Europe game isn’t incompatible with the setting though.

A high elf gloomwarden might be though. When the player complains that they want to play a high elf but the DMs say high elves don’t exist in his medieval Europe setting. So the player designs a character as close to a high elf as they can be and then refer to their elvishness while complaining vocally that their high elvishness isn’t supported by elven language, items, spells etc.

 

[TheSword]

If you're assuming online play is an acceptable substitute for face to face play for even a simple majority of players, I think you've made a categorical error.

Online play is awesome - it has several advantages over F2F. After playing F2F for 25 years I will now always keep at least one online game running. It is frankly awesome if you have even a basic level of computer skills and has been the only way most people can play with anyone other than their immediate household for the last six months.

 

[Don Durito]

GM: No Xs in this campaign.

One week later

GM: So what's everyone playing?
Player: I have an X.

I thnk that in this most basic of situations the player is a dick. Assuming there is no miscommunication the player is a dick. There's not really anything more to be said about that. So of course the thread becomes about miscommunication, because that is something that we can talk about.

 

[TheSword]

Now this, I have seen. It's just the same behavior as the player who always makes PCs that don't trust anyone and cause disruption because of it, PCs that have no reason to cooperate with the group, etc.

Some players want the experience of playing a character who is adversarial to the rest of the group, but has to be part of the group anyway, and often this is in order to let the character have a character arc that brings them into the group fully in the end, but other times no real thinking ahead has occured and it's just that this is the type of character they like in fiction.

I have little or no patience for players who are looking for this kind of game. Go and play W40K if you want an adversarial experience with the other players.

I have 3 golden rules for player character generation.

• Pick a character that has a reason to adventure
• Pick a character that has a reason to work with the party
• Pick a character that doesn’t try to overshadow the other players.