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

[Dausuul]

I recently had the opposite, one of the players in our group stated a new campaign to give the previous long term DM a rest .
He refused to tell us anything about the campaign on the grounds that making characters to fit the setting was cheating.

I still don't really understand that one.

YES. What is with this? I recently joined a campaign where the DM told us not to talk to each other beforehand about our characters, and avoided answering when I asked what kind of campaign I should build a character for (heroes saving the world, hard-bitten mercenaries, etc.).

It's like... dude, I'm actively trying to make a character who will be on board with your plot and fit in with the other PCs. Throw me a frickin' bone.

(I made a Light cleric with a "wandering the earth" backstory, which I figured was safe. If you have to make a character with zero information about the campaign or the party, you can't go wrong with a traveling cleric. But it sure would have been nice to have a little guidance.)

 

[ph0rk]

Wait... why are you forcing a choice between 100% self design with no steer on character type against premade character. That’s a very odd choice to force.

There’s nothing wrong with saying please make characters that are loyal to the Emperor - as you’ll be his servants.

No worse than saying we only play with good characters.

In our Way of the Wicked campaign we stated characters had to be LE or NE and must have a reason and be willing to overthrow the country and do evil things.

In our Curse of Strahd campaign we asked players to come with a character capable of being terrified.

Premade or 100% self determined is a false binary.

Nothing wrong if you (1) fully communicate (which still doesn’t appear to be the case in the prime example) and (2) have genuine player buy in. I’m sure a DM can steamroll their way to what feel like buy-in, especially if they don’t communicate well. That’s on them in those cases, at least partially.

Games aren’t books, it isn’t as simple as putting it down when a player doesn’t like the story - they are social. Thus, acting in ways the DM sees as disruptive.

 

[TheSword]

I mean they are crew on a slave ship. Not cargo.

Fair, but dictating character values seems like a bad idea for a group of total strangers.

There is a big difference between saying players need to create characters willing to be pirates, and saying they need to create characters willing to be slavers. I hope you can see that the latter would require a much higher level of consideration. In my example the characters, seize the ship, free the others and proceed to get the revenge make their fortune. Sounds good to me.

 

[Hussar]

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?

I would have SO much more respect for the player who was forthright and honest and told me that he or she would rather sit out than play this game, rather than a player who was lukewarm to the concept but is only playing because it's "the only game in town". No thanks. I don't need players like that. IME, those players are just huge drains on the campaign and make running the game a chore rather than a joy.

 

[ph0rk]

There is a big difference between saying players need to create characters willing to be pirates, and saying they need to create characters willing to be slavers. I hope you can see that the latter would require a much higher level of consideration. In my example the characters, seize the ship, free the others and proceed to get the revenge make their fortune. Sounds good to me.

I am saying that requiring characters to be true believers in a religion is closer to the latter than the former.

 

[TheSword]

Nothing wrong if you (1) fully communicate (which still doesn’t appear to be the case in the prime example) and (2) have genuine player buy in. I’m sure a DM can steamroll their way to what feel like buy-in, especially if they don’t communicate well. That’s on them in those cases, at least partially.

Games aren’t books, it isn’t as simple as putting it down when a player doesn’t like the story - they are social. Thus, acting in ways the DM sees as disruptive.

If players are faking buy in to play in a game because they can’t get another gig... thats on them. Assuming the players are adults, and not being forced in some bizarre way

 

[TheSword]

I am saying that requiring characters to be true believers in a religion is closer to the latter than the former.

Seriously?... Following the forgotten realms gods... that take an active hand in the world and are even seen hanging around the local temple... is like being asked to act as slavers?

I think there are some ideological issues coming out here that don’t relate to playing in a pantheistic fantasy world.

 

[Lanefan]

If you want to, say, run a piracy game where the ship the players are on is essentially a slave ship - players would be right to bristle.

Thanks for making my point for me. A player who bristles at playing a character on a slave ship (or at playing a slave-trader of any kind) isn't divorcing real-life feelings and beliefs from their characters' feelings and beliefs.

Characters do and think all kinds of things in the course of adventuring that we-as-players would (I hope!) never dream of doing or thinking in the real world - take the old trope of looting a crypt as an obvious example.

Maybe the player is a person who recently left the LDS church or similar, and doesn't want to play a theistic character a that moment?

Then maybe this all-religious game isn't a good fit at the moment.

Far better to have a handful of broad themes and poll the players to see which ones have more consensus interest - and really - why, precisely couldn't one play a nonbeliever in the game? What's the hard mechanical or narrative reason why?

Not being familiar with the specifics I can't answer accurately, but a future-potential narrative reason might be that the PCs are going to meet with some deities, or expose some deities as not what the characters thought they were and thereby challenge the core beliefs of the PCs, or be given mechanical benefits for devout prayer and sacrifice - who knows.

 

[billd91]

I would have SO much more respect for the player who was forthright and honest and told me that he or she would rather sit out than play this game, rather than a player who was lukewarm to the concept but is only playing because it's "the only game in town". No thanks. I don't need players like that. IME, those players are just huge drains on the campaign and make running the game a chore rather than a joy.

I agree. It's one reason I bow out of consideration as a player when my friends pitch a Vampire game. I'm just not into it. I'm not going to be the fun player at the table and shouldn't drag the fun down. Other friends of mine are the same with Call of Cthulhu when I suggest it - they just aren't into it. And that's cool. We can pick them up on the flip side when that game has played out for a while.
Of course, we're a little more cognizant of social isolation right now because of the 'rona. So we're generally not pitching games not likely to get full agreement on the regularly scheduled game night. Side-games on other days are still wide open. In fact, one of our regulars pitched a Torg game to play on occasional weekends, but I don't particularly like the system, so I stayed out of the player pool for that one.

 

[Don Durito]

If players are faking buy in to play in a game because they can’t get another gig... that on them. Assuming the players are adults, and not being forced in some bizarre way

It is. Although people being people, they may be convincing themselves that the issues they have with a concept are small things that they can put up with.

There's also the fact that a lot of people just don't have the understanding of D&D or their own preferences regardings it to even fully grok their own issues. Hell, they may not even fully understand that D&D can encompass a wide range of different play styles.

But it's part of the context. There's a lot of people out there right now who want to play D&D. If you're offering a game of D&D to strangers you'll likely get people signing up not because you're premise interests them, but simply because it's a D&D game that's available at a time they can play.

If you're running a game for strangers you do need to decide exactly how you intend to approach these issues.