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

[MGibster]

To jump from seeing the DM say "Hey, I'd like to set up an all-tiefling game, please create a tiefling" to the idea that the DM has the entire campaign already scripted out in their head and you're there to just be a puppet... is such a ridiculous jump to me that I can tell just from that statement we shouldn't ever be playing together.

I once ran an all dwarf campaign for Savage Worlds. The premise was that the Grimké Sisters, the most eligible bachelorettes in the city, needed husbands and invited all the eligible bachelors to participate in a quest to win their hands. My only requirement was that each PC was to be a dwarf who was either interested in winning the hand of one of the stout Grimké sisters or helping someone else win one of their hands. A marriage to one of the Grimké sisters would bring wealth and prestige not just to an individual but to their entire family as well so even if your character doesn't want to marry he or she has incentive to help a family member achieve matrimony.

Besides making a dwarf, the only other restriction was that I limited their option for "supernatural" characters. Wizards and alchemist were fine but they couldn't make a superhero for example. And the reason I had them all make a dwarf was because I wanted to explore themes of tradition, sexism, exploration, cultural exchange, and change. Having them all be dwarves made this easier.
The twist to the campaign was that the Grimké sisters weren't really looking to get married. Their plan was to get all the men of marriageable age out of the city making it easier for the women to seize the government buildings in a bid for political parity.

 

[jasper]

I think some of you after reading the twenty pages of documentation, signing for the documentation. Going through the top secret briefing on the campaign with a four hour power point briefing. Would still need a clue bat about what is not allowed in a campaign.
Come on, does a poster need to give five dollar wording, five paragraphs, when he writes. "Knights of Round Table. Roll up a Knight only !"campaign.
If I pitched a campaign and WAS TOTALLY CLEAR about what was allowed, and player x wanted to play against the pitch. Well they would be in the penalty box. Welcome to bad video night but not at my table during the campaign.
If the player has accepted the pitch during session 0, she should not trying to be a pill.
If the player has accepted the pitch during session 0 and does not like it, he should not play that campaign.
If the player has accepted the pitch during session 0 and hates the campaign, they should be honest. Then either go along with GM to have fun with their buddies. Or don't be present at all.
If the player has accepted the pitch during session 0, and returns. They are at fault if they are being a pill.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nope. Never stated this, never even really hinted at this, at least not in this thread. The other thread, I did kinda stray that way with the clue bat joke because, as has been noted, FR is REALLY REALLY religious. But, nope, not making that argument here and it's only folks that have insisted on dragging that argument over here from the other thread that are causing the confusion. No one else seems to have any problems following my point, whether they agree or disagree.

Oh really?

But, then again, I don't even get the notion really. If someone said, "Let's play a "Knights of the Round Table" campaign, of course we would all be knights.

Here you are doing it again and several people are calling you on it!

(Also not even knowing that Mordred was a Knight of the Round Table doesn't really make your case any favours.)

 

[MGibster]

Going through the top secret briefing on the campaign with a four hour power point briefing. Would still need a clue bat about what is not allowed in a campaign.

When you say clue bat do you mean a mammal of the order Chiroptera or some other type of bat? And am I to assume this clue bat is wearing a deerstalker hat and smoking a pipe?

 

[nevin]

FYI guys there is very little difference in ultimate fate of non-believers pre wall and post wall.

Pre wall if some benevolent agent of a God didn't pick you up out of limbo, a place most of them never went to you were abandoned in Iimbo for all eternity. All but guaranteed to be destroyed or best case lose your mind and become a phantom ghostly remainder with no memory if your past life.

Post AO AO instituted hard easily understood consequences for not participating in his divine plan. Gods either fulfilled their duties and gained worshippers or proved their irrelevance and ceased to exist. Mortals either participated in the divine plan or ended up in the wall as an example that if your useless to AO in life, he can turn you into a brick to protect those who were useful.

It is no good or evil in AO's decisions, he just set consequences for behavior that was contrary to his plan. Many good and evil gods have actively disagreed with him. It's the main plot arc driving heavenly politics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Going in they knew it'd be a Greek-based setting. Slavery was very much a thing in ancient Greece.

Never mind that one of the starting PCs then randomly rolled "Slaver" as her past profession.

While you can run into some issues with some people even wanting to engage with a setting with slavery in it, I think there's some real difference between that and "playing slavers."

 

[nevin]

This other discussion going on is very odd. If the guy who spent the time making a game for you to play has rules that you don't like leave. Don't whine don't feel like he or she doesn't respect you just go and be happy somewhere else. It has generally been my experience since 1st ed that the narcissistic player who wants whatever they want to hell with the story is also the person that will leave as soon as their actions have consequences. And good riddance. When I DM I'm pretty flexible I've allowed some weird stuff n my games but when I draw a line and say no its no. I'm not going to have a long pointless argument. I'd rather stop the game and find a player who can have fun without being a pain in the......

Most good games have rules and restrictions. They players should have agency but that doesn't mean they get to decide the setting. My response to anyone that has a problem with that uweplay video games.

Do you think movie directors get your buy in before they make the movie? Why would someone else get buy in in how I set up my game?

 

[oreofox]

Some of these replies in here make me glad my players aren't obtuse and going through every word to squeeze out a meaning that wasn't used. To me, "Knights of the Round Table" is exactly that, the DM wants their players to be Knights of the Round Table. I don't see that as a genre, but a specific thing. Arthurian Legend would be the genre. Does that mean you HAVE to play Lancelot and Percival and Galahad, or can you make your own Knight either as a replacement or an addition?

Of course, this could be cleared up by asking the DM to expand. Don't just assume that the DM saying "We are playing Knights of the Round Table" to mean anything and everything laid out in the Legends of King Arthur is fair game. "Would I be able to make a druid apprentice to Merlin?" is a perfectly applicable question. When the DM says "No", getting irate and calling the DM "bad" for restricting that from play is the sign of a problem player. As is taking the "Knights of the Round Table" to mean coming to the first session with Merlin's Apprentice without bringing it up and getting irate about the DM saying that isn't an appropriate character, to me is also a sign of a problem player.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Oh really?

Here you are doing it again and several people are calling you on it!

(Also not even knowing that Mordred was a Knight of the Round Table doesn't really make your case any favours.)

How about we all take these examples to their logical conclusions here? Hussar says we're playing a Knights of the Round Table game. Now if someone really was not sure about what he fully meant, the next step would be that someone would ask about playing Merlin. To which Hassar would reply "No, for this game I'd like everyone to play a Knight." At which point... that someone either says "Okay, fine."... or they say "Nah, don't really care to do that, so I'll drop." Did you need those next couple sentences spelled out for you or could you infer those next logical steps would ALSO be there?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How about we all take these examples to their logical conclusions here? Hussar says we're playing a Knights of the Round Table game. Now if someone really was not sure about what he fully meant, the next step would be that someone would ask about playing Merlin. To which Hassar would reply "No, for this game I'd like everyone to play a Knight." At which point... that someone either says "Okay, fine."... or they say "Nah, don't really care to do that, so I'll drop." Did you need those next couple sentences spelled out for you or could you infer those next logical steps would ALSO be there?

Sure, this is how I'd expect this to go. But Hussar seems to be perplexed that his vague one sentence descriptions are not sufficient. Like I literally have no problem with a GM wanting to run a campaign where everyone plays a knight, but then again it is not hard to explicitly say so!