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

[doctorbadwolf]

Great Players will adjust to what the dms want to play.

Okay

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Great Players will adjust to what the dms want to play.

People please learn and play a TTRPG other than D&D before making game design philosophy hot takes challenge

Seriously, check out some GM-less systems, lots that can be learned from those.

 

[MGibster]

I think a healthy gaming group will engage in robust dialogue where all parties are free to offer their opinion on the next campaign they'll be playing in. Everyone would be heard and their opinions given due consideration for the purpose of creating a campaign everyone will have fun participating in. A DM should be willing to compromise, but it's not unreasonable for them to have some aspects of the campaign they're unwilling to compromise on. A player should be willing to compromise, but it's not unreasonable for them to have some aspects they're not willing to compromise on. It's entirely possible for a good healthy group to be unable to reach a consensus on what/how a campaign should be played and that's okay.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Great DMs can occasionally adjust.
Great players can occasionally acquiesce.

It goes both ways. And neither one should be more prevalent than the other.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just to interject, my point, and I think the point of some others as well, is that the next step shouldn’t be “okay, fine” or “I’ll drop”, but a continued conversation in which both player and DM are willing to compromise.

I don't agree that this needs to happen all the time. And it has nothing to do with being a good or bad DM or good or bad player.

Maybe you are hard-pressed to find good games with good DMs and thus don't have the options available to walk away if something isn't to your liking. If that's the case, I feel you. But that doesn't mean you get to hold the DM hostage or always feel like they need to acquiesce to your demands just because you don't have other options but really, really, really want to play.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And Merlin, Morgana nor Mordred were knights of the round table. So, in my Knights of the Round table campaign, why are you playing a character that specifically WASN'T a knight of the round table and then blaming me for not being flexible enough?

Well, it seems like part of the problem is (no offense) ignorance.

Because Mordred was a Knight of the Round Table. Explicitly.

Sure, maybe Merlin and Morgana weren't, they were spellcasters, but this brings up a secondary point. Why can't I play Merlin, and say that in this version Merlin is a Knight of the Round? After all, this is DnD, unless you are saying you only want Fighters and no other classes, then I could take the knight Background while still playing a wizard.

So, is this meant to be part of the organization, or a fighter/Paladin only game? Because "You must all be part of the Knightly order" in a DnD game does not tell me that I can't play a Ranger who is part of the Knights. I'm part of the order, I'm just not in full plate and using a lance.

But, if I don't want to deal with ronin or whatnot in my game, why are you forcing me to and then insisting that I'm not being flexible enough? The game is NOT ABOUT subverting expectations, this time around, it's about THESE EXPECTATIONS. So, in the Samurai game, PLAY A SAMURAI. No, don't play a Ronin. No, don't play a commoner. No, you can't play a Yakuza. This is a game about a group of Samurai. Now, if you don't want to play in that? No problems. That's fine. This is not the game for you. But, don't agree to play and then try to sabotage the game by pretending to be compromising and then go all passive aggressive on the DM and expect him to be happy about it.

And again, you seem to not see the lack of difference.

A Ronin is a samurai, just one who is not working for a Lord. So, is your actual premise that we need to all be working for any Nobleman? Do we need to all be working for the Same Nobleman? Do we all have to be Fighters/Paladins working for the Same nobleman?

This is what people mean when they keep talking about explicit communication. There is a big difference between "You all must be of the Samurai Social Class" and "You must all be Samurai fighting for the honor of Daimyo Ryuk, and everyone needs to roll either a Fighter or a Paladin."

 

[Maxperson]

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? To me, this is one of the most frustrating parts of being a DM. You pitch a concept, the concept gets okay'd by the group who agrees to play in the campaign, you do the work preparing and whatnot, and then you have a player or players who insist on doing the exact opposite thing.

I have done this in the past(not the exact opposite thing part), because the rest of my gaming group which consists of very close friends, wanted to do it. I may not have buy in to the premise of the campaign, but I do have buy in to the group.

One example from a few years ago, I pitched a low magic campaign where none of the PC's were casters. The first three character concepts to cross my desk were all full casters. "Oh, I'm the exception!" was the refrain.

I've kinda sorta done and seen this. Mostly when the premise is that we all play fighters, but there are only like 3 fighter subclasses and 4 players, so we have to have two doubling up which isn't fun. Then you don't get someone trying to be a wizard, but you might get someone saying, "Well, a barbarian is kinda like a fighter and fits the theme, can I be one of those instead so we are all unique?"

 

[Maxperson]

Well, gods existing can't be denied, but many of these gods used to be mortals. There are also wizards everywhere. What are gods but very powerful wizards? Do they deserve devotion just by virtue of being more powerful?

Yep. That's basically the position of the Planescape faction The Athar.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't agree that this needs to happen all the time. And it has nothing to do with being a good or bad DM or good or bad player.

Maybe you are hard-pressed to find good games with good DMs and thus don't have the options available to walk away if something isn't to your liking. If that's the case, I feel you. But that doesn't mean you get to hold the DM hostage or always feel like they need to acquiesce to your demands just because you don't have other options but really, really, really want to play.

I DM more than play, and I play pretty often. I’ve no shortage of DMs or players.

Nothing I said is in any way related to holding anyone hostage.

 

[FrozenNorth]

People please learn and play a TTRPG other than D&D before making game design philosophy hot takes challenge

Seriously, check out some GM-less systems, lots that can be learned from those.

I don’t know... I’m not crazy about playing with a player who doesn’t buy into the premise, but I prefer him to the player who doesn’t even buy into the SYSTEM we are playing.

At my table, if you bring FUDGE dice to a D&D game, they’re gonna be a reckoning.