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

[Hussar]

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!

No, @DEFCON 1 has the exact right of it. It seems so obvious to so many people, yet there are those who expect lawyer approved contracts before starting a campaign apparently.

Am I actually pitching games here? No. I'm presuming that people are going to argue in good faith and at least make a little attempt to follow the logic. Guess when dealing with the incredibly pedantic, I need to be more specific.

 

[Hussar]

Part of Hussars frustration (I believe) is not just wanting an all-knights only campaign, but the worry that a significant chunk of his playing group will want to play against type. It would be easier to roll with if it was just one player. When everybody is "the exception" then nobody is and your theme is potentially lost. While I think he favors a too restrictive game for my tastes, I get that frustration.

Sometimes.

Right now, I'm playing an Anything Goes campaign and having a blast. I certainly can't complain about someone's character concept when I've explicitly stated that anything is on the table. Obviously.

Again, people are presuming a lack of communication. That's never been the problem. Obviously if I'm pitching a game, it's going to be more than a couple of sentences that I jot off on a message board. Thankfully, most of the people reading this realize that this is the case and aren't getting too bogged down in minutia.

The problem that I'm talking about is AFTER session 0. After you've handed your players your "syllabus" campaign document. After you've explained the campaign is pretty specific detail, why do players, who have said, "Yup, this sounds like fun" then come back with characters that are against what the DM has said? What do they get out of it? Sure, my Knights of the Round Table example wasn't very good. What I know about the Knights of the Round table probably couldn't fill a piece of paper. But, even then, two of the three examples put forward, Merlin and Morgana AREN'T knights. Even if I was wrong on Mordred, I was still right on the other two. Yet, for some reason, there are a significant number of players who will expressly take that "special" character EVERY FREAKING TIME.

Just once, it would be nice to pitch a game and have five PC's put forward that actually were grounded in the campaign proposed.

 

[Hussar]

I agree - it should be more collaborative.

Honestly, I agree too.

However, in the group I just walked away from, I suggested that we could do Saltmarsh. They said groovy. So, I prepped some stuff, and then asked the players to show up to a session 0 without a character and that we would do character generation as a group. Did it both verbally and in writing. Even previewed the group chargen idea I was using.

5 players showed up at the table with characters already made. None of them had the slightest connection to Saltmarsh and only one of them had any sailing skills.

This might go a long way towards explaining my current attitude.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sometimes.

Right now, I'm playing an Anything Goes campaign and having a blast. I certainly can't complain about someone's character concept when I've explicitly stated that anything is on the table. Obviously.

Again, people are presuming a lack of communication. That's never been the problem. Obviously if I'm pitching a game, it's going to be more than a couple of sentences that I jot off on a message board. Thankfully, most of the people reading this realize that this is the case and aren't getting too bogged down in minutia.

The problem that I'm talking about is AFTER session 0. After you've handed your players your "syllabus" campaign document. After you've explained the campaign is pretty specific detail, why do players, who have said, "Yup, this sounds like fun" then come back with characters that are against what the DM has said? What do they get out of it? Sure, my Knights of the Round Table example wasn't very good. What I know about the Knights of the Round table probably couldn't fill a piece of paper. But, even then, two of the three examples put forward, Merlin and Morgana AREN'T knights. Even if I was wrong on Mordred, I was still right on the other two. Yet, for some reason, there are a significant number of players who will expressly take that "special" character EVERY FREAKING TIME.

Just once, it would be nice to pitch a game and have five PC's put forward that actually were grounded in the campaign proposed.

If you told me that I would be playing a knight, squire or noble something like that.

 

[Hussar]

If you told me that I would be playing a knight, squire or noble something like that.

I think we're in the same boat here. Sure, those would probably all be perfectly fine. Again, I don't actually HAVE a campaign in mind, so, it's not like I can say, yes or no. But, yeah, those would be my first thoughts too.

My first thought, upon hearing "Knights of the Round Table" would not be the guy that kills King Arthur, or a pair of wizards, neither were actually members of the round table. But, hey, that's just me.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think we're in the same boat here. Sure, those would probably all be perfectly fine. Again, I don't actually HAVE a campaign in mind, so, it's not like I can say, yes or no. But, yeah, those would be my first thoughts too.

My first thought, upon hearing "Knights of the Round Table" would not be the guy that kills King Arthur, or a pair of wizards, neither were actually members of the round table. But, hey, that's just me.

It's not hard to ask for clarification. My players get a say in the theme from a list as I have to run something I want to.

Next options

Frostmaiden
Eberron
Theros/Greece
Vikings
Undead

Last two are in Midgard.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, so, using that list:

Frostmaiden - FR, so, presuming kitchen sink, but, north in the 10 towns, so, probably stick to more traditional races, would have family in one of the 10 towns, and I would probably assume that the FR factions are in play, so, I'd probably lean towards Harper or (forget the name of ) that tree hugger faction.

Eberron - Ok, would need some more information here. That's a big setting. And it would really depend on what you're going for.

Theros/Greece - I actually know next to nothing about this setting, so, I'd be doing some homework.

Vikings- Ok, barbarian, ranger, or something similar. Sailor background or something nautical anyway.

Undead - Ok, well, first thoughts would be combat heavy characters, avoiding things like enchanters or illusionists. Been absolutely jonesing to play a Tabaxi assassin, so, without any further information coming from you, that would likely be the character I would pitch.

How close was I to fitting within your expected parameters?

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, so, using that list:

Frostmaiden - FR, so, presuming kitchen sink, but, north in the 10 towns, so, probably stick to more traditional races, would have family in one of the 10 towns, and I would probably assume that the FR factions are in play, so, I'd probably lean towards Harper or (forget the name of ) that tree hugger faction.

Eberron - Ok, would need some more information here. That's a big setting. And it would really depend on what you're going for.

Theros/Greece - I actually know next to nothing about this setting, so, I'd be doing some homework.

Vikings- Ok, barbarian, ranger, or something similar. Sailor background or something nautical anyway.

Undead - Ok, well, first thoughts would be combat heavy characters, avoiding things like enchanters or illusionists. Been absolutely jonesing to play a Tabaxi assassin, so, without any further information coming from you, that would likely be the character I would pitch.

How close was I to fitting within your expected parameters?

Close enough, probably would say no to Tabaxi. Setting has wear lions though so if you want cat folk probably look at that.

Last Midgard game was Egypt, Tabaxi would be perfect for that, undead is vs vampires.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What do you mean my asthmatic octagenarian isn't an appropriate character for this campaign. You said knights and he's a knight!

I know you were mostly mocking, but your mockery is interesting, because you didn't mock the idea of me bringing a musician to the table you mocked the idea of me bringing an old man to the table.

Which raises some questions, doesn't it?

Is my Octagenarian more acceptable if I made a Battlemaster Fighter instead of a Bard? What if I wanted to play a valor bard?

What if he is a dwarf or an elf? The premise was "Knights of the Round Table" but we are still playing DnD so those options would be allowed normally, and they didn't say human only.

And, while perhaps a bit far of a stretch, are women acceptable? If we are trying to recreate the Round Table, women were not allowed to be mounted warriors in plate mail, and there were no women sitting at the Round Table as Peers of the Realm.

This may seem stupid, but this is the problem we keep pointing out. The premise was "Knights of the Round Table" but some people can look at that and say a Female Elven Bard who was knighted by the First King is acceptable, and others would say that only 20 something human Cavalier is acceptable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bowie wasn't a knight; he was offered it, but declined.

I did not know that. I saw his name on the list as I scanned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes.

Right now, I'm playing an Anything Goes campaign and having a blast. I certainly can't complain about someone's character concept when I've explicitly stated that anything is on the table. Obviously.

Again, people are presuming a lack of communication. That's never been the problem. Obviously if I'm pitching a game, it's going to be more than a couple of sentences that I jot off on a message board. Thankfully, most of the people reading this realize that this is the case and aren't getting too bogged down in minutia.

The problem that I'm talking about is AFTER session 0. After you've handed your players your "syllabus" campaign document. After you've explained the campaign is pretty specific detail, why do players, who have said, "Yup, this sounds like fun" then come back with characters that are against what the DM has said? What do they get out of it? Sure, my Knights of the Round Table example wasn't very good. What I know about the Knights of the Round table probably couldn't fill a piece of paper. But, even then, two of the three examples put forward, Merlin and Morgana AREN'T knights. Even if I was wrong on Mordred, I was still right on the other two. Yet, for some reason, there are a significant number of players who will expressly take that "special" character EVERY FREAKING TIME.

Just once, it would be nice to pitch a game and have five PC's put forward that actually were grounded in the campaign proposed.

Maybe part of it is that the players are looking at it this way. No one wants to be the fifth Cavalier Knight.

I mean, imagine for a moment if you got exactly what you asked for. Five Human Noble (Knight) Cavaliers. Everyone has the same abilities, the same basic background, the same equipment.

Most players don't want to be carbon copies of their fellow players. And if they assume that at least two other people are going to go that route, because it is the most obvious, then they are going to try and think of something else that fits but isn't exactly that.


Edit: And I know. "They already agreed!" That is what you keep saying, but I'm also going along with the fact that they already agreed. They agreed to a Knights of the Round Table game and made assumptions about what that meant. Then, when they showed up with a character they assumed was fine for session 1, there can be honest confusion about why you are saying their character is not accceptable, because to them, it fits into the concept.

 

[Hussar]

Close enough, probably would say no to Tabaxi. Setting has wear lions though so if you want cat folk probably look at that.

Last Midgard game was Egypt, Tabaxi would be perfect for that, undead is vs vampires.

I had a very specific reason for answering you, @Zardnaar.

I've been told, over and over again, that it's impossible to know what the DM would want without specific, explicit instructions from the DM. That I'm a bad DM for not being very detailed and specific.

Yet, and you can verify this, I don't know @Zardnaar, have never gamed with him, have probably only a vague idea of how his table works based on what I've seen from posts here, but, I was still able to nail all but one campaign with just two or three words of introduction.

Funny how that works. I was told it was impossible to know. That a player couldn't possibly make a character that fits with a campaign without all these detailed Session 0's and campaign documents. Yet, with three words, I could do it. But, I'm apparently the problem.