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

[ccs]

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.

What would've happened if they'd then sat there as a group, used your generation method, & made practically the same characters?

 

[ph0rk]

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.

Nobody needs to be a sailor in GoSM. They just need a little money or to go on long walks.

Also - someone can spend their entire life working along the sea (fisher) and not have the slightest clue how to navigate a larger vessel once they are out of sight of land. Or they could be miners, or bakers or.. whatever.

 

[Raunalyn]

Nobody needs to be a sailor in GoSM. They just need a little money or to go on long walks.

Also - someone can spend their entire life working along the sea (fisher) and not have the slightest clue how to navigate a larger vessel once they are out of sight of land. Or they could be miners, or bakers or.. whatever.

Like I said...always the players' faults.

 

[Hussar]

What would've happened if they'd then sat there as a group, used your generation method, & made practically the same characters?

I would have been pretty darn surprised.

Possible, but, extremely unlikely since the chargen system I was using would directly tie them to the setting and each other by working as a group to create backstories where every character would be tied to another character in some way and tied to the setting. IOW, they might have had the same classes, but, I really, really doubt they could have created the same characters.

Nobody needs to be a sailor in GoSM. They just need a little money or to go on long walks.

Also - someone can spend their entire life working along the sea (fisher) and not have the slightest clue how to navigate a larger vessel once they are out of sight of land. Or they could be miners, or bakers or.. whatever.

Umm, well, maybe you run it that way, I don't. The first adventure sees the party get a sailing ship. Most of the adventures require you to sail somewhere. In fact, the only adventure after the first one that you could possibly do without a ship is Danger at Dunwater and even then, you're expected to sail to the location. The other eight adventures all require a ship. Unless the PC's are always just passengers, I suppose.

But, yeah, if your first reaction to someone pitching Ghosts of Saltmarsh, the adventure book with THIS as the cover:

is, "Oh, no one needs to be a sailor or have any nautical experience", then again, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that I'm not the issue here. I am very sure that you would not enjoy playing at my table.

 

[jasper]

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.

Good can I play Adrian Peterson with a Running Back class. What? You said Vikings.

 

[ph0rk]

Unless the PC's are always just passengers, I suppose.

What's wrong with that? The game world is full of people who make boats go. But, the same skills that characters use to explore the wilderness when it is a forest or a desert apply when the wilderness is an ocean.

As much creative control over character class and background as you seem to demand, perhaps you should just make the characters yourself - though I suspect you'll then be irritated the players aren't playing them right.

 

[Raunalyn]

I have one rule when generating characters; play what you want to play.

For example: I ran a retelling of the War of the Lance for Dragonlance a few years ago. DL has some pretty restrictive class selection; if you are running the original modules, you can't run clerics. Sorcerers and Warlocks are hunted by the Towers, etc. I told everyone that they could play what they wanted to play and gave them the caveat that some classes would have consequences. And, remarkably...I made them work.

A good DM will take what the players provide and weave a good story with what they have. A good DM will not blame the players when they create something unexpected, but will try their best to incorporate what the player provides into the story and create scenarios that will challenge and reward those players accordingly.

Edit: Well, I will admit that the one rule is not 100% true. There are certain classes that I do not like, or I won't let players run UA content for the most part. But mostly, yes...play what you want to play.

 

[TheSword]

What's wrong with that? The game world is full of people who make boats go. But, the same skills that characters use to explore the wilderness when it is a forest or a desert apply when the wilderness is an ocean.

As much creative control over character class and background as you seem to demand, perhaps you should just make the characters yourself - though I suspect you'll then be irritated the players aren't playing them right.

This is a good example of a contrarian approach towards a DM.

It’s not an unreasonable approach for a DM to expect one or more characters to have some sailing experience. It’s one of the themes of the campaign. Yet you are trying to argue that it’s perfectly reasonable for players to sideline this reasonable request.

Im not interested in having contrarian players at my table whether I’m player or DM. Slowly draining my will to live by undermining the premise of whatever game we’re playing.

 

[ph0rk]

It’s not an unreasonable approach for a DM to expect one or more characters to have some sailing experience. It’s one of the themes of the campaign. Yet you are trying to argue that it’s perfectly reasonable for players to sideline this reasonable request.

First: if none of the players care to change their backgrounds for this, it is time for the DM to rethink things.

There isn't anything in the module that requires one party member have the ability to navigate a sea vessel or the vehicles (water) tool proficiency, and it is entirely reasonable that the players may each like one of the module-specific backgrounds that do not include mention of this. Or they simply like other, PHB backgrounds.

However, the DM could have quite simply told them all that someone needed one of these backgrounds from the beginning, instead of saving it like some sort of trump card for later. "Aha, you made characters before session zero, but now they are all wrong because (reason not shared until right now)."

If the DM wants this much creative control over characters, the DM should be using premades.

Backgrounds are not meant to work in this way in 5e, anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The only times I have ever done this it has been very brief, no more than a session, and we've had an adult conversation (either me and the DM, or the whole group) about whether things are working out as expected. I've never had a situation where I thought I was completely defying the campaign pitch, but there have been times where the DM and I have had very different ideas of what the pitch meant (e.g. one meaning "heroes" in the Greek drama sense, another meaning "heroes" in the modern-virtue-paragon sense). We've always been able to work it out between us...or, in one case, we just moved past the trouble point and then the group disbanded after the one-adventure game was over because we weren't really gelling as a group.

TL;DR: I don't really do this, and don't really understand anyone that does.