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

[oreofox]

A good player is one that will make their character fit a theme of what the DM is trying to run. A DM running War of the Lance that says "you can play whatever, but certain classes will have certain problems in the setting", and the players come out with a warlock, sorcerer, cleric, paladin, and bard is fine. The DM didn't say "you can't play those classes." But if a DM says they are running War of the Lance as close to the original telling (no clerics, sorcerers and warlocks aren't available), and the players come with those classes, those are problem players.

This argument has been beaten to death so badly it doesn't resemble a horse, or even a pile of goo. There are certain people who feel the players can do no wrong and the DM is a horrible controlling POS if he doesn't dance to the whims of the players. There are certain people who feel the DM is under no obligation to do anything the players want and they should dance to his whims. We've had this argument numerous times.

A DM who sets restrictions on what is allowed, isn't a bad DM trying to force his novel onto his players. A DM isn't only a "good DM" if they throw out what they had planned because her players agreed to play and then made characters that don't fit. The act of compromise isn't just on the DM. Players must compromise as well. A good DM is one that has guidelines set up for a campaign, and good players make their characters conform to those guidelines. That same good DM will make changes if a player makes something unexpected, but still within the guidelines. D&D isn't just for the players to have fun. The DM gets to have fun as well. And if the players want to play something that the DM doesn't find fun, then it looks like they need to find a different DM. If the DM wants to run something the players don't find fun, then they need new players. But if the DM wants to run something they find fun, and the majority of players find fun but one doesn't, that one can sit out.

 

[TheSword]

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.

Players that come to a session 0 with a previous character locked in shouldn’t be surprised if they are politely asked to change. That is the whole point of a session 0.

Yet again contrarian...

DM: Welcome to session zero. Let’s have a chat about character generation and some of...

PLAYER: I already have a character thanks.

DM: But we haven’t discussed the campaign themes and expectations yet...

PLAYER: I’m playing this character come what may, and I’ll be damned if I’ll change anything.

Get that player out of your group as quick as you can.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Why are they handing you a character after session 0?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why are they handing you a character after session 0?

Uh... because a Session 0 does not necessarily mean everyone is actually putting their characters to paper right there and then? It is possible to talk about the upcoming game, hammer out ideas, make decisions, and then once everyone knows what is up, to go home and actually stat out their character then.

Is this really a necessary question? Or are you just looking for ways to argue every single thing Hussar says because he used your pull quote from the other thread and (I presume) hasn't removed it yet?

 

[MGibster]

Uh... because a Session 0 does not necessarily mean everyone is actually putting their characters to paper right there and then? It is possible to talk about the upcoming game, hammer out ideas, make decisions, and then once everyone knows what is up, to go home and actually stat out their character then.

Often times I have players make tweaks to their characters after we've finished session zero. This might include acquiring their starting equipment or making minor changes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Uh... because a Session 0 does not necessarily mean everyone is actually putting their characters to paper right there and then? It is possible to talk about the upcoming game, hammer out ideas, make decisions, and then once everyone knows what is up, to go home and actually stat out their character then.

Sure, but their concept should already be in place. There shouldn’t be any surprises.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sure, but their concept should already be in place. There shouldn’t be any surprises.

Exactly! Which has been Hussar's entire point-- the players supposedly have agreed to a theme, but then after the fact shows up with a character not on theme. What players do that, and why do they insist on trying?

Now, the question could easily be raised "Is this really a problem that occurs that often?" And I bet more often than not, it's probably no. I know I've personally never had that issue where my players have agreed on a campaign premise and then came back trying to make a character deliberately off-type. But maybe I just have players who are creative enough to make all manner of different characters all within the same type. And that is basically due to me curating my game group.

But other players are not that lucky. Especially making pick-up groups online I'm sure have more players agreeing to specific ideas because they just really want to play, but then trying to play off-type because what they really wanted was to play this idea they already had. And that's where I'll bet many DMs have to bite their tongues or just be more selective.

At the end of the day though... it's really just being mature enough to do what you said you were going to do. If you say you'll make X character type or background... then do it. Because even within that specific type or background there are literally millions of different ideas within that playground for you to play in and make something really cool.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You'd still have the issue eluded to earlier. There's a strong possibility that no PCs would be a knight. That's something of an issue in itself.

These kind of things can get out of control - you may be willing to allow an exception in principle, but you can quickly find that everyone is an exception, in which case you may legitimately be asking yourself why these players signed up for a game about knights if none of them wanted to be a knight.

Most likely answer: they signed up for a game run by you, and weren't put off by the whole 'knight' thing. But I'd say if all your players want to be exceptions, you should re-pitch the premise.

I've gone along with themes I wasn't excited for just to play with a good dm. Those games are usually still fun. (Although I do try to lean into the idea anyways, to maximize the chance of it being fun - I would probably have made a cavalier for a knight game.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Exactly! Which has been Hussar's entire point-- the players supposedly have agreed to a theme, but then after the fact shows up with a character not on theme. What players do that, and why do they insist on trying?

Now, the question could easily be raised "Is this really a problem that occurs that often?" And I bet more often than not, it's probably no. I know I've personally never had that issue where my players have agreed on a campaign premise and then came back trying to make a character deliberately off-type. But maybe I just have players who are creative enough to make all manner of different characters all within the same type. And that is basically due to me curating my game group.

But other players are not that lucky. Especially making pick-up groups online I'm sure have more playing agreeing to specific ideas because they just really want to play, but then trying to play off-type because what they really wanted was to play this idea they already had. And that's where I'll bet many DMs have to bite their tongues or just be more selective.

At the end of the day though... it's really just being mature enough to do what you said you were going to do. If you say you'll make X character type or background... then do it. Because even within that specific type or background there are literally millions of different ideas within that playground for you to play in and make something really cool.

No you’ve missed my point. If you make character making and campaign choosing the same session, if players are at least choosing and discussing their character concepts at session 0, not before or after, you don’t get this problem. Ever.

But the DM should be willing to compromise in that session 0, as well.

Which is why I recommend no long campaigns with strangers. Save that for the “all star team” where you curate the group from people you’ve vetted.

 

[MGibster]

Once you get to know your players its much easier to pitch campaign ideas that suits their fancy. Some of my players are extremely anti-authoritarian and I know to avoid pitching games where they'll be in a hierarchy with someone over their character. It means I don't always get the opportunity to try some games I'd like to, but it is important to me that we all have a good time.