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

[Wasteland Knight]

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? ...

My point is, if you agreed to play the game that the group agreed to play, isn't there some onus on the player to get with the program and not deliberately set out to sabotage the game? Am I totally wrong here? What should the DM do in these cases?

Short answer: No, I wouldn't play. I'd politely decline.

My free time is far to limited and precious to spend it playing something that I don't enjoy.

And I have too much respect for anyone willing to step up and GM to be a half-hearted player.

Any player who sets to sabotage the game wouldn't be playing any further in one of my games and I would wholeheartedly expect the same from any other GM.

 

[GSHamster]

I think a lot of DMs don't really appreciate how little freedom players actually have. Their "sphere of influence" is very small compared to the DM. Coming up with your own character is one of the major attractions for a player, and I think a lot of the proposed campaign restrictions infringe too much on the player's sphere.

It's like everyone here would balk at a DM who says "your character does X". That's a bad DM. Players control their own character's actions. But a DM restricting who/what your character can be is also stepping on the players' toes in a similar fashion.

I think there are a number of players who are unconsciously aware of this, and react to DMs attempting to infringe on their "sphere of influence" by pushing back hard and making unsuitable characters. It should be a sign to the DM that she's stepped out of her domain and into the players'.

 

[Zardnaar]

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

IDK what they are.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think a lot of DMs don't really appreciate how little freedom players actually have. Their "sphere of influence" is very small compared to the DM. Coming up with your own character is one of the major attractions for a player, and I think a lot of the proposed campaign restrictions infringe too much on the player's sphere.

It's like everyone here would balk at a DM who says "your character does X". That's a bad DM. Players control their own character's actions. But a DM restricting who/what your character can be is also stepping on the players' toes in a similar fashion.

I think there are a number of players who are unconsciously aware of this, and react to DMs attempting to infringe on their "sphere of influence" by pushing back hard and making unsuitable characters. It should be a sign to the DM that she's stepped out of her domain and into the players'.

DM wins all the time. End if the day if the player is to contrary that player just gets booted.

 

[TheSword]

I think a lot of DMs don't really appreciate how little freedom players actually have. Their "sphere of influence" is very small compared to the DM. Coming up with your own character is one of the major attractions for a player, and I think a lot of the proposed campaign restrictions infringe too much on the player's sphere.

It's like everyone here would balk at a DM who says "your character does X". That's a bad DM. Players control their own character's actions. But a DM restricting who/what your character can be is also stepping on the players' toes in a similar fashion.

I think there are a number of players who are unconsciously aware of this, and react to DMs attempting to infringe on their "sphere of influence" by pushing back hard and making unsuitable characters. It should be a sign to the DM that she's stepped out of her domain and into the players'.

Please, please don’t say that ‘pick a patron god’ or ‘can one player have some kind of nautical background’ is stepping on a players toes...

... to most players I know these kinds of nuggets are great ways to bring A character to life.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok, bit of context here. In another thread: Anyone here met any cataclysm wall of the faithless defenders I posted this:



to which I got this reply:



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.

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.

My point is, if you agreed to play the game that the group agreed to play, isn't there some onus on the player to get with the program and not deliberately set out to sabotage the game? Am I totally wrong here? What should the DM do in these cases?

As an aside, on a purely personal note, if a player came to me, and actually was up front enough to say, "Yeah, sorry, no thanks", I'd probably change my campaign to accomodate that player, since any player like that has my complete respect. But, players who aren't bought in, or are at best only tenuously bought into a game, but, continue to show up, and do nothing but try to short circuit the campaign are, IMO, some of the worst players to deal with. If you don't want to play in the campaign, that's fantastic. I have no problems with that. There are thousands of other games out there, and, well, maybe next time around.

I just cannot fathom a player who would deliberately go into a campaign, knowingly playing a character that is 100% opposite to what the group agrees to play. It's the tavern owner PC in the travel campaign. Or the evil character in the heroic group. I don't really see the difference.

Most gamers are just playing with their friends. The DM comes up with some hair-brained idea and is adamant about pushing for it. They just want to play, with their buddies, and they finally say, or they are just passive enough to not say anything, "OK, I'll make a character for that." and then OF COURSE they aren't bought in so they don't really try to do what YOU, the DM, want. Instead they do what they want, and maybe they're nice enough to give it a fig leaf.

The problem with these 'concept games' is you have to really be smart enough to actually sell it. If its just some idea you really like, that isn't enough. You can pitch it, but you must be willing to be on an equal footing with the other players of the game, and either adapt, change your mind, or let them change the concept to suit themselves, at least somewhat.

Heck, they probably have ideas as good as any of yours, listen to them. If it cannot be resolved, OK maybe that guy doesn't play, or maybe you just don't do that game!

So I kind of agree with you, these conflicts shouldn't happen, but not because everyone should just go play some other game, they probably don't have lots of options that they like.

 

[MGibster]

I think a lot of DMs don't really appreciate how little freedom players actually have. Their "sphere of influence" is very small compared to the DM. Coming up with your own character is one of the major attractions for a player, and I think a lot of the proposed campaign restrictions infringe too much on the player's sphere.

That's not entirely unfair. Likewise, I think a lot of players don't appreciate how difficult it can be to keep 5-6 players happily engaged. Especially if they're not all on the same page as it pertains to the campaign.

It's like everyone here would balk at a DM who says "your character does X". That's a bad DM. Players control their own character's actions. But a DM restricting who/what your character can be is also stepping on the players' toes in a similar fashion.

Oftentimes a player isn't just stepping on the DM's toes they're stepping on the toes of other players. If five players show up with the expectation that that the campaign will revolve around a group of righteous adventurers fighting for goodness and niceness they're unlikely to be happy with a sixth player bringing a selfish brooder who wouldn't hesitate to steal candy from a baby.

I think there are a number of players who are unconsciously aware of this, and react to DMs attempting to infringe on their "sphere of influence" by pushing back hard and making unsuitable characters. It should be a sign to the DM that she's stepped out of her domain and into the players'.

Every aspect of the game is part of the DM's domain.

 

[jasper]

IDK what they are.

See American Football. See American Football Teams. See American football team positions.

 

[Zardnaar]

Most gamers are just playing with their friends. The DM comes up with some hair-brained idea and is adamant about pushing for it. They just want to play, with their buddies, and they finally say, or they are just passive enough to not say anything, "OK, I'll make a character for that." and then OF COURSE they aren't bought in so they don't really try to do what YOU, the DM, want. Instead they do what they want, and maybe they're nice enough to give it a fig leaf.

The problem with these 'concept games' is you have to really be smart enough to actually sell it. If its just some idea you really like, that isn't enough. You can pitch it, but you must be willing to be on an equal footing with the other players of the game, and either adapt, change your mind, or let them change the concept to suit themselves, at least somewhat.

Heck, they probably have ideas as good as any of yours, listen to them. If it cannot be resolved, OK maybe that guy doesn't play, or maybe you just don't do that game!

So I kind of agree with you, these conflicts shouldn't happen, but not because everyone should just go play some other game, they probably don't have lots of options that they like.

People in general I think need to be aware of things more.

If you get invited to a game if rugby and then get tackled don't complain you got tackled.

DM directly tells you what to expect session 0 don't complain.

I've gone as far as saying what to expect. Egypt game for example poison, insects, tombs, undead sand.

First adventure giant scorpions, skeletons in a tomb.

 

[Zardnaar]

See American Football. See American Football Teams. See American football team positions.

Not American, don't like football or rugby. Couldn't even tell you who the captain of the all blacks are.