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

[ph0rk]

Again, Hussar and I's tastes on DM restrictions differ, but asking your gaming pals to create characters together during a session 0, where you would likely share that kind of information, is what he is going for here. His players made characters that didn't fit his conception of the game, but his frustration is that they did this BEFORE he got a chance to share his vision.

Sure, but thats, what, three different groups he's walked away from because of character generation "issues"?

You just do have to realize that there are a nontrivial amount of people in this hobby who consider written handouts "homework" to one degree or another, and react to them more than a little hostilely. As such there's a degree of passive avoidance of doing that which is going to be hard to work against.

That's a self-solving problem, though - if they don't like homework, they don't play.

It isn't terribly difficult to have a campaign handout, ask for rough character ideas before session zero, then talk things through and finalize them at session zero (as some players well very likely change their ideas around when they get a sense of what the others are doing).

If someone doesn't want to do any homework at all, then keep them in the pool for oneshots, not the ~2 year campaign.

 

[MGibster]

My players won't even read professionally published source material. They're sure as hell not going to read more than 3-5 sentences from me about the setting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I want to take a second to go back to that Ghosts of Saltmarsh example.

If memory serves me, Hussar said that the entire group came back and only one of them had proficiency in sailing. With just that information... did the players ignore the premise of the adventure?

I frankly know nothing about the Ghosts of Saltmarsh. But, seeing as we do have that sailing is important, I'm going to go through some thought processes.

Sailing is a big part of this adventure.
Someone is going to want to captain the ship.
I don't want to be part of that discussion where five of us want to be the captain.
I'll make a different crew member.

By this alone, I've eliminated taking the Sailor background and getting "Water Vehicles"

Maybe I want to play the ship's cook, and take "Guild Artisan"
Maybe I want to play into the British Privateer archetype and feel like Soldier represents my service to the country.
Maybe I want to be a cabinboy/girl who snuck unto the boat at a young age and take Urchin.
Maybe I want to be the devotee to the Sea Goddess or the Storm God, praying they don't sink our ship, and take Acolyte.
Maybe I want to play a sailor, but instead of going for the practical side of sailor, I go entertainer bard and have a woman or man at every port of call. I'm a known entertainer at dockside taverns or inns.


And see, all of these people would make perfect sense to find on a ship. Some of them are vital, some of them will be entertaining, some are tropes, and none of them steer the ship. You do not need, nor do you likely want more than two people capable of steering the ship with proficiency. And, that is also important, I don't need proficiency, maybe I can direct a ship, I just suck at it because it isn't my main job.

I'd bet a hundred bucks that most of the staff on a ship were not and to this day are not capable navigators or captains.


And this is the only point I want to keep making. Just because players did not come with what you expected, that does not mean they are trying to sabotage your game.

 

[Raunalyn]

Again, Hussar and I's tastes on DM restrictions differ, but asking your gaming pals to create characters together during a session 0, where you would likely share that kind of information, is what he is going for here. His players made characters that didn't fit his conception of the game, but his frustration is that they did this BEFORE he got a chance to share his vision.

He's not being completely truthful, though. He discussed with his players that the game was going to carry a nautical theme, and that's it. His players discussed with him and each other their character concepts. He approved of those character concepts. The session zero was a discussion of the characters and how they connected.

I was running an Illusionist who was also a Charlatan. My concept was that I would use my skills to con people out of their money, and took the quests being given as a way to add credibility to my character. Who wouldn't want to buy from the great hero? As in his previous campaign I played in, he did nothing with this concept. I only made it about 3 sessions in before I dropped out of the game.

If he discussed with his players that one of them should require a sailing background of some type, then he did so after I left the game.

Edit: to add emphasis.

 

[TheSword]

He's not being completely truthful, though. He discussed with his players that the game was going to carry a nautical theme, and that's it. His players discussed with him and each other their character concepts. He approved of those character concepts. The session zero was a discussion of the characters and how they connected.

I was running an Illusionist who was also a Charlatan. My concept was that I would use my skills to con people out of their money, and took the quests being given as a way to add credibility to my character. Who wouldn't want to buy from the great hero? As in his previous campaign I played in, he did nothing with this concept. I only made it about 3 sessions in before I dropped out of the game.

If he discussed with his players that one of them should require a sailing background of some type, then he did so after I left the game.

Edit: to add emphasis.

Well that’s one bridge burnt. Nothing like posting criticism of someone at your table in a forum to ensure everyone gets on. [sarcasm]

You didn’t think in a nautical theme, it was worth having anyone with an ability to sail?

 

[Don Durito]

You've obviously never into the sequel where everyone wants the other players to play the normal ones. Or even when people begin to resent the fact the same people are always the ones who want to be the exception.

It's interesting that almost this entire thread is looking at the issue from the GM's perspective.

But nothing from the perspective of the other players.

I've seen this a few times. A GM pitches a game, and I make a character to fit that pitch as do most of the other players. One particular player wheedles the GM until they're allowed to play something that really doesn't fit the concept. After a while the game starts becoming about that player's character.

There's a reason people want to play exceptions. Exceptional characters by their nature get spotlight time.

 

[Raunalyn]

Well that’s one bridge burnt. Nothing like posting criticism of someone at your table in a forum to ensure everyone gets on. [sarcasm]

You didn’t think in a nautical theme, it was worth having anyone with an ability to sail?

He already burnt that bridge. Not only that, but I believe it was he who posted criticism of his own players on a forum that he knows full well his players are members of. I posted clarification of his not-so-true statement. That isn't criticism of him...that is pointing out inaccuracies.

And again, I will emphasize...he approved of the character concepts. And, as he mentioned, someone in the group did have sailing as a background skill.

And, again, as I said...I dropped out of the game very early on.

Edit: At this point, I will drop the subject because I want to make sure things don't get personal. I did feel it was important, however, to add clarity to an inaccurate statement.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

My take as well, it's a thread.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Same here, but with added "...within the parameters of the game* and the setting** as explained up front."

* - by this I mean if it's medieval fantasy you're not playing Iron Man; and if the book doesn't list Vampires as a playable creature then you're not playing one. This is the stay-in-genre and stay-in-power-level department.
** - by this I mean that even though Monks are listed as a playable class, if the setting being used has no Monks in it then you won't be playing one. This is the houserules department.

 

[Don Durito]

My take as well, it's a thread.

People have been trying to break down the GM role for years to little impact on the hobby as a whole and little benefit that I can see to gaming.

3 of those four issues pretty much have to go together, or it's not a role-playing game in the traditional meaning of the word, but something else (which I can say sounds completely unintereesting).

OOC issues do not have to be handled by the GM and are often not in established groups, and as a GM I actively try to resist being put in a position of responsibility for them (I get enough of that in my day job). Nevertheless, a person who puts themself in a position of leadership (which is what you are doing when you pitch a game and get a group of players together and organize) will be looked upon to lead.