D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

I've never had the issue of players wanting to play characters that don't work in my campaign come up. This is probably because:

1. For a new campaign with all new players, I write a synopsis of the game world, themes, and any house rules, including allowable classes and races. Characters have to be created before the first session. Nobody's coming to the first game with anything we disagree on. In this scenario, I care more about the campaign than the new player. If someone starts arguing we me about the world, character options, and home rules before the game starts, that's a huge red flag and I have no problem staying that "this is probably not the right game for you" and moving on.

2. For my main ongoing group, it is similar to #1, except it is more about about me pitching ideas and the players and I coming to a consensus of what the next campaign will be. This is a group I've been gaming with for years. I know that they are going to stick with the campaign if they commit to it. In this scenario I care more about keeping the players than running a particular campaign.

3. For one shots, I'm usually playing new systems and let players select from pre-generated characters. Anyone who shows up for such a game is told this. They wouldn't generally show up unless they were interested in the system, setting, and idea of a pre-gen. Worst-case scenario, someone isn't into it, but it is only one session, so no skin off anyone's back.

Campbell said:

Being a passive player. This is probably going to sound harsher than I mean it to. We all came together to play a game. My personal expectation is that any player at the table should put real effort into being a fan of all the players' characters, understanding what is happening in the fiction, and playing their character. I grade based purely on effort here and will help anyone who is putting in genuine mental energy. I just think you have to try.

Click to expand...

I disagree to a point. Some people are shy, have other commitments that sometimes are more important than an RPG and their concentration isnt always there, or some people play purely for the social interaction than the game itself. Ive never had a player just sit there and be completely passive, some people are just better at playing the game than others. Now if someone is truly not participating at all then yeah they probably shouldnt be there.

MNblockhead said:

Do you ever play at least one shots that are more serious? I generally like my games to have humor in them, but I find constant slap stick tiresome. Playing the game like a comedy improv event can work when trying to entertain an audience (e.g. Acquisitions Incorporated or Dragon Friends) but other than systems designed for it (e.g. Paranoia), I've never particularly enjoyed tables that play this way.

Click to expand...

I find D&D to be inherently silly. Trying to be serious just makes it funnier to me. Our characters are almost always engaged in Very Serious Business, but find a way to make it hilarious.

As I've gotten older and more mature, there are a few other things I'd add.

Racism, sexism, or other bigotry.
A player with a fascination with extreme violence, especially sexual violence.
Non stop dirty or crude jokes. I don't mind them occasionally, but we're not 13 anymore. I have little patience for frequent potty humor.

Campbell said:

Being a passive player. This is probably going to sound harsher than I mean it to. We all came together to play a game. My personal expectation is that any player at the table should put real effort into being a fan of all the players' characters, understanding what is happening in the fiction, and playing their character. I grade based purely on effort here and will help anyone who is putting in genuine mental energy. I just think you have to try.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. A passive player is like someone not holding up their end of the conversation. It makes the game worse in my view. Everyone needs to do their part.

iserith said:

I find D&D to be inherently silly. Trying to be serious just makes it funnier to me. Our characters are almost always engaged in Very Serious Business, but find a way to make it hilarious.

Click to expand...

Same with our group. If I mentioned a teeny tiny percentage of some of the things that went on in our games itd be hilarious but Im pretty sure Id be kicked off the site for good in under 5 minutes. Trying to clean up the content and language is almost impossible and wouldnt do the stories justice.

Lanefan said:

"I've spent half my adult life training up on how to kill things like this and now I'm expected to run with one? You're kidding, right?".

Click to expand...

I'm sure we've all been there, but I had a particularly ridiculous one happen to me. I was playing a Dread Necromancer with a small cohort of minions. And sure enough, after we've been playing for a couple of months, a character dies and is replaced by an undead hating paladin.

Lanefan said:

If the DM sees Dragonborn as monsters first and PCs never (and that'd be me, by the way), then trying to play one is either going to be met with a flat "No" or a warning that you're giving yourself a severe challenge and to have a second character on standby for when - not if - the Dragonborn gets killed either by the party or the locals.

Click to expand...

Y'know, this is one thing I have a problem with: The argument of "There are Monsters and then there are People, and never shall the two meet in the middle"

If something is able to talk, its sapient and therefore passes the test of reasonability. Making D&D a hack n' slash "We are on team Blue, we kill team Red" ain't what the game's designed to do

People can take umbrage, sure, but "Every single human everywhere hates those dragon-looking people who have racial stats for being paladins, but oh boy love them those small humans" has always been a dumb take and makes me go closer to the "I'm just gonna make an elven town who kill humans on sight for these exact reasons" side of things

Burnside said:

- The word "module". It's a non-fun word to begin with; one that makes me feel like I'm about to complete a classroom exercise rather than go on an adventure. Also, it hasn't been used officially for any product since 1999. Twenty years. If you use it, I know you're an OLD MAN. OLD!

Click to expand...

This Grognard thinks you young whippersnappers need to buy and play an adventure module - it's like being able to find a single chapter from a published AP.
Pbbbbbt !

Lanefan said:

I kid you not, my PC's immediate in-character reaction on seeing it went: "I've spent half my adult life training up on how to kill things like this and now I'm expected to run with one? You're kidding, right?".

Click to expand...

Not to derail this thread, but this right here in a nutshell perfectly illustrates the divide...the massive, yawning gulf...between two different approaches to roleplaying that underlies so many other recurring debates.