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

[Hussar]

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

Honestly, I don't have much problem with that. There are far, far too many players out there that need to be smacked upside the head with the clue bat before they get the idea of what the DM is going for. And, then you have the players who will deliberately pull the opposite way - the DM tells the group that religion is important in this setting, so everyone plays atheists and heretics.

This may be hamfisted but, at least it gives the DM a decent argument for making faith important in the game. "Look, religion is important in the Realms mmmkay? See, right here, those that don't have a god get stuffed in the Wall. Now, pick a bloody deity and let's get going!"

to which I got this reply:

Sounds like the kind of DMing that everyone I know avoids like the plague.

If the players don’t want to care about faith in a game, trying to force them to is...bad.
Even if I stayed in that game, I’d be playing the one guy who believes the gods are all evil and need to be destroyed.

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.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, well, this is why some of us defend the DM’s power to say No to characters or options players suggest and thread arguments rage. We all know or have experienced contrarian players who will try to weasel something directly in opposition to the guidelines we set.

 

[ph0rk]

If a DM makes something like this clear at a session zero or earlier I either adapt the concept or don’t play.

If a DM doesn’t do that (and not all of them communicate enough about broad themes) and gets upset that railroading doesn’t work five sessions in, that isn’t my fault and I am usually quite clear about what my characters like and don’t like.

I suspect, though, that many people draw at least some of their players from their existing social networks; so these pre-existing network ties are why they stay in a game in this sort of situation.

There isn’t much in the PHB that makes it plain religion(s) matter in every setting, so if something like that is critical for the campaign (or merely what the DM likes), they need to make that plain from the outset.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I've been blessed with some great gamers over the years, and consequently we've been able to approach campaigns as a joint venture, not a power struggle. If I suggest religion is important in the next game, my gamers know and trust it's integral to the campaign, not because I'm being a "tyrant" control-freak who should be avoided like the "plague." And yeah, there's DMs out there like that, not arguing otherwise.

For example, when I ran Curse of Strahd, everyone in the group agreed that playing only humans and no more than one each of a dwarf, elf, or half-elf character would lend to a more Gothic feel than if we introduced dragonborn or drow or half-orcs. Sometimes themes are there for a reason that has nothing to do with taking away player enterprise: you all want a specific type of experience in your game.

It's not to say I've never had a gamer who didn't fit. To each group and gamer their own. But at my table, I look for a team mentality to play. Are you wanting to play a dragonborn paladin oath of the ancients in Strahd because it adds to quality of the Gothic horror experience for everyone, or are you doing it because you are thinking of you first? This works both ways. Players can look at a DM and ask: is what you're proposing meant to add to the experience of our game theme, or are you thinking of you first?

 

[bloodtide]

Far too many players with join a game because it's the "only game they can find".

A lot of players are just jerks. As soon as it's mentioned they can't be a race or class or whatever, they will be obsessed with playing only that. Plus you always have the player who agrees to play in the Celtic like fantasy island setting, but then will demand to play a Japanese Ninja with a lightsaber.

And a lot of players have the pure toxic personality. They want to play the RPG "in their mind" and they don't really want a shared experience, as much as they want an audience. In thier view, they don't care about the DMs lame setting, they just want to play their special character. They have some delusion that their character will do X, and they will bully and force the DM to "run that game" for them.

 

[Umbran]

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?

I don't think that "by the books, religion is important in FR" equates to "religion is the premise of the game," though. You pose a valid question, but it is several steps off from the example.

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.

The fantasy genre is LOADED with works in which some thing is given as true in the world, but the main character of the story is the exception. And folks are often looking at their RPGs as an escape from their drab, dreary, limited lives. So, you're really expecting them to conform to restriction to norms that are notably less fantastic?

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?

You are and you aren't. They are probably not "deliberately setting out to sabotage" anything. Their goal is not destruction. Their goal is to have fun... but the thing you suggested isn't really all that fun for them.

I cannot speak for your players, but most folks are not swimming in opportunities for a decent game. So a lot of folks will take any reasonable offer, and then try to wedge their fun into that offer. Sometimes it isn't a great match.

What should the DM do in these cases?

If it is one player, you have another talk and get their buy-in on the concept for real. If it is most of your group, you should accept that your stated premise doesn't actually appeal to them, and find another premise.

 

[Raith5]

I appreciate where this concern is coming from but I dont think that D&D is based on the premise that the creative choices of the DM are the only ones that matter. Surely a key question facing DMs is how can I widen and include the choices of the people they play with and make a world that they can effect and change. I think this especially true if you play with friends, as I do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Firstly, it’s a crappy move to put someone on blast in a cross thread snipe like this without their consent.


In the scenario you posted in that thread, the DM was trying to force players to play characters who care about faith.

That isn’t the same thing as what you try to present in this thread.

If the players have agreed to play a game where faith matters (which very much doesn’t describe all FR games), there’s no need to browbeat them into it.

 

[Older Beholder]

I recently had the opposite, one of the players in our group stated a new campaign to give the previous long term DM a rest .
He refused to tell us anything about the campaign on the grounds that making characters to fit the setting was cheating.

I still don't really understand that one.

 

[billd91]

If the players have agreed to play a game where faith matters (which very much doesn’t describe all FR games), there’s no need to browbeat them into it.

???
Isn't that the topic of the thread - that there will often be players who will agree to the play the game knowing the DM's description and guidelines but still pitch their character contrary to it?