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

[Ruin Explorer]

This to me is completely avoided by Session 0. This is where we both go through the setting, and also come up with character concepts as a group. It's something I do anyway, never realized that players would green light a setting but not want to adhere to it.

I disagree that session 0 necessarily eliminates this. A couple of the worst offenders I've seen in terms of how they didn't work with the setting were created in session 0, and seemed a lot more reasonable when they were just on paper (though there were usually warning signs - but perfectly fine characters often have those too - I've had a couple of CoC characters myself who on paper probably looked like bad news but were good characters who died horribly without firing a shot just as they should). Further, it's usually one player, and it's usually one who doesn't want to make a fuss, in my experience. Sometimes, too, the players say they're adhering to the setting, but again on paper that may appear to be the case, but in practice they're causing a problem - and sometimes it's just from not understanding the setting, which is often on the DM/storyteller for not explaining it properly at the start.

 

[DnD Warlord]

I disagree that session 0 necessarily eliminates this. A couple of the worst offenders I've seen in terms of how they didn't work with the setting were created in session 0, and seemed a lot more reasonable when they were just on paper (though there were usually warning signs - but perfectly fine characters often have those too - I've had a couple of CoC characters myself who on paper probably looked like bad news but were good characters who died horribly without firing a shot just as they should). Further, it's usually one player, and it's usually one who doesn't want to make a fuss, in my experience. Sometimes, too, the players say they're adhering to the setting, but again on paper that may appear to be the case, but in practice they're causing a problem - and sometimes it's just from not understanding the setting, which is often on the DM/storyteller for not explaining it properly at the start.

Yup... my groups have since the late 90s made characters togather... misunderstandings still happen

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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?

This is a really good point that applies to a whole lot of "common-ness" debates in D&D, particularly DMs complaining about players wanting to be "unique" or whatever. Loads and loads of fantasy literature and TV/film is about being the weird exception. Expecting the players to not be casters because the setting is "low magic" is like expecting no player to want to be a Witcher in a game set in the Continent. It's like yeah, Witchers are really rare and exceptional and kinda shunned by the populace and so on. That's why the books/games are about them, not Random Soldier #1124. But some DMs seem to think that by saying "low magic" or the like, the players will inherently know the game is about Random Soldier #1124, and all pick incredibly low-end characters. But that's silly. You have to be more clear if you want that, like with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

 

[akr71]

If the DM made it clear what the campaign was going to be from the outset and I really did not think I would have fun, I wouldn't play. However, if it is just a one-shot or short campaign just to switch things up, I'd likely give it a go. My preconceptions may be totally wrong and I might like it.

On the subject of faith and being concerned for my character's soul... it is make believe and if my character is an atheist or heretic, oh well. I only play the character while they are living. If the character is eternally damned, its no big deal to me and I would be surprised if it was to my DM. I'd discuss the character with the DM before play started though so there were no surprises on either side.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The flipside of this question is, if you’ve got players that don’t see any appeal in a world where they have to worship the gods or face terrible punishment, why are you so dedicated to that idea that you like the idea of a hamfisted “clue bat” to force them into playing what you want?

A campaign should be something everyone at the table wants to play and is engaged with. That goes both ways.

I agree with this statement. However, I also think that since the GM is the one doing 95%+ of the work to get the game to the table every session that the players should have a certain amount of deference to what the GM is proposing OR they should step up an make a counter proposal of their own and run the game instead.

If its my turn to GM and I want to spin a tale of a Faithful world and the plight of the Faithless (I didn't read any of the original thread this forked from so i'm just guessing at the idea), even if that is an altered version of the Realms, then I would expect the players to adhere to the few ground rules I lay out in Session 0. If one of my few ground rules was "Your character doesn't have to be a cleric or paladin but DOES need to strongly be faithful to the gods", that isn't some sort of onerous request that can't be incorporated into just about any character concept.

If its my turn to GM and I want to spin a tale of "Mundane World" in which you can only be a Human Fighter or Rogue, an in which I am not going to have any magic spells, effects, monsters, or items....but I am still going to use 5e to run the campaign then I think you could make a case as a player that I have gone beyond the expected allowance of deference that a player can give.

 

[ph0rk]

If one of my few ground rules was "Your character doesn't have to be a cleric or paladin but DOES need to strongly be faithful to the gods", that isn't some sort of onerous request that can't be incorporated into just about any character concept.

I think this is where in-world and character values may conflict with values strongly held by the players.

If I think that theism is stupid, I might not want to play a character with a strong religious belief - so, in that case, it isn't something that can be easily incorporated into concepts I want to play.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I agree with this statement. However, I also think that since the GM is the one doing 95%+ of the work to get the game to the table every session that the players should have a certain amount of deference to what the GM is proposing OR they should step up an make a counter proposal of their own and run the game instead.

This. Roleplaying games are a workocracy (might not be a word): those who do the work get to call the shots. It means that most of the time, the DM has the last word. It also mean that a player who gets creative, writes a whole backstory for her character, makes the effort to engage with the material and the campaign setting, should have considerably more leeway to play against type than someone who makes no effort.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I would be very surprised to find a dungeon master who hasn't experienced this at some point in their career. My go-to example is pitching a game of Vampire only to have players show up at the first session with the intention of running a Mage or a Werewolf.

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?

I view any game I run as being ours rather than mine. I might be running the game, but without player participation I'm just imagining stuff in my head so I do think a DM needs to have some flexibility. That said, I consider it a player's responsibility to make a good faith effort to create a character that will fit into the campaign they agreed to play in.

 

[MGibster]

The only time I get any grief over campaign-related restrictions is when I mention them in forums. Not allowing dragonborn or tieflings in my campaign apparently makes me an awful DM whose table would be shunned by a large number of EN Worlder's.

It might. I had a player many years ago who would not participate in a game if he couldn't play a dwarf. He didn't cheese out his character or anything but had to be a dwarf. If the setting didn't have dwarf as an option he made whatever was closest.

If I run another D&D campaign (I'm a little burned out on D&D right now), I will likely place a severe restriction on what races can be played. I want the race of a PC to matter, and, quite honestly, I don't think I've played a D&D game in many years where their choice of race made any difference aside from some mechanical advantages and disadvantages.

 

[MGibster]

Now in this situation, it would be okay to say No! The 3rd player's character doesn't match the campaign setting.

I would argue, though, that a better game is created when the DM adjusts and creates narrative opportunities for that player.

That's a bridge too far for me. In fact, it makes me think of movie producer Jon Peters who was obsessed with putting a giant spider in a movie whether it belonged or not. It's why the terrible Wild, Wild West had a giant spider in the third act.

I was running a Trail of Cthulhu game set in New York during the 1930s. My instructions were to make "regular" people who were connected to the NYPD in some fashion (police officers, detectives, news reporters, doctors, lawyers, etc., etc.) And my players obliged making two police detectives, a medical examiner, and a reporter whose covered the crime beat. But I had one player who came back with a time traveling fighter pilot who was a veteran of the Spanish Civil War (which didn't start until a few years after the campaign's start date).

When my player came to me with that character I thought he was joking, then I thought he was deliberately antagonizing me, but it turns out he genuinely thought this was a reasonable character concept. I nixed it with extreme prejudice and didn't feel the least bit bad about doing that. There was nothing I was willing to do to fit his character into the game he had agreed to play.