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

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

Why is democratizing fictional authority a bad thing? Why does giving narrative control to the players make a game "not a role-playing game"? Fiasco and Dream Askew lack GMs entirely, instead being a collaborative effort; are they not "role-playing games"? Band of Blades has a GM, but puts the troupe management mechanics and parts of the history of the world and the legion in the players' hands, does that tip it over the line? Seems like an overly restrictive definition.

Maybe most players can't/won't DM. It's often why they want to play.

A consequence of D&D's game culture, hence why I think the push towards vesting certain parts of the narrative in player hands is ultimately a good thing. At the very least, it makes them more responsible.

Going back to the general point of the thread, here's a thought: players are so protective about their characters and often track towards making them "special" even at the GM's resistance because it's the only level of narrative control they have in these types of games. Doesn't help that modern 5e play culture is effectively a machine for generating OCs. If you include ways for players to interact with and manipulate the world outside the sole diegetic lense of their PCs, maybe they won't be so difficult about them.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why is democratizing fictional authority a bad thing? Why does giving narrative control to the players make a game "not a role-playing game"? Fiasco and Dream Askew lack GMs entirely, instead being a collaborative effort; are they not "role-playing games"? Band of Blades has a GM, but puts the troupe management mechanics and parts of the history of the world and the legion in the players' hands, does that tip it over the line? Seems like an overly restrictive definition.

A consequence of D&D's game culture, hence why I think the push towards vesting certain parts of the narrative in player hands is ultimately a good thing. At the very least, it makes them more responsible.

Going back to the general point of the thread, here's a thought: players are so protective about their characters and often track towards making them "special" even at the GM's resistance because it's the only level of narrative control they have in these types of games. Doesn't help that modern 5e play culture is effectively a machine for generating OCs. If you include ways for players to interact with and manipulate the world outside the sole diegetic lense of their PCs, maybe they won't be so difficult about them.

I run my games very sandbox. To be honest I haven't designed my last 2 levels.

I've got some rough ideas but I've been winging it last few sessions.

The foundations are the Savage Tide AP but the later adventures don't interest me so I ignored the metaplot and players are mostly doing there own thing.

One if them kinda wanted to explore the isle if Dread, the rest wanted to head back to Sasserine.

I didn't want to do the isle as I've used it multiple times from B/X to 3E to the 5E playtest and the current campaign.

They can do what they want with limits, in not gonna put much effort into the isle itself though regardless of what they want.

 

[Lanefan]

There is nothing inherently wrong with having most of your character done before the game starts.

In my case, the rules are often not fully cast in stone or fully available to access until shortly before roll-up night and thus rolling up ahead of time might prove to be wasted effort. That said, this is never an issue for me anyway: see below.

When I run D&D, I pretty much have a hands off approach to character generation and I know very little about PCs until day one.

Same here. I design what I design for the setting, then the players roll up their PCs and away we go.

But some people prefer to use session zero to actually create their characters. If the DM asks players not to make a character before the game starts, and they go ahead and make one anyway, that's kind of a jerk move on their part. If my entire group did that I'd seriously consider whether or not I was the right person to be running the game because it would be obvious that the don't respect me.

Around here anyone showing up to roll-up night with a premade character would be immediately asked to tear it up and start over for one very simple reason: due to some shenanigans in the past we have a non-negotiable rule that rolls - particularly important rolls like initial stats, hit points, etc. - are always done in front of someone else, preferably the DM.

And if someone seriously balks at rolling in front of others it's out the door with you, old chum.

 

[Zardnaar]

In my case, the rules are often not fully cast in stone or fully available to access until shortly before roll-up night and thus rolling up ahead of time might prove to be wasted effort. That said, this is never an issue for me anyway: see below.

Same here. I design what I design for the setting, then the players roll up their PCs and away we go.

Around here anyone showing up to roll-up night with a premade character would be immediately asked to tear it up and start over for one very simple reason: due to some shenanigans in the past we have a non-negotiable rule that rolls - particularly important rolls like initial stats, hit points, etc. - are always done in front of someone else, preferably the DM.

And if someone seriously balks at rolling in front of others it's out the door with you, old chum.

I let them roll but yeah in front of DM.
you can premake your character but with default array.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe they won't, doesn't mean they can't.

IME, these days, most groups have multiple people who can DM.

Can, yes. Are willing to? Not so much.

Of the four players I had pre-covid one is already DMing our other game, two have briefly DMed in the distant past but would be very unlikely to do so again, and the fourth has never DMed and from what I can tell isn't the least bit interested in it.

 

[Dire Bare]

Except that his being asked not to create a character and doing so anyway is @Hussar's version of events. @Raunalyn's recollection appears to be different. I am not sure why you would automatically assume that Raunalyn is lying. It seems more likely to me that Hussar did not communicate "do not start creating character characters before the session" (as opposed to "do not finalise your characters" or something) as clearly as he thinks he did.

_
glass.

Why do we care who's "lying" and who's not?

Hussar didn't call anybody out, even if Raunalyn felt so. He's simply trying to illustrate his point, that asking players to abide by character creation restrictions that are then promptly ignored irritates and frustrates him as a DM.

What REALLY happened in that Saltmarsh game? WHO CARES.

 

[Oofta]

...
Going back to the general point of the thread, here's a thought: players are so protective about their characters and often track towards making them "special" even at the GM's resistance because it's the only level of narrative control they have in these types of games. Doesn't help that modern 5e play culture is effectively a machine for generating OCs. If you include ways for players to interact with and manipulate the world outside the sole diegetic lense of their PCs, maybe they won't be so difficult about them.

My players are quite happy to "only" influence the world through their PCs. They did come up with background stories and motivations, but I have veto and editorial power. For example it's great that a PC came from a noble family - but let's figure out why the family won't or can't give you as much money as you need or bail you out if you get in over your head. A background is useful and fun, I will do my best to work it into the story. But I don't want one back story to give anyone a head start.

But end of the day, the campaign has to make sense to me. No offense to any player, but I don't know if any specific player (well, other than my wife) will be there in a month. If you want to do some collaborative story telling that's fine but don't tell me that your 10th level cleric just hopped on over to Valhalla to have lunch with Odin over the weekend. My world doesn't work that way, sorry.

The PCs do make differences in my campaign world great and small. It's just done in character.

 

[Lanefan]

Why is democratizing fictional authority a bad thing? Why does giving narrative control to the players make a game "not a role-playing game"? Fiasco and Dream Askew lack GMs entirely, instead being a collaborative effort; are they not "role-playing games"? Band of Blades has a GM, but puts the troupe management mechanics and parts of the history of the world and the legion in the players' hands, does that tip it over the line? Seems like an overly restrictive definition.

I can't reconcile this sort of idea with being able to play or run any kind of mystery, as if everyone has some narrative control there's nothing stopping someone from just adding in the solution and thus negating the whole point of the mystery.

Doesn't help that modern 5e play culture is effectively a machine for generating OCs.

OCs? What's that?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Can, yes. Are willing to? Not so much.

Of the four players I had pre-covid one is already DMing our other game, two have briefly DMed in the distant past but would be very unlikely to do so again, and the fourth has never DMed and from what I can tell isn't the least bit interested in it.

So, you have at least one other DM in your group. Doesn't sound like a 20-1 split to me.

 

[Lanefan]

So, you have at least one other DM in your group. Doesn't sound like a 20-1 split to me.

I never said anything about a 20-1 split. Here, other than occasional one-shots, I'd say it's more like 4-1 or maybe even 3-1.