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

[amethal]

GM: No Xs in this campaign.

One week later

GM: So what's everyone playing?
Player: I have an X.

I thnk that in this most basic of situations the player is a dick. Assuming there is no miscommunication the player is a dick. There's not really anything more to be said about that. So of course the thread becomes about miscommunication, because that is something that we can talk about.

Yes, it could be more like:

GM: No Vowels in this campaign, it's Consonants only

One week later

GM: So what's everyone playing?
Player: I have a Y
GM: I said no Vowels!
Player: Y isn't a Vowel
GM: It can be, or at it's least similar to a Vowel, why are you trying to subvert my campaign?
Player: Well, I wanted to play a U but you didn't want Vowels so I thought a Y would be a nice compromise
GM: Actually, we are now using the Welsh alphabet, so Y is definitely a Vowel and you can't play one

 

[DEFCON 1]

Pointlessly contrarian? Nah. Pointedly contrarian perhaps.

Bored and irritated with meaningless and unnecessary restrictions? Yeah. Willing to give it a go anyway, but with hope of making the game a bit more fun for me, and not just playing a nearly pre-written role in my DM's screenplay? Yeah.

Heh... this is where some of us luck out and have more options available for players at our tables. Because if a single campaign idea or premise with one or a couple character requests makes you bored and irritated because you immediately assume you are "just playing a nearly pre-written role in my DM's screenplay"... to me it seems you obviously have been burned too many times before and thus would be a poor fit at my table. To jump from seeing the DM say "Hey, I'd like to set up an all-tiefling game, please create a tiefling" to the idea that the DM has the entire campaign already scripted out in their head and you're there to just be a puppet... is such a ridiculous jump to me that I can tell just from that statement we shouldn't ever be playing together. And hopefully you recognize that too and came to the same conclusion.

And really... that's all any of us really want. For each person to recognize in themselves what they are looking for when they want to enter a game, recognize what the game is to be, and then make the active choice to just not play in it if it doesn't float their boat (or go along to get along if it doesn't really matter to them that much.) But to sit down and then deliberately fight the things the DM has requested because you're "pointedly contrarian" and "bored and irritated"? That's the kind of attitude that makes me wonder how anyone is willing to play with you at all (unless you have a DM that legitimately just doesn't care about what characters people create, and if so, you found the right table to play at!)

 

[ph0rk]

Actually, I want to thank @ph0rk for giving such a picture perfect example of what I'm talking about. The DM says that he wants the players to create a "knight of the round table" and his FIRST reaction is to give three examples of characters that aren't knights of the round table.

That wasn't my first response - my first response gave you more credit for communication.

Anyway - this is a game, not a play. You are not a playwright and you are not an author.

Vet your players better or be more flexible in your narrative arcs.

 

[Oofta]

I have to think it's hard to see how any straight out Atheist makes sense in your typical D&D setting. Terry Pratchett even makes jokes about it.

Irreligious sure, but atheist?

In any case, I've alway thought a lot of the stuff about the wall of the faithless and the importance of having a god was just dumb stuff that got added in 3rd edition for some reason. It was never really a part of the setting before that, and I'm not sure if it's appeared anywhere in 5E.

So I certainly wouldn't have the expectation that would necessarily apply as a player.

But an atheist character sounds like a tonal issue as much as anything. And tonal expectations are difficult to convey.

One of my first PCs was an atheist. According to him, the gods were simply complex constructs built and maintained by prayers. Each individual prayer was like a raindrop, individually inconsequential, but powerful in the aggregate.

So, sure. Waste your time fueling what was effectively an advanced golem, what we would consider in the modern world an advanced computer programmed to imitate a god. To him it explained why gods reflected their worshippers and reinforced their beliefs. A similar theory is behind Harry Harrison's Hammer and the Cross. I came up with my atheist years before I read the book, but still an excellent read.

 

[BluejayJunior]

And Merlin, Morgana nor Mordred were knights of the round table. So, in my Knights of the Round table campaign, why are you playing a character that specifically WASN'T a knight of the round table and then blaming me for not being flexible enough?

But, if I don't want to deal with ronin or whatnot in my game, why are you forcing me to and then insisting that I'm not being flexible enough? The game is NOT ABOUT subverting expectations, this time around, it's about THESE EXPECTATIONS. So, in the Samurai game, PLAY A SAMURAI. No, don't play a Ronin. No, don't play a commoner. No, you can't play a Yakuza. This is a game about a group of Samurai. Now, if you don't want to play in that? No problems. That's fine. This is not the game for you. But, don't agree to play and then try to sabotage the game by pretending to be compromising and then go all passive aggressive on the DM and expect him to be happy about it.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I want to thank @ph0rk for giving such a picture perfect example of what I'm talking about. The DM says that he wants the players to create a "knight of the round table" and his FIRST reaction is to give three examples of characters that aren't knights of the round table.

See, over and over in this thread I've been told that the problem is a lack of DM communication. But, even when I'm as specific as I can possibly be - make THIS - the response is to make characters that are very much NOT THIS.

Not only that, but, now we have @Dire Bare chiming in that the DM is wrong for not allowing an apprentice to Merlin or a priest. Not a single thought that the player here has flat out ignored the DM's request and gone down a different path. That's perfectly fine. But, the DM insist on something? Oh, that's a bad DM.

Note, AGAIN, we're not talking about the issue of DM placing limitations.

We're talking about players who have ACCEPTED THE LIMITATIONS but then actively subvert or sabotage the game because of those limitations. @ph0rk wanted a game where all the PC's were religious - I said Knight of the Round Table. His response was to immediately subvert that and make a character that ISN'T A KNIGHT OF THE ROUND TABLE.

But, then again, I don't even get the notion really. If someone said, "Let's play a "Knights of the Round Table" campaign, of course we would all be knights. It's right there in the title. I'm not going to start playing barracks room lawyer on everything the DM says so I can say, "AHA! GOTCHA! You didn't SAY that we couldn't be a hexblade sorcerer knight in this Knights of the Round Table campaign, so, I guess that means I can play it and you're being needlessly restrictive if you disagree. You should have been more specific in your campaign description!"

I think you have demonstrated how clearly expectations need to laid out. You say "Knights of the Round Table" and mean everyone must play a knight, but don't explicitly say that. And then you are getting mad when people suggested characters that are central figures in the Round Table (Arthurian) legends. It clearly shows that your expectations of what Knights of the Round Table means does not match everyone else's. There is nothing wrong with people inferring different things from a vague concept like that, but you can't blame other people for not understanding what you meant when you made a vague suggestion. Especially when it comes to Merlin. Merlin set up the Round Table and was an advisor to the Knights of the Round Table. Why wouldn't people think "wizard/cleric/etc. advisor to the Knights" is an acceptable character idea for a Knights of the Round Table game?

 

[Dire Bare]

Heh. I love that last bit. That was funny, and, yeah, that's generally what I've been pointing to.

But, then again, I don't even get the notion really. If someone said, "Let's play a "Knights of the Round Table" campaign, of course we would all be knights. It's right there in the title. I'm not going to start playing barracks room lawyer on everything the DM says so I can say, "AHA! GOTCHA! You didn't SAY that we couldn't be a hexblade sorcerer knight in this Knights of the Round Table campaign, so, I guess that means I can play it and you're being needlessly restrictive if you disagree. You should have been more specific in your campaign description!"

No thanks. I'd rather be able to trust the players at my table and know that when they say that they want to play the game I've pitched, they ACTUALLY want to play the game that I've pitched and not go out of their way to twist it simply because I didn't have a lawyer look over the contract to play.

For me, if you tell me that you are running Game X and I want to play in Game X, I will guarantee you that my character will be deeply embedded in Game X. I would never do the whole bait and switch thing as a player. It's such a douche move. If you don't want to play, don't play. That's groovy. No problems. Or, maybe I can make room for the concept, it never hurts to ask. But, the expectation that I'm going to rewrite my campaign to make room for your character so you can play against type again is a bridge too far for me anymore. I'm simply not interested in playing with players who can't get with the program anymore. It's too frustrating and just makes DMing suck too hard.

"Let's play a 'Knights of the Round Table' game!" does not naturally lead to all characters must be knights. Obviously, the actual knights of the Round Table would be a focus of such a campaign, but it's perfectly reasonable for a player to assume that a non-knight character attached to King Arthur's court would work just fine. They exist in the stories, why not the D&D campaign! My mind "boggles" that you think it's clear this would mean a knights-only campaign and are surprised players would push to play non-knight characters. Now, if you instead were more explicit with your players, "I want to run a Knights of the Round Table style game where all the PCs are knights in service to the king" THAT would be much more clear, and players should be expected to come up with knightly character concepts. But again, players trying to push the boundaries and create characters that feel different or unique shouldn't be an issue . . . at least for discussion. As stated upthread, in some Arthurian stories, Morded spends time as a knight of the Round Table and in some stories has a degree of sorcerous power (separate from his mom's). So, as a player, asking to play a Mordred-inspired knight with a degree of sorcerous (or warlocky) power, doesn't feel out of theme to me, but that's the point of discussion, to see if it would feel out of theme for the DM and other players.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, as much as I agree on the main thrust of your argument, Hussar, your examples have been exactly the kind of vague waffle that lead to genuine misunderstandings. By samurai, do you mean character class, narrow definition of the historical role, or social caste? By Knights of the Round Table do you mean armored knightly fighting men, or anyone else who could be pulled from the Arthurian romances? Christian knights or pagan?

There’s a lot of wiggle room in your examples that are perfectly honest and you’d expect the DM and players to hash out in session 0 or in questions about the game pitch.

 

[Dire Bare]

Theros seems to rely on the carrot whilst FR uses the stick. The former seems much more appealing.

It's not a very good stick or "clue-bat", as many FR players and DM's aren't even aware of it, and it doesn't really impact play at most tables. And it's weird, at least to me and others.

To me, the threat of being put into the wall is a lot like the real world threat of being condemned to hell if you naughty. It works for some (characters, not necessarily players), but doesn't work for others, regardless of the "reality" of the divine punishment.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, as much as I agree on the main thrust of your argument, Hussar, your examples have been exactly the kind of vague waffle that lead to genuine misunderstandings. By samurai, do you mean character class, narrow definition of the historical role, or social caste? By Knights of the Round Table do you mean armored knightly fighting men, or anyone else who could be pulled from the Arthurian romances? Christian knights or pagan?

There’s a lot of wiggle room in your examples that are perfectly honest and you’d expect the DM and players to hash out in session 0 or in questions about the game pitch.

Right! Are we pulling more from Le Mort d’Arthur or from Welsh myth? Can I play a Saracen or not? Some stories have a Saracen as one of the knights, other stories have them all lily white and British. Are we playing literal Knights of the Round Table, or just inspired by? Is there magic? Are knightly options that wield magic available or are we all playing mundane fighters?

Like...the idea that “knights of the round table” is a complete brief is just...mind boggling.

 

[Dire Bare]

Or the adventurers are the favoured champions of a diety who act as their patron. Mythic Odysseys of Theros takes this approach and even included a Piety system so that characters that faithfully served their deity would receive boons.

I really like the Theros system, however the piety system gives more than one option for those who do not wish to venerate or serve the gods. And, if not Greek myth, ancient Greek culture is chock full of philosophers and atheists.