D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[EscherEnigma]

If the players arent enjoying it though, why?

Because they skipped your second sentence and went straight to "disruptive play".

Have the talk. Don't be a disruptive player.

 

[Lanefan]

If the players arent enjoying it though, why?

It's time to have a new session zero and group chat with the DM about it for mine. It could be the adventure isnt working, the DM isnt working, a dynamic in the group isnt working or some outside influence.

Personally If im not enjoying the game, I see no reason to play it.

From the tone of the OP, the players ARE enjoying the game. If they weren't, one assumes they'd have packed it in and shut 'er down rather than - as it appears they did - coming up with their own what's-next and following up on it.

They may well not be enjoying the particular module, however, and so they've proactively decided to do something else within the game's setting; which IMO is their right. That they're engaged enough to go this route is nothing but good news, and sitting them down for a 'group chat' will only serve as a great big discouragement to large-scale creative play (i.e. not following the DM's lead) in the future.

The only real headache here comes if the DM is unwilling and-or unprepared to run whatever the players/PCs get up to next. That's on the DM, who by dropping the puck and starting the game has implied s/he's at least vaguely ready to handle whatever the players may do within said game even if it's completely off-script.

 

[amethal]

A mismatch in expectations, a shirking of one's agreement, or a desire to renegotiate is in evidence here. It just takes some hashing out. But if someone is just shirking an agreement, they can go in my opinion.

I'm not sure I've ever played in or run a campaign where there was an agreement to be "re-negotiated" or "shirked". We just sit down and have some fun playing RPGs. What adventure we do is a secondary consideration.

If I'm GMing and the players get bored with the module I'm running and/ or have their own ideas as to what the characters want to do, then I'll go with it. I've got literally hundreds of other modules I can run, or I can make something up. I just need a bit of advance warning.

 

[Coroc]

If I run a sandbox then the players can run off in all directions. But I announce upfront that it is a sandbox, and there are things round some corners which can and will ditch out a TPK if the players did not watch or ignore the very obvious stop sign, which will be in place as a safeguard for such cases.

If I run a path (aka "railroad") I announce it also upfront, and there are safeguards which will interact with players striding to far from the path. And these safeguards are in a way, that no player gets out easy: e.g. domain borders in ravenloft, the desert with a sandstorm in DS, an orc army occupying the territory the players want to pass, some nasty one way portal into the 567. layer of the abyss if everything else fails etc. etc.

Luckily I got mature players who might complain about things they do not like that much, but they also understand that there are limitations on preparation time and different campaign styles and they do play along.

 

[Mort]

Depends on situation. I've had players bail on Tomb of Horrors.

Tomb of Horrors is a great retro experience if players are allowed to use disposable (not their usual) characters just to experience the module.

If a DM tries to put the group's regular characters into Tomb of Horrors they should respond in one of two ways :

1. Throw dice at the DM until he picks a different module; or

2. Find the nearest flock (sheep are good, cows will also do but may be a bit big for some of the corridors) and overrun the dungeon with it - then move on to a different module.

 

[ccs]

Well, the story being told is that of the PCs. So if this is how the players want things to develop.... It will make it a bit harder for me to prep something. That in turn might impact the players enjoyment of the game....
If it reaches the point where I, the DM, am not having fun? Then they've successfully ended the campaign.

Right now in my 5e game? I've got a player who has stated that his character is a monomaniac.
He will pick one thing to accomplish at a time & will work solely upon that until it's done. If something is in his way? He'll invest as little effort in dealing with it as possible. Even to the point of missing xp, missing loot, missing story, losing his Paladin powers (I'm a 1e DM, you most definitely can lose your powers at my table.). And he'll persist when this deprives the other characters & irritates their players.
Right now they're in Waterdeep for a week of R&R. 4/5 of the group is doing personal PC stuff, RPing, etc & I've thrown out several hooks for Heist. The other players are almost biting but this guy keeps stalling the sessions out as getting involved is not him "Getting back on the boat at the end of the week".
What's going to happen real soon is that we'll just hold a few sessions without his ass. His character can sit in the inn & he can enjoy a few RL weeks off while the rest of us play D&D.
To top it off? He actually had the balls to complain last week that I'd missed a great point for him to lv up - & got pissy when I told him that I in-fact had not missed it & agree that'd it'd have been a great story point, But leveling up requires XP, and that XP is earned by adventuring, not just "waiting for Fri." (the group is roughly 3/4 to the next lv)

 

[Scott Christian]

They need to have a discussion but a lot of 5E adventures aren't very good. Not everyone likes long AP path type adventures either.

No offense, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Any player that likes to play D&D is able to like an AP. They can have fun playing the AP. They can even prefer sandbox and then switch to preferring AP's. It's all the GM, the group they are playing with, and the chemistry between the three.

As for them not being very good. I think that might be even more of a ridiculous statement. They may not be your style or setting. But to say they are not good, that's just not true. That's the same as saying Shakespeare is not good. Yes, he is good. You may not like his plays or poems because they don't appeal to you, but there is no denying that his writing is impeccable and put together with an enormous amount of skill.

 

[Scott Christian]

In most situations I believe player agency is more important. I find that to be more enjoyable for the group than forcing my (the DM) plans on them.

While I understand the sentiment of this, I have rarely found it to be true for any GM who knows what they are doing. Meaning, I have never seen an entire group of players want to leave the adventure at the drop of a hat. I have never seen an entire group suddenly sabotage a plot line. I have seen one or two influential players force their influence on others that went along with it. But never really willingly.
The point is, almost all GM's I have known for the last twenty years sit down prior to the campaign and state a few rules. Sometimes it's, "Look, this won't work if you are going to be chaotic evil," other times it's, "Everyone of you must have a loved one, someone you cared about greatly, that has gone missing." This helps direct the players.
So player agency isn't really a thing. In fact, I'd say it doesn't even really exist. This doesn't mean GM's are railroading. They can do a hex crawl and let their players choose every path they take. But, if you have a plot, or even a theme in the world that supplies the plot, then the agency doesn't exist. Unless of course, your players insist on being beet farmers or professional card players. In which case, change games. But even that is not player agency. That is players not wanting to play D&D, not explore the world in a different direction.

 

[Scott Christian]

As far as the OP goes. They were being difficult players, but I doubt the entire table felt that way.

On a side note, time is an important consideration here. If you are unhappy playing an AP, and you only play once a month, so you have another year until you are finished - that's tough. The table should have a talk at that point. Like, "Hey, I thought hell would be all cool t explore, but I am so over it already." If everyone agrees, cool. Sometimes even the GM will agree. If they don't, then maybe play the abridged version, for another three or four months. No harm in that. That player, if they keep an open mind, might find they start liking it. Or they can take some time off. Point i, time is important in these decisions.

 

[prabe]

No offense, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Any player that likes to play D&D is able to like an AP. They can have fun playing the AP. They can even prefer sandbox and then switch to preferring AP's. It's all the GM, the group they are playing with, and the chemistry between the three.

Every single AP I've played in more than a couple sessions, I've at best disliked. The play becomes about finishing the story of the AP, not the characters, and any attempt to actually get ahead of the BBEG short-circuits the AP and/or causes a TPK. The only way I can not be a disruptive player is to be a disengaged player, which is no fun at all.