D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[prabe]

I mean Skull & Shackles is awesome. But it has an enormous amount of logic errors compared to most 5e AP's.

I had to check to be sure this was one I'd started, and yep. Biggest logic error is the idea that pirates who are any good at pirating need to resort to press-ganging a crew and/or that any pirates resorting to press-ganging don't need the forced crew more than the forced crew need the pirates. So, doomed from the start that one was.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think we must have very different play-styles, or possibly I'm misunderstanding you.

The premise seems to be playing a module, so choosing to go off the rails on purpose rather than discussing things with your DM seems childish.

I generally don’t run modules, but when I do, it’s because I don’t have the time to make up a game from scratch.

 

[dave2008]

Wow.
If you sit down with friends and you need to know all that going into a game... wow... just wow.
Every answer you seek is already implied in the fact that you are playing a game.

No it is not. Not all games or groups are equal.

To be clear, I think these answers tend to be very clear and easy to pick up in a face-to-face group. However, the OP doesn't provide the information we would to get the answers we would intuitively get from such an interaction. My only point is, as written in the OP, the terms of the "agreement" can be very different. Even if it is under the umbrella of "playing a game."

Listen, I am just being pedantic. I have already given my personal answer , I was just exploring the wide implications (or lack thereof) of the OP

 

[Stormdale]

I had this great campaign sorted based round Ghosts of Saltmarsh and a number of old Dungeon mag adventures and old modules maybe link it to the Slavers series, it was going to be awesome! Lots of nautical adventures and a big sahaugin conspiracy (linking the 2e evil tide series). All was going well till they first encountered Sahuagin in Evil Tide and hated fighting underwater as the sea devils had all the advantages so soon as that adventure was completed became landlubbers and declined further sea adventures.

One of my core players plays a lot of adventure paths and at times has struggled with the concept of the players drive the adventure and the adventure is what you decide to do (aka sandbox) style game. So this time round rather than drop cunning clues for future adventures into the game, many of which are missed, I have been much more overt. At the end of each adventure I've given them 2-3 meaningful next adventure choices and the one they choose becomes the next adventure so it is a sort of pick a path campaign. Should they complete their current adventure (Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth) they'll get 2-3 more choices. May not work for some but seems to be keeping my players happy. They have moved well away from my original idea/concept but the game us going well as I've responded to their feedback and rolled with a change of direction. We may get back to Saltmarsh, we may not.
IMO games tend to fall over when players feel they've no choice and have no buy in (why are we doing this again, oh that's right Elminster us having a bath so we have to save the world) My group hate being railroaded and I tend to describe my attempts to engage them as like trying to herd cats.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the longer APs are inherently a problem. They take 6 months to a year to complete IRL and there's not much sense of achievement until the end vs say a smaller adventure.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

A good clarification. The GM's fun is important too. There's a line that after which, it just becomes a mismatch between players and GM.

I'd say "willing" rather than "prepared", insofar as a GM ought to be okay with a change in direction that "kills their darlings" in terms of NPC and plot, but that doesn't mean they have new material ready at a moment's notice. "Okay, folks, you really want to run off and be pirates rather than save the town from the Halfling Hordes? We can do that. Let's adjourn for this week while I put together something for this new direction."

And, willing, to the limit of what they themselves find fun in a game. You don't owe players a game that's not your jam.

Argh, that all brings back all sorts of flashbacks. Yeah, one of this player's tactics was also to zero in on something so pedantic that it excluded all the other players. Stuff like grilling random NPC on the justice system of the locale. In his mind he was challenging the GM to prove their mettle, but in reality he was making the game less fun for the whole table.

I had a guy like that at one point as well. No matter what hook I set up, he would ignore it. Have a side-plot that should be right up his alley? He'd reject it. Building on fire and collapsing? He'd run in just to see if I'd kill his PC even though his PC had no reason to do so*.

 

[Hriston]

Suppose your group is playing a module. You all agreed to play a module. Halfway through that module, half of the group decides to knife the primary quest giver and head off for Saltmarsh to become a pirates or whatever. They've rejected the premise and substituted their own.

At what point should player agency take a backseat to campaign style? Does the answer change if you're playing a homebrew sandbox game vs. a published adventure?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

To me, “playing a module” just means the DM is using content from a module. It doesn’t bind the players to act differently from how they would if the DM’s content came from somewhere else. Now, if the premise of the game pitched to the players was that the PCs accept quests from this NPC quest giver who they then decided to kill, then yes, that seems like they’ve rejected that premise pretty strongly. I have to wonder, though, if that’s really the game they thought they were joining.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

DM creates and runs the world, players play the characters.

Players don't tell the DM how to build or run the world. the DM doesn't tell the players how to player their characters.

Just because the characters start an adventure, doesn't mean they are bound to finish it.

 

[ccs]

DM creates and runs the world, players play the characters.

Players don't tell the DM how to build or run the world. the DM doesn't tell the players how to player their characters.

Just because the characters start an adventure, doesn't mean they are bound to finish it.

On your 2nd point.... This is not completely true.
The DM should be building & running a world the players want to play in. So yeah, the players have some input.
What? You've never played in a game where you were told "No Evil pcs", "No {insert race/class/etc}", "Build a character who fits this {insert theme/region/etc}?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

On your 2nd point.... This is not completely true.
The DM should be building & running a world the players want to play in.

I have two worlds. I've been running them since 2008 and 2013. Those worlds exists long before the players sit down at the table. If someone isn't interested in that type of world, he/she's welcome to start his/her own game. In fact, I highly recommend it.

So yeah, the players have some input.
What? You've never played in a game where you were told "No Evil pcs", "No {insert race/class/etc}", "Build a character who fits this {insert theme/region/etc}?

No Evil PCs - Nope
No {insert race/class/etc} - As long as it exists the world, it's not my business. One of my worlds is human only. 100% of the NPCs are human beings. Even then, if a player wanted to play a dwarf, I'd say, "go for it." He'll just be the only dwarf who's ever existed. "The name's Half Man, first of his kind." Likewise, Christianity is the only religion of that setting, but it didn't stop one of my players from playing a cleric of Zeus.
Build a character who fits this {insert theme/region/etc} - Once again, not my business.