D&D 5E Rejecting the Premise in a Module

[ccs]

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.



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.

What about when your not the DM?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

What about when your not the DM?

The last time I on the players' side was 2008-9, when a housemate and I would take turns running games. We had pretty similar outlooks.

The last character I played was an enchanted helmet, worn by one of the other PCs. We had a blast arguing over who got to use the "sword" - which was also a player character. The fourth PC was the knight's horse.

In another game, a PC (not me) played an enchanted cottage. That was a little strange, I must say.

My most memorable PC was a hermit with MPD. Every time he rolled a 6, his personalty would change. One personality was a druid, another a monk, and the third a cleric. Good times.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

That's the way you have always played, but that is not how everyone plays. Not all DMs create their own worlds and adventures, and creating it on the fly is an even higher level skill. DMs are hard to come by, and quite often someone is forced to take on the role because no one else is prepared to do it.

This means that some DMs really have no other option but to run published adventures, in which case it's really not fair for players to reject the premise and try and do something else. It's impossible for a published adventure to include all possibilities. If they want to do something else the they should be the DM and put in all the hard work!

This is where establishing the premise in session zero is important - if a player isn't happy with that they can find a different game, or create one themselves.

This may mean giving the players some guidance as to what sort of characters to make - not usually in terms of class, but in terms of background and motivation for adventuring. Again, if a player isn't happy with that they have the freedom to play in a different game.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

That's the way you have always played, but that is not how everyone plays. Not all DMs create their own worlds and adventures, and creating it on the fly is an even higher level skill. DMs are hard to come by, and quite often someone is forced to take on the role because no one else is prepared to do it.

This means that some DMs really have no other option but to run published adventures, in which case it's really not fair for players to reject the premise and try and do something else. It's impossible for a published adventure to include all possibilities. If they want to do something else the they should be the DM and put in all the hard work!

This is where establishing the premise in session zero is important - if a player isn't happy with that they can find a different game, or create one themselves.

This may mean giving the players some guidance as to what sort of characters to make - not usually in terms of class, but in terms of background and motivation for adventuring. Again, if a player isn't happy with that they have the freedom to play in a different game.

Perhaps, but many adventures can approximate it quite well. B2 is a well-known example. The adventure can go in all sorts of directions. Do the PCs attempt to vanquish the monsters inside the Caves of Chaos? Do they join forces with the cult? Do take over the keep? Do they slaughter the cultists and take the Caves for themselves?

Add B1, B3, B5, X2, S2, UK1, UK5, and Temple of the Frog to the map and the DM has a barony ripe with near-infinite possibilities with very little prep-work.

Just image how those modules interact: the roc in UK5 snatches the head cultist and brings him to its nest, where the skeletons of the heroes who created the stronghold in B1 lay dead.

If that isn't enough, replace the Keep with the City State of the Infinite Overlord.

Honestly, that sounds like a cool campaign.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Perhaps, but many adventures can approximate it quite well. B2 is a well-known example.

Some do, some don't. B2 has no plot, and I would rate it as boring as f**k. Curse of Strahd dumps players in a location (with very solid boundaries) and lets them do pretty much anything they like. But eventually they will run out of stuff to do and have to try to defeat Strahd and escape, if only because they have exhausted everything else there is to do. Many CRPGs, such as Witcher 3 and Pillars of Eternity 2, adopt this format.

But other adventures assume the players buy into the premise. Tomb of Annihilation assumes players are going to search for a way to end the Death Curse. The players could decide instead to jump on the next ship back to Waterdeep. But that would be unfair on the DM, who has put in the work (and spent the money) preparing the adventure in Chult.

And remember, not all players want "near-infinite possibilities", that would require decision making, and decision making is hard work. Some would rather simply know where they have to go next to find out what happens next in the story.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

For my part, I build the world - or at least enough of the framework that the basics are locked in - long before I start approaching players to see if they're interested in playing in it.

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}?

I have no arbitrary alignment restrictions as to what you can play. Some classes have baked-in blanket alignment restrictions e.g. Monks must be Lawful.

If a creature or class doesn't exist in the setting then so be it, it's not getting played. If a creature is rare in the setting (e.g. Gnomes in my current world) then the dice will decide if you get the option of playing one this time or not. If a creature is common then you can choose it.

Any "Make your character a [xxxxx] so it fits" is always very temporary; usually for first characters only. For my current campaign I made them all start as Humans as they were starting out in the middle of an all-Human land, and made it very clear that other creatures could be played as soon as the party/parties started encountering them in the wild (I think it was all of about 4 sessions before the first non-Human PC appeared; by the end of the first adventure most of 'em were non-Human).

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Some do, some don't. B2 has no plot, and I would rate it as boring as f**k. Curse of Strahd dumps players in a location (with very solid boundaries) and lets them do pretty much anything they like. But eventually they will run out of stuff to do and have to try to defeat Strahd and escape, if only because they have exhausted everything else there is to do. Many CRPGs, such as Witcher 3 and Pillars of Eternity 2, adopt this format.

But other adventures assume the players buy into the premise. Tomb of Annihilation assumes players are going to search for a way to end the Death Curse. The players could decide instead to jump on the next ship back to Waterdeep. But that would be unfair on the DM, who has put in the work (and spent the money) preparing the adventure in Chult.

And remember, not all players want "near-infinite possibilities", that would require decision making, and decision making is hard work. Some would rather simply know where they have to go next to find out what happens next in the story.

Which is fine. I'm just pointing out that a sandbox campaign doesn't require much heavy lifting. An appeal to workload is a sunken excuse.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which is fine. I'm just pointing out that a sandbox campaign doesn't require much heavy lifting.

It requires less heavy lifting from the DM, but it requires more from the players.

And for some, they are simply not interesting.

An appeal to workload is a sunken excuse.

Workload is a massive barrier for people who want to both play D&D and keep down proper jobs.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

It requires less heavy lifting from the DM, but it requires more from the players.

And for some, they are simply not interesting.

Not interesting and too much work arguments. If a game isn't someone's cup of tea, he/she can also start/join another. No problem there. Not every game works for everyone.

Workload is a massive barrier for people who want to both play D&D and keep down proper jobs.

Except that I set up set a sandbox in 3 minutes. Given another 2 minutes, I'd even have a map.

Besides, B2 has a wonderful plot. Get 6 players, form 2 groups. One group plays adventurers from the keep, the other plays humanoids from the caves. I've done this several times. Never falls flat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Except that I set up set a sandbox in 3 minutes. Given another 2 minutes, I'd even have a map.

Yes. You might well be able to create a world in five minutes. It might even not suck. But that is your superpower. I assure you most people can't. It took God six days.