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

[Don Durito]

As I said before. An Atheist is a tonal issue.

The Athar in plasecape fit that setting and go around believing that the gods are not really the gods. (They still aren't what we normally think of as Atheits theses days).

I would consider playing such a character in a typical fantasy setting potentially dispruptive unless I knew the GM was playing game that allowed for a broad commedic tone and wasn't going for immersive worldbuilding. It seems the former is what the vast majority of people do most of the time, but even so, out of respect for GMs who put in the work to do the latter, I wouldn't bring such a character to a game if I wasn't sure what the tone was going to be.

 

[Lanefan]

While you can run into some issues with some people even wanting to engage with a setting with slavery in it, I think there's some real difference between that and "playing slavers."

In a setting where slavery is part of the society (ancient Greece, ancient Rome, etc.) then having someone's random background come up as "Slaver" shouldn't cause any raised eyebrows. It could just as easily have come up as "Slave" - easier, in fact, as the odds of rolling Slave are distinctly higher than rolling Slaver.

In the game as played, it came in quite handy: I ran a modified version of the A-series adventures and having her inside knowledge of the trade was of great help to the party.

 

[Lanefan]

Amazon's Alexa is real in a sense, that does not make it a living being.

Yet.

Amazon's R&D department is probably working on this as we speak.

 

[Oofta]

Yet.

Amazon's R&D department is probably working on this as we speak.

Well there are quite a few people who believe that we are just living in someone else's advanced version of SimCity. If they're right it's only a matter of time before we create simulations who think they're sentient. Kind of a turtles all the way down theory.

Of course if they're right then any simulation can follow whatever physical rules they choose. That means somewhere out there in this uber-cyberspace it's likely that something very similar to the Forgotten Realms exists. Probably with some wizard trying to create a simulated world with no magic.

 

[ph0rk]

To me, "Knights of the Round Table" is exactly that

Except in this particular case, the DM doesn't even know who was and was not a knight in Le Morte d'Arthur.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As I said before. An Atheist is a tonal issue.

The Athar in plasecape fit that setting and go around believing that the gods are not really the gods. (They still aren't what we normally think of as Atheits theses days).

I would consider playing such a character in a typical fantasy setting potentially dispruptive unless I knew the GM was playing game that allowed for a broad commedic tone and wasn't going for immersive worldbuilding. It seems the former is what the vast majority of people do most of the time, but even so, out of respect for GMs who put in the work to do the latter, I wouldn't bring such a character to a game if I wasn't sure what the tone was going to be.

Really? Just in like ten seconds I thought about a man who lost his faith in the gods because of the trauma's and trials he had been through. Looking out into the grim darkness of a world still beset by evil and deciding that if the gods cannot stop evil, then he will take up that burden.

Seems like that would work really well in a game with immersive worldbuilding and a serious tone.

Questions of what is a god, how you define it, and how do you consider godhood in a land rife with archmages, Djinni, and Demons who can challenge "the gods" in raw power, can be very serious and fit very well in a game with heavy worldbuilding.

 

[Dire Bare]

In a setting where slavery is part of the society (ancient Greece, ancient Rome, etc.) then having someone's random background come up as "Slaver" shouldn't cause any raised eyebrows. It could just as easily have come up as "Slave" - easier, in fact, as the odds of rolling Slave are distinctly higher than rolling Slaver.

In the game as played, it came in quite handy: I ran a modified version of the A-series adventures and having her inside knowledge of the trade was of great help to the party.

Slavery might exist and "make sense" in a historic or fictional setting . . . but it can still be a triggering topic for some folks and is something you have to be careful with. Eyebrows can and perhaps should be raised. Even with slavery depicted as evil and slavers as antagonists.

I wouldn't be comfortable playing in a game where slavery is just part of the landscape, and my background could be randomly a "slaver" or a "slave".

With the right group of friends, I wouldn't mind playing in a campaign where the antagonists are slavers . . . but again, it's dangerous territory that needs to be tread carefully. I might even be willing to play a repentant ex-slaver, or escaped ex-slave. But if anyone in my group threw down the x-card on that sort of thing, then it's got to be removed from the game.

 

[Maxperson]

As I said before. An Atheist is a tonal issue.

The Athar in plasecape fit that setting and go around believing that the gods are not really the gods. (They still aren't what we normally think of as Atheits theses days).

I would consider playing such a character in a typical fantasy setting potentially dispruptive unless I knew the GM was playing game that allowed for a broad commedic tone and wasn't going for immersive worldbuilding. It seems the former is what the vast majority of people do most of the time, but even so, out of respect for GMs who put in the work to do the latter, I wouldn't bring such a character to a game if I wasn't sure what the tone was going to be.

I don't consider someone with the views of the Athar to be either disruptive or comedic. It's not an unreasonable view to take. It would be disruptive in a campaign that was built around the idea of every PC being religious, but short of that sort of specific setting, an Athar would be very playable. He might be considered addled by some, eccentric by others, and reviled by religions, but those are roleplaying opportunities.

 

[Don Durito]

Really? Just in like ten seconds I thought about a man who lost his faith in the gods because of the trauma's and trials he had been through. Looking out into the grim darkness of a world still beset by evil and deciding that if the gods cannot stop evil, then he will take up that burden.

it's fine concept for a PC. And not relevant to this situation.

Faith in the gods being real, and faith in them being just, are hardly the same thing when you have concrete evidence for the first.

 

[Dire Bare]

Except in this particular case, the DM doesn't even know who was and was not a knight in Le Morte d'Arthur.

Well, I don't think that's necessary. You don't have to be an expert, or even all that familiar, with Arthurian legend to want to run a "Knights of the Round Table" D&D campaign.

It's more about, 1) creating a campaign theme that will be fun for everyone, DM and players, without being unnecessarily restricting, 2) being open and flexible to change if the group asks for it, and 3) work on communication, and don't get irritated at folks when they aren't receiving your message.

But . . . just from a lifetime of watching different cinema and television takes on the King Arthur story . . . I came up with all sorts of cool non-knight character ideas that would fit perfectly in a Round Table inspired D&D game. Just about every D&D class could be pretty easily slotted into such a story, even though certainly actual knights would be the focal point.