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

[Don Durito]

You'd still have the issue eluded to earlier. There's a strong possibility that no PCs would be a knight. That's something of an issue in itself.

These kind of things can get out of control - you may be willing to allow an exception in principle, but you can quickly find that everyone is an exception, in which case you may legitimately be asking yourself why these players signed up for a game about knights if none of them wanted to be a knight.

 

[ph0rk]

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.

No, but if even the DM isn't perfectly clear on those details, that underscores the need to be very clear with a campaign document. They have a set of things that aren't acceptable - those things need to be in writing.

 

[Dire Bare]

As I recall, it gives exactly one option for those who don’t wish to venerate the gods: the Iconoclast supernatural gift. The name itself suggests someone who opposes the gods, not someone who is unconcerned with them.

Also, Theros is inspired by ancient Greek myths, not Ancient Greece as it actually was, so I’m not sure the fact that Ancient Greece had atheists is relevant.

Ignoring the gods in a Theros campaign means ignoring about 50% of the book. Sure it’s doable, but if the DM is running a Theros campaign and you are not interacting with the divine aspect at all, I would repeat Hussar’s initial question: why are you playing in that game at all?

The "iconoclast" isn't written explicitly for atheists or faithless characters, but it sure fits them well. Perhaps the reason why you struggle against the gods is that you don't feel they are worthy of veneration.

A character in Theros certainly believes that Heliod (Apollo/Zeus substitute), the entity, exists, and that he is worshipped as a god. In fact demands worship as a god. But it's very reasonable for a character to deny the divinity of Heliod and the other gods, seeing them simply as powerful spirits. Or might acknowledge their divinity, but feel they are not worth of worship and veneration. I can even see a character that denies Heliod's existence itself, although that character might be mad in some way. I can't see any of that "breaking" a Theros campaign unless the entire adventuring party went that route!

The "oracle" can also be seen as disconnected from the gods. Sometimes, oracles as seen as receiving their gift from the gods, in service to the gods (the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi), but oracles can also come into their power mysteriously without any seeming connection to divinity. This is also a good player option for those who don't want to play religious or faithful characters.

Finally, the rules right there in the book give DM's the option to allow players to take a feat rather than the listed supernatural gifts. So, plenty of non-faith options in an official by-the-book Theros campaign!

 

[Dire Bare]

Great Players will adjust to what the dms want to play.

Sigh. No.

Great gaming groups collaborate on a fun game that everyone will enjoy.

 

[Don Durito]

No, but if even the DM isn't perfectly clear on those details, that underscores the need to be very clear with a campaign document. They have a set of things that aren't acceptable - those things need to be in writing.

Although I'd recommend not having too much faith in writing if it's mostly along the lines of this is what you can play in the campaign.

You get better results if instead it's along the lines of "this is what you can do in this game that's cool and which you can't do anywhere else". Tell the potential players that knight PCs begin with a small castle and a squire and that can determine their own heraldry. If you have a map of the kingdom ask them to determine where their ancestral lands are and maybe give a sentence about each region. Maybe give out a small benfit based on the location of these lands.

The trick is to get the imagination firing in the direction you want rather than at cross purposes.

And it can be very hard sometimes to spell out what doesn't fit in advance. You may say that half-elf Paladins are fine, but be less happy, if a player brings one that talks like a valley girl.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

"Torturer" is a profession in a number of historical settings too. That would not in any way mean I'd expect it to be something in a PC background without explicit buy-in by a player.

The fact a setting may have some seriously unpleasant properties does not oblige a player to want to actively participate in same, even retroactively.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, but if even the DM isn't perfectly clear on those details, that underscores the need to be very clear with a campaign document. They have a set of things that aren't acceptable - those things need to be in writing.

Or at least spelled out in detail in person (but I agree writing it down is better).

 

[ph0rk]

Or at least spelled out in detail in person (but I agree writing it down is better).

Treat it like a course syllabus - written down before the session starts is much better than "we talked about this, remember?"

 

[Dire Bare]

I have done this in the past(not the exact opposite thing part), because the rest of my gaming group which consists of very close friends, wanted to do it. I may not have buy in to the premise of the campaign, but I do have buy in to the group.

I've kinda sorta done and seen this. Mostly when the premise is that we all play fighters, but there are only like 3 fighter subclasses and 4 players, so we have to have two doubling up which isn't fun. Then you don't get someone trying to be a wizard, but you might get someone saying, "Well, a barbarian is kinda like a fighter and fits the theme, can I be one of those instead so we are all unique?"

In ancient days, there were only four human player classes, the fighting-man, the magic-user, the cleric, and the thief. Having a unique character wasn't about choosing different player options during character creation. Of course, that's how the game has evolved and it certainly is that way for many gamers today. It's pretty common to want your character to be differentiated from the rest of the party in some way, even when this creates groups that potentially break the suspension of disbelief. ("What, no humans at all in this group? And everybody's skin tone is a color not found in nature, if not covered in fur? Okay.")

Part of Hussars frustration (I believe) is not just wanting an all-knights only campaign, but the worry that a significant chunk of his playing group will want to play against type. It would be easier to roll with if it was just one player. When everybody is "the exception" then nobody is and your theme is potentially lost. While I think he favors a too restrictive game for my tastes, I get that frustration.

Again, with the right group of friends, I can see an "all fighters" campaign where the players are encouraged to differentiate by background and personality rather than in-game character options. But that isn't the expected norm, and I'd want to make sure I'm communicating clearly with my group and that I get their honest and enthusiastic buy-in before getting too invested in the idea.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You'd still have the issue eluded to earlier. There's a strong possibility that no PCs would be a knight. That's something of an issue in itself.

These kind of things can get out of control - you may be willing to allow an exception in principle, but you can quickly find that everyone is an exception, in which case you may legitimately be asking yourself why these players signed up for a game about knights if none of them wanted to be a knight.

You can talk with people. "Most characters need to be knights, but there can be one or two exceptions." I have never seen this to be an issue in practice.