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

[Hussar]

"FR is a setting where religion is important, so your character has to follow a deity". Why? The wall? That's stupid. What about the FR setting really supports the idea that faith is an integral aspect of the setting? Nothing.
/snip

See, this is where I find it rather boggling. We're talking about a setting where gods have walked the lands REPEATEDLY. How many gods feature in Realms novels, other than "lots"? One of the best known CRPG's for the Realms focuses on the Time of Troubles and the Bhaalspawn. 2e had two honking huge, and very well written, gods books - Faiths and Avatars and Powers and Pantheons (I think that's the name of the second one, I owned it, but, I might be misremembering). Every Realms setting features gods and priesthoods prominently. In 5e, we've had what, six, or seven Realms specific campaign modules, several of which feature gods - Tiamat in two of them, Dragonheist leans heavily on Asmodeus in at least one of the adventures, Princes of Elemental Evil, which are effectively gods.

Faith and religion is EVERYWHERE in this setting. I am frankly surprised that anyone would look at FR and think, "oh, yeah, that's a secular setting where religion isn't all that important".

 

[Hussar]

People are trying to have a reasonable discussion, but the premise is unreasonable. It is an incredible premise, and it is presented poorly, with an inciting example that doesn't even fit the already flawed premise.

However, there is a discussion to be had that is related to the premise, and deals with things that actually happen.

And yet, funnily enough, @doctobadwolf, numerous people are perfectly capable of understanding the premise of the thread and have a perfectly reasonable discussion. In fact, you're the only person here who doesn't seem to understand what I was trying to get at.

 

[Hussar]

Why can't a knight be a nonbeliever? There may be repercussions for being a heretic, but a heretic that keeps it to themselves (until they don't have to) just makes for a good story.

Also: Merlin was totes not a believer. Nor were, I suspect, Morgana Le Fay nor her bastard son Mordred.

If, of course, your noble knights castigate and ultimately execute heretics, I suspect you're actually running an evil campaign and just don't know it.

[/QUOTE]

And Merlin, Morgana nor Mordred were knights of the round table. So, in my Knights of the Round table campaign, why are you playing a character that specifically WASN'T a knight of the round table and then blaming me for not being flexible enough?

Ronin.
Fundamentalist.
Merchant Marine.
Graduate of Miskatonic University.

If you want a game to be about a governing set of values, it's on you to ask if the players are in to that idea. Part of the task of matching the game to the players is on you - and forcing it on them leads to threads like this. If you don't have 100% buy in, don't do it. If you march in to session zero with a "my way or the highway" approach, you'll probably get some people that pay lipservice to the idea, but subvert it later. That's probably on you.

Might as well ban chaotic alignments, while you are at it.

But, if I don't want to deal with ronin or whatnot in my game, why are you forcing me to and then insisting that I'm not being flexible enough? The game is NOT ABOUT subverting expectations, this time around, it's about THESE EXPECTATIONS. So, in the Samurai game, PLAY A SAMURAI. No, don't play a Ronin. No, don't play a commoner. No, you can't play a Yakuza. This is a game about a group of Samurai. Now, if you don't want to play in that? No problems. That's fine. This is not the game for you. But, don't agree to play and then try to sabotage the game by pretending to be compromising and then go all passive aggressive on the DM and expect him to be happy about it.

 

[ph0rk]

And Merlin, Morgana nor Mordred were knights of the round table. So, in my Knights of the Round table campaign, why are you playing a character that specifically WASN'T a knight of the round table and then blaming me for not being flexible enough?

But, if I don't want to deal with ronin or whatnot in my game, why are you forcing me to and then insisting that I'm not being flexible enough? The game is NOT ABOUT subverting expectations, this time around, it's about THESE EXPECTATIONS. So, in the Samurai game, PLAY A SAMURAI. No, don't play a Ronin. No, don't play a commoner. No, you can't play a Yakuza. This is a game about a group of Samurai. Now, if you don't want to play in that? No problems. That's fine. This is not the game for you. But, don't agree to play and then try to sabotage the game by pretending to be compromising and then go all passive aggressive on the DM and expect him to be happy about it.

Yeah, the problem here totally sounds like the player.

 

[billd91]

See, this is where I find it rather boggling. We're talking about a setting where gods have walked the lands REPEATEDLY. How many gods feature in Realms novels, other than "lots"? One of the best known CRPG's for the Realms focuses on the Time of Troubles and the Bhaalspawn. 2e had two honking huge, and very well written, gods books - Faiths and Avatars and Powers and Pantheons (I think that's the name of the second one, I owned it, but, I might be misremembering). Every Realms setting features gods and priesthoods prominently. In 5e, we've had what, six, or seven Realms specific campaign modules, several of which feature gods - Tiamat in two of them, Dragonheist leans heavily on Asmodeus in at least one of the adventures, Princes of Elemental Evil, which are effectively gods.

Faith and religion is EVERYWHERE in this setting. I am frankly surprised that anyone would look at FR and think, "oh, yeah, that's a secular setting where religion isn't all that important".

To be fair, people think that about the real world too and yet we atheists thrive...

 

[Hussar]

I agree. It's one reason I bow out of consideration as a player when my friends pitch a Vampire game. I'm just not into it. I'm not going to be the fun player at the table and shouldn't drag the fun down. Other friends of mine are the same with Call of Cthulhu when I suggest it - they just aren't into it. And that's cool. We can pick them up on the flip side when that game has played out for a while.
Of course, we're a little more cognizant of social isolation right now because of the 'rona. So we're generally not pitching games not likely to get full agreement on the regularly scheduled game night. Side-games on other days are still wide open. In fact, one of our regulars pitched a Torg game to play on occasional weekends, but I don't particularly like the system, so I stayed out of the player pool for that one.

Yes, this exactly. I can't honestly see signing up for a game that I know I'm not really into. For exactly the reasons that you state. Is it simply a case of some people lack the self examination to know that they are going to be fun sinks if they sign up to a game they aren't really into playing?

 

[Hussar]

I think there's a point where expecting a player to completely divorce their feelings from what's going on in the game is asking too much. Slavery, like a few other things, is a hot button with enough people I think that's one of those areas where its too big a demand.

Fair enough. But, I wouldn't make a connection between "Your character must have faith in a deity" and "Your character is slave owner". I really don't think those are equivalent issues.

 

[Hussar]

If this counts I will give nearly any game 3 sessions and if it doesn't click, I'll excuse myself and go do something else. I think this is enough to determine whether I will like it or not and a short enough time that I won't disrupt the game for other people who might enjoy it.

Also buy in can be tricky. There are a lot of things that can screw this up, game mechanics , world building, seriously weird settings (Tekumel, Jorune) politics, bad player chemistry an dmore . A lot of people want to game enough, me in the past here to try and work around it.

Other people probably just need to be at the table so they suck it up. I'm not like that though and while I relish the social outlet and genuinely enjoy the company of most gamers, I don't have time for bad gaming.

Now this? Totally respect this.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, people think that about the real world too and yet we atheists thrive...

In the real world, we don't have repeated empirical evidence of the existence of Gods. But, I would point out that in the context of what I was replying to - that FR has very little to do with religion - your response is kinda missing the point.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, the problem here totally sounds like the player.

You can get snarky all you like.

You asked for an example of a campaign where all the players would be expected to believe in a (or multiple) deity. "Make a Knight of the Round table" is a perfect example of a campaign where the players would be expected to believe in a deity. Your response is to subvert the DM's pitch by playing a character that specifically isn't a knight of the round table and that's on the DM?

So, yes, I agree with you. It totally sounds like a problem with the player.