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

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, but, "take the quote of me" and do what with it?

Don’t be obtuse.

 

[Dire Bare]

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".

The supernatural, including the gods, are an important part of the Realms. Yeah. How is this different from most standard D&D settings?

But to the point that it is "mind-boggling" that players might want to play atheists or the "faithless"? In a typical FR D&D game, having such characters would break the setting or ruin the theme?

And keep in mind the different perspectives of a Realms fan whose been following the setting for decades of real time and centuries of setting time vs your typical fictional inhabitant of the Realms. I've read all those novels too . . . but do you think your average Realmsian's life is as full of gods incarnating on Faerun as your recollection of the novels paint?

In the setting, the Time of Troubles, the Spellplague (all those RSEs) are centuries in the past and somewhat mythical (unless you're an elf maybe).

"Sure, me da told me stories of the gods walking the Earth and wreaking havoc over a hunnerd years ago . . . but I nay believe it meself. Never once seen a god, and I've traveled a bit. I think it's all made up stories. Ach, sure, priests claim to channel the gods to cast spells . . . but they're nay different than those wizards and warlocks they is, only they want you to tithe to their church and live by their rules, or they say you'll get made into a brick for the wall when ye die. Foolishness, it all is!"

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

I can't imagine a Knights of the Round Table campaign (in a D&D game) without somebody wanted to play a priest of the holy church, or a sorcerous apprentice to Merlin . . . integral parts of Arthurian legend. An adventuring party made mostly of knights . . . and their companions . . . sounds like a great game. A game where the DM insists we are all knights . . . meh.

Same with a "samurai" game, like Legends of the 5 Rings. The game is centered around samurai, but offers plenty of other options for players that fit right into the theme and setting just fine.

Limits aren't inherently bad . . . but (IMO) are overused by DMs trying to create themes that are too tight and specific. But I think we are simply dealing with two schools of thought here in this thread . . . those who feel the DM not only can, but should set down strict limits to create a specifically themed campaign that the players either embrace or take a hike and find another game . . . and those who prefer a more collaborative and flexible approach where DM and players brainstorm, discuss, and agree on what type of game to play. I don't think we're going to convince each other to "switch sides".

I'm okay with folks here saying things like, "Whelp, that's not the game for me then!" But I'm irritated with the incredulous cries of how "mind-boggling" it is when players express distaste for strict limits imposed by the DM.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ahh, I didn’t realize Divine Musketeers was a real thing, I thought you just meant a magic 17th C France theme.

I start with the campaign, because we’ve been playing for 25+ years, have played 4 dozen characters each, and the campaign hook is what inspires us. Our players appreciate the restrictions. Necessity is the mother of invention.

By virtue of having been playing that long together, you already started with the players. It's inherently different from a situation where one is looking for players to play in your game.

Given as the DM may well have spent a year or more putting that campaign and-or setting together before even starting to recruit players

My point, over and over again, has been that DMs shouldn't do that. It leads to problems. I have no sympathy for a DM who does that and then runs into problems when they start trying to recruit players to act out the DMs personal novel for them.

There is a big difference between saying players need to create characters willing to be pirates, and saying they need to create characters willing to be slavers. I hope you can see that the latter would require a much higher level of consideration. In my example the characters, seize the ship, free the others and proceed to get the revenge make their fortune. Sounds good to me.

If the players are all up for that, sure. If it is made clear ahead of time that major enemies that they face will be slavers, and thus that slavery will be an aspect of the campaign world that they have to deal with, and everyone is comfortable with that.

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".

In the books, and your campaigns, maybe. I've literally never seen a FR campaign where faith was all that important, before my current 4e canon game, and it didn't care about gods until 12th level or so.

And keep in mind the different perspectives of a Realms fan whose been following the setting for decades of real time and centuries of setting time vs your typical fictional inhabitant of the Realms. I've read all those novels too . . . but do you think your average Realmsian's life is as full of gods incarnating on Faerun as your recollection of the novels paint?

Exactly this. Gods aren't just walking around in FR. Hell, in 5e, they aren't all that evident beyond divine magic. The vast majority of people in the world have never seen a god, angel, fiend, or fey, and no one they know has either.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

It's a fine comparison. There's no need to compare or rank whose trauma or distaste is greater.

Most of us could probably agree that slavery is awful . . . but yet it works itself into a lot of games, sometimes with slavers as villains to fight, sometimes as PCs being enslaved, even sometimes with PCs being the slavers (rare) . . . it isn't always obvious to folks that even slavers-as-antagonists can be triggering for others.

Religion can also be triggering for folks if they've had bad experiences with it. Personally, I'm not a big fan of real-world religious faith, despite my fascination with mythology and the supernatural. I've had LOTS of bad experiences with religion and the religious, and would rather not play in a game where faith is required of my character, and I'd be leery of a "faith-based" game . . . although the right theme, tone, and story seeds could make for a lot of fun, even for an atheist like me. It's super not obvious to some that pushing religion on a PC, even a fictional fantasy religion, can be triggering or distasteful.

 

[Don Durito]

Religion can also be triggering for folks if they've had bad experiences with it. Personally, I'm not a big fan of real-world religious faith, despite my fascination with mythology and the supernatural. I've had LOTS of bad experiences with religion and the religious, and would rather not play in a game where faith is required of my character, and I'd be leery of a "faith-based" game . . . although the right theme, tone, and story seeds could make for a lot of fun, even for an atheist like me. It's super not obvious to some that pushing religion on a PC, even a fictional fantasy religion, can be triggering or distasteful.

Why is it an issue for people if they're warned in advance?

It's not something that's sprung on them without warning.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why is it an issue for people if they're warned in advance?

It's not something that's sprung on them without warning.

Except Hussar seems to be arguing that the campaign merely being set in the FR is sufficient to communicate that.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, I want to thank @ph0rk for giving such a picture perfect example of what I'm talking about. The DM says that he wants the players to create a "knight of the round table" and his FIRST reaction is to give three examples of characters that aren't knights of the round table.

See, over and over in this thread I've been told that the problem is a lack of DM communication. But, even when I'm as specific as I can possibly be - make THIS - the response is to make characters that are very much NOT THIS.

Not only that, but, now we have @Dire Bare chiming in that the DM is wrong for not allowing an apprentice to Merlin or a priest. Not a single thought that the player here has flat out ignored the DM's request and gone down a different path. That's perfectly fine. But, the DM insist on something? Oh, that's a bad DM.

Note, AGAIN, we're not talking about the issue of DM placing limitations.

We're talking about players who have ACCEPTED THE LIMITATIONS but then actively subvert or sabotage the game because of those limitations. @ph0rk wanted a game where all the PC's were religious - I said Knight of the Round Table. His response was to immediately subvert that and make a character that ISN'T A KNIGHT OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Same with the Samurai game. If you want to play a character that isn't a Samurai, that's great, but, in this game, the players are all Samurai. That's what the group agreed to play. So, why are you coming to the table with your Yakuza character when you agreed to play in the Samurai game?

Maybe I have a Samurai Jack campaign in mind where the PC's being honorable is important?

Or, maybe I'm playing a Star Trek game. You are all Federation officers. No, you can't be not a Federation Officer. We agreed to play a Star Trek game where we are all Federation Officers. Why are you now coming to me with a Ferengi Trader character?

Note, and I'm going to keep repeating this. We're talking about AFTER a session 0 where everyone agreed to play the campaign set out by the DM. Not before. Not during the discussion. AFTER. You agreed to play in this game. That's the premise to the thread.

((Note, that's what the point about the clue bat was for. FR IS a very strongly faith based setting. That many players ignore that isn't the fault of the setting but, a rather shallow reading of the setting material. The Wall of the Faithless is simply one more bit of proof that faith is important in the setting. But, hey, you play your game how you want to play it. It's your Realms. But, as presented, faith is meant to play a very strong role in the game in the Realms.))

 

[Hussar]

Except Hussar seems to be arguing that the campaign merely being set in the FR is sufficient to communicate that.

Well, this belongs in the Wall of the Faithless thread, but, yeah. In a setting where there are a bajillion gods, the gods walk around fairly often, within living memory as well, there are temples and whatnot freaking everywhere, cults and whatnot around every bloody corner, yeah, faith is meant to play a very, very important role in the setting. Oh, and let's not forget faith based religious festivals virtually every month, and I'm sure I'm forgetting other stuff as well.

Yeah, it's bloody weird to play atheists in Forgotten Realms. You might play an agnostic character that doesn't care too much about the gods, fair enough. But a straight up atheist? That's something I've never seen in any Realms canon.

 

[Don Durito]

I have to think it's hard to see how any straight out Atheist makes sense in your typical D&D setting. Terry Pratchett even makes jokes about it.

Irreligious sure, but atheist?

In any case, I've alway thought a lot of the stuff about the wall of the faithless and the importance of having a god was just dumb stuff that got added in 3rd edition for some reason. It was never really a part of the setting before that, and I'm not sure if it's appeared anywhere in 5E.

So I certainly wouldn't have the expectation that would necessarily apply as a player.

But an atheist character sounds like a tonal issue as much as anything. And tonal expectations are difficult to convey.