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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Basically all fantasy setting have gods and other supernatural naughty word, and worlds without real gods like ours still have religious festivals everywhere. To most people FR is just a mediocre generic kitchen sink fantasy setting and that's it. Most people don't even know about the Wall. And even if one knows about it, then that might spur some to make 'atheist' characters to protest against the gods allowing such a travesty.

But you're making two arguments in this thread. One, that if the premise is clearly communicated and the players make characters that go against that it is problem behaviour, and secondly, that vague description like 'it's Forgotten Realms' is sufficient to communicate very specific premise like 'all characters must be religious.' First argument is sensible, but the second is blatant nonsense and makes your position to seem incoherent.

If you have issues with players ignoring your premise then perhaps you're not communicating it clearly enough?

 

[Dire Bare]

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.))

Relax man.

"Knights of the Round Table" is both a character type ("knight") and a genre of stories that includes many non-knighted characters. If you simply told me, "Hey, we're going to play a 'Knights of the Round Table' campaign!" I'd assume that being a knight would certainly be an option, but that other types of characters from the stories would be as well. If you were more specific, and said, "I want everyone to create a knight character", those are two different asks. And again, I'd probably find a "knights-only" campaign boring, but might go along with it if the DM is a part of my long-time group, is a pal, or if my gaming options are limited. But I probably would try and push the boundaries a bit, perhaps with a knight who has made a pact with a demon for sorcerous power (hexblade) . . . . but my boundary-pushing wouldn't be subversive, it would be a discussion with the DM.

I did not say it would be "wrong" for not allowing a Merlin-style sorcerer or priest of the church as a character . . . just that it seems overly restrictive to me for the stated theme and would make me less interested in playing. As I said, I think we're coming at this from two different schools of thought . . . .

And . . . Star Trek is probably a bad example. There have been plenty of non-Starfleet crew members in both the movies and TV shows over the years, so no reason why there couldn't be in a Star Trek tabletop game . . . just like there could sorcerers and priests in an Arthurian fantasy game, or ninjas and sohei in a "samurai" game where honor plays an important role . . .

If I was faced with playing in an RPG game where I felt the DM was being overly restrictive on player options . . . and decided to play for the many reasons I and others have listed in this thread . . . I'd hopefully have fun, but would likely harbor some irritation and annoyance over the (to me) nonsensical restrictions. So would others, and sometimes that gets expressed in game in negative and immature ways, with players "acting out" like restless kids in a classroom. I'd try not to be that guy, but sometimes I fail my saving throws . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Why would an atheist need to be already in Realms canon for a player to want to play one in game?

As players and fans who've read the gamebooks, novels, comics, and played the video games . . . we KNOW that the gods are real (in the fictional context, of course) and we KNOW that the "Wall of the Faithless" is a part of the setting (whether we find the idea distasteful or not).

But you really can't imagine a character with a point of view like I mentioned up thread?

"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!"

 

[billd91]

And again, I'd probably find a "knights-only" campaign boring, but might go along with it if the DM is a part of my long-time group, is a pal, or if my gaming options are limited. But I probably would try and push the boundaries a bit, perhaps with a knight who has made a pact with a demon for sorcerous power (hexblade) . . . . but my boundary-pushing wouldn't be subversive, it would be a discussion with the DM.

I dunno, I think you're kind of making his point since your probable reflex, as you self-confessed, is to push the boundaries the DM set even if doing so collaboratively. Why would you probably do that? It comes across as being as pointlessly contrarian as you contend that restrictions are unnecessary.

 

[Dire Bare]

I dunno, I think you're kind of making his point since your probable reflex, as you self-confessed, is to push the boundaries the DM set even if doing so collaboratively. Why would you probably do that? It comes across as being as pointlessly contrarian as you contend that restrictions are unnecessary.

Pointlessly contrarian? Nah. Pointedly contrarian perhaps.

Bored and irritated with meaningless and unnecessary restrictions? Yeah. Willing to give it a go anyway, but with hope of making the game a bit more fun for me, and not just playing a nearly pre-written role in my DM's screenplay? Yeah.

You might guess . . . I've played in more than a few games where the DM pitched a campaign idea, and was less than clear with exactly what they meant ("Knights of the Round Table" as genre vs a "knights-only" campaign) . . . and/or placed restrictions on characters that NEVER made sense to me, even after a few sessions of play ("Why exactly are we all knights again? And my hexblade sorcerer-knight just would BREAK the story? Erm, okay . . .")

And there are levels of contrariness . . .

DM: "Okay Bob, I think a priest whose connection to God grants her miraculous powers sounds cool, as does Jim's sorcerous apprentice to Merlin . . . I can even see Lisa's knight whose made a pact for warlocky power . . . but we're gonna need at least a couple of KNIGHTS in this game here, and Frank's tabaxi artificer is just a step too far for what I'm trying for here . . . .

 

[FrozenNorth]

It's like... dude, I'm actively trying to make a character who will be on board with your plot and fit in with the other PCs. Throw me a frickin' bone.

Fun story about that. I once had a DM who told us the premise for his campaign. Between the moment we rolled up the characters and the first session, he changed the premise of the campaign, so our group of enthusiastic and idealistic explorers were suddenly hardbitten mercenaries (including the 16-year old “kid sister” character and the scholerly alchemist).

 

[FrozenNorth]

Not being familiar with the specifics I can't answer accurately, but a future-potential narrative reason might be that the PCs are going to meet with some deities, or expose some deities as not what the characters thought they were and thereby challenge the core beliefs of the PCs, or be given mechanical benefits for devout prayer and sacrifice - who knows.

Or the adventurers are the favoured champions of a diety who act as their patron. Mythic Odysseys of Theros takes this approach and even included a Piety system so that characters that faithfully served their deity would receive boons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or the adventurers are the favoured champions of a diety who act as their patron. Mythic Odysseys of Theros takes this approach and even included a Piety system so that characters that faithfully served their deity would receive boons.

Theros seems to rely on the carrot whilst FR uses the stick. The former seems much more appealing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"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?"

[Quoting misbehaved]

I have to note that traditionally Mordred was, indeed, a Knight of the Round Table for a time.

 

[FrozenNorth]

''

Theros seems to rely on the carrot whilst FR uses the stick. The former seems much more appealing.

Well, it is a little of both. Reading the campaign book, it is pretty clear that the goal is to emulate Greek myths, where the gods favour mortal heroes that worship them, tend to be the prime quest-givers, and generally interfere in the mortal world.

The book does seem to allow for a PC that seeks to defy the gods, but to return to the premise of the thread, I can’t really see how you could create a character for a Theros campaign who was indifferent to, or didn’t believe in, the gods.