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

[Umbran]

I mean, that's the sort of more explicit I mean.

If religion matters so much that non-believers do not fit in the setting the DM needs to state that. If there is a mechanical penalty for being a non-believer, the DM needs to state that.

This comes down to the definition of "does not fit." What does it mean to "not fit"?

In FR, the Faithless do fit in the setting. I mean, they have an actual description of what happens to them. Such characters are known to exist in this setting, in numbers great enough that you can make a bloody wall out of them! An assertion that they wouldn't fit flies in the face of canon.

So, if you are running an FR game, and saying that those without religion "do not fit" it isn't the setting or game rules that are determining that. So, beyond being explicit, it also strongly pays the GM to be honest (with themselves and the players) about what the issue with a character type is.

 

[ph0rk]

So, if you are running an FR game, and saying that those without religion "do not fit" it isn't the setting or game rules that are determining that. So, beyond being explicit, it also strongly pays the GM to be honest (with themselves and the players) about what the issue with a character type is.

I think that's right - and it's certainly true that in standard FR, one can be faithless or even curse the gods with every breath. If the DM has a problem with that, it goes beyond the standard FR setting details, and even then a simple "religion is important in this game" may not be enough detail.

I think in some situations it comes down to games oriented around a particular value that either a player or the DM doesn't like - and here is when they need to sound out the players more. As a minor note, though, these issues are less likely to crop up in a murderhobo game.

 

[Umbran]

When my player came to me with that character I thought he was joking, then I thought he was deliberately antagonizing me, but it turns out he genuinely thought this was a reasonable character concept. I nixed it with extreme prejudice and didn't feel the least bit bad about doing that. There was nothing I was willing to do to fit his character into the game he had agreed to play.

So, I don't think you did the wrong thing. However, there's some stuff in here to discuss.

Why did the player think this would fit into the brief? And what about it did they think was cool? There may have been elements of the character that could have been salvaged.

 

[jasper]

This comes down to the definition of "does not fit." What does it mean to "not fit"?

In FR, the Faithless do fit in the setting. I mean, they have an actual description of what happens to them. Such characters are known to exist in this setting, in numbers great enough that you can make a bloody wall out of them! An assertion that they wouldn't fit flies in the face of canon.

So, if you are running an FR game, and saying that those without religion "do not fit" it isn't the setting or game rules that are determining that. So, beyond being explicit, it also strongly pays the GM to be honest (with themselves and the players) about what the issue with a character type is.

Faithless

The Faithless were mortal souls who had died without having chosen a patron deity or who did not have one to take them to their place in the afterlife.[1][2][3][4] A soul was considered Faithless if, in life, the mortal had resolutely refused any faith or belief or had given no more than empty...

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

See also the Sword Coast adventurers guide. And maybe Limbo from Dante.
If as a DM I said "religion is important in this game". And some one brought in a faithless, my first response would be "Was I not clear?" The Second response if the person did want to still bring in a Faithless, then no raising dead works on you. And You just a brick in the wall.

 

[MGibster]

Why did the player think this would fit into the brief? And what about it did they think was cool? There may have been elements of the character that could have been salvaged.

I honestly don't know why the player thought the more incredible aspects of his character's background fit within the framework of the campaign. When I asked how this fit the definition of a "regular" person he just replied that he thought it sounded like a cool concept. And, sure, it wasn't an inherently bad concept, but it wouldn't have worked for that particular campaign. This player had a long history of trying to force pulp influenced heroics into games.

But the more down to earth aspects of his aviation concept worked just fine. (See what I did there with the down to earth reference and aviation?) Starting in 1929, the NYPD had an aviation division which included planes, pilots, and mechanics and they were sometimes involved in crazy stunts like tracking carrier pigeons in an effort to catch kidnappers. It would have been a bit of stretch on my part of fit a pilot into the campaign, but I would have been happy to make that effort.

 

[MGibster]

I think this is where in-world and character values may conflict with values strongly held by the players.

I sometimes like to play characters who don't share my personal values. I'm an atheist, but usually my characters in fantasy games believe in the gods. Some of them are even pious. I'm not arguing that someone should play a character with values that are incompatible with theirs. After all, we're all here to have fun. But it's an option.

If I think that theism is stupid, I might not want to play a character with a strong religious belief - so, in that case, it isn't something that can be easily incorporated into concepts I want to play.

I find the entire idea that learning more about the truth of the university leads to madness to be inherently silly. But Call of Cthulhu is still one of my favorite games. I'd be horrified by vigilantism in real life but who didn't love playing TSR's Marvel RPG back in the day?

 

[ph0rk]

I sometimes like to play characters who don't share my personal values.

I do this, too, but this is isn't something that will go over well if a player isn't in the mood to do so. Further, if that thing I want to do isn't what the DM wants to explore, it might get weird.

For example; If I want to play a bard that's trying to found a religious cult - that seems fun and interesting, and not something I personally want to do. But in the "religion is important world" I can see such a character rubbing the DM the wrong way.

So, I guess mostly I see the setup as explained in the OP to be a lot more like a DM that has a particular set of character values that they find acceptable, some they do not find acceptable, and players that either (1) don't know about this list, or (2) don't care about it.

Whether it is #1 or #2 varies from table to table, but both can lead to the same outcome.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree with this statement. However, I also think that since the GM is the one doing 95%+ of the work to get the game to the table every session that the players should have a certain amount of deference to what the GM is proposing OR they should step up an make a counter proposal of their own and run the game instead.

If its my turn to GM and I want to spin a tale of a Faithful world and the plight of the Faithless (I didn't read any of the original thread this forked from so i'm just guessing at the idea), even if that is an altered version of the Realms, then I would expect the players to adhere to the few ground rules I lay out in Session 0. If one of my few ground rules was "Your character doesn't have to be a cleric or paladin but DOES need to strongly be faithful to the gods", that isn't some sort of onerous request that can't be incorporated into just about any character concept.

If its my turn to GM and I want to spin a tale of "Mundane World" in which you can only be a Human Fighter or Rogue, an in which I am not going to have any magic spells, effects, monsters, or items....but I am still going to use 5e to run the campaign then I think you could make a case as a player that I have gone beyond the expected allowance of deference that a player can give.

I DM more than anyone else in my group, and I disagree with pretty much all of this except what I've bolded. I don't deserve, expect, or want, any deference outside of the times where we are actually playing and the group needs to defer to me as the person running the game, and I certainly don't put up with a demand of deference from anyone else.

Especially to the point where I'm supposed to either play a thing I don't like, run the game instead, or leave. No. It's a group activity, we are either all onboard or we play something else. Now, I'm blessed with excellent DMs that I trust to run a good game, so as long as I'm not uncomfortable with the proposed game, I'm not going to say no to it out of hand, but I will say things like, "Okay, I'm not super stoked about the idea of playing holy swashbucklers in a fantasy roccoco France (absurd, of course I'd be stoked about that), but perhaps if there is a culture similar to a fantasy Celtic Ireland meets Gothic Vikings that I can be a mercenary from? Or perhaps a second Church that is of the same basic faith but with a schism, and I've come at the command of my church leaders, so I'm more like a Eastern European Knight with a glaive rather than a light sword and light armor?" etc, and we would discuss the world and find ways to modify the premise or the supporting elements so that I could actually be excited about the campaign and my character. And one very valid avenue for that would be playing a character that the other character see as an outsider in terms of faith, either a Doubter or a Heathen or a Heretic, perhaps the Church needs an Alchemist on this mission, or perhaps I am involved against my will by those the knights are hunting down and must help the knights for my own survival, whatever.

The idea that a character who isn't faithful can't fit a game about the faithful is just...completely alien, to me. If I were writing such a story, I doubt I'd do so without such a character amongst the protagonists.

Faithless

The Faithless were mortal souls who had died without having chosen a patron deity or who did not have one to take them to their place in the afterlife.[1][2][3][4] A soul was considered Faithless if, in life, the mortal had resolutely refused any faith or belief or had given no more than empty...

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

See also the Sword Coast adventurers guide. And maybe Limbo from Dante.
If as a DM I said "religion is important in this game". And some one brought in a faithless, my first response would be "Was I not clear?" The Second response if the person did want to still bring in a Faithless, then no raising dead works on you. And You just a brick in the wall.

That seems like an unfairly rude response to a completely coherent character to play in a "religion is important in this game" campaign. You realize that "religion is important" and "all PCs need to be religious" are not anywhere close to the same statement, right?

CoS always comes up in threads like this, too, and I just...don't understand people who think that only grim brooding characters are appropriate for the game? Y'all forget the cowboy with the giant cowboy hat and his foppish rival in Stoker's Dracula? I mean, having a couple straight man characters is all well and good, but it's much more fun for many players (and certainly I as a DM prefer to have at least one) to play something like a teenage airship mechanic with a robotic arm and a pet mouse that jaeger pilots her arcane cannon, and who is absolutely outside of anything remotely like anything she has experienced before in this strange, dark, land.

Dracula would be fracking boring if all the characters were like Van Helsing, steeped in darkness and accustomed to dread. The story literally only works because some of the characters are full of light and life and humor and have no earthly business in a situation like the one they face.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ok, bit of context here. In another thread: Anyone here met any cataclysm wall of the faithless defenders I posted this:



to which I got this reply:



Which brings me around to the basic question: If you, the player, isn't engaged by the premise of the campaign, why are you still playing in that campaign? To me, this is one of the most frustrating parts of being a DM. You pitch a concept, the concept gets okay'd by the group who agrees to play in the campaign, you do the work preparing and whatnot, and then you have a player or players who insist on doing the exact opposite thing.

One example from a few years ago, I pitched a low magic campaign where none of the PC's were casters. The first three character concepts to cross my desk were all full casters. "Oh, I'm the exception!" was the refrain.

My point is, if you agreed to play the game that the group agreed to play, isn't there some onus on the player to get with the program and not deliberately set out to sabotage the game? Am I totally wrong here? What should the DM do in these cases?

As an aside, on a purely personal note, if a player came to me, and actually was up front enough to say, "Yeah, sorry, no thanks", I'd probably change my campaign to accomodate that player, since any player like that has my complete respect. But, players who aren't bought in, or are at best only tenuously bought into a game, but, continue to show up, and do nothing but try to short circuit the campaign are, IMO, some of the worst players to deal with. If you don't want to play in the campaign, that's fantastic. I have no problems with that. There are thousands of other games out there, and, well, maybe next time around.

I just cannot fathom a player who would deliberately go into a campaign, knowingly playing a character that is 100% opposite to what the group agrees to play. It's the tavern owner PC in the travel campaign. Or the evil character in the heroic group. I don't really see the difference.

I tend to share Hussar’s puzzlement here (provides the GM is truly being clear). I’d say have the mists show up and take that character to Ravenloft If they are already in Ravenloft: Powers Check

 

[Blue]

I DM more than anyone else in my group, and I disagree with pretty much all of this except what I've bolded. I don't deserve, expect, or want, any deference outside of the times where we are actually playing and the group needs to defer to me as the person running the game, and I certainly don't put up with a demand of deference from anyone else.

Especially to the point where I'm supposed to either play a thing I don't like, run the game instead, or leave. No. It's a group activity, we are either all onboard or we play something else.

(Not who you were responding to before.)

Just to steer this back on track, the thread is about players that agree to play in a game, and then have disruptive characters. So it's more as if a DM floated "I want to do a no-magic world" and you told him you were onboard with it.

I agree with your point, but let's steer back to the important distinction that the player accepted what the DM was offering. This isn't about the DM forcing anything on the players.