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

[MoonSong]

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.

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.

Well, gods existing can't be denied, but many of these gods used to be mortals. There are also wizards everywhere. What are gods but very powerful wizards? Do they deserve devotion just by virtue of being more powerful?

There are two kinds of atheism, one denies gods existing, the other denies gods are gods. The first one is closer to be out of place in a D&D setting, though @Dire Bare made a compelling case for it. The other can be argued.

There's also misotheism, looking down on the gods and thinking they aren't worthy of worship because they haven't proven themselves worthy of it. And maltheism, outright considering gods are evil and we shouldn't worship them at all.

A lot of them are possible within the FR, specially after learning of the damn Wall.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yeah, as much as I agree on the main thrust of your argument, Hussar, your examples have been exactly the kind of vague waffle that lead to genuine misunderstandings. By samurai, do you mean character class, narrow definition of the historical role, or social caste? By Knights of the Round Table do you mean armored knightly fighting men, or anyone else who could be pulled from the Arthurian romances? Christian knights or pagan?

There’s a lot of wiggle room in your examples that are perfectly honest and you’d expect the DM and players to hash out in session 0 or in questions about the game pitch.

I agree with everything you say BUT I think it is unfair to hold Hussar to the same level of detail in a one paragraph post than he would provide in an actual pitch or Session Zero.

IOW, I can’t fault disagreement over “Knights of the Round Table” (which again, is fair in the context of a short post) as detracting from Hussar’s argument, that in an actual pitch/Session Zero, the nuance he is making would be a lot clearer. (And also, the players have some responsibility to ask questions if they don’t understand or have some doubts whether their character fits in the setting).

 

[Oofta]

Well, gods existing can't be denied, but many of these gods used to be mortals. There are also wizards everywhere. What are gods but very powerful wizards? Do they deserve devotion just by virtue of being more powerful?

There are two kinds of atheism, one denies gods existing, the other denies gods are gods. The first one is closer to be out of place in a D&D setting, though @Dire Bare made a compelling case for it. The other can be argued.

There's also misotheism, looking down on the gods and thinking they aren't worthy of worship because they haven't proven themselves worthy of it. And maltheism, outright considering gods are evil and we shouldn't worship them at all.

A lot of them are possible within the FR, specially after learning of the damn Wall.

Gods not existing "can't be" argued? Really? If a god is nothing more than a complex spell created by the prayers, hopes and fears are they "real"? I mean, in a sense they are, just like a clay golem or an advanced illusion. That doesn't mean they exist separate from ongoing worship and maintenance of their spell energy. They don't have to exist or have thoughts in the way we understand it, it's just that a few individuals have managed to tap into this reservoir of power and potentially use it to make affect the world when they don't even realize they've done it.

Amazon's Alexa is real in a sense, that does not make it a living being.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I really like the Theros system, however the piety system gives more than one option for those who do not wish to venerate or serve the gods. And, if not Greek myth, ancient Greek culture is chock full of philosophers and atheists.

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?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How about we all take these examples to their logical conclusions here? Hussar says we're playing a Knights of the Round Table game. Now if someone really was not sure about what he fully meant, the next step would be that someone would ask about playing Merlin. To which Hassar would reply "No, for this game I'd like everyone to play a Knight." At which point... that someone either says "Okay, fine."... or they say "Nah, don't really care to do that, so I'll drop." Did you need those next couple sentences spelled out for you or could you infer those next logical steps would ALSO be there?

Just to interject, my point, and I think the point of some others as well, is that the next step shouldn’t be “okay, fine” or “I’ll drop”, but a continued conversation in which both player and DM are willing to compromise.

I’ll say it flat out, I don’t think good DMs need their premise to be unchanged and unchallenged. Good DMs can adjust to what the players want to play.

 

[jasper]

Just to interject, my point, and I think the point of some others as well, is that the next step shouldn’t be “okay, fine” or “I’ll drop”, but a continued conversation in which both player and DM are willing to compromise.

I’ll say it flat out, I don’t think good DMs need their premise to be unchanged and unchallenged. Good DMs can adjust to what the players want to play.

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

 

[Dire Bare]

Just to interject, my point, and I think the point of some others as well, is that the next step shouldn’t be “okay, fine” or “I’ll drop”, but a continued conversation in which both player and DM are willing to compromise.

I’ll say it flat out, I don’t think good DMs need their premise to be unchanged and unchallenged. Good DMs can adjust to what the players want to play.

An example could be . . . .

The DM says, "Hey guys, I'm running a Knights of the Round Table inspired D&D game". The DM is thinking a knights-only campaign, but doesn't make that clear to the players.

Players come back with character concepts connected to King Arthur's court (or the DM's fantasy equivalent, Cormyr?), but only one of them actually created a knightly character using the fighter class.

DM next goes, "Ah man, what I was going for was for you all to be knights serving the king! Are you guys up for that?" Rather than, "I'm mind-boggled you guys created all these characters who are NOT knights! Of course I wanted you all playing knights!"

Players come back again, each character concept is a knight serving in the king's court. But one uses the ranger class (Green Knight), another uses the barbarian class (Celtic pagan knighted by the king), another is a hexblade warlock inspired by Mordred, a bard (musically gifted knight), and a paladin.

Maybe this meets with the DM's campaign ideas, maybe not . . . the discussion can continue. Of course, before actually rolling up characters or getting deep into concepts, all of this discussion should be in a "Session 0" at the table or online beforehand.

If the players, as a group, keep pushing the boundaries of what the DM is trying to go for . . . . there is either a serious communication problem, or nobody wants to play that game. The DM continuing to force it is probably not going to be fun for anybody.

 

[BluejayJunior]

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

Great DMs will adjust to what the players want to play as well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I certainly believe in GMs right to make the call what is allowed and what is not and having a strong premise generally makes better campaigns. But constructive conversation should still happen and it might end up enhancing the premise. The GM might have initially envisioned all the characters to be knights, but perhaps some player comes up with an interesting angle for a jester sidekick etc. The GM should hear them out.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

An example could be . . . .

The DM says, "Hey guys, I'm running a Knights of the Round Table inspired D&D game". The DM is thinking a knights-only campaign, but doesn't make that clear to the players.

Players come back with character concepts connected to King Arthur's court (or the DM's fantasy equivalent, Cormyr?), but only one of them actually created a knightly character using the fighter class.

DM next goes, "Ah man, what I was going for was for you all to be knights serving the king! Are you guys up for that?" Rather than, "I'm mind-boggled you guys created all these characters who are NOT knights! Of course I wanted you all playing knights!"

Players come back again, each character concept is a knight serving in the king's court. But one uses the ranger class (Green Knight), another uses the barbarian class (Celtic pagan knighted by the king), another is a hexblade warlock inspired by Mordred, a bard (musically gifted knight), and a paladin.

Maybe this meets with the DM's campaign ideas, maybe not . . . the discussion can continue. Of course, before actually rolling up characters or getting deep into concepts, all of this discussion should be in a "Session 0" at the table or online beforehand.

If the players, as a group, keep pushing the boundaries of what the DM is trying to go for . . . . there is either a serious communication problem, or nobody wants to play that game. The DM continuing to force it is probably not going to be fun for anybody.

Exactly, although generally we would have the whole convo in one sitting as we throw around concepts, largely making characters as a group activity.

Which is why I would never try to do a long full campaign with strangers. Strangers found online are for one shots and short story campaigns that last maybe half a dozen sessions. Some players become long time game buddies, some don’t.

Then when I have a basic idea (Island Worlds! Or Space Fantasy!) I reach out to those I think would be most into the idea, and pitch it, answer questions, ask questions, and build the full pitch in the pitch meeting.