NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7156255" data-attributes="member: 6778044">This is one possible monotheistic campaign. But just because there is one god doesn't mean that they have to be a detached god. Nor does a polytheistic religion require the gods to be active in the campaign world. It would be just as simple to design a world where there are no gods, yet there are religions - monotheistic, polytheistic, spirit-based - that are the mortal beings interpretation of the world, with the concept of gods created by them. One could even justify the existence of clerical magic as a function of faith, rather than granted by the gods.This I agree with, although probably for different reasons. I would go a step further and remove most of the fluff, such as the nature of the different races. Those gaps would be filled by campaign setting books. So the elves on one world can be different than another. But the reality is, I can just ignore the fluff given in the PHB on elves, and use that from whatever setting I decide to use. Or make my own.As a DM I agree that I should never force a player to do something that they aren't comfortable doing. However, I have a bit of a more complex perspective on player choice. I think that the rules have shifted too much to player's choice. It's often difficult as a DM to set campaign rules regarding races and classes, for example. I don't have dragonborn in my campaign. That's often a sore point, particularly when running a public campaign like at a local store. I have a long-standing campaign world, and the races, cultures, history, etc. is well established. I'm extending an invitation to run a campaign for whoever would like to come join me in that world. I make it very clear ahead of time, providing a book of house rules and player information packet letting the players know what their character knows. My expectation is that when you show up at the table, you're ready to play in that campaign. It gives a specific list of acceptable races and classes (monks aren't allowed, for example, and it is a Forgotten Realms setting, but my specific campaign). When somebody shows up with a dragonborn monk, and a warforged artificer, it becomes a problem. I'm the bad guy because I'm not supporting player choice.So yes, I will not ask somebody to do something that is offensive to them, against their beliefs, etc. I fully support that. But I prefer a more AD&D (1e) approach to player choice.I can see what you mean. I tend to have a lot of new players in my campaigns. I prefer that they don't own a PHB to start. I like them to focus on their character and what they want to do, and we'll help them learn how to do it. But I have also always created my own campaign PHB. Our home-brew rules are often to support our specific setting. So ultimately I don't have that problem with the regular rulebooks. I started this back in AD&D days, and have continued to do it with each edition I've run. If you need the rules to be neutral, then I'm not sure a game exists for you. I hate most of the material in VGtM, but I have it, and will use many of the creatures, along with some of the mechanics. But almost none of the first section that details the iconic monsters, and none of the monstrous PC races. But I still get a lot out of the book. In fact, part of what I get out of it is that it helps define what I don't want. I don't like the PHB Battle Master mechanics, so I changed it significantly. Perhaps it's because I started in the days where the rules were incomplete, and Dragon had alternate ideas on a monthly basis. Not to mention all of the other games and third party supplements of the late '70s/early '80s. So I've always approached the rules as a foundation to be tweaked to fit my setting. AD&D 2e even modeled this by the rules changes they made to suit each setting. Some had more modifications than others, but it highlighted that the game could be even better if some of the rules were tied more closely to the setting.I think 5e is light years ahead of 4e in this regard. Since 4e went so far as to alter established settings to fit their new fluff, it made it seem like it was the least home-brew friendly. Yes, there's a lot of fluff, but there are also a lot of nods to highlighting how it could be different in other campaigns, either other "official" settings, or home-brew. Actually, glancing through it now, the PHB, is pretty light on Forgotten Realms material. It's not really until you look to the APs and other releases that the Realms take center stage. The material on gods, in the cleric section, and in the appendix, list deities from all of the major settings, and the major historical pantheons.I think it's also important to note that polytheism was the default approach for D&D religion since Gods, Demigods and Heroes for the original D&D set, prior to the release of AD&D, which continued that approach with both Deities & Demigods first, an article about the gods of the Forgotten Realms by Ed (October 1981, #54) and 10 issues later Gygax started a series on the deities of Greyhawk. So polytheism as the default of D&D goes back much farther than FR.Well, again, if it's a need that the 5e rules fit your vision, then yes, it's not likely to do that. Because I'd be surprised if the 5e PHB really fits any single person's vision.In the cleric section, there's a couple of paragraphs about choosing a god, but it also says check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign. And the answer in yours might be "none" or "none of the above" or "just one." There are sentences in each domain about specific D&D gods (and they aren't all Forgotten Realms - for example, the Knowledge domain lists 5 deities, and only one is FR), but those are both examples, and letting you know that if you select those D&D published deities, that's the domain for you. It would be just as easy to tell your players that the campaign has no gods, but you can select a philosophy domain for your cleric.The fact is, gods have been an integral part of the design of D&D from the beginning. The published materials may or may not have promoted that as much or as little over the years. But it certainly was considered a central part of the concept by Gary Gygax.I do get what you're saying from the standpoint that if it's in the book, players expect it to be that way. Players have been "trained" over many editions now to expect to be in charge of a bigger part of the game then originally presented in the AD&D PHB/DMG. There are some definite benefits to that (especially for their business model), but it does sometimes conflict with the DMs goals for their setting.When I consider the things I don't like about 5e (which are many, but I really like the underlying mechanics), I am also fully aware that they weren't written for me, or not even necessarily people like me. It's a mass market game, that's designed to be for the largest group of people, and a "complete" game between the rulebooks and an AP. Religions are a part of that. They've chosen to place most of the APs in the Realms. The people buying them in quantities not seen since the '80s might love that they are in the Realms, they might not care, or maybe they hate it, but they want to play and that's the option they have. Whatever it is, they are selling, and further proving the design team "right" in their decisions and the direction of the game. Unfortunately, that's going to leave you outside that core group if you can't shift from "need" to "want."</blockquote>

Verification