But what if he was Bilbo Baggins sucked into Barovia like years after he found Smaug’s treasure and retired to the Shire?
Then you'd be writing fanfiction.
What’s wrong with that?
Nothing...?
So would you let a player play Bilbo in your campaign if they had the backstory I described above? That way they’d be focusing on the adventure instead of Smaug’s treasure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
Especially if that character isn't even from the same genre, let alone the same setting. I think it would lead to a huge break in immersion, and essentially force the DM to change the entire game to accommodate for the character.
I don't really understand this concern. Why would having a lighter character that's explicitly from a non-horror film be any more "immersion breaking" than any other lighter character who gets dragged into Barovia? Why do you think this would require the DM to "change the entire game"?
Because characters from other pieces of media already have their story arcs laid out. If I were to play as Bilbo Baggins, the adventure's story would have to revolve around my character's quest to steal the dragon's treasure hoard, instead of whatever the DM has in mind.
No, it absolutely would not. Nor would the player who created Bilbo Baggins, first-level halfling rogue who gets sucked into Barovia, expect it to. Nor would any of the other players expect it to
Characters get recontextualized all the time
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But what if he was Bilbo Baggins sucked into Barovia like years after he found Smaug’s treasure and retired to the Shire?
Then you'd be writing fanfiction.
What’s wrong with that?
Nothing...?
So would you let a player play Bilbo in your campaign if they had the backstory I described above? That way they’d be focusing on the adventure instead of Smaug’s treasure.
No, because it would limit the player in terms of roleplaying, and because they wouldn't be playing their own character. Additionally, in the games I run, I tend to avoid pop culture references and using characters from other media because they detract from the actual game. The player wouldn't be playing the game as their character, they'd be acting out however they believe Bilbo would act. And at that point, there's little to no difference between playing as Bilbo Baggins and playing as a different character with the same name, and therefore it would be pointless.
Because characters from other pieces of media already have their story arcs laid out. If I were to play as Bilbo Baggins, the adventure's story would have to revolve around my character's quest to steal the dragon's treasure hoard, instead of whatever the DM has in mind.
No, it absolutely would not. Nor would the player who created Bilbo Baggins, first-level halfling rogue who gets sucked into Barovia, expect it to. Nor would any of the other players expect it to
Characters get recontextualized all the time
My point is that if the DM *doesn't* bend the story to focus on Bilbo, there's no point in playing as Bilbo. And if the DM *does*, then the game is less likely to be fun for the other players.
Especially if that character isn't even from the same genre, let alone the same setting. I think it would lead to a huge break in immersion, and essentially force the DM to change the entire game to accommodate for the character.
I don't really understand this concern. Why would having a lighter character that's explicitly from a non-horror film be any more "immersion breaking" than any other lighter character who gets dragged into Barovia? Why do you think this would require the DM to "change the entire game"?
Because characters from other pieces of media already have their story arcs laid out. If I were to play as Bilbo Baggins, the adventure's story would have to revolve around my character's quest to steal the dragon's treasure hoard, instead of whatever the DM has in mind.
No, it absolutely would not. Nor would the player who created Bilbo Baggins, first-level halfling rogue who gets sucked into Barovia, expect it to. Nor would any of the other players expect it to
Characters get recontextualized all the time
Speaking from experience, I think the strength of this assertion and the "absolute" nature of the post might be overblown. It is really going to come down to the group, and it very easily could be the case that someone in the group, be it the person playing the character, other players, or the DM try to force their expectations based on the underlying media onto the player character in a way that clashes with the gameplay.
Bilbo was probably a bad example--the LotR series spans a gauntlet in terms of its tone, and the characters basically established the tropes D&D is based upon. A better example might be Russell from Up. Russell's fundamental character trait is his happy-go-lucky curiosity and somewhat oblivious nature. He is generally cheerful (serving as a mask for underlying pain due to problems at home) but lacking in common sense, and that causes him problems. A player may very well commit to that bit--taking Russell's extreme optimism and cheerfulness into Barovia in a way that might clash with the campaign.
Now, yes, you could make Glar Greathammer, a D&D character with the same exact basic traits--why wouldn't that be considered clashing? Well, hypothetical me responding to my points--the issue is going to be one of perception. With Glar Greathammer, it is entirely the player who is driving the personality traits. That is something folks could understand--they will feel like it is part of the shared narrative created by the people at the table. With Russell, however, the other players are always going to have a nagging feeling that "this is not a shared narrative created entirely by us at the table--this is a shared narrative created by us at the table when one person is overtly inviting the Walt Disney Corporation in as well."
Is that a fair assessment? Not really--it would not be something I would personally have a problem with if a player wanted to do that. But that doesn't change the reality that some folks will feel that way, and I have seen how it can lead to more "purist" characters feeling resentment against a player and how it can contribute to the destruction of an entire campaign.
And that is only looking at the first part--the player side of things. It is very easy for the DM to fall into these traps as well. Keeping with our Russell example, maybe the DM adds a few references to dogs who point, or a large squawky bird, or some other Up references to the campaign--after all, they want to make sure their Disney character gets their share of backstory representation, and that is going to mean more references bleeding into the game. That, in turn, is going to annoy the purists. Or it doesn't happen at all, and the non-D&D character's player might begin to feel "wait, everyone else's backstory is being addressed and incorporated, but mine is not" and whatever following thoughts they might have from there.
Which, again, does not mean OP should necessarily not play this kind of character--merely that OP should be very well aware that there are a LOT of pitfalls in playing this kind of character, many of which might not be present at the game's first session, but could develop and grow over the course of a protracted campaign.
But what if he was Bilbo Baggins sucked into Barovia like years after he found Smaug’s treasure and retired to the Shire?
Then you'd be writing fanfiction.
What’s wrong with that?
Nothing...?
So would you let a player play Bilbo in your campaign if they had the backstory I described above? That way they’d be focusing on the adventure instead of Smaug’s treasure.
No, because it would limit the player in terms of roleplaying, and because they wouldn't be playing their own character. Additionally, in the games I run, I tend to avoid pop culture references and using characters from other media because they detract from the actual game. The player wouldn't be playing the game as their character, they'd be acting out however they believe Bilbo would act. And at that point, there's little to no difference between playing as Bilbo Baggins and playing as a different character with the same name, and therefore it would be pointless.
Because characters from other pieces of media already have their story arcs laid out. If I were to play as Bilbo Baggins, the adventure's story would have to revolve around my character's quest to steal the dragon's treasure hoard, instead of whatever the DM has in mind.
No, it absolutely would not. Nor would the player who created Bilbo Baggins, first-level halfling rogue who gets sucked into Barovia, expect it to. Nor would any of the other players expect it to
Characters get recontextualized all the time
My point is that if the DM *doesn't* bend the story to focus on Bilbo, there's no point in playing as Bilbo. And if the DM *does*, then the game is less likely to be fun for the other players.
The point would be to play Bilbo in the way you would think he would respond to situations and scenarios other than the ones he's known for
As a player, you are deliberately making the choice to take Bilbo out of the narrative of The Hobbit. Why would the DM feel obligated to re-insert that narrative, in any way?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Is playing a character from popular media who came to the RPG "world" from the real world in a DnD campaign a good idea?
Talk it over with your group and Dungeon Master and see what they think. Playing a popular media character can be awesome, but it could also go terribly wrong. Everything depends on the campaign, the style of play, and what the other people around the table want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I would just confirm with your DM and other players that that character wouldn't conflict with the tone of the campaign. If the table is going for a more serious or classic rpg approach, they may find having a Pixar character at the table distracting or that it takes away from the experience they wanted.
If everyone's going for a more lighthearted game then there shouldn't be any problem.
Bilbo was probably a bad example--the LotR series spans a gauntlet in terms of its tone, and the characters basically established the tropes D&D is based upon. A better example might be Russell from Up. Russell's fundamental character trait is his happy-go-lucky curiosity and somewhat oblivious nature. He is generally cheerful (serving as a mask for underlying pain due to problems at home) but lacking in common sense, and that causes him problems. A player may very well commit to that bit--taking Russell's extreme optimism and cheerfulness into Barovia in a way that might clash with the campaign.
Now, yes, you could make Glar Greathammer, a D&D character with the same exact basic traits--why wouldn't that be considered clashing? Well, hypothetical me responding to my points--the issue is going to be one of perception. With Glar Greathammer, it is entirely the player who is driving the personality traits. That is something folks could understand--they will feel like it is part of the shared narrative created by the people at the table. With Russell, however, the other players are always going to have a nagging feeling that "this is not a shared narrative created entirely by us at the table--this is a shared narrative created by us at the table when one person is overtly inviting the Walt Disney Corporation in as well."
Is that a fair assessment? Not really--it would not be something I would personally have a problem with if a player wanted to do that. But that doesn't change the reality that some folks will feel that way, and I have seen how it can lead to more "purist" characters feeling resentment against a player and how it can contribute to the destruction of an entire campaign.
And that is only looking at the first part--the player side of things. It is very easy for the DM to fall into these traps as well. Keeping with our Russell example, maybe the DM adds a few references to dogs who point, or a large squawky bird, or some other Up references to the campaign--after all, they want to make sure their Disney character gets their share of backstory representation, and that is going to mean more references bleeding into the game. That, in turn, is going to annoy the purists. Or it doesn't happen at all, and the non-D&D character's player might begin to feel "wait, everyone else's backstory is being addressed and incorporated, but mine is not" and whatever following thoughts they might have from there.
Which, again, does not mean OP should necessarily not play this kind of character--merely that OP should be very well aware that there are a LOT of pitfalls in playing this kind of character, many of which might not be present at the game's first session, but could develop and grow over the course of a protracted campaign.
I dunno, this doesn't really feel like a thing that would ever actually happen at a table
Let's stick with the Russell example. If you turn Russell into a D&D character, that act alone already makes it clear you have taken the character in a direction beyond his Pixar origins. Russell was an eight-year-old Wilderness Explorer; if you come to the table with Russell, 20-year-old beast master ranger, you have already added your own spin, and presumably have added non-Disney details to his backstory to cover the other 12 years. (And if instead you make Russell, eight-year-old Wilderness Explorer and undead warlock, well, Michael Galvis beat you to it...)
As for the DM tossing in dogs who point or large squawky birds, pop culture references will either fit the tone of the table or not, regardless of the characters. Russell's backstory should have a lot more to it than that a DM can draw upon, and if it doesn't, that's not an issue with the source material, it's an issue with an undercooked backstory -- whether it's for Russell or Glar Greathammer
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
All this talk of "tone" and whatnot makes me wonder if anyone has ever thought to play Strahd as a comedy.
I will confess that I have not until now, but I also confess that my player group is more than a little the sort that would do that, leaving me the straight girl.
And I am infamous for never being straight in anything, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I dunno, this doesn't really feel like a thing that would ever actually happen at a table
As I said twice - that which you don’t feel would “actually happen” is something I have actual experience with happening. A novice DM over-leaned into adding Disney character elements; a couple purist players who threw a fit about the whole thing and actively made things worse for the Disney character. Recall, this is a game where there are a lot of players who whine about “but you are not playing the alignment I think a D&D character should be therefore you are playing the game wrong!”
And, perhaps the Disney character committed too much to their character - though I find it hard to place blame there given how non-invested they were in the campaign due to how miserable the purists were making it for them.
So, again, I think it can work - but also know from experience that there are a whole host of problems and pitfalls.
I dunno, this doesn't really feel like a thing that would ever actually happen at a table
As I said twice - that which you don’t feel would “actually happen” is something I have actual experience with happening. A novice DM over-leaned into adding Disney character elements; a couple purist players who threw a fit about the whole thing and actively made things worse for the Disney character. Recall, this is a game where there are a lot of players who whine about “but you are not playing the alignment I think a D&D character should be therefore you are playing the game wrong!”
And, perhaps the Disney character committed too much to their character - though I find it hard to place blame there given how non-invested they were in the campaign due to how miserable the purists were making it for them.
So, again, I think it can work - but also know from experience that there are a whole host of problems and pitfalls.
From my perspective though, the problems you're describing have nothing to do with the character choices. You're talking about tables and campaigns that are going to fall apart regardless, because of personality clashes and bad fits
That campaign is going to implode or fizzle or whatever no matter whether you're playing Russell or Glar, because ultimately your character choice isn't the issue. Yes, if you want to try running Russell through Barovia you should find a group that can vibe with that, but you should always be looking for a table that can accommodate your play style and personality
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I dunno, this doesn't really feel like a thing that would ever actually happen at a table
As I said twice - that which you don’t feel would “actually happen” is something I have actual experience with happening. A novice DM over-leaned into adding Disney character elements; a couple purist players who threw a fit about the whole thing and actively made things worse for the Disney character. Recall, this is a game where there are a lot of players who whine about “but you are not playing the alignment I think a D&D character should be therefore you are playing the game wrong!”
And, perhaps the Disney character committed too much to their character - though I find it hard to place blame there given how non-invested they were in the campaign due to how miserable the purists were making it for them.
So, again, I think it can work - but also know from experience that there are a whole host of problems and pitfalls.
From my perspective though, the problems you're describing have nothing to do with the character choices. You're talking about tables and campaigns that are going to fall apart regardless, because of personality clashes and bad fits
That campaign is going to implode or fizzle or whatever no matter whether you're playing Russell or Glar, because ultimately your character choice isn't the issue. Yes, if you want to try running Russell through Barovia you should find a group that can vibe with that, but you should always be looking for a table that can accommodate your play style and personality
I think you are heavily discounting the “at least this is still our story” versus “why is Walt Disney interfering with our story” element that I’ve already mentioned above. That alone can turn something that might otherwise work out into resentment - even if that resentment isn’t overly fair, it can still colour an otherwise fine group.
Which, again, is just data for the OP to consider, not an admonishment of their idea, and I would truly hope they get to play the character they want. But they still should be aware that there could be problems, so they can be on the lookout for problems and try to mitigate them. Abject optimism is hardly helpful, since those problems clearly can exist - the “No” is winning by a lot, after all, indicating there are plenty of folks out there who might have a problem with this playstyle.
in fairness, there is little of statistical value to the poll's outcome, but, more importantly, there is a history of many folks herein being the sort ot have a problem with any playstyle that isn't theirs, so that point may need to be dismissed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To the OP, I do think the idea can work if you had buy-in from everyone else in the party beforehand, but I would also urge you to come up with ideas to tweak the concept in case they decide they aren't comfortable with it.
I've done this so many times. (Stranger things characters alot lol) and I really think it's fun to play as your favorite characters. And also, I run a D&D game with my brother where he plays a whole hoard of Characters from different movies and video games all mashed into one campaign. It's some of the most fun D&D We've played. So I think its a great idea.
To the OP, I do think the idea can work if you had buy-in from everyone else in the party beforehand, but I would also urge you to come up with ideas to tweak the concept in case they decide they aren't comfortable with it.
oh, I meant totally straight, comedically.
weekend at Bernie’s is also post-strahd
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
i,m playing the dragons of ice spire peaks campaign and my character is Freddy fazbear with a jet pack, flintlock and flamethrower bird: class:artificer, race war forged, subclass arrtilirest
BTW i invented guns in my campaign
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So would you let a player play Bilbo in your campaign if they had the backstory I described above? That way they’d be focusing on the adventure instead of Smaug’s treasure.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
No, it absolutely would not. Nor would the player who created Bilbo Baggins, first-level halfling rogue who gets sucked into Barovia, expect it to. Nor would any of the other players expect it to
Characters get recontextualized all the time
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, because it would limit the player in terms of roleplaying, and because they wouldn't be playing their own character. Additionally, in the games I run, I tend to avoid pop culture references and using characters from other media because they detract from the actual game. The player wouldn't be playing the game as their character, they'd be acting out however they believe Bilbo would act. And at that point, there's little to no difference between playing as Bilbo Baggins and playing as a different character with the same name, and therefore it would be pointless.
My point is that if the DM *doesn't* bend the story to focus on Bilbo, there's no point in playing as Bilbo. And if the DM *does*, then the game is less likely to be fun for the other players.
[REDACTED]
Speaking from experience, I think the strength of this assertion and the "absolute" nature of the post might be overblown. It is really going to come down to the group, and it very easily could be the case that someone in the group, be it the person playing the character, other players, or the DM try to force their expectations based on the underlying media onto the player character in a way that clashes with the gameplay.
Bilbo was probably a bad example--the LotR series spans a gauntlet in terms of its tone, and the characters basically established the tropes D&D is based upon. A better example might be Russell from Up. Russell's fundamental character trait is his happy-go-lucky curiosity and somewhat oblivious nature. He is generally cheerful (serving as a mask for underlying pain due to problems at home) but lacking in common sense, and that causes him problems. A player may very well commit to that bit--taking Russell's extreme optimism and cheerfulness into Barovia in a way that might clash with the campaign.
Now, yes, you could make Glar Greathammer, a D&D character with the same exact basic traits--why wouldn't that be considered clashing? Well, hypothetical me responding to my points--the issue is going to be one of perception. With Glar Greathammer, it is entirely the player who is driving the personality traits. That is something folks could understand--they will feel like it is part of the shared narrative created by the people at the table. With Russell, however, the other players are always going to have a nagging feeling that "this is not a shared narrative created entirely by us at the table--this is a shared narrative created by us at the table when one person is overtly inviting the Walt Disney Corporation in as well."
Is that a fair assessment? Not really--it would not be something I would personally have a problem with if a player wanted to do that. But that doesn't change the reality that some folks will feel that way, and I have seen how it can lead to more "purist" characters feeling resentment against a player and how it can contribute to the destruction of an entire campaign.
And that is only looking at the first part--the player side of things. It is very easy for the DM to fall into these traps as well. Keeping with our Russell example, maybe the DM adds a few references to dogs who point, or a large squawky bird, or some other Up references to the campaign--after all, they want to make sure their Disney character gets their share of backstory representation, and that is going to mean more references bleeding into the game. That, in turn, is going to annoy the purists. Or it doesn't happen at all, and the non-D&D character's player might begin to feel "wait, everyone else's backstory is being addressed and incorporated, but mine is not" and whatever following thoughts they might have from there.
Which, again, does not mean OP should necessarily not play this kind of character--merely that OP should be very well aware that there are a LOT of pitfalls in playing this kind of character, many of which might not be present at the game's first session, but could develop and grow over the course of a protracted campaign.
The point would be to play Bilbo in the way you would think he would respond to situations and scenarios other than the ones he's known for
As a player, you are deliberately making the choice to take Bilbo out of the narrative of The Hobbit. Why would the DM feel obligated to re-insert that narrative, in any way?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Talk it over with your group and Dungeon Master and see what they think. Playing a popular media character can be awesome, but it could also go terribly wrong. Everything depends on the campaign, the style of play, and what the other people around the table want.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I would just confirm with your DM and other players that that character wouldn't conflict with the tone of the campaign. If the table is going for a more serious or classic rpg approach, they may find having a Pixar character at the table distracting or that it takes away from the experience they wanted.
If everyone's going for a more lighthearted game then there shouldn't be any problem.
I dunno, this doesn't really feel like a thing that would ever actually happen at a table
Let's stick with the Russell example. If you turn Russell into a D&D character, that act alone already makes it clear you have taken the character in a direction beyond his Pixar origins. Russell was an eight-year-old Wilderness Explorer; if you come to the table with Russell, 20-year-old beast master ranger, you have already added your own spin, and presumably have added non-Disney details to his backstory to cover the other 12 years. (And if instead you make Russell, eight-year-old Wilderness Explorer and undead warlock, well, Michael Galvis beat you to it...)
As for the DM tossing in dogs who point or large squawky birds, pop culture references will either fit the tone of the table or not, regardless of the characters. Russell's backstory should have a lot more to it than that a DM can draw upon, and if it doesn't, that's not an issue with the source material, it's an issue with an undercooked backstory -- whether it's for Russell or Glar Greathammer
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
All this talk of "tone" and whatnot makes me wonder if anyone has ever thought to play Strahd as a comedy.
I will confess that I have not until now, but I also confess that my player group is more than a little the sort that would do that, leaving me the straight girl.
And I am infamous for never being straight in anything, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As I said twice - that which you don’t feel would “actually happen” is something I have actual experience with happening. A novice DM over-leaned into adding Disney character elements; a couple purist players who threw a fit about the whole thing and actively made things worse for the Disney character. Recall, this is a game where there are a lot of players who whine about “but you are not playing the alignment I think a D&D character should be therefore you are playing the game wrong!”
And, perhaps the Disney character committed too much to their character - though I find it hard to place blame there given how non-invested they were in the campaign due to how miserable the purists were making it for them.
So, again, I think it can work - but also know from experience that there are a whole host of problems and pitfalls.
From my perspective though, the problems you're describing have nothing to do with the character choices. You're talking about tables and campaigns that are going to fall apart regardless, because of personality clashes and bad fits
That campaign is going to implode or fizzle or whatever no matter whether you're playing Russell or Glar, because ultimately your character choice isn't the issue. Yes, if you want to try running Russell through Barovia you should find a group that can vibe with that, but you should always be looking for a table that can accommodate your play style and personality
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think you are heavily discounting the “at least this is still our story” versus “why is Walt Disney interfering with our story” element that I’ve already mentioned above. That alone can turn something that might otherwise work out into resentment - even if that resentment isn’t overly fair, it can still colour an otherwise fine group.
Which, again, is just data for the OP to consider, not an admonishment of their idea, and I would truly hope they get to play the character they want. But they still should be aware that there could be problems, so they can be on the lookout for problems and try to mitigate them. Abject optimism is hardly helpful, since those problems clearly can exist - the “No” is winning by a lot, after all, indicating there are plenty of folks out there who might have a problem with this playstyle.
in fairness, there is little of statistical value to the poll's outcome, but, more importantly, there is a history of many folks herein being the sort ot have a problem with any playstyle that isn't theirs, so that point may need to be dismissed.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The idea may have come up once or twice before.
To the OP, I do think the idea can work if you had buy-in from everyone else in the party beforehand, but I would also urge you to come up with ideas to tweak the concept in case they decide they aren't comfortable with it.
I've done this so many times. (Stranger things characters alot lol) and I really think it's fun to play as your favorite characters. And also, I run a D&D game with my brother where he plays a whole hoard of Characters from different movies and video games all mashed into one campaign. It's some of the most fun D&D We've played. So I think its a great idea.
oh, I meant totally straight, comedically.
weekend at Bernie’s is also post-strahd
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Don't worry, I can't do anything straight either. 😁
I'll see myself out...
i,m playing the dragons of ice spire peaks campaign and my character is Freddy fazbear with a jet pack, flintlock and flamethrower bird: class:artificer, race war forged, subclass arrtilirest
BTW i invented guns in my campaign