My friend's friend needed +1 for D&D game. I showed up, because I know it means much to her. When I get there, we were already in a group of 6 + DM. DM was friend's friend (first time DM) and she organised adventure.
I know nothing about game and 4/6 players have played for first time. I have never played RPG before and I never played the game that has no end/winning goal. So we take almost 3 hours to fill out sheets of our characters. My character was Chaotic Neutral, because Evil were banned. DM said that we don't need to worry about Races, Classes, Characters .. we didn't set Personal Character goals, we just filled papers and were told we will get the game when we start playing. I asked what is point of game, they said to have fun on adventure. I asked what can character do in game, they said you "can basically do whatever you want. This is what makes D&D fun."
My turn, I say to myself: "Okey, I can do whatever I want. We are in a tavern, we are ordering some food and drinks. I will need to pay for this shit. Let's just kill the tavern owner and steal all of his things. As wizard I throw a bolt at him, then roll ******* 1." After that, people start running out of tavern, my fellowship didn't like what we did, so they try to stop them from running. But they can't succeed. Situation was like that after few turns ...
I was escaping thought the window
One was trying to intimidate whole tavern by jumping on bar table
Bard was trying to fake that she was drunk, so she could tell forces it was my fault, so they don't kill them.
2 were telling others to come and tie them together so they will think that I did all that.
And lawfully good person was going through the door talking to coming guards.
They were really pissed that I did not follow adventure rules and DM said that she had adventure where we fight "Rat's" planned. I mean, **** the rats. After session, I start looking on internet and seeing point of D&D is just to follow adventure and knock doors off and be like nice to each other, never have conflict, just try to solve mystery in front of you. Then I see people are playing for years, having each own kingdom, drawing maps, investing into game. My question is.. "Why people say it's free to do whatever you want, and then condemn you for doing what you wanted in that time?" Having no character personal goals, no features, nothing defined.
Also, why are so many people avoiding "Evil" characters? How does one define if said thing is Evil? Also, people say my act was stupid. That my character is not stupid and I should not make that move. Then what is point of owning my character? My though was to get free meal. I mean, we are mages, wizards etc. Can't we just kill 3 people in that tavern and occupy it. Making it interesting? Instead of walking to some hill who knows where and fight some rats?
Maybe I made a terrible move. I didn't want to sabotage the game, because honestly, I was pretty tired after 3 hours of filling paper form. And just wanted to have fun. What is your opinion on all this?
One of the most important things to remember about D&D is that you are building a collective story with other people. While yes, you can do "whatever" you want. It's similar to real life where if you do something wrong, there will be consequences. It's important for you to have fun, but also important to take into consideration everyone else's fun as well. This is why having what is called a "session 0" is so important. That is where you do all the character creation, and set expectations of what everyone wants out of the game. Discuss how long you want sessions to be, what rules are expected, etc. If it's not something you're into, or doesn't sound fun, let your DM and other players know so that you can all find something that can be common fun for you all.
The "point" of the game is to tell a story. The journey your characters take from being low-level nobodies, to the epic badasses who killed a dragon, or became rulers of a nation, or stopped an evil god from destroying the world. That is why it can take years to play a campaign. D&D is a collaborative effort between all involved to create these stories of funny moments, epic moments, and even sad moments.
I think the only thing you did 'wrong' was to treat it like you were playing a single player computer game.
In the real world you are free to do whatever you want. You are free to go and kill the tavern owner and get a free meal, but you'll go to jail for doing it. In this game, why wouldn't you expect to find your character thrown in jail for murder, or more likely executed? Bam! Your character had a bit of fun murdering, then go executed for their crime.
Next time you think about a free meal, don't treat DnD like a video game where killing a shop keeper has no consequences - treat it like an MMO wherein killing a random shop keep sets off a guard 100 times more powerful than you are and murders you instantly for doing it.
Okay, so your first time playing, sounds like you're playing to make a friend happy (nice gesture, but not sure how invested you were), you don't know what you're doing, and inexperienced DM. To top it all off, you were playing as, what we call, a 'murder hobo' - indiscriminately kill things and steal their shit. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. (An experienced DM could handle this, but you just derailed an inexperienced DM - not your fault, you didn't know).
First off, if it helps, think of winning in D&D as successfully completing quests which the DM gives, and levelling up your character. When you're new, you really want to look for the clues the DM is giving. Let them guide you on the adventure. Oh, and they've probably put hours of preparation in to this (especially if they're new, and even just to kill a few rats). Respect your DM! Anyway, you're all learning, and this is how you learn. Usually in the 'you start in a bar' type scenarios, you're getting to know each other and will be given a quest.
Don't go murdering everyone in sight to save a few coppers. Do what makes sense - killing the barman in my game would get you put in prison and ready for a hanging. That can become an adventure in itself - provided the other players are willing to get you out - but everyone has to be experienced enough to improvise, and a lot of DMs can't.
Think of D&D as shared storytelling - with an emphasis on shared. One selfish player can ruin the game for everyone (not saying you were, you were given no guidelines, from what you've described). As you get more experienced, and as the DM gets more experienced, this becomes more collaborative. But at first, it is best to pick up the clues the DM is giving you, act like a reasonable human being (or elf, or whatever), and learn the ropes.
As for why not evil - plenty of people play evil, but it's got to be done right. First, it creates conflict, especially if you have a good character. I mean conflict between players, not just their characters. Also, you killed everyone in the bar. So what? There's nothing strategic or clever about it. Do you fantasize about being a bully? I'm struggling to see why this is fun. If your DM is good, you're going to get a bad rep, have far more powerful wizards hired by the king chasing you, and never be able to enter another town. It's just dumb... and see what I mean about shared storytelling?
Yes, I understand what you are telling me and I see your point clearly.
I just didn't like the notion you can do anything, but you will ruin the game if you do it. Isn't it better to say you can't really do anything that will not be in line with story we are following?
Also, yes, I should not be doing this illogical thing, which would put my character in that situation. I completely agree on that now with you. But wouldn't people with unlimited freedom in a fantasy word (bear in mind, we though this is gonna be one time game - not something that drags on more meetings) try to test those limits? From your experience, what do new players do most of the time? Am I exception here or do people just stroll along and wait until they are faced with something to overcome?
One more thing, I'm very competitive. We play cards with my close friends, we play competitive games, we enjoy trying to prove each other who has the right point in arguments and when I'm around that type of setting things work out. I can tell that this is not acceptable to do in unfamiliar group of people, so my question is also if there can be successful game of D&D that has a lot of conflicts between characters? Let's say there is some X powerful gem that will give people great power and people try to find it. From my very limited experience and my thinking, I think it's much more enjoyable seeing reaction from other persons who are sitting next to you (that are in character) than DM who just thinks what person would do in that situation in this very moment, on the stop. Maybe it's just how I think.
I think like D&D is like books where you follow story, but you only have few options all the time and ending of story is pretty much the same no matter what you do. You get lost? Well, let's make it so you can get back to group. Maybe it will take 1 session or 2, you will get there. You trying to get out of cave? It's just the matter of time when you get out. You trying to save X person? Well, it would be really boring if this mission could not be done, because group took bad decisions, so let's (as DM) give them what they want. Or this does not happen?
Railroading is most definitely a thing, but it is not the only way TTRPGs are played.
There are MANY DMs that improvise on the spot based on what the players do, and that adapt the plot based on the choices the players make.
Internal conflict in a party is also a possibility, but it would need to be clear from the start that that's a possible theme of the game.
For what I can gather from your messages, we are in front of a difference of expectation scenario: you have your idea of what TTRPGs should be, others have a slightly different expectation. This generates frustration online side an/or the other 99% of the time.
Silly example: if you go to see a play expecting Phantom of the Opera, and you find yourself witnessing Madama Butterfly, you might get annoyed, because you were expecting something different although they are both theater plays, while a friend of yours who came with you and was expecting to see La Traviata might still find it enjoyable, although not exactly what they were expecting either.
What I want to say is: it is extremely important (and sadly very rarely done) to set the tone, themes and scope of a TTRPG adventure BEFORE the characters are even rolled. This way everyone at the table can form an idea on what to expect, and if someone does not agree with what/how the group wants to play, they are free to leave, without realising in the middle of the session they are playing a completely different game that what the others were expecting to.
It is no one's fault and it is everyone's fault. What each person is expecting to play must be clear from the start to find a middle ground everyone is ok with and avoid disappointment or confusion.
There are 1283644957110 different ways of playing TTRPGs, as there are the same number of ideas people might have of what it should be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
One more thing, I'm very competitive. We play cards with my close friends, we play competitive games, we enjoy trying to prove each other who has the right point in arguments and when I'm around that type of setting things work out. I can tell that this is not acceptable to do in unfamiliar group of people, so my question is also if there can be successful game of D&D that has a lot of conflicts between characters? Let's say there is some X powerful gem that will give people great power and people try to find it. From my very limited experience and my thinking, I think it's much more enjoyable seeing reaction from other persons who are sitting next to you (that are in character) than DM who just thinks what person would do in that situation in this very moment, on the stop. Maybe it's just how I think.
This is what you're struggling with. D&D is a cooperative game, not a competitive game. The goal most of the time is to work together, not to compete with each other. Pandemic is a board game that's similar. Either everyone wins or everyone loses in this type of game and you aren't thinking in those terms.
As others have stated in D&D you can do anything you, but that doesn't mean you should do something. Instead of thinking about it as a video game, think of it more like life. I can go into my local bar and light it on fire and if this was a video game I could easily reload my save as if it never happened, but if life, that is a choice I made that I have to live by. This is more how D&D works, I can light the tavern on fire, but once I do there is no going back. The town and others will react and remember that. It's not really something I can take back I have to live with my choices.
Now where the other players are coming back, you specifically said your character wasn't allowed to be evil, attack an innkeeper just because isn't a neutral or good action, that is clearly an evil action. So you already went against what the DM and other players agreed to. They wanted to play in a way that was clearly more morally neutral to good and you started if off by basically getting them kicked out of town. And since D&D isn't like a video game per se, there is no undoing the actions you took. The party than either needs to make up for your evil actions or just say that town is dead to them and hope they don't place bounties on you.
Did you play wrong? No. There are anti-hero campaigns designed specifically for that style of play. Did you ruin your friends fun? It sounds like it. You should either change how you think of the game, it is not a video game, it is not competitive. Its life, its friends, its co-op.
I think others have answered well. Just to add to the discussion... I think you said this is a one-off, which makes this a bit more difficult - but if you are playing an ongoing campaign it's usual to have a 'session 0' where player expectations and flavour (and maybe goals) of the campaign are clarified, the DM can lay down any house rules, and characters are created. This helps to create group and party cohesion. It's difficult in a one-shot, though - you sort of have to go along with the DMs story. Again, I think you were all the victim of inexperience, in this case. If you thought you might be interested in diving more into D&D, it would be worth finding an experienced group to play with. Some game stores run 'how to play' sessions. Otherwise, add it to your pool of peculiar life experiences.
Also, yes, I should not be doing this illogical thing, which would put my character in that situation. I completely agree on that now with you. But wouldn't people with unlimited freedom in a fantasy word (bear in mind, we though this is gonna be one time game - not something that drags on more meetings) try to test those limits? From your experience, what do new players do most of the time? Am I exception here or do people just stroll along and wait until they are faced with something to overcome?
Because those limits, within the fantasy world, have been tested before. And it's pretty much the same in our world. If you go out and try to steal and hurt people, Guards are going to come stop you. You might get away or kill a guard or two...but just like in real life it's going to put a target on your back. People tend to not like theft or being killed.
Again, D&D is generally a cooperative story as many others are saying.
Well here is the thing. Your group decided on no evil characters at the start. That was a meta rule you all put in place to ensure everyone had fun. Honestly, indiscriminate murder isn't fun for most people. They still have that moral compass saying it is wrong, even though it's a game. By trying to kill a random person so you didn't have to pay for your food, you broke a very important rule set by the group and probably frustrated everyone. Think of it like this: your character is chaotic neutral. Chaotic is your relationship to laws and society. Neutral is your ethical compass. Neutral can mean balance, or it can mean average. In real life scenario, an average or normal person isn't going to murder someone for a meal in a normal circumstance. Neutral might have meant you leave without paying or try to intimidate your way out of paying if you didn't have the money to pay for it but you'd probably feel bad about it. That's one way to interpret chaotic neutral. You're not worried about the laws of land, but you aren't going to be a horrible person. Chaotic good is an alignment too. It would be a person that strives to do the right thing but isn't really concerned with breaking the law to achieve that. The alignment system is there to give your characters depth outside yourself. It's more about what your character would do, not what you would do. You very much went against what your character would do as a chaotic neutral character.
Also, the DM put a lot of effort into a session. Derailing that is ok but understand that when you did that, you're fundamentally changing the story they wanted to create with you. Also, killing rats may have mean a number of things beyond just killing rats. My first session ever I actually had something very similar happen. I was chaotic neutral and our first adventure was to go kill rats. I thought that was somewhat stupid as adventures go but I didn't really have a grasp of what was going on so I went with it. It turned into much more than killing rats and made for a compelling story.
Yes, I understand what you are telling me and I see your point clearly.
I just didn't like the notion you can do anything, but you will ruin the game if you do it. Isn't it better to say you can't really do anything that will not be in line with story we are following?
Also, yes, I should not be doing this illogical thing, which would put my character in that situation. I completely agree on that now with you. But wouldn't people with unlimited freedom in a fantasy word (bear in mind, we though this is gonna be one time game - not something that drags on more meetings) try to test those limits? From your experience, what do new players do most of the time? Am I exception here or do people just stroll along and wait until they are faced with something to overcome?
Here's my perspective. First, I'm happy to see you asking what you can do the next time. :)
You are almost completely right when you put it this way: "you can't really do anything that will not be in line with story we are following?" I say 'almost' because the game rules really do let you 'do' mostly whatever someone could do in a real world situation. If you were in a tavern, you could set it on fire. But you are right that, in effect, in any given group you cannot do 'anything' simply because the group will not ask you to play again if you do things that make it not enjoyable for the others :) I play games at conventions, and I have seen groups of players just flat out tell another player to leave the table because the player was being a jerk. Not doing 'impossible' things in the game, but doing things to ruin the experience for the other players. Trying to kill the important NPC we just met who had the important information, for example.
Not that you were being a jerk yourself. (But your character was :)
So you, and the group, need to decide what the group is all about.
Some groups are 'mission driven', where the DM has a scenario in mind. Long scenarios that play out over long campaigns, saving the world sort of stuff. Or short scenarios, here is what you are doing this week, and next week it'll be something else.
Some groups are much more 'sandbox'. You're in the tavern...what are you doing? And the DM just rolls with it.
Most groups tend to fall into the first category, if only because the DM has done some planning, set up encounters, drawn maps and such, and it's kind of a d**k move if the party says "We don't care, we're doing something else." If the DM has setup an adventure for you, has taken their time and effort to prepare a game session for you, do it. :) That's not considered 'railroading', it's just considered 'having a plot and respecting the DM's work and effort'.
Then, it's clear what the group has decided that you can or can't do. If you are off to save the village from the orc army, you 'cannot' stop and burn down the tavern today. Because you're there to play a game with these people, and you are all working so that you all have fun.
So, that said--here's my biggest piece of advice: do not be chaotic neutral.
It is almost universally treated as 'This is my excuse to do whatever I want, pissing off the rest of the party, killing people randomly, etc". I can't remember the last time a CN character was actually fun to play in a campaign with. Pick another alignment. Even LN is fine.
Here's the thing: as others have said, this is not a video game. You are playing a character, a person, not just a walking pile of stats and weapons. Give that character a personality. (And do not make it "I just do whatever I want yeehaw!")
And then, think of the whole experience not as 'trying to win' or competing or anything like that. Once you have a character that has a personality, you are basically doing improve acting with rules. You don't have to talk in character, you don't have to use a different voice. But part of the game, the fun and the goal, becomes not "what can I do in the game?" but "what wouldmy character do at this point?" I have played so many characters that are very unlike me over the years, because it's fun. I play myself every day--it's fun for a change while gaming to play a sneaky gnome thief, or a brave, self-sacrificing knight, etc etc.
Plenty of people play "nameless faceless personality-less pile of stats #3" with each and every character. Avoid that. If you're in the bar, and you're asking yourself "What can my character do right now?" and you come up with "I could burn down the bar and murder the innkeeper", the question becomes "Why would your character do that? Is your character an evil d**k?" If your character is not an evil d**k, then don't do that. Because you're playing a specific character, with a personality. :)
Okey, some backstory.
My friend's friend needed +1 for D&D game. I showed up, because I know it means much to her. When I get there, we were already in a group of 6 + DM. DM was friend's friend (first time DM) and she organised adventure.
I know nothing about game and 4/6 players have played for first time. I have never played RPG before and I never played the game that has no end/winning goal. So we take almost 3 hours to fill out sheets of our characters. My character was Chaotic Neutral, because Evil were banned. DM said that we don't need to worry about Races, Classes, Characters .. we didn't set Personal Character goals, we just filled papers and were told we will get the game when we start playing. I asked what is point of game, they said to have fun on adventure. I asked what can character do in game, they said you "can basically do whatever you want. This is what makes D&D fun."
My turn, I say to myself: "Okey, I can do whatever I want. We are in a tavern, we are ordering some food and drinks. I will need to pay for this shit. Let's just kill the tavern owner and steal all of his things. As wizard I throw a bolt at him, then roll ******* 1." After that, people start running out of tavern, my fellowship didn't like what we did, so they try to stop them from running. But they can't succeed. Situation was like that after few turns ...
They were really pissed that I did not follow adventure rules and DM said that she had adventure where we fight "Rat's" planned. I mean, **** the rats. After session, I start looking on internet and seeing point of D&D is just to follow adventure and knock doors off and be like nice to each other, never have conflict, just try to solve mystery in front of you. Then I see people are playing for years, having each own kingdom, drawing maps, investing into game. My question is.. "Why people say it's free to do whatever you want, and then condemn you for doing what you wanted in that time?" Having no character personal goals, no features, nothing defined.
Also, why are so many people avoiding "Evil" characters? How does one define if said thing is Evil? Also, people say my act was stupid. That my character is not stupid and I should not make that move. Then what is point of owning my character? My though was to get free meal. I mean, we are mages, wizards etc. Can't we just kill 3 people in that tavern and occupy it. Making it interesting? Instead of walking to some hill who knows where and fight some rats?
Maybe I made a terrible move. I didn't want to sabotage the game, because honestly, I was pretty tired after 3 hours of filling paper form. And just wanted to have fun. What is your opinion on all this?
One of the most important things to remember about D&D is that you are building a collective story with other people. While yes, you can do "whatever" you want. It's similar to real life where if you do something wrong, there will be consequences. It's important for you to have fun, but also important to take into consideration everyone else's fun as well. This is why having what is called a "session 0" is so important. That is where you do all the character creation, and set expectations of what everyone wants out of the game. Discuss how long you want sessions to be, what rules are expected, etc. If it's not something you're into, or doesn't sound fun, let your DM and other players know so that you can all find something that can be common fun for you all.
The "point" of the game is to tell a story. The journey your characters take from being low-level nobodies, to the epic badasses who killed a dragon, or became rulers of a nation, or stopped an evil god from destroying the world. That is why it can take years to play a campaign. D&D is a collaborative effort between all involved to create these stories of funny moments, epic moments, and even sad moments.
I think the only thing you did 'wrong' was to treat it like you were playing a single player computer game.
In the real world you are free to do whatever you want. You are free to go and kill the tavern owner and get a free meal, but you'll go to jail for doing it. In this game, why wouldn't you expect to find your character thrown in jail for murder, or more likely executed? Bam! Your character had a bit of fun murdering, then go executed for their crime.
Next time you think about a free meal, don't treat DnD like a video game where killing a shop keeper has no consequences - treat it like an MMO wherein killing a random shop keep sets off a guard 100 times more powerful than you are and murders you instantly for doing it.
Okay, so your first time playing, sounds like you're playing to make a friend happy (nice gesture, but not sure how invested you were), you don't know what you're doing, and inexperienced DM. To top it all off, you were playing as, what we call, a 'murder hobo' - indiscriminately kill things and steal their shit. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. (An experienced DM could handle this, but you just derailed an inexperienced DM - not your fault, you didn't know).
First off, if it helps, think of winning in D&D as successfully completing quests which the DM gives, and levelling up your character. When you're new, you really want to look for the clues the DM is giving. Let them guide you on the adventure. Oh, and they've probably put hours of preparation in to this (especially if they're new, and even just to kill a few rats). Respect your DM! Anyway, you're all learning, and this is how you learn. Usually in the 'you start in a bar' type scenarios, you're getting to know each other and will be given a quest.
Don't go murdering everyone in sight to save a few coppers. Do what makes sense - killing the barman in my game would get you put in prison and ready for a hanging. That can become an adventure in itself - provided the other players are willing to get you out - but everyone has to be experienced enough to improvise, and a lot of DMs can't.
Think of D&D as shared storytelling - with an emphasis on shared. One selfish player can ruin the game for everyone (not saying you were, you were given no guidelines, from what you've described). As you get more experienced, and as the DM gets more experienced, this becomes more collaborative. But at first, it is best to pick up the clues the DM is giving you, act like a reasonable human being (or elf, or whatever), and learn the ropes.
As for why not evil - plenty of people play evil, but it's got to be done right. First, it creates conflict, especially if you have a good character. I mean conflict between players, not just their characters. Also, you killed everyone in the bar. So what? There's nothing strategic or clever about it. Do you fantasize about being a bully? I'm struggling to see why this is fun. If your DM is good, you're going to get a bad rep, have far more powerful wizards hired by the king chasing you, and never be able to enter another town. It's just dumb... and see what I mean about shared storytelling?
Yes, I understand what you are telling me and I see your point clearly.
I just didn't like the notion you can do anything, but you will ruin the game if you do it. Isn't it better to say you can't really do anything that will not be in line with story we are following?
Also, yes, I should not be doing this illogical thing, which would put my character in that situation. I completely agree on that now with you. But wouldn't people with unlimited freedom in a fantasy word (bear in mind, we though this is gonna be one time game - not something that drags on more meetings) try to test those limits? From your experience, what do new players do most of the time? Am I exception here or do people just stroll along and wait until they are faced with something to overcome?
One more thing, I'm very competitive. We play cards with my close friends, we play competitive games, we enjoy trying to prove each other who has the right point in arguments and when I'm around that type of setting things work out. I can tell that this is not acceptable to do in unfamiliar group of people, so my question is also if there can be successful game of D&D that has a lot of conflicts between characters? Let's say there is some X powerful gem that will give people great power and people try to find it. From my very limited experience and my thinking, I think it's much more enjoyable seeing reaction from other persons who are sitting next to you (that are in character) than DM who just thinks what person would do in that situation in this very moment, on the stop. Maybe it's just how I think.
I think like D&D is like books where you follow story, but you only have few options all the time and ending of story is pretty much the same no matter what you do. You get lost? Well, let's make it so you can get back to group. Maybe it will take 1 session or 2, you will get there. You trying to get out of cave? It's just the matter of time when you get out. You trying to save X person? Well, it would be really boring if this mission could not be done, because group took bad decisions, so let's (as DM) give them what they want. Or this does not happen?
Railroading is most definitely a thing, but it is not the only way TTRPGs are played.
There are MANY DMs that improvise on the spot based on what the players do, and that adapt the plot based on the choices the players make.
Internal conflict in a party is also a possibility, but it would need to be clear from the start that that's a possible theme of the game.
For what I can gather from your messages, we are in front of a difference of expectation scenario: you have your idea of what TTRPGs should be, others have a slightly different expectation. This generates frustration online side an/or the other 99% of the time.
Silly example: if you go to see a play expecting Phantom of the Opera, and you find yourself witnessing Madama Butterfly, you might get annoyed, because you were expecting something different although they are both theater plays, while a friend of yours who came with you and was expecting to see La Traviata might still find it enjoyable, although not exactly what they were expecting either.
What I want to say is: it is extremely important (and sadly very rarely done) to set the tone, themes and scope of a TTRPG adventure BEFORE the characters are even rolled. This way everyone at the table can form an idea on what to expect, and if someone does not agree with what/how the group wants to play, they are free to leave, without realising in the middle of the session they are playing a completely different game that what the others were expecting to.
It is no one's fault and it is everyone's fault. What each person is expecting to play must be clear from the start to find a middle ground everyone is ok with and avoid disappointment or confusion.
There are 1283644957110 different ways of playing TTRPGs, as there are the same number of ideas people might have of what it should be.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
This is what you're struggling with. D&D is a cooperative game, not a competitive game. The goal most of the time is to work together, not to compete with each other. Pandemic is a board game that's similar. Either everyone wins or everyone loses in this type of game and you aren't thinking in those terms.
Professional computer geek
As others have stated in D&D you can do anything you, but that doesn't mean you should do something. Instead of thinking about it as a video game, think of it more like life. I can go into my local bar and light it on fire and if this was a video game I could easily reload my save as if it never happened, but if life, that is a choice I made that I have to live by. This is more how D&D works, I can light the tavern on fire, but once I do there is no going back. The town and others will react and remember that. It's not really something I can take back I have to live with my choices.
Now where the other players are coming back, you specifically said your character wasn't allowed to be evil, attack an innkeeper just because isn't a neutral or good action, that is clearly an evil action. So you already went against what the DM and other players agreed to. They wanted to play in a way that was clearly more morally neutral to good and you started if off by basically getting them kicked out of town. And since D&D isn't like a video game per se, there is no undoing the actions you took. The party than either needs to make up for your evil actions or just say that town is dead to them and hope they don't place bounties on you.
Did you play wrong? No. There are anti-hero campaigns designed specifically for that style of play. Did you ruin your friends fun? It sounds like it. You should either change how you think of the game, it is not a video game, it is not competitive. Its life, its friends, its co-op.
I think others have answered well. Just to add to the discussion... I think you said this is a one-off, which makes this a bit more difficult - but if you are playing an ongoing campaign it's usual to have a 'session 0' where player expectations and flavour (and maybe goals) of the campaign are clarified, the DM can lay down any house rules, and characters are created. This helps to create group and party cohesion. It's difficult in a one-shot, though - you sort of have to go along with the DMs story. Again, I think you were all the victim of inexperience, in this case. If you thought you might be interested in diving more into D&D, it would be worth finding an experienced group to play with. Some game stores run 'how to play' sessions. Otherwise, add it to your pool of peculiar life experiences.
Because those limits, within the fantasy world, have been tested before. And it's pretty much the same in our world. If you go out and try to steal and hurt people, Guards are going to come stop you. You might get away or kill a guard or two...but just like in real life it's going to put a target on your back. People tend to not like theft or being killed.
Again, D&D is generally a cooperative story as many others are saying.
Well here is the thing. Your group decided on no evil characters at the start. That was a meta rule you all put in place to ensure everyone had fun. Honestly, indiscriminate murder isn't fun for most people. They still have that moral compass saying it is wrong, even though it's a game. By trying to kill a random person so you didn't have to pay for your food, you broke a very important rule set by the group and probably frustrated everyone. Think of it like this: your character is chaotic neutral. Chaotic is your relationship to laws and society. Neutral is your ethical compass. Neutral can mean balance, or it can mean average. In real life scenario, an average or normal person isn't going to murder someone for a meal in a normal circumstance. Neutral might have meant you leave without paying or try to intimidate your way out of paying if you didn't have the money to pay for it but you'd probably feel bad about it. That's one way to interpret chaotic neutral. You're not worried about the laws of land, but you aren't going to be a horrible person. Chaotic good is an alignment too. It would be a person that strives to do the right thing but isn't really concerned with breaking the law to achieve that. The alignment system is there to give your characters depth outside yourself. It's more about what your character would do, not what you would do. You very much went against what your character would do as a chaotic neutral character.
Also, the DM put a lot of effort into a session. Derailing that is ok but understand that when you did that, you're fundamentally changing the story they wanted to create with you. Also, killing rats may have mean a number of things beyond just killing rats. My first session ever I actually had something very similar happen. I was chaotic neutral and our first adventure was to go kill rats. I thought that was somewhat stupid as adventures go but I didn't really have a grasp of what was going on so I went with it. It turned into much more than killing rats and made for a compelling story.
Here's my perspective. First, I'm happy to see you asking what you can do the next time. :)
You are almost completely right when you put it this way: "you can't really do anything that will not be in line with story we are following?" I say 'almost' because the game rules really do let you 'do' mostly whatever someone could do in a real world situation. If you were in a tavern, you could set it on fire. But you are right that, in effect, in any given group you cannot do 'anything' simply because the group will not ask you to play again if you do things that make it not enjoyable for the others :) I play games at conventions, and I have seen groups of players just flat out tell another player to leave the table because the player was being a jerk. Not doing 'impossible' things in the game, but doing things to ruin the experience for the other players. Trying to kill the important NPC we just met who had the important information, for example.
Not that you were being a jerk yourself. (But your character was :)
So you, and the group, need to decide what the group is all about.
Most groups tend to fall into the first category, if only because the DM has done some planning, set up encounters, drawn maps and such, and it's kind of a d**k move if the party says "We don't care, we're doing something else." If the DM has setup an adventure for you, has taken their time and effort to prepare a game session for you, do it. :) That's not considered 'railroading', it's just considered 'having a plot and respecting the DM's work and effort'.
Then, it's clear what the group has decided that you can or can't do. If you are off to save the village from the orc army, you 'cannot' stop and burn down the tavern today. Because you're there to play a game with these people, and you are all working so that you all have fun.
So, that said--here's my biggest piece of advice: do not be chaotic neutral.
It is almost universally treated as 'This is my excuse to do whatever I want, pissing off the rest of the party, killing people randomly, etc". I can't remember the last time a CN character was actually fun to play in a campaign with. Pick another alignment. Even LN is fine.
Here's the thing: as others have said, this is not a video game. You are playing a character, a person, not just a walking pile of stats and weapons. Give that character a personality. (And do not make it "I just do whatever I want yeehaw!")
And then, think of the whole experience not as 'trying to win' or competing or anything like that. Once you have a character that has a personality, you are basically doing improve acting with rules. You don't have to talk in character, you don't have to use a different voice. But part of the game, the fun and the goal, becomes not "what can I do in the game?" but "what would my character do at this point?" I have played so many characters that are very unlike me over the years, because it's fun. I play myself every day--it's fun for a change while gaming to play a sneaky gnome thief, or a brave, self-sacrificing knight, etc etc.
Plenty of people play "nameless faceless personality-less pile of stats #3" with each and every character. Avoid that. If you're in the bar, and you're asking yourself "What can my character do right now?" and you come up with "I could burn down the bar and murder the innkeeper", the question becomes "Why would your character do that? Is your character an evil d**k?" If your character is not an evil d**k, then don't do that. Because you're playing a specific character, with a personality. :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)