Thematic Characters Vs Fixed Campaigns

[Trickery]

This is something I struggle with which is hard to explain in game terms. I'm wondering if anyone has found a good solution to it.

In D&D, there are at least two major ways to design PCs. These are not mutually exclusive.

Functional
Thematic

A functional character is one designed with specific game mechanics or a role in mind. There's nothing wrong with a character designed to be effective. That's a character who will do well in most campaigns.

A thematic character is one designed with a particular characterization, backstory, or similar in mind. If you're like me, this is what you imagine when you think of role-players.

There is sometimes a problem with the second group. Characters in the second group may need to do certain things or interact with the story in specific ways in order to progress the character's story. In extreme cases, these are the players trying to take the campaign off on a tangent because "it's what the character would do." Here are some examples of how that kind of character can waste game time.

My character loves books. I'm going to search all over town until I find someone with a library.
My character is a prankster. Every chance I get, I'm cracking a joke or doing something untoward to an NPC.
My character is lawful good. I absolutely will not work with, talk to, or accept anything from (insert NPC associated with the occult here).
My character is an atheist. I don't believe the gods actually exist (even if they appear before me because that can happen in D&D).

I realize this may offend some, but it's not my intent to offend anyone. I'm looking for good ways to handle this as it occurs without upsetting anyone at the table or telling them how to play. I want everyone in my games to have fun.

Also, I'm not talking about things like betrayal, thievery, or players otherwise engaging in PvP activities. I don't tolerate that at my table (though you can allow it at yours, obviously, and I won't tell you you're wrong to do so).

How do you handle the second group as a DM? What do you do to make sure they're having fun but that their character's desires and such also work well with the campaign.

I've heard of trying to incorporate backstories into the campaign, but I don't think that's a good solution. It requires too much time from the DM, too much coordination with the players (who may switch characters at any time), too much extra time at the table devoted to specific players (not a good thing), and isn't going to work in every campaign. Sometimes the DM wants to present a particular world with a particular story, not the story the players are trying to tell.
I've heard of hashing this out in session 0 so your players know what to expect. I don't think that's a good solution either because people default to it so often that session 0 couldn't possibly cover everything. You also might have this kind of character join the campaign midway.

I'm tempted to say that players should build their characters to suit the campaign, not the other way around. With that mentality, if the character does not fit well into the campaign, if the character's motivations cause the campaign to halt or go on a tangent, then that character (not the player) needs to be changed or replaced. It's up to the player to ensure that their character is designed and acts in a way that keeps the game moving. I lean in this direction, but I'm hesitant to adopt it as an "official" position - it seems too absolute.

What other options exist?

[Lupine]

Well, the shortest answer is that you really can't. The players that build a character around a concrete idea are rarely willing to modify said character. BUT that does not mean you can't have fun with them and their goofy choice. For example, your bibliophile (book loving) character example could spark some majorly interesting side quests ("You want in? Fine, but you have to go and bring this rare and highly defended book to me) Sticking with the example, this character could also be a source of world building lore. They might one day recall a book they read that told them about a McGuffin that, while optional, would be a great aid. Likewise, this player would be great for "connecting the dots" (As is "OH! He's killing in this sequence to try to complete this prophecy, because he wants to that think)

There are likewise other fun things you do with the thematic character. In the Paladin's case, you could force him to make the decision to work with the evil NPC, or else the surrounding land with suffer biblical style plagues (thats right. I'm saying that dilemmas are a good option. They player will enjoy the challenge between their character values, and no matter the choice, they still get to be in character.). For the prankster, his comments have consequences, such as turning an NPC hostile, or perhaps diffusing a potentially violent situation, by making the NPC laugh, whereupon he gives information to help the players, or even volunteers to join them. (be careful with this one, you can easily annoy the group if the jokester is making combat go away, or random NPCs hostile.).

Ultimately, when you have the thematic characters, the player involved is trying to have fun in a different way from everyone else. (For example, the bibliophile player probably really loves uncovering lore in his games.) Your job as a DM is to provide those players a way for them to express their desire, and no only have it not detract from the fun of the rest of the table, but actually support them in their goals.
Often, these are the character that are most interesting and most memorable in the end, but they can only be that if you give them the room to shine.

EDIT: upon rereading OP's post, I realize he was asking for additional options to accommodate his "group two." My answer is, "The best way to play with these types of players is to play along, to a certain extent. Let them do what they enjoy, and try to make it something the rest of the group can enjoy also."

[Trickery]

@Lupine, thanks for your reply. It seems similar to integrating the character's quirks into the campaign, but done ad hoc. I like ad hoc. That's something I can work with.

[AgenderArcee]

I would say there has to be some give and take on both sides. At least in my mind, the players aren't just static characters in the story the DM dictates to them, they should be active storytelling participants. At the same time, the players should be aware of what the DM wants out of this game, as well as their fellow players. Nobody should try to make everything about them, and that includes the DM. So "Sometimes the DM wants to present a particular world with a particular story, not the story the players are trying to tell" rubs me the wrong way. If the DM's story isn't one the players want to tell, then that's a problem.

[False God]

I have three simple rules for making a character for any game I run, which I explain before people go make characters.
Your character needs to:
1: Be adventure oriented.
-For whatever reason, your character is here, not back home reading a book, tilling the soil, or whatever. You've struck out because whatever it is you're looking for can't be found by the usual means. Meta: Your character should see the plot hooks as a potential means to find what they're looking for.
2: Be quest forward.
-While sidetracking does happen and is expected to happen since I purposefully present distractions, especially when there's a deadline, your character should be actively looking for ways to complete the quests. Meta: Your character should not be actively creating distractions.
3: Be party friendly.
-I don't care what you're alignment is. Your LG/CN/CE tomfoolery needs to be focused outward. At the party enemies. At those who would stop the party from completing their quest. You can be a terrible, terrible person all you want, as long as it's focused outside of the party.

These all get put in the "Don't waste our time." section of my game rules. Don't waste the player's time by creating situations where the rest of the group is sat out and only you get to play. Don't waste the party's time by insisting on learning the full familial history of every farmer in town. Don't waste the DM's time by forcing me to adjudicate pointless, trivial or obnoxious situations you happen to think are "funny".

---------
The only option IMO, is to tell your players up front that you expect them to bring characters who are interested in participating in the adventure, and that you expect your players themselves to be interested in playing the game. It may sound harsh, but this is sort of the point of a Session Zero, not to much to ensure everyone is on the same page, but so that if they're not it gives you ground to remove them from the game, because you explained the behaviour you expected and on DAY ONE they defied that.

[Drascin]

I would say there has to be some give and take on both sides. At least in my mind, the players aren't just static characters in the story the DM dictates to them, they should be active storytelling participants. At the same time, the players should be aware of what the DM wants out of this game, as well as their fellow players. Nobody should try to make everything about them, and that includes the DM. So "Sometimes the DM wants to present a particular world with a particular story, not the story the players are trying to tell" rubs me the wrong way. If the DM's story isn't one the players want to tell, then that's a problem.

Yes, it is important that not only do the PCs adapt to the campaign, but the campaign also adapts to the PCs. If you have that hyper-bibliophile PC, well, that questgiver you were going to have be a prince asking to retrieve a lost heirloom could be a university asking to retrieve valuable tomes of lore. Some NPCs could share her hobby and she could spend the party downtime nerding out at the local gentleman club instead of drinking at the tavern. Hell, present at one point a quest with some raiders under the BBEG's employ burning down a library so she can get so bloody furious the Barbarian has to restrain her before she caves someone's face in. This is everyone's story, not just yours, tweak things a bit!

Basically, it's the player's responsibility to bring characters that work with the basic concept (so, people who can work with the party, who will follow the quest instead of going off to start a casino, and who have a reason to be here), and it's the GM's responsibility to tweak this basic concept for maximum moment-to-moment engagement in play.

[Laserlight]

From the start, I'll tell them "in this campaign, you're King's Musketeers, so you need to bring characters who are gentlemen, are loyal to the King and each other, and can ride and fight."

If their character won't go on missions related to the main thrust of the campaign, or if they can't cooperate with the party, they need to bring a different character.

[MaxWilson]

This is something I struggle with which is hard to explain in game terms. I'm wondering if anyone has found a good solution to it.

In D&D, there are at least two major ways to design PCs. These are not mutually exclusive.

Functional
Thematic

A functional character is one designed with specific game mechanics or a role in mind. There's nothing wrong with a character designed to be effective. That's a character who will do well in most campaigns.

A thematic character is one designed with a particular characterization, backstory, or similar in mind. If you're like me, this is what you imagine when you think of role-players.

There is sometimes a problem with the second group. Characters in the second group may need to do certain things or interact with the story in specific ways in order to progress the character's story. In extreme cases, these are the players trying to take the campaign off on a tangent because "it's what the character would do." Here are some examples of how that kind of character can waste game time.

My character loves books. I'm going to search all over town until I find someone with a library.
My character is a prankster. Every chance I get, I'm cracking a joke or doing something untoward to an NPC.
My character is lawful good. I absolutely will not work with, talk to, or accept anything from (insert NPC associated with the occult here).
My character is an atheist. I don't believe the gods actually exist (even if they appear before me because that can happen in D&D).

I realize this may offend some, but it's not my intent to offend anyone. I'm looking for good ways to handle this as it occurs without upsetting anyone at the table or telling them how to play. I want everyone in my games to have fun.

Also, I'm not talking about things like betrayal, thievery, or players otherwise engaging in PvP activities. I don't tolerate that at my table (though you can allow it at yours, obviously, and I won't tell you you're wrong to do so).

How do you handle the second group as a DM? What do you do to make sure they're having fun but that their character's desires and such also work well with the campaign.

I've heard of trying to incorporate backstories into the campaign, but I don't think that's a good solution. It requires too much time from the DM, too much coordination with the players (who may switch characters at any time), too much extra time at the table devoted to specific players (not a good thing), and isn't going to work in every campaign. Sometimes the DM wants to present a particular world with a particular story, not the story the players are trying to tell.
I've heard of hashing this out in session 0 so your players know what to expect. I don't think that's a good solution either because people default to it so often that session 0 couldn't possibly cover everything. You also might have this kind of character join the campaign midway.

I'm tempted to say that players should build their characters to suit the campaign, not the other way around. With that mentality, if the character does not fit well into the campaign, if the character's motivations cause the campaign to halt or go on a tangent, then that character (not the player) needs to be changed or replaced. It's up to the player to ensure that their character is designed and acts in a way that keeps the game moving. I lean in this direction, but I'm hesitant to adopt it as an "official" position - it seems too absolute.

What other options exist?

If the player is interested in following your story hooks, but can't because the PC wouldn't want to, you can have an out of character conversation with the player about whether it's all right to exercise DM fiat in this case. PC distrusts mages and won't accept a friendly Teleport to the adventure site (and the DM has no alternate solutions prepared to reach the story hook)? Suggestion spell says otherwise! And DM fiat says the saving throw d20 comes up natural 1 for the sake of the story (because the alternate universes where it comes up 20 lead to a boring night of not gaming), and the players and DM are both okay with this because they agreed that this is what needs to happen in order to not waste a good gaming night.

BTW it's important to only use this technique of DM fiat to set up conflicts/challenges for the players, not to resolve them. And the player should have ways to decline.

Similarly, if a PC doesn't believe in ghosts, but not believing in ghosts would lead to them missing out on all the interesting parts of a campaign, discuss with the player what kind of experience would be needed to change that attitude enough to be able to participate in the campaign, and then use DM fiat to make that experience happen, whether it is falling in love with someone who does believe in ghosts or having an unexplainable experience with ghostly phenomena. (You could even have the player write up the experience as a short story, subject to DM approval for details with long-term implications. Not all players will be up for that but some will.)

Voila! Now you've got a character who is thematically rich but also "functional" in the campaign.