D&D General Wildly Diverse "Circus Troupe" Adventuring Parties

[Bravesteel25]

Not going to comment on "circus troupe", but I agree with you about preferring a humancentric campaign.

I want to be sure I didn't use the term "circus troupe" in some sort of way that was offensive as it was genuinely just the easiest way I could describe my thoughts on it in a succinct way.

I want to make it clear that it isn't really about being a human-centric campaign, but rather for the composition of the party to (in the majority) represent the region in which the game is being played. Yes, there is something to be said for a more "Marco Polo" kind of campaign where the whole group is an outsider, but that's not really what I'm talking about; and even in those games the group itself would probably all be hailing from a shared origin that binds them together.

And consider which, if any, cause this effect for you. That could be used to figure out where your subconscious boundaries lie. It'll be hard to figure out how to advise without knowing more. As you say, it's not human-centric, but it isn't even strictly humanoid centric, if you're cool with gnolls.


I do not personally have this problem, but I have always had a pretty ecumenical attitude regarding player characters, so that might not mean very much.

Yes, I have no problem with any type of character combination (for the most part) I am just frustrated by how every character needs to feel so special and different that the entire group is "othered" from the setting itself in a way.

For me, it's not the variance of the party that bothers, but the "happy family" vibe that seems out of place. I prefer fiction where everyone is on edge and distressful of each other as the default, especially when there's historic tension in the lore, so I look for systems that accommodate that.

That said, it's pretty cool when a diverse party is put together with a common goal in mind and have to work thought their differences. Ran a campaign where the cleric refused to heal a party member of opposing alignment and always made it a point to chastise their behavior. By Level 4 though, they fought enough battles and made enough sacrifices along the way it was no longer an issue. Neat experience to see happen organically over time and thankful for friends close enough to RP it without any negative feelings.

I can definitely understand that. I will say that I think a lot of groups choose the "big happy family" approach just to get stuck in and get the game going, but I can certainly sympathize with wanting more depth within the party's interpersonal relations.

DM's pick essentially everything about the world, portray virtually every NPC, so for me it is a huge red flag when they cant relinquish control enough to even let the player even pick their own species.

You could also say that the Players have a lot of freedom to play in a game set up by their DM and it's not too much to ask to play within a specific millieu or set of story expectations.

It's all give and take, but let's not act like the DM isn't putting forth the most energy, time, and (often) money which directly benefits the rest of the group.

 

[jayoungr]

Does anyone else have this problem or is it just me?

You are not alone. I chalk it up to different priorities in character focus: some players are more drawn to macro-level difference/novelty (either in mechanical terms or in roleplaying concepts), while others prefer to differentiate at the micro level by making this human different from the other humans in the party. It can be frustrating for either type if they get stuck in a group made up of mostly the other type.

I'm currently running Descent into Avernus, and the characters originally pitched to me included a fairy and a bugbear. I talked both of those players into toning down the characters, but that was a signal to me that my next campaign needs to be open to a more eclectic party.

 

[Dire Bare]

That’s because it’s the former that follows from the latter. It’s not that they’re an oddballs because they’re adventurers, it’s that they’re adventurers because they’re oddballs. What else is the Gith who finds himself stranded in a town full of humans and one token dwarf blacksmith going to do to earn a living? And when you’re in that line of work, you’re much more likely to run into other weirdos forced into it for the same reasons. And unlike the humans, they don’t judge you for having bumpy yellow skin and a skeleton nose. So naturally you stick together.

Maybe I just took this pattern for granted because it’s so normal to my experience, but it’s not just a coincidence that “circus freaks” end up finding each other. It’s the natural consequence of marginalizing people who are in the demographic minority.

Exactly!

Joining the circus doesn't make you a "freak", but if you are already a "freak", joining the circus is a natural choice!

 

[Marc17]

The gnoll inclusion there is quite interesting. It might be helpful to iterate on that....

As you say, it's not human-centric, but it isn't even strictly humanoid centric, if you're cool with gnolls.

Not OP, but personally, I like gnolls. Thus I ignore any all evil type things that WotC might try and force on things, like I ignore many different things that I don't like about the implied setting made by WotC (or TSR back in the day when I made orcs more modeled after ST:TNG Klingons more than anything else). Still, gnolls are certainly still humanoid as per DnD Beyond.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

It's something I've felt too. In my experience, 5E has definitely brought a crowd that's leaning much more towards the weirder options available. I can't count the number of Kenkus and Tortles I had in parties in 5E. Couple that with the common issue of "Why are all these people together in the first place? and it always felt off for me. Not unplayable, but I had to suspend myself and just push through. Through dozen of sessions of play, some connective tissues does grow and then it becomes natural.

I've always preferred Human-centric setting/campaigns, and I like giving some constraints to my players. Starting as a group of four adventurers with different personal goals always felt weaker than saying something like "you are all part of a Thief Guild and you're waiting for your correspondent to come and brief you on your next mission".

 

[Dire Bare]

It's something I've felt too. In my experience, 5E has definitely brought a crowd that's leaning much more towards the weirder options available. I can't count the number of Kenkus and Tortles I had in parties in 5E. Couple that with the common issue of "Why are all these people together in the first place? and it always felt off for me. Not unplayable, but I had to suspend myself and just push through. Through dozen of sessions of play, some connective tissues does grow and then it becomes natural.

I've always preferred Human-centric setting/campaigns, and I like giving some constraints to my players. Starting as a group of four adventurers with different personal goals always felt weaker than saying something like "you are all part of a Thief Guild and you're waiting for your correspondent to come and brief you on your next mission".

The "new" crowd coming into D&D over the past 10 years or so . . . are they more open to playing "oddball" characters? Or does the game facilitate playing the more non-traditional options easier than earlier editions? Or a mix of both? Which came first, the cockatrice or the egg?

 

[TheAlkaizer]

The "new" crowd coming into D&D over the past 10 years or so . . . are they more open to playing "oddball" characters? Or does the game facilitate playing the more non-traditional options easier than earlier editions? Or a mix of both? Which came first, the cockatrice or the egg?

I don't know! The odd options are definitely more present. But the crowd I'm talking about are friends and coworkers that never played any games before the release of 5E. Most of the players that I hang with that played prior go for slightly less weirder options. It might be because that's just how they're used to things being. Whether it's the game that has changed, or the new crowd is different, or both, I don't know. And I'm not saying it's a problem. It's just preference about tone. I can play with both, but I lean one side. But interestingly enough it matches my preferences in other aspects like the fiction I read, the movies I like, etc.

 

[Umbran]

Starting as a group of four adventurers with different personal goals always felt weaker than saying something like "you are all part of a Thief Guild and you're waiting for your correspondent to come and brief you on your next mission".

I find it the opposite. "You're all part of a Thieves' Guild" is right up there with "you all meet in a tavern" unless you put some solid work into the guild and its role in the world and its relationship to the PCs.

Heck, even if everyone does start in the same guild, I'd want them to each have their own goals.

 

[eclair~]

Maybe the party of a kobold, a minotaur, a hobgoblin, an eladrin, and a githyanki all look at the party of humans, elves, and dwarves and think they're the clown show.

 

[Marc17]

The "new" crowd coming into D&D over the past 10 years or so . . . are they more open to playing "oddball" characters? Or does the game facilitate playing the more non-traditional options easier than earlier editions? Or a mix of both? Which came first, the cockatrice or the egg?

All my players and myself are in our 40's or 50's and I see the same thing with everybody (including myself) picking usual characters to play. We are playing a fantasy game after all. My current Sharn character is a changeling.