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

[Bravesteel25]

The players are naturally othered from the setting.

Yes, to a degree I agree with what you are saying. However, I don't feel like the characters should be so "othered" that they feel completely disconnected from the setting in play. That seems to occur quite a bit, or at least I have a perception that it does, which leads the DM to shoehorn a justification for a pacifist Pixy Paladin (say that three times fast ) being in the world in the first place because that's what Bob brought to the table from his roster of characters he's got waiting to see play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, to a degree I agree with what you are saying. However, I don't feel like the characters should be so "othered" that they feel completely disconnected from the setting in play. That seems to occur quite a bit, or at least I have a perception that it does, which leads the DM to shoehorn a justification for a pacifist Pixy Paladin (say that three times fast ) being in the world in the first place because that's what Bob brought to the table from his roster of characters he's got waiting to see play.

Perhaps. But this brings up another aspect.

You mention the players having a stable of characters, or at least character concepts. Something I have noticed is...a lot, and I mean a LOT, of GMs don't really want their players being very creative or offbeat with their characters. They want extremely "normal" people. Preferably human or (with major dispensation) the Tolkien options. Preferably "core four" classes or, with slight reluctance, the nearby classes (e.g. Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard), and preferably not the "weird" ones (Artificer, Monk, and Warlock in particular). These GMs may even ban any other races or options. Other elements (e.g. personality) allow quite a bit of freedom, but in terms of what the character is and what they do, a lot of GMs are pretty sharply limiting what players can choose and don't have much (if any) patience for players who have even somewhat different interests/preferences.

So, if these are players whom you know have played in many other games, what would this effect have on their preferences? They've been asked to play the same mostly-human characters over and over for years. From your perspective, it might look like they're trying to be disruptive. From theirs, they're finally getting allowed to pull out one of the concepts they've had to hold in the bank for years because they so rarely get the chance to.

Obviously this won't be true of every group or every player. But it's just another example of why this kind of behavior might happen. When so, so, so many GMs out there are ultra-traditionalist, the player might feel a strong motivation to break the mold. Conversely, the GM might say, "why is it MY game has to be the game where folks do that?" And there is no good answer. Because it isn't your fault that you have a "please fit in seamlessly with the world around you" preference, but when almost every GM has that preference, it's going to chafe for a player base with more diverse tastes.

 

[The Firebird]

Well, consider this:

The players are naturally othered from the setting.

The don't know anything about the world unless told. They can't see anything unless you go out of your way to describe it. They have no background in what the setting contains. Hence, being an outsider is a more natural fit for their own lived experience. It maps their personal feelings as a player more closely to their character's feelings within the world.

This is precisely why it's important for players to choose a character that fits into the world, imo. They are already removed from it, and that means dramatic beats don't land and they naturally think "why should I care about these people again?" The reason is because it's the game the GM decided to run today.

If you give them stakes and a personal connection to the community then the game feels more grounded and authentic.

That doesn't mean you can't have circus parties. A threat that has an impact on many distinct species was given, and that's comparable to Lord of the Rings.

But if everyone is an outsider from a strange land with no personal stake, then it amplifies the players separation from the world, and the resulting experience feels more like a MMO.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is precisely why it's important for players to choose a character that fits into the world, imo. They are already removed from it, and that means dramatic beats don't land and they naturally think "why should I care about these people again?" The reason is because it's the game the GM decided to run today.

If you give them stakes and a personal connection to the community then the game feels more grounded and authentic.

That doesn't mean you can't have circus parties. A threat that has an impact on many distinct species was given, and that's comparable to Lord of the Rings.

But if everyone is an outsider from a strange land with no personal stake, then it amplifies the players separation from the world, and the resulting experience feels more like a MMO.

Whereas I think it makes no impact one way or the other.

Why does that make it feel like an MMO? Almost all MMOs actively work to make you feel part of the world nearly instantly. That's like a core storytelling step for them. Intro quests which get your feet firmly planted.

People throw around this "MMO" claim and I so often wonder whether they've even played an MMO, let alone whether they know anything about how they're built and designed.

Who cares whether the whole party is "othered" or not? You portray this as somehow a bad thing, where players are now incapable of...something unsaid, not sure what. Why? It's just a different kind of story. Conan the Barbarian is a stranger in a strange land and his companions almost exclusively also are from far away or don't speak the language etc. Why is that totally fine, but doing it as a D&D party is somehow a problem?

If you want players to have a personal stake, it's on you to build one. I have to as GM. Was recently reminded of that, in fact. I don't see why the players should be obliged to hand their GM four copies of Generic Everyman Jane Smith, Doer of Mundane Job at the Township of Placeville just so they start off caring slightly more about that GM's prewritten plot.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm only speaking for myself, but if I had a world like that, I would most likely not have Half-Orcs on that table, not because they aren't a viable option or that I wouldn't consider a player making one for a game, but more because they would most certainly be the exception rather than the rule within the demographics of the setting.

I agree: isn't the whole point of the adventuring party that they are all exceptional? Drizz't was the only good Drow, etc.

 

[The Firebird]

People throw around this "MMO" claim and I so often wonder whether they've even played an MMO, let alone whether they know anything about how they're built and designed.

I played DDO, Guild Wars, and Maplestory. Ime in these you don't feel like a part of the world--you can't really have an effect on it, any characters you have relationships with have the same dialogue and the same response to anyone in the world--it is like a theme park that you and your friends move through without changing anything. That's not necessarily a bad thing but I want something different in tabletop.

Who cares whether the whole party is "othered" or not? You portray this as somehow a bad thing, where players are now incapable of...something unsaid, not sure what. Why? It's just a different kind of story. Conan the Barbarian is a stranger in a strange land and his companions almost exclusively also are from far away or don't speak the language etc. Why is that totally fine, but doing it as a D&D party is somehow a problem?

In the movie, Conan is connected to the primary villain who is now active in the lands they're in. In the stories, Conan is often given a personal tie--he is king, or in the governor's service. Or we have a side character who does have a close relationship to the area.

When he is an outsider (Queen of the Black Coast or Red Nails) the story leans into the idea of travel and of seeing an unfamiliar society. If you're running a pirate campaign then the circus idea is a good one. It makes sense that the PCs are a diverse lot because they occupy a diverse part of society.

It's when they're both way more unique than the society they live in and don't have a stake in that society that it becomes a problem.

 

[Scribe]

I feel like it's a really telling thing when a "roll to determine your species/race/ancestry/lineage/whether you be green or blue" table includes "half-orc" as an option but not "orc".

That half-orc is playable, while orc is not? I mean whats it telling?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've seen (from you and others) the repeated emphasis on choosing something "just to be different". I think there's...rather a lot to unpack there. More or less, that implies that you think player characters should be obliged to be not different, obliged to be as "normal" as possible, unless they have a really good reason. Where does this expectation come from? Adventurers are, after all, inherently weirdos. Old-school, you are diving into murder-holes for fun and profit, mostly profit. You are definitionally abnormal by the standards of the society in which you live.

The expectation (at least for me) comes from 'Yes, And'. It's improv 101. Of which roleplaying games use that concept as their entire foundation. Roleplaying games only work when both the DM and the players agree on what is happening and going on. The players agree to accept what the DM describes about the world, about the NPCs, about the events happening around them as being true... and the DM accepts that what the players state about who their characters are and what they are wanting to do as being true as well. (With the caveat that yes, occasionally there are Deception checks, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule.)

And to me, that 'Yes, And' doesn't only start at the first session. My feeling on the matter is that when the DM has made the offer to run a game for their players and has made an offer of a setting expectation for the players to play in... the players-- if they wish to play in this specific game-- should say 'Yes, And'. Because that is the improv response that allows a scene, a conversation, a game, to move forward. "Yes, I will play in this game of yours, and yes, I accept the setting expectations as being true and real." In my opinion the players should do their best to follow the improv social contract and go along with the setting designs the DM offered to them if the DM has made it known that they felt it was important.

But when the players decide to try and play a character that does not fit easily within the parameters the DM has offered to them... they essentially are Negging the DM's offer. They are saying 'No'. "No, I will not play your game that starts from your expectations." Which to me is a very easy way to have the game break down before it begins. If the players won't even go along with even simplest request of the DM for the setting expectations they have designed their campaign under... why should the DM believe the players will go along with anything else? Or why should the DM then accept and go along with anything the players might say? It's not a very good foundation upon which to play the game.

******

Now that being said... I do want to put out two additional things. First... I believe compromise happens a LOT more frequently than what all of us on these boards tend to speak on when we give our feelings and opinions about all these various things in these threads. In real-life I don't think we are ever as hardline about our feelings and opinions as we make them out to be when we post here. So honestly... while we are all making what feels like definitive statements about right and wrong, proper and improper etc. etc... I think in truth we are much more open to each other at the table and are more inclined to just accept each other's choices and work around and through them. To compromise, more often than not. Because at the end of the day... these are all just games. And they are never so important that we need to pick fights over them.

And second... I will also freely admit that for me personally...my comments and reasonings above are entirely a hypothetical response. What I expect my feelings would be on the matter if it ever actually came up. Because truthfully I've never actually had a situation where my friends who play D&D with me have ever deliberately refused to "play to type" in those occasional games of mine when I've made a request of them for genre or setting sake. For instance, when I asked that my Curse of Strahd game be 'Humans only'... they all obliged, because they knew I wouldn't ask this of them if I didn't feel like it was for a good reason. Plus they also knew they got to play whatever thing they wanted in the last campaign and will probably get to play whatever they want in the next campaign as well. So there was no reason to not go along with my request. And thus, my opinions about DMs and players saying 'Yes, And' about these kinds of things are how I think things should go in order to work themselves out, even though I've never actually ever had to deal with it.

 

[Remathilis]

You mention the players having a stable of characters, or at least character concepts. Something I have noticed is...a lot, and I mean a LOT, of GMs don't really want their players being very creative or offbeat with their characters. They want extremely "normal" people. Preferably human or (with major dispensation) the Tolkien options. Preferably "core four" classes or, with slight reluctance, the nearby classes (e.g. Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard), and preferably not the "weird" ones (Artificer, Monk, and Warlock in particular). These GMs may even ban any other races or options. Other elements (e.g. personality) allow quite a bit of freedom, but in terms of what the character is and what they do, a lot of GMs are pretty sharply limiting what players can choose and don't have much (if any) patience for players who have even somewhat different interests/preferences.

This is going to be some armchair psychoanalysis, but I think this is due to a heavy an element of traditionalism stemming from design of AD&D and BD&D. D&D for years (mostly the TSR era) was built around the idea that the Core Four options were the safest options, and every class and race outside that list needed heavy penalties to discourage their use. Which is why you had things like Drow having sunlight sensitivity, lizardfolk needing to constantly keep wet, paladins, rangers and druids having alignment restrictions and codes of conduct, etc. When 3e started the process of throwing off those restrictions, we started seeing the menagerie/Star Wars Cantina/Circus Trope complaint really flair up. Most older GMs still think of game demographics like the 2nd edition PHB is the default assumption. Even with the restrictions removed, most people still think in the terms of "paladins are rare" and "minotaurs need heavy penalties to discourage heavy use".

 

[Kannik]

As a total aside, as someone who really enjoys 'taurs and who has written and released 'taurric rules for 4 separate editions of D&D, it is very delightful for me to read in this thread how many people want to play centaurs.