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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

So the GM gets absolute control, and the players meekly play along, no objections whatsoever? I'm using harsh language here, but I'm making a point with it. You get frustrated by the players "negging" you as GM--but aren't you as GM "negging" the players by laying down only and exclusively what you want, without care for what they consider worthwhile?

Doesn't seem like a particularly friendly exchange. It sounds like one person deciding what everyone else should do, and then expecting total deference, viewing any deviation as an assault on their friendship.

Wouldn't the more reasonable thing to do be...y'know...building something that the players already want to do, so that there's not a concern of having to strongarm them into doing what you want?

It seems to me that all of this stuff is built on the presupposition that the GM cannot do wrong, and I find that very frustrating. You're skipping past steps A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, so that you can launch straight into I, J, K--and then can claim that the players are the ones at fault for not following with LMNOP, while pretending that it's always guaranteed that A-H were already taken care of. They aren't. Those presumed steps can't be left out.

And part of that is making a game the players would actually want to play--which probably means, y'know, asking them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

fixie-gestalt

If I may--what on earth does that mean? I know what 3e gestalt rules are, not sure about "fixie" in this context (and I fear google-fu failed me).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why should my backstory include the other party members I haven't even met yet

Because it makes it easier to role play interactions with them later on. And there is no reason the PCs can’t know each other before the campaign begins. They could be siblings, they could be rivals from school, they could be ex-lovers, etc. Look at the pregens from Dragonlance for example (AKA the Heroes of the Lance). They nearly all know each other before the start of the campaign, and a couple are twins.

All this stuff can be established in session zero.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because it makes it easier to role play interactions with them later on. And there is no reason the PCs can’t know each other before the campaign begins. They could be siblings, they could be rivals from school, they could be ex-lovers, etc. Look at the pregens from Dragonlance for example (AKA the Heroes of the Lance). They nearly all know each other before the start of the campaign, and a couple are twins.

All this stuff can be established in session zero.

The person I replied to rejected session zero as a possibility from the beginning. Because I can quite easily write a dragonborn character backstory that links into the beginning of a campaign with a session zero. I prefer to, when possible, as that tends to lead to more interesting story down the line.

It's very specifically the "no, NO story except that which happens in play, your fanfic is unwanted here" thing that I'm bristling against. I take my characters seriously. I build up stuff that will, I hope, invite the other players to engage and interact. Often, I will pick one or two characters mine has a soft spot for, after a session or two of getting to know them--perhaps a mentor, perhaps a protege, perhaps a good friend, whatever.

I try to keep whatever backstory I write substantive but short. Skirt-length is confining, but page-length would be much longer than my usual. Two, maybe three paragraphs at most. Naturally, between the moment I hear the campaign premise and the moment others' characters start being shared, I can't even in principle write a story to include them, but I try to leave open possibilities for linking up stories or the like. For example, in Hussar's game, it might be the case that my character's sister (who sold him into Drow slavery to usurp his position within their aristocratic family) is connected to the evil lord who had had our group's warlock as his personal samurai-like assassin--Zylira is twisted enough to keep such company, and might have arranged for the ex-assassin's hands-off demise once his lord no longer saw value in his services.

 

[DammitVictor]

If I may--what on earth does that mean? I know what 3e gestalt rules are, not sure about "fixie" in this context (and I fear google-fu failed me).

My fault; nobody else actually calls it that. Fixed progression. The game would be Gestalt with limitations on multiclasing on top of the gestalt rules. Not a strict 1-20 progression, but something like having more than 2 base claasses or more than 1 Prestige Class costs something. (With NPC and Paragon classes and w/e else being exempt.)

 

[DammitVictor]

The person I replied to rejected session zero as a possibility from the beginning.

When did I do that? I'm a firm believer in Session Zero; my whole character creation paradigm doesn't work without it, because Session Zero is the term for when things like "rolling up characters together" happens.

"No Backstory" is a bit of an exaggeration and a misnomer. You can have a handful of character elements that are decided during character creation, when everyone is making their characters together. I do an extended Session Zero because I'm trying to make it part of play. It'd also when I do stuff like collaborative worldbuilding and whitelist/blacklist for setting and narrative elements.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's a fair question, certainly. If the players like centaurs, is it possible to integrate centaurs in an interesting way? Integration of some kind is always possible, but getting it done well is less certain, even if it isn't that difficult most times.

But yes, there is an interesting reluctance I've seen in being willing to consider a world where the so-called "Mos Eisley Cantina" effect is blunted because you decided to have a world where dwarves and elves are just not a thing. Like how, I dunno, all of Greek myth doesn't have those things, but can easily be interpreted to include not just the usual stuff (centaur, satyr, dryad, minotaur, etc.) but also more modern options (insect people via the Myrmidones, lizardfolk or dragonborn via the Ophiogenes aka "serpent-born" or the Spartoi that sprang from two different heroes sowing a dragon's teeth, werewolves and/or vampires, etc.)

Any movement in this direction is apt to get dismissed with "well you do that and then they'll just start playing sapient oozes" or whatever, usually without the slightest shred of evidence.

I know people who would refluff the sapient ooze as living excrement they do not even know how far it could go

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When did I do that? I'm a firm believer in Session Zero; my whole character creation paradigm doesn't work without it, because Session Zero is the term for when things like "rolling up characters" happen at the table.

Session zero is by definition before play actually begins. You specifically said:

Another reason I don't allow "backstories" in my games-- you create your character at the table, and your character's story is what happens at the table, so everyone gets to enjoy their characters being awesome at the table.

That means my character is not anything--no name, no upbringing, no relatives, no experiences, no thoughts, no feelings, nothing--until session 1, when play actually begins.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

those dm's want to write a book or other media rather than play dnd this is a flaw, like saying you want a casual relationship when what you crave is soul merging hyper commitment.

 

[DammitVictor]

How on Earth do you think players create characters without defining at least some of those in the process? Especially if they've all talking to each other about their character concepts and how they fit together? When I say "no backstory before play", I'm including the character creation (and worldbuilding, if relevant) as part of play. They've called "Session Zero" because they happen before the IC portion of the game starts.