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

[Swarmkeeper]

I’m conscious that I don’t want to bore people with long winded descriptions. And anyway, asking questions is a sign of engagement.

Of course! Succinctly touch upon 3-5 details of a scene that the adventurers can interact with - do not be long winded. And while my particular goal as DM is to have players grok the scene I’ve laid out and just tell me what their PCs would like to do next, I’d certainly rather have engagement in the form of questions than the alternative.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

So, as a player, putting me on the spot and saying, "You must come as a blank slate, and do all your character creation right now," is a great way for me to end up with a character I'm not really interested in playing, and that probably won't be all that interesting for others to play alongside, either. If you aren't going to give me much time to think about it, how about you just hand me a pre-generated character, and be done with it?

I've never done that before, or even heard of anyone attempting it, but it does seems like this could work REALLY well if everyone was on board with the concept that the entire first session (or maybe more!) is dedicated to taking however much time is required to create characters and party backstory together. It sounds like it would be a disaster with everyone being rushed so we can just start playing - but creating characters during the session doesn't automatically mean you won't have enough time to think about things, if everyone's on the same page that there is no rush to get started.

If you have been playing with the other players for a while and know campaign is going to last a long time without falling apart, this seems like a great way to kick things off. Doesn't work so well though in a group that could fall apart at any moment to scheduling issues, where there is more motivation to get things up and running quickly

 

[Umbran]

This, in my opinion, is definitely a case of a DM not doing their job to create a cooperative experience witht their players

So, that's not necessarily a GM's job - it is a style choice. Many GMs like to take that on, but it is not a requirement to run a game.

The FR GM in question did not claim they'd work backstories into play. They were not violating an agreement by not doing so.

 

[Bravesteel25]

So, that's not necessarily a GM's job - it is a style choice. Many GMs like to take that on, but it is not a requirement to run a game.

The FR GM in question did not claim they'd work backstories into play. They were not violating an agreement by not doing so.

I'm not saying a GM has to deeply weave a character's backstory into the game, but to not pay any attention to it at all seems a little negligent, but to each their own.

I just prefer a game where the the group engages with the story, from the GM and character perspective, as opposed to it being an excuse to kick butt and roll dice. I don't think that requires an enormous amount of engagement on the part of the players towards the setting nor the GM towards the character's themselves.

 

[Incenjucar]

Setting player expectations is important. I play mostly in sanctioned games, which means the GMs can't really modify anything anyways. I'm still able to lay out some character lore, but I'm playing those characters in the current situation. My rogue/bard burlesque saloon performer who worships a redeemed succubus deity doesn't need to run into members of their old saloon to get their story across. Her story is what's happening now, be it in a dungeon or a royal court.

 

[Hussar]

So, as a player, putting me on the spot and saying, "You must come as a blank slate, and do all your character creation right now," is a great way for me to end up with a character I'm not really interested in playing, and that probably won't be all that interesting for others to play alongside, either. If you aren't going to give me much time to think about it, how about you just hand me a pre-generated character, and be done with it?



Corollary: if you are playing in the Forgotten Realms, you have to go through literally thousands of pages before you can really grasp what's available.

Well, that's not quite what I was talking about. One way that I've tried to get things going is a really cool (well, to me at least) chargen mini-game using Magic the Gathering Cards. You spread out about ten cards per player (or more, the exact number isn't really important other than LOTS) into a large square. So, presuming 4 players, let's say 49 cards in a 7x7 grid. Taking turns, you each pick one card. You can use anything on that card as part of your character. The picture, the text, anything.

Round 1 - you pick a card that represents you. This is your core identity.
Round 2 - you pick a card for the person to the left of you. That represents your connection to that person.
Round 3 - You pick a card for the person to the right of you. That represents your connection that person.
Round 4 - You pick a card that represents an event in your past. That event can, with discussion, also be connected to either or both the people you are connected to.
Round 5 - You pick a card and give it to anyone at the table, including yourself. This represents something about that character. What it represents is totally up to the person receiving the card.

It's not like it's a totally blank slate anyway. Before Session 0, we've already chosen some sort of campaign. So, everyone's already on board with playing Campaign X, whatever that campaign happens to be. But, I am rather tired of four or five players coming to the table with fully formed PC's, none of which have any connection to each other. I mean, heck, it's not like this is a bizarre concept. FATE games work this way. You can't come to the table in FATE with a fully formed character. It just doesn't work. Loads of games require you to work as a group to create characters and campaign.

Are you saying you could never play a FATE game?

 

[Hussar]

Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever offered extra background benefits to characters grounded in a particular setting? Maybe something like, "Humans from Amadeusburg get Musician as an additional bonus feat," or, "Every genasi raised by a genie starts with a magic item from Column A." If so, do players turn down these bonuses and still show up with fish-out-of water characters?

One thing that I liked about Primeval Thule was their backgrounds actually had serious tangible benefits that increased as you leveled up. It was a very solid system.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh, for the Soldier background, gave you a house (as an option) in Saltmarsh.

But, to be fair, no, I haven't really done that and I probably should. Maybe a more carrot approach might be a better way.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever offered extra background benefits to characters grounded in a particular setting? Maybe something like, "Humans from Amadeusburg get Musician as an additional bonus feat," or, "Every genasi raised by a genie starts with a magic item from Column A." If so, do players turn down these bonuses and still show up with fish-out-of water characters?

A campaign I play in is centered on a particular Cannith (rather traditional) family. Basically, it was something like you said: if you're a member of the family, you get access to the resources of the family. It worked: basically everyone accepted a blood link with the family, which was presented as very interested in producing more dragonmarked heirs, so it was human-only. We had only an oddball outsider, so it worked greatly (previous groups tended to be circus troups, with no two characters of the same race).

 

[bloodtide]

I do not mind repeating information, clarifying details - especially if I believe their characters would know the information.

For me this falls under "not paying attention". If during some role playing some detail is discovered, I'm not going to 'remind' a player two hours later. In my game you remember it yourself, or even better write it down. I loathe the casual player that just sits back and relaxes and does not even attempt to pay attention to anything. Then when something comes up the player is like "hey DM I've been goofing around on my phone for the last two hours, tell me the name of that king because my character would know."

Besides the above it helps foster a better relationship between GM and players.

I just foster a different relationship.

I like the player that reads my handouts and e-mails. The player that does the recommended reading. The player willing to learn and do things.

Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever offered extra background benefits to characters grounded in a particular setting? Maybe something like, "Humans from Amadeusburg get Musician as an additional bonus feat," or, "Every genasi raised by a genie starts with a magic item from Column A." If so, do players turn down these bonuses and still show up with fish-out-of water characters?

Yes. The Fish Out Of Water Player will always pick being out of the water. It would take something extreme for them, like saying "if your a plain human farmer from Farmdale you get a +100 to hit and damage. Then players will do it.

So like...if this is "politically correct", I'm not seeing what the problem is, @bloodtide.

Things like: "Evil shall never be portrayed in an attractive light and shall be used only as a foe to illustrate a moral issue. All shall focus on the struggle of good versus injustice and evil, casting the protagonist as an agent of right."

Sure you might agree with it. Others won't and might want a little ambiguity or some other things.

And not just that. Even works that claim to strive for historical accuracy almost always include really, really, really inaccurate crap, sometimes with significant implications.

This is true. Few outside historians and fans know much about historical facts. I'm a keen eye myself for all the "nostalgia". Like having characters playing 'Sonic the hedgehog' game in 1986.

What is this list, @bloodtide? What are the things you allege to be "political correct[ness]" gone mad? I'd kinda like to evaluate them for myself rather than going with "trust me bro, they're Bad because they're <insert buzzword>". Given you have, many many many times, dismissed others' arguments for being "word salad", it's more than a little funny to see you invoke "politically correct" as though that were enough of an argument all on its own.

As it is, all I have is word salad, and it isn't even all that good of a salad.

I shall leave it to you to find your own list.

 

[Hussar]

Things like: "Evil shall never be portrayed in an attractive light and shall be used only as a foe to illustrate a moral issue. All shall focus on the struggle of good versus injustice and evil, casting the protagonist as an agent of right."

Can you point me to an example of this from WotC's adventures? I get what you're saying, but, I'm really struggling to think of a single example here. Or, are you simply saying that D&D leans into the idea that the adventurers are actually good people? I mean, that's been pretty basic to D&D since virtually day 1. Dragonlance is all about that and that's about as early in the history of the hobby as anything.