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

[TiQuinn]

As an aside, I do find it amusing how many people in TTRPG communities insist that humans are BORING when literally other media we consume is about humans or made up by humans, including the races, gods and myths we've made up over millenia.

Humans are so booooring. My blue skinned, scaly, winged tiefling (who acts like a human, lives like a human, has the same biological needs as a human) is so much more compelling LOL

At some level, this goes way back to 1st Edition D&D and Gygax, who really wanted to make sure that the game remained humanocentric SOOOOO much...that he gave demi-humans all of these various abilities, bonuses, and differentiators, and made playing a Human just the default state. Like, what did you expect was going to happen, Gary??

So when I look at other games that minimize or don't feature any other species other than humans, they're loaded with actual options that make that choice incidental. People don't have a problem playing humans! They have a problem with lack of meaningful (i.e. it impacts the actual game) options.

 

[CreamCloud0]

As an aside, I do find it amusing how many people in TTRPG communities insist that humans are BORING when literally other media we consume is about humans or made up by humans, including the races, gods and myths we've made up over millenia.

Humans are so booooring. My blue skinned, scaly, winged tiefling (who acts like a human, lives like a human, has the same biological needs as a human) is so much more compelling LOL

yeah, it's like, oh? so you think indiana jones was boring? gone with the wind? hercule poirot? you're saying those stories are dull because they don't include elves, tieflings, goliaths.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

At some level, this goes way back to 1st Edition D&D and Gygax, who really wanted to make sure that the game remained humanocentric SOOOOO much...that he gave demi-humans all of these various abilities, bonuses, and differentiators, and made playing a Human just the default state. Like, what did you expect was going to happen, Gary??

So when I look at other games that minimize or don't feature any other species other than humans, they're loaded with actual options that make that choice incidental. People don't have a problem playing humans! They have a problem with lack of meaningful (i.e. it impacts the actual game) options.

this is true - dnd has a problem with making humans mechanically very boring, and 5e specifically has a problem with making them kind of weak.

i do think 4e did a good job of making humans mechanically solid (as well as a5e and pf2e, but those are derivatives, not base dnd). does anyone have any idea how popular humans were in 4e compared to other editions?

 

[Amphytrion]

I have always felt it a little jarring when I am in a party that has characters ranging from a talking bird to a centaur with nary a traditional humanoid or human in between. It really feels like a circus troupe rather than a party of adventurers. I find that to be especially the case when none (or hardly any) of the Player Characters are native to the region or are even completely unique beings. I can't specifically say that it's because I prefer a human-centric approach because I would have no problem with a majority Dwarf party, Elf party, or Gnoll party.

Does anyone else have this problem or is it just me? How can I move past it? Are there ways I can frame things in my mind to make it easier to get on with?

I’m a bit late to this thread, so forgive me if everything said below has already been said by another:

It is not just you. Mos Eisley Cantina parties are something I only allow under very specific circumstances or settings (e.g. Spelljammer), otherwise it completely shatters the narrative immersion for me.

I don’t actually move past it at all: on any pre-campaign setting guide, I explicitly list pre-approved races, their place in the setting, how average NPCs might perceive them, and how common they are. A sentence or two for each suffices. These usually include all 2014 PHB races plus a handful of others, but it can vary (in Ravenloft, I typically allow humans and nothing else). I then state that I will hear requests for other races and approve them on a case-by-case basis.

In my experience, this solves the issue. While I do get the occasional request and do occasionally approve it, I rarely actually have to deny anything; just the framing of it already leads players to finding options they want to play within the pre-listed races. If they really want to play something else, it pushes them to think about how to include it. Most players are eminently reasonable people who respect the amount of work put into the game and are happy to adjust.

EDIT: What I really meant by this is how I find it jarring when almost an entire group has no ties demographically or by any other means to the region or setting in which the campaign is held. I have found a large rise in players who come to a game with the intention to play one of the characters from their "stable" as opposed to creating a character specifically for the game they are joining.

I think what is outlined here is a different issue entirely.

Some players have characters they dream of embodying and all they want is an avenue for acting out those characters. They do not care about the setting, the narrative, or the party much at all. I find these players disruptive because in play they tend to act in fairly anti-social form (probably because they conceived of their characters in a vacuum), and they also expect a videogame/solo player coaxing to join into an adventure. These characters are typically some variation of ironic/acerbic/detached/cooler than everyone else in the mind of the player.

I think that these players are not necessarily the same people who want to play odd/furry/bizarre races. Their character could belong to a more traditional race. I do admit that there has been some correlation between odd races and “characters from the stable” in my experience, but the fundamental issues are different enough that we can avoid conflating them.

I solve this issue mostly by choosing to play with other people. Thankfully, I think this sort of player is rare.

Matt Colville had a video long ago in which he solved this issue by forcing players to roll their stats in order—thus forcing players to discover characters as they go rather than sourcing one from “the stable”. I haven’t ever used this, nor do I plan to as it punishes everyone equally, but maybe you’ll find it useful.

 

[Deset Gled]

They're all people. Biology isn't even required.

This is actually part of the reason why dislike the more modern acceptance of a gonzo party as the default state of D&D. When I roleplay non-humans, I want to explore the differences in being a non-human race. Not the humanity of one.

If a human character says "we're all just people", that could be a highly offensive thing to say to a non-human character who doesn't view themselves as just another type of human. IMNSHO, an elf or tiefling should consider that a great insult. They are great races with generations of identity that separate them from humans, so why should anyone assume it's a good thing for humans to consider them one of their own?

Half elves are probably the best example of a game option that has completely lost their identity to the circus troupe trope. Originally, they were default oddballs. Not accepted by elves, not welcomed by humans. One of the main reasons to roleplay a half elf was to explore what it was like to be a racial outcast who doesn't truly fit in either world. The hardship of not having a home, the challenge of finding acceptance, and leaning how to handle acceptance. Now, in 5e, that entire racial identity has been demoted to a feat. And it's basically impossible to roleplay an outcast like that in a world that doesn't even notice when an undead or demon walks through the doors of a tavern. It's an entire story archetype that I played in earlier editions of D&D that has been either wiped out or at least minimized in 5e under the guise of "they're all people".

 

[Remathilis]

At some level, this goes way back to 1st Edition D&D and Gygax, who really wanted to make sure that the game remained humanocentric SOOOOO much...that he gave demi-humans all of these various abilities, bonuses, and differentiators, and made playing a Human just the default state. Like, what did you expect was going to happen, Gary??

So when I look at other games that minimize or don't feature any other species other than humans, they're loaded with actual options that make that choice incidental. People don't have a problem playing humans! They have a problem with lack of meaningful (i.e. it impacts the actual game) options.

It was always supposed to be that demihumans had benefits but drawbacks. The biggest one was supposed to be level limits and class restrictions. But the problem was level limits only applied if you got to higher level and multiclassing more than made up for the limitations. Couple that with more niche restrictions (dwarves, gnomes and halflings having magic item failure, elves not being able to be raised from the dead) and the that was supposed to equal infravision, stealth, detecting secret doors, etc. Obviously, it didn't and as AD&D advanced, more and more of those limits grinded away or never surfaced.

 

[Incenjucar]

This is actually part of the reason why dislike the more modern acceptance of a gonzo party as the default state of D&D. When I roleplay non-humans, I want to explore the differences in being a non-human race. Not the humanity of one.

If a human character says "we're all just people", that could be a highly offensive thing to say to a non-human character who doesn't view themselves as just another type of human. IMNSHO, an elf or tiefling should consider that a great insult. They are great races with generations of identity that separate them from humans, so why should anyone assume it's a good thing for humans to consider them one of their own?

Half elves are probably the best example of a game option that has completely lost their identity to the circus troupe trope. Originally, they were default oddballs. Not accepted by elves, not welcomed by humans. One of the main reasons to roleplay a half elf was to explore what it was like to be a racial outcast who doesn't truly fit in either world. The hardship of not having a home, the challenge of finding acceptance, and leaning how to handle acceptance. Now, in 5e, that entire racial identity has been demoted to a feat. And it's basically impossible to roleplay an outcast like that in a world that doesn't even notice when an undead or demon walks through the doors of a tavern. It's an entire story archetype that I played in earlier editions of D&D that has been either wiped out or at least minimized in 5e under the guise of "they're all people".

Being a person isn't being human. If we develop sapient AI or meet sapient aliens they will be people. I would expect "people means human" to be the offensive idea, along with the term "humanoid".

Some sort of collective intelligence (arguably some kinds of deities) might arguably be different categories.

 

[Remathilis]

As an aside, I do find it amusing how many people in TTRPG communities insist that humans are BORING when literally other media we consume is about humans or made up by humans, including the races, gods and myths we've made up over millenia.

Humans are so booooring. My blue skinned, scaly, winged tiefling (who acts like a human, lives like a human, has the same biological needs as a human) is so much more compelling LOL

I play a human in real life. Most games I play offer human as the default choice. Sometimes I've want to play a blue tiefling or an angel person or a cat person because that's a story I don't get to tell everyday.

 

[Scribe]

I play a human in real life. Most games I play offer human as the default choice. Sometimes I've want to play a blue tiefling or an angel person or a cat person because that's a story I don't get to tell everyday.

The breadth of human experience is really covering quite a bit of ground.

Awakened Cat? Maybe not, but otherwise?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Agreed.

Disagree. There are many settings and games, including modern ones, that utilize black-and-white morality effectively. I mean, can Thanos have a good "logical" reason for wanting to rid the universe of half its populace? Sure. But that doesn't make him gray. I think people confuse this at times. Heck, Lord of the Rings, Evil Dead - Army of Darkness, Big Trouble in Little China, Dragonlance, Elfquest, etc. all made a good story using black-and-white morality. Simply because the protagonist and antagonist have "reasons" for their actions that don't specifically align to good-evil, doesn't mean the hero-villain contrast isn't clear and the known supported outcomes aren't clear to each.

There is a big, big difference between "there are heroes and villains" (which I am in favor of!) and "full-on black and white morality". (Emphasis added.)

The former can have heroes who kinda suck as people, but still ultimately choose the right thing. It can have villains who are genuinely redeemable, whether or not they actually do achieve redemption. (Redemption is not easily achieved and many who seek it will not find it; this is a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.) It can have heroes who genuinely fall, not from being tricked, not from misunderstanding a half-heard conversation, not from a single impulsive act, but a knowing and eyes-open march into the arms of evil.

The latter has no room for any of those things. Everyone who is a hero is 100% pure hero. They cannot have undesirable characteristics (whatever the person writing thinks is undesirable). They cannot do bad things, ever, even for good reasons. At worst, their greatest "fault" will be either being kind of preachy/anvilicious, which will be spun as "if the evil people weren't evil they wouldn't need to do this", or being slightly impulsive, which will be spun as being just so gosh darned eager to do the right thing. Meanwhile, the villains will be pure awfulness, beneath contempt for how morally, and more importantly socially, repugnant they are. (Again, depending on what the author sees as morally and socially unacceptable, which will usually be conflated.) Redemption will never occur because anyone who has ever done wrong cannot be Good, only the pure can be Good.

Hence: full-on black-and-white morality is essentially always boring, because it reduces characters to their jersey and whether or not it has even the slightest stain on it. It's also usually very propagandist, because it selects some specific trait(s), affiliation(s), belief(s), or behavior(s) which are Acceptable Targets, things to be vilified, scorned, and (ideally) destroyed. That's where queer-coded villains come from, or where the token fundie comes from: ink-shadowed acceptable targets for the pure-as-the-driven-snow heroes to destroy with extreme prejudice because they deserve it, for being so horrible.

Consider this concluding paragraph from the TVTropes page on Black-And-White Morality:

"Please note even in a world where the moral lines are sharply drawn, there may still be characters or organizations that are presented as being 'grey'. A general rule of thumb as to whether or not black-and-white morality is present is that the heroes are almost always considered to be in the right, while the villains are always 'wrong'. Of course, the audience might disagree with the author's moral compass."

A world having sharp moral lines is not the same as that world being "full-on black-and-white morality". Sharp moral lines just mean that there's a very clear division and that, at least on some axis or axes, there's no fuzzy boundary. That's pretty normal, even IRL; crimes meriting capital punishment (where law does not forbid capital punishment), for instance, tend to be very much sharp moral and ethical distinctions and there's at least some degree of "if you did this, there is no forgiveness". "Full-on black-and-white morality" means there are never shades of grey about anything at all. That the heroes never do anything wrong except, perhaps, very briefly as a mistake, generally because they were misled by another. Heroes functionally never do wrong, and villains definitely never do right.