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

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't consider Starfinder a Pathfinder setting because it's essentially a different game with it's own PHB and Bestiary and unique classes and species. But I'll look into Labyrinth.

The game is different, but they share the same setting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The game is different, but they share the same setting.

I would argue that even that is a real big stretch for a lot of people because a critical plot point of Starfinder is that Golarion has been completely removed from it. Indeed, that is supposed to be the eternal unsolved mystery of Starfinder: where the f#$k did Golarion go, why does no one--apparently not even the gods themselves!--remember anything about its disappearance, and why is it they do know that Golarion hasn't been destroyed or harmed despite being totally inaccessible?

It's hard to call Starfinder "sharing the same setting" when literally the entirety of what makes it the world of Pathfinder has been neatly excised. I mean, I guess there's the rest of the star system Golarion used to be in, but that's pretty slim pickings. You could just as easily assert that Star Wars and Star Trek "share the same setting", they just occur in different galaxies of that single setting, making any actual travel between them impossible even though you could--theoretically--observe one galaxy from the other.

 

[TiQuinn]

You do realize some people already are calling Forgotten Realms D&DBorg, as in "You will be assimilated"? I've seen on this very forum how pissed people were when 80's cartoon or Lowryn were made part of the Realms, imagine if WotC came tomorrow and said entire Dark Sun setting is actually somewhere in Anauroch Desert, it would suck.

Glares at Apollo PUT THAT VOLLEYBALL DOWN THIS INSTANT!

Been that way since Kara-Tur and Al Qadim, honestly. I would simply ignore it if I didn’t like it. I’ve had to do that countless times in the past, even with just metaplots designed specifically for FR.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would argue that even that is a real big stretch for a lot of people because a critical plot point of Starfinder is that Golarion has been completely removed from it. Indeed, that is supposed to be the eternal unsolved mystery of Starfinder: where the f#$k did Golarion go, why does no one--apparently not even the gods themselves!--remember anything about its disappearance, and why is it they do know that Golarion hasn't been destroyed or harmed despite being totally inaccessible?

It's hard to call Starfinder "sharing the same setting" when literally the entirety of what makes it the world of Pathfinder has been neatly excised. I mean, I guess there's the rest of the star system Golarion used to be in, but that's pretty slim pickings. You could just as easily assert that Star Wars and Star Trek "share the same setting", they just occur in different galaxies of that single setting, making any actual travel between them impossible even though you could--theoretically--observe one galaxy from the other.

Well, if they are separate settings I don’t like either of them. Indeed the reason I never played Starfinder after buying it is the inbuilt setting didn’t suit the stories I wanted to tell.

 

[Hussar]

Though a hellish feywild does sound like an interesting adventure. If I was warned that's what the details was like before we went there.

Oh, totally. I was all set on this very Kafka-esque adventure where things were very, very weird, and the players were just totally lost. Not only did they completely expect a totally different adventure based on their own assumptions of the Feywild, they didn't even agree with each other what the Feywild was supposed to be which meant they wound up confusing each other just as much as I was confusing them.

Needless to say, that was not one of my more successful DMing experiences. But, to be fair, it was very much a learning experience.

But, again, yeah, this ties into the idea that D&D is a fantasy toolbox. AFAIC, it has never really been that. There's a reason people talk about D&D being a genre unto itself. I recently had the experience of playing with an experienced gamer that had not played D&D since the 80's. He is a huge Warhammer fan and never got into D&D. When we played Hoard of the Dragon Queen, he was so lost so much of the time. It was really eye opening to see just how much I had absorbed over the years without really realizing it.

It sort of becomes an Uncanny Valley situation where everything is close... but not quite right.

 

[ECMO3]

I have no problem with the "Circus Troupe" party and I am fine with that kind of diversity, you be you!

What bothers me is when people want to bring controversial or political topics into their character or the game or when they want to over-sexualize the game, often under the guise of being "LGBT friendly". That is fine for some groups I guess, but I am looking for fantasy and escape when I play D&D and having these things which cause friction IRL being part of the game does not appeal to me. I like to leave those real world problems in the real world.

That kind of thing is usually handled in session 0 though and either myself or the players who want that will look elsewhere.

 

[Umbran]

You could always ask WotC for the list.

Do it yourself.
If you can come back with it in hand, verifiable, you get to win the point of being right.
If you can't... well, then you look like you made it all up.

 

[Clint_L]

I have no problem with the "Circus Troupe" party and I am fine with that kind of diversity, you be you!

What bothers me is when people want to bring controversial or political topics into their character or the game or when they want to over-sexualize the game, often under the guise of being "LGBT friendly". That is fine for some groups I guess, but I am looking for fantasy and escape when I play D&D and having these things which cause friction IRL being part of the game does not appeal to me. I like to leave those real world problems in the real world.

That kind of thing is usually handled in session 0 though and either myself or the players who want that will look elsewhere.

So, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. I'm trying not to interpret it negatively, but it doesn't read as super inclusive.

I run a pretty PG game, both at school (obviously) but more or less at home, as well (just the way our tastes run - occasionally there's a bit of sauciness, but then we cut to black or whatever).

And I also run a game that is emphatically LGBTQ+ friendly. There is quite an overlap between Pride Club and D&D Club, and over the years many students have used D&D as a way to quietly start coming out, by creating a character that is gay, or asexual, or nonbinary, or trans, or whatever. That is NOT sexualizing the game; it's not about sex at all because we don't do sexy stuff in those games. It's about identity and players feeling safe to express both their own and that of the character they create and roleplay.

My own spouse is non-binary, and before telling me, they started with the non-binary goblin character that they have played, in several incarnations, for years. There is nothing about gender or adult, consenting sexuality that causes friction. Intolerance causes friction.

D&D should feel like a safe space for everyone to be themselves and roleplay their characters accroding to the gender and sexuality that suits them.

 

[ECMO3]

Sapient beings getting depicted as Pure Evil is kind of a gross thought, because that's literally how several cultures have (sometimes literally) demonized and vilified populations they wanted to oppress or exterminate. It's a thing we are dealing with right now in politics.

I don't really see a problem with depicting all Devils or even all Red Dragons as evil and the term "demonized" pretty much relies on such a judgement with respect to Demons.

I think trying to relate this kind of things to modern politics is a problem. To be clear I am not suggesting your post is a problem. But I don't think having objectively evil sapient beings in D&D is inherently bad. It is a fantasy world.

Women being depicted as inherently inferior to men in some areas and inherently superior to them in others is both scientifically inaccurate (yes, the center points are separate, but the bell curves are so broad that they completely--and heavily--overlap, with there being plenty of women who are stronger than a large portion of men, for example). So like, sure that's "politically correct", but it's also factually correct, and the original thing was straight-up Father Knows Best sexism in both directions.

This is a great point. The counter to it is elite adventurers are not at the center, but at the tails, where there is not overlap.

That said, why in a fantasy made up world do we need to follow such real world scientific underpinnings, which get in the way of gameplay, when we pretty much waive science across the board?

My Fighter with a 19 strength can survive and be conscious, mobile and combat effective after being stabbed 20 times with a dagger and in fact shake it off completely after just sitting down and resting for an hour. That is obviously not scientifically accurate, but if I can accept that in the game world, why can't I accept that the Halfling Woman fighting next to me is stronger than I am?

If the science is not fun and does not contribute to gameplay then toss it!

 

[ECMO3]

So, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. I'm trying not to interpret it negatively, but it doesn't read as super inclusive.

I run a pretty PG game, both at school (obviously) but more or less at home, as well (just the way our tastes run - occasionally there's a bit of sauciness, but then we cut to black or whatever).

And I also run a game that is emphatically LGBTQ+ friendly. There is quite an overlap between Pride Club and D&D Club, and over the years many students have used D&D as a way to quietly start coming out, by creating a character that is gay, or asexual, or nonbinary, or trans, or whatever. That is NOT sexualizing the game; it's not about sex at all because we don't do sexy stuff in those games. It's about identity and players feeling safe to express both their own and that of the character they create and roleplay.

My own spouse is non-binary, and before telling me, they started with the non-binary goblin character that they have played, in several incarnations, for years. There is nothing about gender or adult, consenting sexuality that causes friction. Intolerance causes friction.

D&D should feel like a safe space for everyone to be themselves and roleplay their characters accroding to the gender and sexuality that suits them.

This is all fine and it is not what I am talking about.

I don't like when games are oversexualized, nothing in your posts suggests your games are.

Adult "consenting" sex in game absolutely causes friction at tables and what is acceptable and "tolerable" varies widely individual to individual. To start with "consent" is not something easily and objectively definable, especially with disparities in age, power or in D&D magic and player-vs-character situations. It can cause friction regardless of the sexuality of the players or the characters involved. When it comes to safety, some people do not feel safe in that discussion, just like some people don't feel safe talking about sex at work or with family members or in a bunch of other social circumstances. Meanwhile others are completely ok to share or hear the explicit details on what happens between the sheets.

While these topics do not necessarily make me personally feel unsafe, it is not something I want in my games either.