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

[Kurotowa]

Let me rephrase. Players very rarely will care as much about a setting as the DM does. At least, that's been my experience. And my experience has also been that the players couldn't give a rat's petoot about setting when creating characters. They come with fully formed characters more often than not and then expect the DM to somehow fit that character into the setting.

My experience as a player is somewhere in between. I'll come up with the seed of a character idea and then focus on learning about the parts of the setting that are relevant to the character. Learning about everything is too big for me to keep in my head. But if I want to make, say, an orcish war veteran trying to make a new life, I'll look up info about major orcish settlements and recent wars.

Though to be fair, I've totally seen the people you describe who come up with the completely independent character. Or who come to the DM asking for instruction on how to fit their PC into the setting because they're not the sorts who RTFM themselves. But in general, what I see from the player side is people who zoom in on what relates to their PC and nothing else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Those are a very small number of people who make a lot of noise. “You may not change a jot or tittle” nonsense. Most players don’t care.

Unfortunately, WotC listens to them. Y'know, given they were the ones who won the edition war.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Assuming the best of both parties, or just at the very least that they're not each stereotypical caricatures, I would expect this DM to have a conversation about it. A DM who doesn't is waving their own red flag just like the player who hears and agrees to the setting and tone pitch waves their red flag by insisting on a character that breaks it.

But how can I be an outraged GM ranting about the entitlement of players in that paradigm? How can I be an outraged player ranting about the Viking Hat in it? No no, this simply will not do. Far too reasonable. We'll fix it in post.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Unfortunately, WotC listens to them. Y'know, given they were the ones who won the edition war.

You still stuck on this? 4e was ditched because it didn’t sell.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Unfortunately, WotC listens to them. Y'know, given they were the ones who won the edition war.

This is not a healthy attitude to still have - firstly it has been years and secondly many of the ideas of 4e have found themselves in later editions and other games.
And plenty of us champion many of these ideas now, even when we didn't appreciate the edition at the time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is not a healthy attitude to still have - firstly it has been years and secondly many of the ideas of 4e have found themselves in later editions and other games.
And plenty of us champion many of these ideas now, even when we didn't appreciate the edition at the time.

Given those very people are the ones who killed the really creative and interesting Sorcerer and Warlock concepts from the "D&D Next" playtest? Whether it is a healthy attitude to have, we are still under its effects now. We are still shackled with that burden fifteen years on, and are likely to be so for another five to ten hence.

You still stuck on this? 4e was ditched because it didn’t sell.

Even though actual employees from the time have said it DID sell--it just didn't sell to the insane goals set for it.

But there's no point in debating it further. Whether or not you accept it, it is--quite simply--true that the people who have the "don't change anything" attitude are the ones who controlled how 5e was designed, and they remain one of WotC's primary demographics for what mechanics their designs pursue.