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

[CreamCloud0]

I think that this underscores how much tables differ. I can understand a GM who puts a lot of effort into their setting and campaign with a level of detail that is makes it a very personal thing to them, but the expectation that every player is going to approach what they offer up with the same enthusiasm is unrealistic, IMO. They have a choice: seek out players who do share that enthusiasm for playing detailed campaigns or meet their players where their players are coming from. The former is probably gonna have them waiting for the right players a long time; not always, but my bet is usually. They’re lucky if they get that kind of player. The latter is easier. Those DMs have to decide for themselves if the juice is worth the squeeze.

typically, isn't it easier for GMs to find players than the other way around? i would've thought it would have to be the players deciding if they want to compromise in order to play.

 

[TiQuinn]

typically, isn't it easier for GMs to find players than the other way around? i would've thought it would have to be the players deciding if they want to compromise in order to play.

I don’t know if that’s true or not. I also don’t know how many GMs put that level of effort into their games. If players have busy lives, so too do GMs, and I have to imagine a large number of them are also content to play a campaign where they don’t put a large amount of upfront setting work. How often do we hear about tables where everyone gets along wonderfully?

If those GMs who do put in the amount of detail and expect players to abide by the themes of their games have their pick of players, then it shouldn’t be a problem for them. The frustration shouldn’t exist in theory.

 

[Zeromaru X]

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

My thing with humans is that I find playing them boring (as opposed to saying that they are boring). I'm already a human in my real life. I would I want to play as one in my escapism? If I get to play a pointy eared human or a blue-skinned human or the just plain normal human, I will.

 

[Remathilis]

So many caveats are needed in these discussions.

Yes, absolutely, there are more casual games (beer & pretzels) where there is no overarching theme, plot or expectations of immersion.

I think we're talking more about the campaigns in which there ARE expectations of immersion and adherence to a certain theme, mood or setting.

I don't care if someone shows up to my Shadowdark or OSE game as a multi-species unicorn; the game is just a dungeon crawl of death. Their blood may be sparkly and uNiQUe, but it doesn't really matter.

If they insist on being a ninja anthro-cat girl with bat wings in my Lord of the RIngs campaign, they'll get some pushback from me.

Like most things, there is some nuance to the discussion that gets glossed over. There is a world of difference between "why even have species, they are just humans in hats" and "I want to play a half-ooze feyborn giantkin". Most players* will try to find a middle ground between those, and that more than likely is "I'm playing an elf because I like the look/aesthetics of elves, but I'm not going to go out of my way to try to think like a centuries-old fey being."

Where I think the issue is coming up is that a lot of DMs put a lot of effort into TEH LOAR! of their setting and they want that lore acknowledged, or at least respected. And a lot of players are both a.) generally clueless to the nuances and b.) generally don't care to know them. As a DM, I care about the specifics of elven lore in my setting, but I learned long ago my players rarely do unless its of importance to the game at the moment. Even some DMs end up in the same boat: I will read endless blogs and books about Eberron lore for my game, but when my friend asked if I wanted to play in a Dragonlance campaign, I couldn't be arsed to learn the difference between a Silvanesti and and Qualensti, despite the fact I scream until I'm blue in the face about the differences in the three unique branches of drow lineage in Eberron (a subrace of a subrace!).

So I understand the frustration from both sides. Its the side effect of D&D having no common lore (and encouraging DMs to endlessly tinker). At a certain point, nobody is on the same page anymore.

 

[Kurotowa]

Like most things, there is some nuance to the discussion that gets glossed over. There is a world of difference between "why even have species, they are just humans in hats" and "I want to play a half-ooze feyborn giantkin". Most players* will try to find a middle ground between those, and that more than likely is "I'm playing an elf because I like the look/aesthetics of elves, but I'm not going to go out of my way to try to think like a centuries-old fey being."

At a certain point, we have to accept that this is a story made by humans for humans, and is thus not going to stray too far from a human perspective. It's nice to have a few unusual quirks, but a genuinely inhuman character is both hard to do and gets old real fast. There's a reason that fantasy and science fiction stories with completely alien viewpoint characters are super niche.

We do this for fun, not for an exercise in serious speculative xenology.