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

[Charlaquin]

It's certainly a justified trope from the perspective of verisimilitude... the problem is  genre. It makes the setting less relatable and reduces immersion for the people playing in it.

Verisimilitude… reduces immersion…? That’s a first.

Weird only gets to be weird if there's a normal to keep it at arm's length. Otherwise, what you have is  surrealism which pretty much detracts from any game unless it's the point of the game.

I don’t agree that an adventuring party full of outlandish characters within an otherwise more grounded world is in any way surreal. The rest of the setting provides the normal to keep the PCs’ weirdness “at arm’s length.”

 

[Scribe]

If it was Planescape I was running as a DM, I'd insist that the majority of PCs be Planetouched (Tiefling, Aasimar, Genasi, and other more obscure types like Chaonds, Mechantrix or whatever) from Sigil or the other planes of existence or a planar species like Githzerai, Githyanki or Bariaur before being anything else. Though anything else would fit, I think they'd should only be 1 member of the party.

Sure, why not.

 

[Incenjucar]

They're all just people. It's only remarkable to us because all the other people in our world went extinct before we could hang out with them. The vast majority are exactly as normal as humans, with the occasional person who is a sentient moo or something.

If the real world had people with horns, people with scales, people with metal skin, etc., we'd all be playing at the same gaming tables, so why not in the game?

 

[Sulicius]

In my most recent campaign, I limited player options and wrote some species specific lore for each in a campaign handout. It has worked great!

 

[Hussar]

I dont know if thats true, rather it would seem the DM has not been clear enough in defining the limits of their setting. I know its hard to say No but that is something that needs to be addressed in session zero.
Ive done curated lineage list with anything else having to be justified with a good backstory (that becomes a campaign adpect) and I've said things like "there are no Elfs in this campaign, Half-elfs are all considered fey-touched humans. Tieflings are hunted as demonspawn."

Yeah, I've tried that.

And then every player comes forward and wants to play a "secret" elf or a Tiefling. The second I try to put any limitations, that's EXACTLY what people want to play.

Next campaign, I'm banning fighters just to see what the players do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

The gnoll inclusion there is quite interesting. It might be helpful to iterate on that. That is, consider a party of 5 where three of them are all the same thing, e.g.:

• Dragonborn
• Tiefling
• Genasi
• Goliath
• etc.

And consider which, if any, cause this effect for you. That could be used to figure out where your subconscious boundaries lie. It'll be hard to figure out how to advise without knowing more. As you say, it's not human-centric, but it isn't even strictly humanoid centric, if you're cool with gnolls.

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 do not personally have this problem, but I have always had a pretty ecumenical attitude regarding player characters, so that might not mean very much.

Yeah, I've tried that.

And then every player comes forward and wants to play a "secret" elf or a Tiefling. The second I try to put any limitations, that's EXACTLY what people want to play.

Next campaign, I'm banning fighters just to see what the players do.

I'd feel bad for Greg, if I'm being honest!

 

[Jahydin]

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?

For me, it's not the variance of the party that bothers, but the "happy family" vibe that seems out of place. I prefer fiction where everyone is on edge and distressful of each other as the default, especially when there's historic tension in the lore, so I look for systems that accommodate that.

That said, it's pretty cool when a diverse party is put together with a common goal in mind and have to work thought their differences. Ran a campaign where the cleric refused to heal a party member of opposing alignment and always made it a point to chastise their behavior. By Level 4 though, they fought enough battles and made enough sacrifices along the way it was no longer an issue. Neat experience to see happen organically over time and thankful for friends close enough to RP it without any negative feelings.

 

[Distracted DM]

They're all just people. It's only remarkable to us because all the other people in our world went extinct before we could hang out with them. The vast majority are exactly as normal as humans, with the occasional person who is a sentient moo or something.

If the real world had people with horns, people with scales, people with metal skin, etc., we'd all be playing at the same gaming tables, so why not in the game?

This is definitely just a matter of opinion, yours is perfectly valid, to me this reads as very reductionist. Apologies if I misunderstand, but this reads as saying a dwarf is the same as a human is the same as an elf is the same as a dragonborn etc. just with sharp ears, scales, etc, that they all think and behave the same.
Again, fine for your game. I just prefer to think of them as distinctively different. The difference between a Vulcan and a human, for example.