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

[DEFCON 1]

I think a large part of the issue with the 'Mos Eisley Cantina' style of species availability is that most DMs as they are prepping a game have not done any real work in establishing within their world just how, where, and why all these various species live where they do and how, where, and why any of them begin to congregate with each other-- enough so that all these different types find themselves taking up the job of "Adventurer" and coming together to serve whomever it is that is paying them for their first gig. And I don't think most players tend to take the time to figure out just why their oddball choice of species for their character actually made the journey towards becoming an "Adventurer" and teaming up with all these other species either. Rather... species choice is just whatever they think looks or plays "cool" and they just don't care about any of the anthropological reasonings behind it. They don't care why this Firbolg of theirs has decided to be in this small Human village, and the DM hasn't figured out why Firbolgs would be anywhere near there either.

If a DM creates a starting town for their game that is primarily Human, with maybe a small percentage of Dwarf, Elf and Halfling residents... when the players all say they want to play a Tortle, a Goliath, a Tabaxi, a Yuan-Ti, and a Fire Genasi (without a Human, Dwarf, Elf, or Halfling in sight)... it makes the DM wonder just what's the point in choosing a setting in the first place. And why is it the players are uninterested in making their characters just odd or original, rather than relying on species for creating a "unique" character? I mean it is entirely possible to create a "unique" Human character in a town full of Human characters just by who their character is, not by what they are. And yet some players just can't or won't do that. They think the weird species is the "shortcut" to uniqueness... completely oblivious to the fact that that's a good chance they are merely going to end up playing this oddball species exactly as they would if they had played a Human or Elf. The "species" will be creative and unique... but their character is anything but.

For actors, this is where I always recommend them taking improv classes. Because in improv you cycle through creating so many characters so quickly that you run out of ideas in pretty short order that are supposedly "unique". And worrying about being "unique" falls by the wayside. Instead, you learn to embrace character from the inside and let each one be who they are... even if they are the most bland and unassuming person on the outside. The outer shell of a character becomes commonplace and you no longer feel like you just need to focus on that.

In roleplaying games? This is where the whole 10,000 hours thing and playing many different types of RPGs really comes into focus. Because you soon have played so many different characters in so many different ways with so many different "outer shells" that they eventually lose all their power over you. And soon you become more interested in who the character is on the inside. And at that point, there's no problems whatsoever in selecting a species or character archetype that actually fits in and works within the scenario the DM has put forth... because you will find your character's "uniqueness" from within. You'll be able to play in a party of seven Humans with them all being different, because their character will each be different. And that's when the game can really open up to you... when you take the time to learn who your character is as a person, and not just a rubber mask you pull over your head.

 

[djotaku]

I see the appeal of playing an oddball character, but when everybody is odd, nobody is odd.

Reading this this morning gave me Syndrome from Incredibles vibes.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't worry about party composition, except in the case of a few species that I don't like because I think they ruin game balance at low levels (e.g. aarakroa), and that's about a specific ability not the species itself. Otherwise, I let the players have at it, with the caveat that the backstory can't be used to do major world building, because that creates too many complications for session planning.

 

[djotaku]

Shadowdark has similar, or will when the Kickstarter is fulfilled.

View attachment 422642

I find both this an life well lived example very interesting. That said, what a bummer to roll on what you're allowed to be. At least for me, a forever GM.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think a large part of the issue with the 'Mos Eisley Cantina' style of species availability is that most DMs as they are prepping a game have not done any real work in establishing within their world just how, where, and why all these various species live where they do and how, where, and why any of them begin to congregate with each other-- enough so that all these different types find themselves taking up the job of "Adventurer" and coming together to serve whomever it is that is paying them for their first gig.

Honestly, George Lucas didn't do that either. When he created the Mos Eisley cantina, he was going for a vibe. That wretched hive of scum and villainy was about pulling people into a weirder world, and it was channeling a lot of "Rick's Cafe American" energy from Casablanca. He didn't start by saying "Well, where do all these aliens come from?" It wasn't necessary at that point to set the stage that he wanted to set.

 

[Xamnam]

I personally have no issue with a DM wanting a specific setting, genre, tropes, and desiring a certain blend of usual denizens to reflect that.

Whenever the reason given for the frustration is that: "Players only want 'to be special/weird/odd/unique,'" it gets my hackles up. It's presuming a lot about why a player might be making the choice they are, especially in a circumstance where you rarely will fully know a person's motivations.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

DM's pick essentially everything about the world, portray virtually every NPC, so for me it is a huge red flag when they cant relinquish control enough to even let the player even pick their own species.

 

[Scribe]

I find both this an life well lived example very interesting. That said, what a bummer to roll on what you're allowed to be. At least for me, a forever GM.

Nobody is going to come down and force you to use it. Its an option, just like every rule/table/guide.

 

[Bae'zel]

DM's pick essentially everything about the world, portray virtually every NPC, so for me it is a huge red flag when they cant relinquish control enough to even let the player even pick their own species.

We're going into a lot of extremes here. There's clearly a middle ground between "fascist control freak DM bans too many character options" and "players bully DM into letting them all pick homebrew OP gonzo species".

It's all about setting expectations. If a DM pitches a down to earth, lower fantasy campaign, ideally players who join buy into that and keep their species choices reasonable. But if a DM says "anything goes" but then policies the players without any explanation...

Communicate clear campaign pitches. If a player proposes something out of the ordinary, or pushing the boundaries of what the DM wants as a campaign "feel", they should talk about it and find some kind of compromise. What exactly is appealing about a blue furred flying cat vampire in your Warhammer Fantasy campaign? Is there another option that meets the players needs without blasting apart the setting's themes and established world building?

edit: I know it is hard. I started a campaign once, where the pitch was: "you are all Ancient Greeks going on a Jason and Argonauts type of ocean adventure exploring magical islands". There was a player who insisted being a Norse Viking Berzerker, and another who insisted on being an Egyptian Cat-human assassin. I get how frustrating it can be.

 

[TiQuinn]

DM's pick essentially everything about the world, portray virtually every NPC, so for me it is a huge red flag when they cant relinquish control enough to even let the player even pick their own species.

As long as they're up front about it when selling the campaign and getting the group's buy-in, I don't see any issue.