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

[Mind of tempest]

but if no body is odd does that not mean we stop having the problem

 

[Mind of tempest]

You are not alone. I chalk it up to different priorities in character focus: some players are more drawn to macro-level difference/novelty (either in mechanical terms or in roleplaying concepts), while others prefer to differentiate at the micro level by making this human different from the other humans in the party. It can be frustrating for either type if they get stuck in a group made up of mostly the other type.

I'm currently running Descent into Avernus, and the characters originally pitched to me included a fairy and a bugbear. I talked both of those players into toning down the characters, but that was a signal to me that my next campaign needs to be open to a more eclectic party.

I think there is also a mixed version a both macro and micro

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think some people think I'm waging a war against non-standard options and that's not really what I'm saying. Rather, it is that a DM can create a specific campaign and then the majority of the players want to play something off-the-wall for the sake of being different and non-homogenous with the region in which the game takes place.

For instance, a game set in a frontier area with the majority of the population being Dwarves, Humans, Warforged, and Centaur and then the party consists of a Fairy, a Dhampir, a Half-Dragon, an Ogre, and a Gnome.

Granted, it's not specifically about the species choice, but the character concepts brought to the table that clash with the game world presented, often creating an arms race of who can create the most special and mind-bending concept to win the Crown of Uniqueness +1.

I forget who said it up-thread, but they may be right: It's not about players creating a character for your game, but rather the players bringing one of their characters TO your campaign.

do you know why people are picking?
is it stats or fluff.
Stats are easy to solve.

I do not tend to play the usual options, but it more more I am actively looking for something I just do not have a name for.
Are you certain it is a unique off or more that everyone is desring for other reasons to play their options if the choice is unrelated to each other or being unique then you have a different problem.

 

[Clint_L]

I think some people think I'm waging a war against non-standard options and that's not really what I'm saying. Rather, it is that a DM can create a specific campaign and then the majority of the players want to play something off-the-wall for the sake of being different and non-homogenous with the region in which the game takes place.

For instance, a game set in a frontier area with the majority of the population being Dwarves, Humans, Warforged, and Centaur and then the party consists of a Fairy, a Dhampir, a Half-Dragon, an Ogre, and a Gnome.

Granted, it's not specifically about the species choice, but the character concepts brought to the table that clash with the game world presented, often creating an arms race of who can create the most special and mind-bending concept to win the Crown of Uniqueness +1.

I don't like that your argument is ultimately about the motivations of the players, and in a distinctly disparaging way ("crown of uniqueness").

That's like describing the DM's motivations in this case as being motivated by a selfish need to impose their own taste as the law, without any desire to work cooperatively with the other players.

Maybe the players have different tastes than the DM, and are being creative. Maybe the DM wasn't very clear in their description. Maybe both sides need to compromise a bit. Maybe there aren't even different sides and there is a mutually satisfactory outcome that can be achieved by talking things through. The latter is usually the case, in my experience, and if it isn't, then there are probably deeper issues.

But let's not start with the assumption that people are driven by bad motives just because they want to play a species that isn't part of the DM's initial vision.

 

[Bae'zel]

do you know why people are picking?

That's key here. Communicating with your players about what they want out of your campaign.

"Hey player B, I noticed that you made a cybernetic fox vampire lady for our 18th Century Mediterranean Privateers campaign. Can you tell me more about this choice and maybe we can work something out that fits in the setting?"

Maybe the player likes characters with prosthetics (common enough with pirates), just likes foxes (perhaps the pirate is known as "the Fox" and wears a fox mask) and as for "vampire" they want to portray a darker character with sinister secrets (again, easy enough with the right backstory and class choices).

Edit; and if, in my hypothetical situation, the player INSISTS on being a blue-furred, half-robotic vampiric anthro fox lady from the future... you've got bigger problems and may need to re-evaluate if your players really actually accept your campaign premise (or if that player is sitting at the wrong table).

 

[Kannik]

Edit: Which to bring it back on topic is kind of the problem with circus troupe PCs when they go wrong.

Good point, and worth highlighting the bit I, er, highlighted. From further comments on others here, it seems that often it may actually be more of a social concern (whether it be players who are all trying to steal the spotlight or characters who are all isolated and thus have less reason to be or travel or adventure together) rather than the circus troupe of out-of-the-ordinaries. An adventuring group of all humans who are all isolated from each other or a player group with those who haven't learned shared/group play yet would be equally not work well. If that's being conflated with circus troupe play (and the two may be sometimes correlated), then addressing the underlying issue would have the circus concern diminish or go away. Circus troupe play can still go right, even in a more ethno-uniform setting.

And the opposite may also be happening, where some might feel they need to create characters "out of the ordinary" in order to evoke something for themselves or to break out from their everyday grind, or to be larger than life, or etc. It can be part of the learning experience as one gets deeper into gaming.

(As before, none of this is to diminish anyone's preferences. It's just a valuable part of what I noted above how it often is worth looking at the annoyance to see what's actually there so it can be most productively approached, both for adjusting things an also to invite others into our preferences.)

 

[Bravesteel25]

do you know why people are picking?
is it stats or fluff.
Stats are easy to solve.

I do not tend to play the usual options, but it more more I am actively looking for something I just do not have a name for.
Are you certain it is a unique off or more that everyone is desring for other reasons to play their options if the choice is unrelated to each other or being unique then you have a different problem.

I'm sure it's a combination of different factors. I think there are some players who have been building a concept and want to use it in whatever next campaign they can get into. I think there are also players that have a theme (either mechanical or fluff wise) that they build around. I think the crux of the issue is that the creation and character choice is happening independently of the setting and campaign oftentimes. This isn't just my group, I see group compositions all the time on reddit that are very much what I'm describing.

I don't like that your argument is ultimately about the motivations of the players, and in a distinctly disparaging way ("crown of uniqueness").

That's like describing the DM's motivations in this case as being motivated by a selfish need to impose their own taste as the law, without any desire to work cooperatively with the other players.

Maybe the players have different tastes than the DM, and are being creative. Maybe the DM wasn't very clear in their description. Maybe both sides need to compromise a bit. Maybe there aren't even different sides and there is a mutually satisfactory outcome that can be achived by talking things through. The latter is usually the case, in my experience, and if it isn't, then there are probably deeper issues.

But let's not start with the assumption that people are driven by bad motives.

Let me clarify that my use of the "crown" wasn't to be disparaging, I'm not in the business of telling people they are having badwrongfun, rather it's a feeling and something I see around the table and throughout the community; a certain level of one-upsmanship you might say.

Like I've said previously, the group as a whole should work together to make a great game, but I feel that the general sentiment in the community is that if a DM sets restrictions they are "selfish" and "aren't cooperative" when frankly, they are often the ones putting the most into any one game. I'm not saying DMs should be dictatorial, but players should cut them some slack and maybe they can DM a game with less restrictions in mind when the campaign is over? But many players don't want to do that for a myriad of extremely valid reasons (no problem!) but then they lose a little bit of the agency that is ceded to the DM by the very nature of that role.

 

[Remathilis]

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

View attachment 422642

I have a deep seated dislike for procedurally generated characters, so the idea that I have a 1 in a hundred chance of being a kobold better come with stats and features that are superior than every other option on that list. If I win the jackpot on a 100 roll, I better get more than small size and a strength penalty. I want wings, scales for AC and a breath weapon for that 1% chance!

 

[Clint_L]

Fair enough. I've never encountered that sentiment, myself. Generally, I find players are very happy that someone else has done the work and are more than happy to work with the DM...when they even bother coming up with a substantial backstory at all.

And then there are those occasional players who come up with way too much backstory, but that is a whole other thread, probably.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

I'm saying they're people. Their differences don't make them not people.

If a space bug from Alpha Centauri landed on Earth and wanted to play a game I'd help them sign up for Pathfinder Society and ask if they need to borrow dice or a mini.

If I was a dwarf living in Faerun, and a mind flayer was terrorizing my mountain village, why would I not work with people from neighboring communities just because they are bird people living higher up or the bug people from Alpha Centauri living inside the mountain?

If the world is full of different kinds of people, those people are going to mingle. A game with a xenophobic flavor can be fine, but it's a bit odd to treat it as default.