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

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.

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?
In my opinion, there is no real way to get past it. You like what you like. That said, it is not so simple...

I have found myself at times not liking the cantina effect too. But this is something I have found true. If you play with a group of friends that enjoy it, it helps it dissipate it greatly. If you play with a good DM who gives your style of thinking a wink and a nod during certain sessions, that goes a long way too. And lastly, if you force your character to interact with these "outcasts that are now friends" as he would based on his perception of the realms, that goes an extremely long way in normalizing the circus troupe. Again, just my opinion.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

When starting a new campaign I'll usually loosely sketch out the setting, then adjust it based on the characters.

If a player chooses Goliath, now there are settlements of Goliaths. If a player chooses Tiefling, now Tieflings are common encounters. Unless, of course, a player wants to be an outsider.

I find this makes any party composition feel at home in the setting.
 


I want to be sure I didn't use the term "circus troupe" in some sort of way that was offensive as it was genuinely just the easiest way I could describe my thoughts on it in a succinct way.
It seems that people who don't understand your problem from your end are taking offensive because your phrasing implies that you don't understand (or care about) their problem on their end. You're conflating a behavior that bothers you with bad faith motivation on your part; they're insulted. You're trying to justify your good faith aesthetic preferences against similar accusations of bad faith.

I don't care. I'm just pointing out that I think you're focusing on the wrong facet of the problem, and the phrase is locking the topic onto that facet.

I don't think you care that  someone is playing an exotic ancestry, it's that the majority of your group all want to play different exotic ancestries, and, to a greater or lesser extent, aren't taking group cohesion or your campaign premise into account.

The "circus troupe" language makes it seem like your problem is the weird new races, not the lack of regard for your worldbuilding or your desire for immersion. Both of which you're doing for everyone's benefit.

Part of the problem, I think, is that you're treating humans and "old school" (and more humanlike) ancestries as automatically normal and justified and newer and less humanlike as being automatically out of place. In a way, you're doing the same thing to yourself.

In a Planescape/Sigil game, planetouched are  common enough that they should count as human-- even mixed types-- AD&D PHB races and PCS boxed set races are uncommon, and unusual Prime ancestries are "rare" or "exotic". Nothing's really "off the table" unless you're specifically excluding it.

Greyhawk? Humans and half elves/orcs are human, the Tolkien Trio are common, gnomes and stock humanoids are uncommon, and drow and planetouched are rare. I'm probably going to put my foot down on anything else unless you know that I know they're canonically native.

Athas or Krynn? Don't even try to talk to me about half-orcs.

I find it the opposite. "You're all part of a Thieves' Guild" is right up there with "you all meet in a tavern" unless...
I've never started a D&D game that way, but that is how I want to start the Terminator game I want to run. The PCs are all "orphaned" TDCs who need safety in numbers and help completing their missions. They meet in an abandoned bar using old Resistance tricks and try to... work together, or not.

Of course, that's a whole lot of shared purpose...



Oh yeah. I also banned wizard and cleric and have never been happier!
Next on my list of "stupid D&D games" I want to run is PF1, fixie-gestalt... but no core races or ancestries allowed, and you can't pick both classes from the same publisher.

Would make  some allowances:
  • Planetouched count as human.
  • Half-goblins replace half-elves and half-orcs and count as them.
  • I might allow a PrC with a core race prerequisite apply to a different ancestry.
  • Full BAB classes and some 3/4 BAB martials get weapon/armor training and count as Fighter to qualify for feats.
  • Brawler and Inkyo get some Monk features and "count as Monks".
  • Sorcerer is combined with Bloodline Disciple, but has restricted spell access.
Might try to get clever with some of the classes that have An Lotte of alternate takes by different publishers, especially since so many of those classes are just bad but have that one nifty idea buried in them.
 

I try to explain to my players that they will become unique, special or epic through their deeds, not who they are or the nature of their backstory.

[...]

But don't expect every NPC to be impressed by your level 1 "daughter of Dracula and Maleficient" until she actually accomplishes actions worthy of that title.
Another reason I don't allow "backstories" in my games-- you create your character at the table, and your character's story is what happens at the table, so everyone gets to enjoy their characters being awesome at the table.

Wouldn't believe some of the names I get called for telling people to leave their fanfic at home and come play the game with the other people they're supposedly here to play with.
 

Another reason I don't allow "backstories" in my games-- you create your character at the table, and your character's story is what happens at the table, so everyone gets to enjoy their characters being awesome at the table.

Wouldn't believe some of the names I get called for telling people to leave their fanfic at home and come play the game with the other people they're supposedly here to play with.
Conversely, the way I see this, you're saying "never ever bring me anything but a dead-empty blank slate with slightly less flavor than plain oatmeal."

I find it not particularly engaging or interesting to play Unflavored Oatmeal characters for 10+ sessions before I'm permitted to be something interesting.

I don't write your "fanfic" caricature. I write a reasonable length-backstory. It can be summarized with a paragraph, perhaps two at absolute most. I keep plenty of room open for things. Character I've just started playing is, "Third son of entirely unscrupulous mobsters who bought his family's public facade hook, line, and sinker. Having had his world turned upside-down by discovering how awful his family really is, he's decided to get out in a way that would raise the family's reputation. He was a bad person, and wants to be a good person, but doesn't quite know how."
 
Last edited:

Another reason I don't allow "backstories" in my games-- you create your character at the table, and your character's story is what happens at the table, so everyone gets to enjoy their characters being awesome at the table.

Wouldn't believe some of the names I get called for telling people to leave their fanfic at home and come play the game with the other people they're supposedly here to play with.
But your fanfic is okay?

Your tone sounds very antagonistic towards players who dare to have a backstory. Maybe that is what garners the angry responses? And are these total strangers, or are these your friends? If the latter, then that seems like a serious problem. If the former, then how did you get to the stage of starting a DnD game with them? Seems odd.

I insist my players make a short backstory for their character, and that they include a want and a serious flaw. That way we can roleplay right out of the gate, and I can use their character ideas for story seeds.

It seems very difficult to start with characters with zero history. Do they have family they care about? How did they get to wherever the campaign starts? Why are they adventurers instead of merchants? What do they struggle with? Do any of them know each other?

A lot of the comments in this thread feel very proprietary about the story being done just the way we and only we like it. It’s all fanfic.
 
Last edited:

Conversely, the way I see this, you're saying "never ever bring me anything but a dead-empty blank slate with slightly less flavor than plain oatmeal."

I find it not particularly engaging or interesting to play Unflavored Oatmeal characters for 10+ sessions before I'm permitted to be something interesting.
The fact that you think your character needs to have an extensive backstory that doesn't involve the other PCs to be interesting is the problem.

The fact you think your character can be interesting based on a bunch of "story elements" that don't involve the other players at the table is why I stopped putting up with it.

If you want to have an "interesting character" in D&D, play one.
Your tone sounds very antagonistic towards players who dare to have a backstory. Maybe that is what garners the angry responses? And are these total strangers, or are these your friends? If the latter, then that seems like a serious problem. If the former, then how did you get to the stage of starting a DnD game with them? Seems odd.
No, thankfully, it's mostly people who'd never play with me anyway.

I'm not bringing fanfic to the table, either; I don't have a story to tell. I start off with a handful of story elements I might light to include, and the ones I do include are based on what the players tell me they want to play-- when they create their characters, in front of me, with each other. If you're there to "tell a story", you're ignoring the other players in the game, because they're not part of the story you planned, and you're not a part of theirs.

I insist my players make a short backstory for their character, and that they include a want and a serious flaw. That way we can roleplay right out of the gate, and I can use their character ideas for story seeds.

A Want and a Flaw are both very good ideas. Really part of the character concept. I'm not saying that player characters need to be blank slates, just that players shouldn't come into Session Zero with a preconceived notion of who their character is, was, and will be. Especially if they're had that concept in mind since before they knew I was running a game.

Ironically, the players who complain about this most are all big fans of the kinds of games I learned this philosophy-- that character creation is part of the shared act of play-- from in the first place. Second biggest complainers are the mechanically-focused powergamers that the first group complain about the most.
 
Last edited:

Yes, to a degree I agree with what you are saying. However, I don't feel like the characters should be so "othered" that they feel completely disconnected from the setting in play. That seems to occur quite a bit, or at least I have a perception that it does, which leads the DM to shoehorn a justification for a pacifist Pixy Paladin (say that three times fast ;)) being in the world in the first place because that's what Bob brought to the table from his roster of characters he's got waiting to see play.
The thing is, not all players are interested in settings, backstories, lore and roleplay. Some just want to have a laugh and kill some monsters. A player who enjoys that sort of thing will be able to make the most weird character choices fascinating additions to the world. But a disinterested player can make a human fighter feel like an anachronism.
 

The fact that you think your character needs to have an extensive backstory that doesn't involve the other PCs to be interesting is the problem.

The fact you think your character can be interesting based on a bunch of "story elements" that don't involve the other players at the table is why I stopped putting up with it.
Why should my backstory include the other party members I haven't even met yet? Seriously, I'm terribly confused here. In fact, forget why--how am I supposed to write a backstory that includes people I haven't met?

And if my character is literally a Nameless Faceless Gender-Neutral Culturally-Ambiguous Adventure Person prior to me actually playing, what incentive do I have to care whatsoever about them?

If you want to have an "interesting character" in D&D, play one.
And why should I start playing a character that bores me to tears?
 

Remove ads

Top