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

[Clint_L]

So do the players who insist on playing a character that doesn't fit with the game's premise. At best, they want to "play D&D" without other players interfering in the experience.

Your character generation process isn't how I do it, but it seems reasonable. So I'm having trouble squaring it with people getting angry and calling you names. I feel like I'm missing something.


If your process involves that much conflict, it strikes me that there's somethng wrong.

 

[DammitVictor]

Your character generation process isn't how I do it, but it seems reasonable. So I'm having trouble squaring it with people getting angry and calling you names. I feel like I'm missing something.


If your process involves that much conflict, it strikes me that there's somethng wrong.

The process doesn't normally involve that much conflict. The name-calling comes into play when I talk about it on platforms like this one, or when someone is telling me why they have declined to apply to my game. I should probably note that this doesn't hurt my feelings; people being jerks about not wanting to use my system only tells me it's working, and it's all the reasonable adults and good roleplayers who politely ignore my invitations that worry me.

are you sure you are not just cursed at this point this sounds like you are either getting the worst luck or are looking in the worst possible locations for players

I haven't ruled out the possibility I'm just cursed; I never rule out the possibility of supernatural malfeasance when my problems stem from people or machines. Problem is, it's not a diagnosis that lends itself to solutions. My budget for sagebrush and blessed mead are already stretched to its breaking point.

And other people have the same complaints. Might as well try to make myself useful.

 

[Bae'zel]

Or, alternatively, a problem with the pitch.

Just sayin'. That's also an option.

My players chose the pitch in that instance. We talked about it beforehand. Or I gave them half a dozen ideas, and they voted on it.

And I still got out-of-the-box concepts that directly clashed with WHAT THEY CHOSE.

It doesn't happen as often as it used to, especially now that I've gotten a lot better at negotiating and finding a compromise, but to kind of imply that I was making bad campaign pitches... well that's kind of unfair.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Eh, no.

If there's a problem it is in the mismatch - that you and the player want different things. But that doesn't mean that what either of you want, in and of itself, is a problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is actually really sad.

I think some of your players frequent these boards - Would any of the players in Hussar's current or recent games willing to speak up to talk about why they act like this, and whether they are aware that they are driving Hussar to this state?

I am a player in his games (have been for a bit less than two years now!) I have tried to keep my choices relatively constrained. We brought in a new player who did want something from outside FR for an FR adventure, but given it's already got an interplanar bent (Out of the Abyss), it didn't seem like the weirdest thing, generally speaking.

I've also tried to abide by his requests for limiting certain actions. I had, unfortunately, not realized that flaming sphere is actually a bit of a flaming PITA to run in Fantasy Grounds, otherwise I would not have relied on it so with my previous character. But in general I try to pick options that are effective, relatively low overhead, and thematic, and I avoided the specific spells he asked me to avoid.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My players chose the pitch in that instance. We talked about it beforehand. Or I gave them half a dozen ideas, and they voted on it.

And I still got out-of-the-box concepts that directly clashed with WHAT THEY CHOSE.

It doesn't happen as often as it used to, especially now that I've gotten a lot better at negotiating and finding a compromise, but to kind of imply that I was making bad campaign pitches... well that's kind of unfair.

My point was not, necessarily, that you specifically are or were bad at pitches.

The point was that it is a leap of logic to go from "the players did not follow the pitch" to "the players must be jerks who renege on their promises".

There are other options, and a pretty straightforward one is "there was something wrong or off about the pitch". Not necessarily even that it's a bad pitch objectively--just that it was a bad pitch for this group, or the like.

There are also other possibilities. But the conclusion I see, time after time after time, is to immediately assume the players are awful people hurting the poor, defenseless GM.

 

[DammitVictor]

Eh, no.

If there's a problem it is in the mismatch - that you and the player want different things. But that doesn't mean that what either of you want, in and of itself, is a problem.

I was going to fight you on this; it sounds like he's describing using the DM, the table, and the game as props in his solo exercise. But you do have a point... if that's the game everyone is playing, they're competing/collaborating in that kind of gameplay, and the other players trying to act out their personal stories using the table as their stage are part of the game. That can be fun. D&D is a good enough ruleset for enjoying that kind of game.

I don't often see it working that way in practice. Could be a cognitive blindspot, or it could be traveling in different social circles-- or pure dumb luck-- but I mostly see the people who want to play that game resenting the DM and the other players for wanting to play that game with them. Demanding spotlight time for themselves, wanting the game to cater to their storylines. Most of the people I see arguing for the compelling need to have at least one full letter-sized page of backstory don't want to play that game, and aren't getting anything out of those long, dreary backstories... they just believe they're necessary because they learned to play in a certain era, shaped either by the narrative roleplaying trends of the 90s-00s or the Actual Play culture of the 10s and 20s.

And I rarely see it benefiting anyone but the people using them to hold games hostage. People who want deep, character-driven immersive roleplaying get more of what they want when their backstories are short and succinct enough that the other players can remember them, and intertwined enough that the other players are playing with them. People who just want to play casually don't have to write or read useless word count that only two people at the table are expected to know or care about. The umpire who has everyone's relevant narrative hooks on a 3x5" index card has less trouble weaving everyone's story arcs into a shared campaign, which makes everyone happier.

Mandatory, elaborate backstories add very little to the games that most people insist require them. If the people advocating for them actually benefitted from them, then we'd actually be talking about people who have different gameplay expectations and preferences. Most people playing D&D, the way most people play D&D, would have a much better time playing D&D if they either created their characters much more casually or much more formally. Less effort for bigger rewards.