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

[TwoSix]

Really? This has been a common complaint for years. I remember back many years ago listening to the Fear the Boot podcast and them talking about how players never bother with the DM's setting. Trying to get players to actually pay attention to the setting? That's not new. Heck, you want a good example, watch the Viva La Dirt League actual play Tales of Azerim and you'll see exactly the same thing going on.

For sure. That's been true for as long as I've been playing. I don't think it's better or worse than any previous time; it's simply how players generally are. It's why I've been moving away from using setting as an extra restrictor on character creation for decades now, unless the system is specifically designed to support a specific setting.

Almost every player, even very engaged ones, are going to be system and character first, with setting concerns a distant triviality in comparison unless they're specifically attached to the IP being used.

 

[Kannik]

If nothing else, this thread has convinced me that if I ever end up recruiting strangers to play in a pick-up game I'm running, I'm going to audition both the players and their proposed characters before accepting anyone into the group.

It's how I am when it comes to our Sunday group. We're a small group but we all mesh well on our desired style of play, across the gaggle of games we do play, and I want to guard that jealously. And so it's very much a "request if you want someone to join the group" situation, and we do our best to vet if they will match our style of play. We have two players who will be joining soon, and we're ready to see how it goes and also have conversations if need be.

But that's only for my Sunday group. I also play monthly with a different group where it's it's a different vibe and over the years we've had several people join (and leave) the group. And I go with the flow there.

To which, zooming out to get some perspective I'd say it's always very much worth asking/remembering:

What kind of gaming group am I trying to put together? And then being up front about it with both yourself and with others. Because groups and playstyles have always been diverse, even in the supposed "old school" days.

Two, what are my expectations? Because running at a gaming store every Friday with a semi-revolving band of players it's best to come in with a different expectation than for a personal close-knit gaming group.

Three, when we put a call out for players these days, we're not only drawing from a wider pool of styles of play, but also from a wider geographical area. When I went to university, in a larger city, I was introduced to a handful of new styles of play . It was all the same edition of D&D, but compared to what I had seen "locally" there were other ways of approaching the game.

So when we go about seeking a new gaming group, whether joining others or putting up something in a gaming store or (especially) a call for players online, we should be ready that we will be presented with a wide variety. Some will match our preferences. Others will not. The err lies in thinking that everyone wants to play like me, enjoys the same stuff as me, and/or, as the ultimate double err, should like and play the game (or games) the way as I do. An adjacent err is thinking that I won't have to do a bit of work to find those that match my preferences. An equally adjacent err might also be coming in with an all-or-nothing mindset, rather than going for close enough with the opportunity to invite and introduce them to games more to my specific preferences.

I have been fortunate in my RPG playing (but hence also why I'm really protective about it) to find a group that, over time, we've gotten to a place where we rock in a way I love to play. But as someone who, outside of RPGs, likes many things that are not all that popular, I get that it can feel like a somewhat lonely space. And that it feels tough to find my "tribe" of people who share my taste. Not diminishing that we may with it came with ultimate ease. But it doesn't always. Alas. Now, what's my next step?


(Somewhat tangentially, also want to add number four: worth remembering the broader context of games and media, where so much is a) tailored for instant gratification that, like drugs, people need extreme hits in order to feel anything, b) everything responds to you instantly (right there in the name, like itunes or youtube), c) the algorithm both caters to our every whim while also d) forcing us into specific buckets that it thinks is the most profitable where, e) it all comes together and we're not even sure we know what we actually like. And single-player computer games will also give a certain context of play. And free to play / loot drop games will do another. It's all the soup into which (new) players are marinating.)

 

[bloodtide]

Let’s break this down shall we:

I know a lot of people are like what you describe. They are not my ideal player. They won't have fun in my game.

Not every game is for everyone.

5) RAW: the History skill check exists to determine if the character knows something about the world. There is no rule requiring the player to know anything at all. If you don’t allow questions you invalidate all the lore skills and most of the INT stat.

Yes I do. In more ways then one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

More conversationally, claims like, "In a modern RPG everyone must be 100% equal," seems pretty vague, and very poorly supported.

It would help if you defined what you meant by "modern" for these purposes - the past 5, 10, 25 years?

It would also help to see what data you have supporting this contention - like, perhaps, a documented survey of games and their mechanics and settings, and their internal positions on racism, sexism, and the like? And how you are differentiating, "political correctness" from the basic game design concept of letting players play what they want.

We often see folks complain about, say, how in D&D orcs are no longer depicted as slavering evil, and how D&D game art has less cheesecake, and includes the occasional disabled person, and then an assertion like you make above. But, there's no systematic support for the idea for us to take seriously.

More importantly the "political correctness" thing is often used to guise over some...I mean pretty not-great positions?

Sapient beings getting depicted as Pure Evil is kind of a gross thought, because that's literally how several cultures have (sometimes literally) demonized and vilified populations they wanted to oppress or exterminate. It's a thing we are dealing with right now in politics.

Women being depicted as inherently inferior to men in some areas and inherently superior to them in others is both scientifically inaccurate (yes, the center points are separate, but the bell curves are so broad that they completely--and heavily--overlap, with there being plenty of women who are stronger than a large portion of men, for example). So like, sure that's "politically correct", but it's also factually correct, and the original thing was straight-up Father Knows Best sexism in both directions.

And it's not like you can't have Pure Evil villains still. Undead things, especially mature vampires who prey on others by creating spawn (see: Astarion and his "master" in BG3), are a great source. Illithids too, again from BG3. You can also have evil factions, which can be much more interesting, but can also be nice and simple if you desire. The Zhentarim are pretty much exclusively evil and it's not really a problem to say "if you joined the Zhents you're a bad person", for example.

So like...if this is "politically correct", I'm not seeing what the problem is, @bloodtide.

Again, vague. If you aren't going to name names, and give well-considered critique, this is not really a support.

If you mean that presentations of history are noting how history was a moral and ethical mixed bag... well, I think that's probably because history actually was a moral and ethical mixed bag. History is a poster child for "don't ever meet your heroes", because your heroes will turn out to be mere humans, and have flaws.

And not just that. Even works that claim to strive for historical accuracy almost always include really, really, really inaccurate crap, sometimes with significant implications. That Vikings show, for example? It features the whole "Norse undercut" hairstyle....which is strongly associated with some pretty unpleasant, actively racist groups IRL...and which we have zero evidence that it was ever used by Vikings. It's 100% a modern insertion of something fake and a-historical solely to fit the in-our-heads visual aesthetic, just like the old "Viking helmets" were. (Though at least the fictitious horned helmets have the tiniest shred of positive spin, because the Vikings absolutely were the kind of crazy idiots who would willingly wear equipment that was defensively bad for them solely to show off or for the "honor" of it or whatever, even though they did not do that specific thing.)

Did someone present this alleged list upthread? Where is a version of it with documentation of its provenance? Have you, personally, read the list? Because "everyone knows" that it exists isn't actually support for the contention.

Completely agreed.

What is this list, @bloodtide? What are the things you allege to be "political correct[ness]" gone mad? I'd kinda like to evaluate them for myself rather than going with "trust me bro, they're Bad because they're <insert buzzword>". Given you have, many many many times, dismissed others' arguments for being "word salad", it's more than a little funny to see you invoke "politically correct" as though that were enough of an argument all on its own.

As it is, all I have is word salad, and it isn't even all that good of a salad.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Look, I can see the utility of having a foe option who is effectively humanity devoid of anything pleasant but is smarter than a zombie. It is what modern gnolls are, much to the depression of many. Its ideal form already appeared in 2009 as Dragon Age Darkspawn, with maybe its looks needing refinement.
I can see a desire for the non-humans to not just get sand blasted into nearly identical to human that is understandable but just making them exp foder no longer work as the cat is out the bag

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm on the other side of this. Hard Fun. Players can ask NO questions during the game. So, like recently a player made a cool ghost dwarf from a lost FR dwarven nation. I gave the player an e-mail of "what your character would know" and a list of "recommended reading." They player does none of it, and shows up for the game Clueless. Even just an hour into the game and the player is all upset as their character is Clueless. They whine that I should just tell them stuff "their character knows".

I do not mind repeating information, clarifying details - especially if I believe their characters would know the information.

Having said that I have a hardcore player who doesn't hear pertinent information or doesn't understand me (and others) - whether I'm explaining the description of an area like in ToM or insight into a social encounter.
I do get irritated with him as does the rest of the table. Often enough I let the other players course correct his misunderstandings and faulty internal logic.
Better he gets the grief from the rest than the supposed neutral arbiter.

In the past if I didn't repeat information or clarify details and the above player declared an action or a series of actions that would negatively affect their character it would lead to a table argument and a request for go-backsies which result would be far worse than simply taking the time to repeating and clarifying.

Besides the above it helps foster a better relationship between GM and players.