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

[Remathilis]

Or you could just turn up with an elf fighter and smack a few monsters with a sword. All this “lore” and “backstory” stuff is entirely optional, and really not part of D&D as originally intended.

Which of course ends both sides of the issue. The DM doesn't have to create anything more than a few monsters and a place to smack them in, and the player need not concern himself with anything more than what is needed to smack them with. You don't need extensive settings full of lore anymore than you need extensive backgrounds on your PCs. You can't have players ignoring campaign lore if there isn't any lore to acknowledge.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Is Branchala not a Corellon analogue, like Reorx is Moradin’s?

No. And Thinking about "analogues" for what are fundamentally completely different deities is an element of Crawfordism-Perkinsism that I hope we leave behind.

 

[Mind of tempest]

And I'm saying D&D's problem is having too many settings to be able to buy into. D&D needs one maybe two, fully developed settings, not 12 official and countless homebrew and 3pp.

The opposite effect though is the generic PC so divorced from the setting that he could walk through a portal from Faerun to Oerth and nothing about him would change.

I think it is more to many setting overlap in niche rather than nice spread-out settings which are built to focus in on certain things

 

[Remathilis]

I think it is more to many setting overlap in niche rather than nice spread-out settings which are built to focus in on certain things

Maybe if D&D didn't sell an all encompassing "core three" but opted with smaller tailored player books that included the necessary lore and options for the setting. Something like that Dark Sun Players Handbook or the Ravenloft Players Handbook that have tailored classes and species for each setting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not at all. I hate the 5E circus troupe model of what a group of adventurers should look like. I think that's a cromulent but of critique on the issue at hand, don't you? Are we not striving for consensus?

But you refuse to read any part of the thread before saying so.

No, I don't particularly see "I hate that thing!" as a cromulent bit of critique. Especially given the OP was specifically asking for advice on how to become more comfortable with modern players' tastes, making your "I just hate it!" message directly at odds with where the OP is coming from.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Are we not striving for consensus?

Since when has any internet forum ever strove for consensus? Closest thing to a consensus you're ever going to see is everyone agreeing to disagree

 

[CreamCloud0]

Not at all. I hate the 5E circus troupe model of what a group of adventurers should look like. I think that's a cromulent but of critique on the issue at hand, don't you? Are we not striving for consensus?

given your previous comment and that you highlight 'what they look like' as your issue may i assume you never read the OP's post? where they point out their issue and the issue of the thread is not having the party being a menagerie of oddball species but rather the untethered nature of the player characters to the setting, the fact that entire parties can seem to be composed entirely of individuals who all separately originate 'from over the horizon' and have no ties to anything or anyone.

 

[Zeromaru X]

No. And Thinking about "analogues" for what are fundamentally completely different deities is an element of Crawfordism-Perkinsism that I hope we leave behind.

He is a platinum dragon boy,
She was a five-headed dragon girl,
Can I make it any more obvious?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And I'm saying D&D's problem is having too many settings to be able to buy into. D&D needs one maybe two, fully developed settings, not 12 official and countless homebrew and 3pp.

The opposite effect though is the generic PC so divorced from the setting that he could walk through a portal from Faerun to Oerth and nothing about him would change.

Because it worked so well for comics. That's why both Marvel and DC have had...uh...at least one "crisis" story every decade, and have begun to accelerate the pace?

Yes, it can be an ask to have multiple settings. No, that is not profligate waste. "Elseworlds" is popular for a good reason. Folks like variety and creativity.

This idea that you can magically fix buy-in by cleaving out most of the variety and creativity of fiction, locking folks into a single box, is one of the hottest--and wrongest--takes I've ever seen on D&D anything. I'm frankly shocked you would even suggest that all of D&D could somehow be imprisoned in the confines of a single setting.

Worse, who gets to decide what's in that setting? If WotC had listened to the loudest shouters during "D&D Next", that would have meant no dragonborn--who are now the second- or third-most-popular non-human race. But picking any existing setting will alienate the fans of every other setting, and crafting a totally brand-new one will alienate fans of every setting, on top of having to convince people that this brand new setting is even worth engaging with in the first place.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since when has any internet forum ever strove for consensus? Closest thing to a consensus you're ever going to see is everyone agreeing to disagree

I mean, I certainly do aim for consensus in the abstract. Building up a common understanding is very helpful.

But it's frankly hilarious for someone to say "Aren't we building consensus?" after having:

• Not read the thread
• First post admits this
• Explicitly says they hate a thing lots of people are doing
• Explicitly calls for taking things away from others so they can't choose as they like

Like...I know I can be inflammatory, but this is far past that. This is almost the antithesis of consensus-building. It's digging trenches and announcing one is ready for a fight.