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

[EzekielRaiden]

So, he'd been on the seas, presumably traveling to various places, for 20 years? And this is your counter evidence that people with normal home lives would never leave their homes?

It would be really nice if just once an example could be used and people address the point being made instead of nit-picking the example. Or, if the example isn't particularly apt because it was a mostly off the cuff remark and not the actual point being made, perhaps suggest a better example instead of wasting a bunch of time nit picking the example (and of course, completely ignoring the other example) and actually address the point being made which is that people do not need to come from broken homes to become adventurers AT ALL.

I mean, good grief, Nelly Bly traveled around the world in less than 80 days, alone, in the late 1900's. Ibn Batutta (sp) traveled around the known world for years - a wealthy lawyer from a by all accounts loving family in the what, 12th century (working from memory here, might have the date wrong). It's not like all or even most of those who hear the call to adventure have to come from heart breaking histories.

Exactly.

Sometimes, growing up in a loving home full of resources makes one yearn for the thrill of adventure over a quiet life.

Sometimes, growing up in a terrible place where you're barely scraping by makes you afraid to leave, lest you lose what little you have.

 

[GobHag]

Must be nice.

In 30 years of gaming, I have seen people come to the table with fully formed characters virtually every single time. I get questions about "What is permitted in the campaign? What is the campaign about (maybe)?" and then the players invariably show up with fully formed characters. And, I would point out, that this has repeatedly been shown in a number of other poster's posts as well.

Players already consider the choices in the PHB to already be the restrictions, that's why there's a majority of players that un/consciously make their characters detached from the GM's setting premise.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So, he'd been on the seas, presumably traveling to various places, for 20 years? And this is your counter evidence that people with normal home lives would never leave their homes?

It would be really nice if just once an example could be used and people address the point being made instead of nit-picking the example. Or, if the example isn't particularly apt because it was a mostly off the cuff remark and not the actual point being made, perhaps suggest a better example instead of wasting a bunch of time nit picking the example (and of course, completely ignoring the other example) and actually address the point being made which is that people do not need to come from broken homes to become adventurers AT ALL.

I mean, good grief, Nelly Bly traveled around the world in less than 80 days, alone, in the late 1900's. Ibn Batutta (sp) traveled around the known world for years - a wealthy lawyer from a by all accounts loving family in the what, 12th century (working from memory here, might have the date wrong). It's not like all or even most of those who hear the call to adventure have to come from heart breaking histories.

um... actually... it was 72 days and the 14th century. Try to keep up.

 

[Belen]

Must be nice.

In 30 years of gaming, I have seen people come to the table with fully formed characters virtually every single time. I get questions about "What is permitted in the campaign? What is the campaign about (maybe)?" and then the players invariably show up with fully formed characters. And, I would point out, that this has repeatedly been shown in a number of other poster's posts as well.

I am not sure why it happens. I provide a 1 page sheet answering those questions before each campaign. Players let me know if they are interested. They are told that there with be a session as a group to discuss concepts with me and the group where all questions are answered.

They post on discord if they want a change etc. Character backgrounds are due 1 week before campaign starts. I work with each player to add information and help them with any setting needs or info.

It is really not that difficult. I have never had anyone in any group that I have run or played in just bring a random character.

 

[Mind of tempest]

What? Are you implying that people who have loved ones never set off into peril to protect them? I wonder why people with families have volunteered or sought out dangerous careers. Or go to wars.

Interesting. I fully disagree.

Edit: adventure games are not always about getting fame and fortune. Sometimes it's to defeat evil, or a threat to their community.

I find it sounds to high fantasy to think like that, but the dissolving social contract might be getting to me.

Which was particularly funny since once you read the game and looked at the various racial groups, an awful lot of them looked like variant elves.

are elves an archetype then or have they utterly dominated one then?

 

[ECMO3]

There's also the Wizards (Mages) of High Sorcery, who offer an interesting challenge...but only for your arcane caster. There was never a gameplay element added for other classes that might mimic that experience and make those players also feel like they are part of the setting.

I think the Theocrats or whatever they are called offer a challenge for players worshiping the new Gods and the Oath and Measure offer a gameplay element for Knights of Solamnia.

 

[Thomas Shey]

More or less the same thing here.


Your answer indicated that getting a list was supposed to be evidence of those three things--coherency, distinctiveness, shapefulness--when they are not evidence of that in the first place. At best, they're orthogonal. Hence, if you are now saying that that perception can exist solely in the mind of the GM, then the ban list is not actually evidence of the thing, and thus my question remains unanswered.

No, my answer indicated what some of them think is evidence of those things. It in no way said that was actually the case. You asked why they considered that a good advertising statement. That's why.

I mean, you don't need to convince me of that. I'm already very intensely aware of the problem of GMs thinking action X promotes behavior A, when in actuality action X reduces behavior A. And various other quite similar things, e.g. prioritizing design that "looks pretty" (what I have previously called "meta-aesthetics") over design that actually works well even if it doesn't make good reading on the page or produce a beautiful, symmetric lattice etc.

However, unless your question was rhetorical (and it wasn't self-evidently so) your apparent question as to why GMs would do this does not seem to acknowledge the fact GMs can simply be wrong about the apparent effect on other people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Players already consider the choices in the PHB to already be the restrictions, that's why there's a majority of players that un/consciously make their characters detached from the GM's setting premise.

Actually, there's often a bigger reason for that: players who have learned that at least any living attachments may well be used against them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

are elves an archetype then or have they utterly dominated one then?

I think the problem is, to some extent, concept splay over time; rpg elves have a number of sources (Tolkein, Nordic alfar, Celtic sidhe) and often have visual and conceptual identities that sprawl across them. As such the visual and conceptual basis of them actually absorbs a lot of ground.

Talislanta has a lot of races. If I recall when I counted many years ago it exceeded--30 I want to say? So some of them were very likely to overlap with those conceptual and visual tropes. And they very much did.

 

[Hussar]

um... actually... it was 72 days and the 14th century. Try to keep up.

What was 72 days in the 14th century? Ibn Battuta? He traveled for about 30 years. Went all the way to China and back. Spent time in India as well. But yes, it was the 14th century.