Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9803986" data-attributes="member: 7006">I think a large part of the issue with the 'Mos Eisley Cantina' style of species availability is that most DMs as they are prepping a game have not done any real work in establishing within their world just how, where, and why all these various species live where they do and how, where, and why any of them begin to congregate with each other-- enough so that all these different types find themselves taking up the job of "Adventurer" and coming together to serve whomever it is that is paying them for their first gig.  And I don't think most players tend to take the time to figure out just why their oddball choice of species for their character actually made the journey towards becoming an "Adventurer" and teaming up with all these other species either.  Rather... species choice is just whatever they think looks or plays "cool" and they just don't care about any of the anthropological reasonings behind it.  They don't care why this Firbolg of theirs has decided to be in this small Human village, and the DM hasn't figured out why Firbolgs would be anywhere near there either.If a DM creates a starting town for their game that is primarily Human, with maybe a small percentage of Dwarf, Elf and Halfling residents... when the players all say they want to play a Tortle, a Goliath, a Tabaxi, a Yuan-Ti, and a Fire Genasi (without a Human, Dwarf, Elf, or Halfling in sight)... it makes the DM wonder just what's the point in choosing a setting in the first place.  And why is it the players are uninterested in making their characters just odd or original, rather than relying on species for creating a "unique" character?  I mean it is entirely possible to create a "unique" Human character in a town full of Human characters just by who their character is, not by what they are.  And yet some players just can't or won't do that.  They think the weird species is the "shortcut" to uniqueness... completely oblivious to the fact that that's a good chance they are merely going to end up playing this oddball species exactly as they would if they had played a Human or Elf.  The "species" will be creative and unique... but their character is anything but.For actors, this is where I always recommend them taking improv classes.  Because in improv you cycle through creating so many characters so quickly that you run out of ideas in pretty short order that are supposedly "unique".  And worrying about being "unique" falls by the wayside.  Instead, you learn to embrace character from the inside and let each one be who they are... even if they are the most bland and unassuming person on the outside.  The outer shell of a character becomes commonplace and you no longer feel like you just need to focus on that.In roleplaying games?  This is where the whole 10,000 hours thing and playing many different types of RPGs really comes into focus.  Because you soon have played so many different characters in so many different ways with so many different "outer shells" that they eventually lose all their power over you.  And soon you become more interested in who the character is on the inside.  And at that point, there's no problems whatsoever in selecting a species or character archetype that actually fits in and works within the scenario the DM has put forth... because you will find your character's "uniqueness" from within.  You'll be able to play in a party of seven Humans with them all being different, because their character will each be different.  And that's when the game can really open up to you... when you take the time to learn who your character is as a person, and not just a rubber mask you pull over your head.</blockquote>

Verification