At the start of a campaign, as characters are introduced to each other, I often experience a bit of cognitive dissonance. I want my world to be well-realized, with lots of different cultural, regional, and racial background options.

The part I struggle with is justifying how all these diverse characters happen to wind up in the same place in this vast world.

First, it seems to require the existence of a more cosmopolitan area, where all these diverse types might gather. That alone is sometimes contrary to the nature of the setting.

Even assuming that, say, a bit city exist for these diverse types to gather, I'm left trying to balance (in my head) how did the characters got there from their diverse regions of origin in a fashion that allows them to still be 1st level?

If travel is arduous in the campaign world, how did the PCs manage to travel so far and still be relatively inexperienced?

If easy travel options are available, how do these diverse cultures remain differentiated for long?

What tricks, justifications, world-building conceits, etc. do you use address this issue?

You could limit the radius from the campaign starter area that characters can be from, limiting their options to either locals or those from neighboring kingdoms or areas. If you don't want to start in or really near a large city then have that city be in that adjacent area so that some of the diverse character types can be from there.

I use various ways to square that circle, but most of them fall under the heading of "Flotsam and Jetsam". 

- Traveling is risky in most places, but there are known caravan routes.  Caravans tend to be quite large for mutual protection.  Independent actors latch on (using various means and references), including of course the ubiquitous caravan guard.  In fact, being a caravan guard is a good way for a starting adventurer to get out of town and get a small bit of experience.  So obviously, that works for a narrow group all from the same village.

Then I merely extend that logic to what happens when the caravan does a stop over?  Some guards may no longer be needed, especially if it is in a town for the winter.  Independent travelers attached to the caravan may have run out of funds to pay for their protection or decided to wait for another caravan (like modern-day hitchhikers).  The caravan owners may have taken a disliking to them. There may have been something of local interest that turned out not to be all that, but the caravan has left before the adventurer realizes it.  The adventurer was just trying to get out of some village ahead of the draft/posse/a misunderstanding with a local that turned ugly. 

Then extend that logic again to over time.  Some people temporarily stick in the new location, and for a few that turns into acceptance and staying, where they have children.  The locals don't really like dwarves all that much, but old Durke that runs the forge since everyone remembers is all right, and so is his wife that floated in later and took up with him.  Naturally, their children are part of the local scene.

Then when you extend that again, you get something more traditional, such as the local dwarf miner colony that's been half a day's walk into the hills since before the village was founded.  It's not safe to travel anywhere, but that road is patrolled and reasonably safe most of the time.  So pick a handful of these, enough to not stretch the flotsam and jetsam to the breaking point, but not so many that you get this modern, inter-connected web of trade routes to everywhere. 

From a more particular, world-building slant, I developed two of my races to have strong reasons for mixing with others.  One is very independent minded, and thus likely to show up anywhere.  Another is an off-shoot of humans that requires "cross pollination" with the original stock in order to continue having children.  So they are exotic and disliked in some human communities, but also related, accepted, and working hard to stay that way in others.  That left my elves, dwarves, and "wolf-men" as the only outliers, and it's easy enough to justify a few.

Which brings me to the last bit, limited races.  No matter what tricks you use, it will be a strain on plausibility if there are too many races. So even in a setting where there are more races, I'll limit the playable races to 5-7, tops. At times, in a long-running campaign, I've opened up new options for replacement characters as the players meet them.  You get to play a kobold not because they are normally playable, but because you had teamed up with the kobolds to assault the orcs, and that's when your human bought it.  You got an NPC to play for the rest of the adventure and kind of took a shine to the little guy.  In other words, the players have to build a reason in game to expand the list.  Incidentally, this takes a bit of the sting out of death for some players.

Just do regional demographics. Oh of couse you'll get the screeching and howling, but those will either mercifully: a) stop pouting and get on with the game, or b) quit the table and let everyone else get on with the game. I've already found this curation for campaign setting at the beginning the easiest solution.

Oh, I've seen the disguised self merfolk suspended in a water sphere blah, blah, blah back in the day. And then there were the infinite halves races to collect all the bennies. And now we're all seeing battle wheelchairs and the like. And in skill-based, point-buy everyone was on the bleeding edge with unusually high ratio of ambidextrous, anosmic, albino, dwarfism adventurers, etc.

That shit won't ever stop until you make the setting override the mechanical benefits. So stop worrying about the storm & thunder and just claim control over your setting and tame the system and its options to it (the setting), not the other way around. Player options are for good behavior and interesting opportunities, not an assumed given.

If everything optional is left 'On', setting coherency is assumed to be optional.  Curate, as the young people say!

I lean on one of two possible justifications on the occasion that I think of this as all

1)  PC adventuring groups tend to come from very cosmopolitan places.  Centers of trade and civilization like Rome, Constantinople, London, and New York had folks from all over because of trade and government, even though other areas were pretty homogeneous. 

or

2)  Adventures tend to happen in wild places with plenty of people but limited government, such as the old west or the pirate-era Caribbean.  These places attracted adventurers, criminals, misfits, pioneers, and settlers of all types.

This is why a lot of early D&D used frontier settings. The civilized explored world was an empire with cosmopolitan trading centers. The frontier... not so much. PCs were expected to have come from the known world to the frontier to make their fortunes, explaining their diverse backgrounds.

Eventually this got forgotten and now you have bizarre nonsensical settings where the entire world is civilized and explored, but simultaneously you have these pockets everywhere of uncivilized barbarian hordes that go around pillaging. They're simultaneously too weak for the Empire to take seriously but terrible enough to be a plague everywhere they are, a la ur-fascism.

Some ancient cities could serve as a model for a place to meet. Hellenistic Alexandria was a quite diverse place. You had Greeks/Macedonians (many from various Aegean islands), Egyptians, some Africans from further south, Phoenicians, probably some people from Mesopotamia etc. Many were born in Alexandria, from immigrant/settler parents, so they wouldn't necessarily be very experienced.

As I see it, there are three options.

(1) Set your campaign in a region that's a cultural crossroads.  The Mediterranean region of the Roman Empire, particularly the urban areas, were a lot more racially diverse than Cologne or London would have been.  North Africans, Sub-Saharan Africans, Arabs, Persians, Hebrews, Europeans like Greeks, Romans or Sarmatians, they might have all rubbed shoulders in places like Sicily.

(2) The Dray Prescot books are set on a world which was deliberately inhabited by not only various races from Earth, but many alien races from around the galaxy, by a mysterious race of trans-human superbeings called the Star Lords, whose technology is so advanced they might as well be considered gods.  This explains why various human types as well as demi-humans and crazy Monster Manual denizens abound.  You either buy the concept or you don't (I do; I love these books) but it is an option to explain how this crazy diversity exists.  The world is the way it is not through natural evolution, but because it's a deliberately-created worldwide "zoo."  This is a good option if you don't like the concept of inherently evil races.  As Dray Prescot learned over time, while some demi-humans tended to be worse than others, they were all capable of choice and were thus "men" the same as him.

(3) The Will of the Gods.  In a world where pantheons of gods exist, natural evolution doesn't necessarily mean anything.  If a god who appears to be a black man creates people in his image, they'll be black.  If a goddess who appears white does the same, her people will be white.  These people might be set down anywhere.  Various races of demi-humans exist for the same reason.

Quote from: Zalman on October 04, 2023, 07:06:20 AM
At the start of a campaign, as characters are introduced to each other, I often experience a bit of cognitive dissonance. I want my world to be well-realized, with lots of different cultural, regional, and racial background options.

The part I struggle with is justifying how all these diverse characters happen to wind up in the same place in this vast world.

First, it seems to require the existence of a more cosmopolitan area, where all these diverse types might gather. That alone is sometimes contrary to the nature of the setting.

Even assuming that, say, a bit city exist for these diverse types to gather, I'm left trying to balance (in my head) how did the characters got there from their diverse regions of origin in a fashion that allows them to still be 1st level?

If travel is arduous in the campaign world, how did the PCs manage to travel so far and still be relatively inexperienced?

If easy travel options are available, how do these diverse cultures remain differentiated for long?

What tricks, justifications, world-building conceits, etc. do you use address this issue?

This is why session zero is important. You pick your starting point in your world. You figure out what "issues" exist. You're already doing this from the sound of things. The PROBLEM is you're letting players make PC's without *any* of that context. You're putting the cart in front of the horses.

So let's say in this world all the stipulations you cited above are in play: Travel is difficult, disparate races exist but they might be distant or have cultural issues relating to the starting location, etc. etc.

1) You should *tell* your players about the starting location first. Give them the context and conceits first. "The city of Akkalon is ruled primarily by a dynastic human royal Houses in concert with Dwarven Clans that centuries ago united against the Gnoll hordes of the south. The elves of the continent live in the arboreal forest kingdom of Elennia - but it lays far to the north over the Stareach Mountains which are extremely dangerous as they are claimed by the Splitmaw Orcs and various clans of Hill Giants. Elves are *rarely* seen."

The implication is that while someone *might* want to play an elf, it would be rare. YOU need to decide what the context of relations are with the various races before players start rolling up their PC's. So what are the relationships between the City State of Akkalon and the Elves of Elennia? Is their trade? Let's say we decide their is - how does this trade happen? Maybe the Dwarves of Akkalon have subterranean passages through the mountains? Super dangerous right? Maybe the Elves know a secret route through or around the mountains - more fodder for you to create interesting stuff. The point being is you're adding the deeper context and explanations that can give you the reasons to say 'yea' or 'nay' to a players PC concept.

2) You should always err on the side of the players PC concept unless it's simply too much of a snowflake concept for your starting area. If using the same example - a player wants to play an Elven warrior. You then need to explain how/why he's in Akkalon. I could think of several "Easy" answers - he's an apprentice swordsman to an Elven blademaster that has business in Akkalon (he's getting special sword made by a great Dwarven smith - plot bonus! the materials needed to craft the weapon will require the Elven PC to retrieve them. Double plot-twist - upon completion and the sword being forged, the sword is the gift to the Elven PC as a "graduation present.") Or maybe he's a greenhorn rookie caravan guard that helped get Elven goods over the mountains. You can describe the harrowing danger of the trip as part of his background. MAYBE he's the sole survivor?

The point is - you *can* make allowances for the hard travel for PC concepts, you just need to contextualize it and you should make it so that the player understands the ramifications of the character concept within those conceits. It's YOUR job as the GM to make it matter.

Maybe people of Akkalon don't *trust* Elves? Why? Come up with some historical reason? Maybe the Elves didn't come to the aid of the early Akkalon alliance? Maybe the Elves had good reason? Maybe they didn't. That's all grist for the mill. But make sure your players understand these general concepts but let them decide how their PC's feel about it. CONTEXT IS KING.

3) Do not be scared of saying NO. If a player comes up with a PC concept that has no bearing on your starting area - or its simply too fucking weird to justify, say NO. And tell them why. "You want to be a Tiefling? Well the problem with that is in Akkalon the Gnoll tribes made pacts with underworld elements and any form of devil-worship is anathema. You will be killed on sight. And they might say something silly like "But *I* am this way by birth - I didn't do anything." To which you reply - "You look like a devil. They're going to treat you like one. So no. In fact, Tieflings don't even exist as a playable race here. (they might exist elsewhere - but that's besides the point.)" Just say no. Running your campaign is like being a chef, you keep your working space clean at all times, don't let in elements that don't make sense, or you're not willing to entertain. Say no. Be kind. Move on.

I always start my campaigns out in a trade route layover town.  I have a specific town for starting that's got a local population of about 400 but it's a place along my setting's version of the silk road.  The population will periodically swell up to several thousand as caravans will stop for a day or two to rest, care for animals, and prepare for a week long trek across unoccupied wilderness.  This justifies all kinds of PC and NPC variety.  (It also justifies all kinds of adventure hooks without creating convoluted stories to shoehorn them into the game.)  The shenanigans I can get into as a GM are almost limitless.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2023, 10:39:22 AM
You should always err on the side of the players PC concept unless it's simply too much of a snowflake concept for your starting area. If using the same example - a player wants to play an Elven warrior. You then need to explain how/why he's in Akkalon. I could think of several "Easy" answers - he's an apprentice swordsman to an Elven blademaster that has business in Akkalon (he's getting special sword made by a great Dwarven smith - plot bonus! the materials needed to craft the weapon will require the Elven PC to retrieve them. Double plot-twist - upon completion and the sword being forged, the sword is the gift to the Elven PC as a "graduation present.") Or maybe he's a greenhorn rookie caravan guard that helped get Elven goods over the mountains. You can describe the harrowing danger of the trip as part of his background. MAYBE he's the sole survivor?

The point is - you *can* make allowances for the hard travel for PC concepts, you just need to contextualize it and you should make it so that the player understands the ramifications of the character concept within those conceits. It's YOUR job as the GM to make it matter.

The problem I've more commonly run into is that it's easy to justify each individual PC and have ramifications - but the group of them are implausible as a whole. I had this with my dragon apocalypse game, and just accepted the problem and moved on.

In most of my other games, I have a premise that all PC concepts should link up to. In my current campaign, it is a semi-organization (agents of Ancestor-King Pachakuti). In another, it was a common cause (find and restore the lost temple). I think that works a little better, but it does restrict options.

Quote from: Zalman on October 04, 2023, 07:06:20 AM

The part I struggle with is justifying how all these diverse characters happen to wind up in the same place in this vast world.

Piece of cake.  Just draw from Earth's history.  Where did diverse characters congregate in the same place from all over our vast world?

There ya go.

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2023, 01:03:17 PM
The problem I've more commonly run into is that it's easy to justify each individual PC and have ramifications - but the group of them are implausible as a whole. I had this with my dragon apocalypse game, and just accepted the problem and moved on.

In most of my other games, I have a premise that all PC concepts should link up to. In my current campaign, it is a semi-organization (agents of Ancestor-King Pachakuti). In another, it was a common cause (find and restore the lost temple). I think that works a little better, but it does restrict options.

Well that's why session zero is there to contextualize what/where the game is starting. Getting players on-board with proper character concepts shouldn't be an issue for you as a GM - if you're proposing a pirate themed starting point, and you've done your prep-work on the region and its intrigues and intricacies, it's the player that is unreasonable to ask to play a Dhampyre which may not even exist in your setting.

Part of my session zero is always to try and ground the players in WHY they're even there in the first place. It might be tenuous and flimsy - "Your here because you've just been discharged from your mercenary contract and now you're a freesword looking for work." To intricate - the thief in the party has been tasked by his guild leaders to rob a gemcutter who has notoriously tough bodyguards. You have an acquaintance that's in town (the freesword) that might be up to task."

I always let the players decide on whether or not they *want* to know one another. Otherwise I'll draw those connections as their backgrounds permit, or set up the first game session with the reason why they're all present.

It's all in the setup. But I have to approve all PC's and they get to approve any background ideas within the context of the game.

Player characters are exceptions to the flow of the normal universe practically by their nature. It isn't that they should outright break the internal consistency and lore of the game world, but a good PC definitely makes those squirm a bit.

I don't mind PCs who are way out of their normal element, but it adds a character creation requirement that they have a backstory which explains how this character wound up traveling 1000 miles+ in an era where most people only travel 20-30 miles in their lifetimes.

Quote from: Fheredin on October 05, 2023, 08:04:06 AM

I don't mind PCs who are way out of their normal element, but it adds a character creation requirement that they have a backstory which explains how this character wound up traveling 1000 miles+ in an era where most people only travel 20-30 miles in their lifetimes.

Yes, the barbarian 3,000 miles from home and now in a  pirate enclave on an island could have been kidnapped from his home shores and stuck rowing in a galley but broke free one night and swam ashore to where he is now.