It is possible to play 1 to X without dieing. Seems like that possibility is being ignored.
Resurrection spell are allowed. Hello College of Creation Bard with True Resurrection.
Could only be an issue at low levels.
It's not being ignored.
I consider myself extremely fortunate that I've been in two D&D groups over the last 15 years. The current one is 7, the last one was 7. I am the absolute minority when it comes to stable D&D.
Again, going into probing questions now because your responses multiple times have been "everyone is being negative" when the reality is everyone sees a lot of negatives to this because of the social ramifications. Are you looking to play in this game or host it? Have players actively signed up for it as of yet? What are their initial thoughts? How is character creation working? Is there a 16 con wizard because of the meme of keeping the wizard alive till 5 and then everything turns out fine(and the fact that a wizard can be truly one shot by a long bow crit, no saves if they roll double 7s or 8s, assuming no dex modifiers?)
The flip side to this coin is I do see some value in the type of playstyle considering I'm stupid fond of roguelikes in video games and permadeath in video games, but those are single player experiences.
I do think some people are coming at you a bit too intense because of it, but I think the intent is to try and drive their point home about the social ramifications. Ultimately, we don't know your table and their mindsets. This could very well work and have people super invested and create dynamic roleplay moments. Or the dice just **** someone instantly and now they're out because the dice just didn't play fair on session 1.
This is actually something I've thought about using as a personal rule for myself when I get to be a player again. I kind of like my stakes being higher, and it means I can quash being tempted by my character backlog (at least to a degree). The problem is that for it to work, I probably couldn't tell the DM or other players, which I think is a bit of a breach of trust. On the other hand, I feel I should be able to pull the ripcord, so to speak, whenever I want. I just wonder if this is being too selfish for it to ever fly at a table.
The problem I think is that you are not separating the game to the story.
The game is a group of friends who gather round a table and play D&D. This is done because we enjoy each others company, and it's fun.
The Story is what you make when playing dnd, with your characters and such, and is the result of playing the Game. The Characters are not a representation of the person playing, they are a representation of their imagination. Your character isn't you, your character was made by you, breathed into life by you, and ultimately piloted to their death by you, but it is not you.
Permadeath of a character should, if you've played long enough and built up relations with the other players characters, be a dramatic and momentous occasion, and should be felt greatly in the Story - like Gandalf falling at the bridge. It should also be felt, to a lesser degree, in the Game, because the player who's character has died should feel some loss, and the other players should feel in some way about the character's death, but their death is a part of the Story - it is the end of the Character's story, but that does not mean it needs to be the end of the player's story. If you have a favourite character in a book, you don't stop reading when that character dies (except if you're reading game of thrones, it might make that series interesting if you treat it like a game...), you keep going to finish the story.
I feel that perhaps if permadeath of a character is not a big enough ramification for your table, then you will need to work more on getting the players attached to your character, rather than trusting that they are attached to you. The feeling of a player leaving the game is entirely divorced from the feeling of a character who dies in the story.
I am curious as to which you will be implementing, and how you expect it to work out; are you applying this to yourself, or are you the DM applying it to everyone?
Important things to ask:
If a couple of characters die, are there other players you can get to join the game?
If a player leaves, will another player follow? Will they sabotage the game so they can?
Will a griefer try to get someone else killed?
What happens if PVP arises?
Why would anyone sacrifice themselves (like Gandalf) if they have no investment in how the story continues? 90% of the heroic sacrifices I've encountered have been people who feel they are ready to develop a new character, not people who do so knowing they can never play the game again.
The only way I could see this sort of working would be a gaming club westmarches campaign where people are in a queue to join. 5 players out of 20 in the club are in this game, and when one dies, someone else in the club must take their place. People who die go to the bottom of the queue. That could work, because it becomes a big colalboration - you could even have the world affected by the oneshots and other campaigns running on other tables, if you plan it right. But it only works because it's not permanent, and there are already others to take the places.
Another thing to consider is the exposition - every time a new player joins, you will need to explain what has happened, where they are, what the world is like, do a session 0, establish their character, introduce them to the players, wait for the players to get used to each other and relax into roleplay, and so on. That's a lot of work when the original player would probably prefer to make a new character, already knows the table dynamic and so on, and can slip back into the game smoothly and easily, in a way that helps the Story keep going.
I'm personally against it, I don't think that the characters should have consequences for the players - it's a one-way street; players control characters, not the other way around.
All I have left to say is, when everyone is this unanimous in their opinions, it's generally for good reason.
Anyone can do what they like, and if they enjoy it then that's all that matters. But "Last Man Standing" is only good for games that last minutes so everyone can start fresh not long after they're booted. It's not well suited to normal D&D where a game can last for hours per session and have months or even years worth of sessions.
I really don't think this conversation has much steam left in it - what's there to be said has been said, and is persuasive or not - so I'm out. Hope the game goes well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I was already in a campaign when I started this tread. On the 4th of December after 7 months of online play, my character met his Death in Barovia. It was an unremarkable death. However, the party was able to win the encounter. Narrowly avoiding a TPK (Only 2 out of 5 survived). I expect that if the combat had gone on another round we would have TPK'ed. So despite only attacking twice his contribution was critical.
One thing I have noticed that it does force you as a player to put yourself out there and find new groups. So if that's something you have issues with it might be worth ago.
I was already in a campaign when I started this tread. On the 4th of December after 7 months of online play, my character met his Death in Barovia. It was an unremarkable death. However, the party was able to win the encounter. Narrowly avoiding a TPK (Only 2 out of 5 survived). I expect that if the combat had gone on another round we would have TPK'ed. So despite only attacking twice his contribution was critical.
One thing I have noticed that it does force you as a player to put yourself out there and find new groups. So if that's something you have issues with it might be worth ago.
IMHO, the style can be very different from what people are used to and it can be fun. I have also played in tournament games in which this is the style of play (sometimes there is 1-3 resurrections and sometimes none) but those games tend to be 4-6 sessions with if you are lucky 4 of those.
I have also played in games in which player think "I can do crazy" because if it does not work I will just get to make a new PC which maybe more optimized to the current situation then my old PC.
But as someone said above, when playing you are generally playing with friends or hopefully soon to be friends. Also the players are not the PC's and the PC's are not the players thus as a GM I try and step in a remind said player when they may drive their PC in an unusual direction and or say your PC thinks they have a small chance this will go well and possibly a large chance they will suffer for it.
I'm perfectly fine with this sort of play. I'm from video games where checkpoints are a given in all of the games I play, and having the sense of danger of character death grounds me in the tabletop more, as do all the things a lot of people tend to dislike such as the admin and number-crunching outside of combat. Should my character die I'd leave with the great memories I had and be on my way, wishing all the very best. Just because I don't play D&D with that group doesn't mean I can't play Darktide with them afterwards; we can still be friends, and we don't have to share the same hobbies or even campaigns. Maybe it's because I play exclusively online that my perception is different to many here. I'm used to losing contact with online friends after being absent from MMOs and such, and while I miss them I accept that life will go on.
None of this is to say I demand one-'n'-done of a DM. Session Zero is essential for setting expectations: if this is the sort of game where you're expected to roll up a new character upon death, I'll thank them for their time and leave if I was specifically looking for one-'n'-done. There's no point trying to convince them of my point of view, and them me. As far as I'm concerned as a player I am a guest, and I'm not about to tell the host how to run their game. I would expect the same courtesy of others were I to host/DM: if you're not interested in permadeath you need not apply. Granted, one-'n'-done is going to be an unpopular way of playing, but that's the risk I have to take if that's the sort of game I wish to run and waive any meaningful right to complain about not getting a group together.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Does anyone, or has anyone played a limit of one character sheet per player per campaign? Either imposed by the DM or an Individual Player?
Meaning that if a player dies and can't be resurrected the player leavers the table?
"I'm sorry, fellas. The Wizard accidentally cast Fireball in a small room. You all knows what happens next." Gunshots rang out through the night. It was then that they group realized how seriously and literally the DM took TPKs. There was no rolling for death saves anymore. The DM made sure that nobody was getting resurrected...
...Seriously though. What's the point of completely excluding someone, especially a close friend and a well-loved teammate, from continuing the game with someone else? I mean, I can imagine kicking someone out of the group for cheating and/or metagaming, but this is D&D. All sorts of silly shenanigans can cause someone to die. The Wizard can cast Fireball, and accidentally fry everyone. The Rogue could wind up pickpocketing the wrong guard. The Bard might find out why there are certain species that you don't roll to seduce. Sometimes, the situation just winds up not being in your favor, and you're gonna lose a character or two.
If the party gets rather abruptly cut in half, due to two of the party members getting cut in half, then instead of punishing the two remaining players with having to continue a four-person campaign by their lonesomes, and punishing the two who died with straight-up banishment, why not let the two survivors ask for help at a local tavern? A tavern that two newly-written adventurers just so happen to be visiting, mind you, both of whom would be more than happy to help the two survivors build up their strengths and take revenge on whatever killed the pair that got drawn and quartered. Turn the deaths into a new adventure, a new plot-hook, a new chapter. Don't turn it into a way to banish players and ruin friendships.
I was already in a campaign when I started this tread. On the 4th of December after 7 months of online play, my character met his Death in Barovia. It was an unremarkable death. However, the party was able to win the encounter. Narrowly avoiding a TPK (Only 2 out of 5 survived). I expect that if the combat had gone on another round we would have TPK'ed. So despite only attacking twice his contribution was critical.
One thing I have noticed that it does force you as a player to put yourself out there and find new groups. So if that's something you have issues with it might be worth ago.
So those two players are continuing the game and the other three players are out, then?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Does the table recruit a new player? Or do you just have a dwindling party of PCs going on until it's just the DM and one other player eventually?
If you recruit new players, how is this an improvement over having a player create a new cahracter and staying at the table?
I feel like the former would just fall apart over time. The latter might work under certain circumstances but still feels to me like the cons outweigh any benefits here.
It might work in a storyline for a sort of salt marsh esque setting where you have a bunch of players in a pool without pre defined parties. But for an actual campaign that could take months or even years to finish, it seems like it'd be more problematic.
D&D for me is about more than just the game, it's the friends and people you're playing with. Sure you can do other things with your friends if you die and get the boot but...the limitation feels entirely artificial and forced to me. What is the benefit to doing this instead of making a new character and continuing to enjoy THIS activity with your friends?
In the time I've been playing D&D it's rare that a whole campaign goes from 1 to X without a few replacements. It's just the reality of being an adult. People have kids, move, get married, get divorced, start demanding jobs, need to find the time for family commitments. Though I expect there will be a few people reading this who been playing with the same group for decades.
Being the player who leaves, gives you an opportunity to meet new people, play that character again in a new campaign.
I probably wouldn't recommend playing this way in EVERY game you play. But if you've got multiple games already it does broaden your horizons a bit.
I've noted that a lot of people who've read this think it's social non-conducive way to play. If you stop talking to your game-mates for ever then yeah it would be, you can still keep talking with them. I'm not in the been playing for same group for decades group, could always skip a campaign and come back for next. Maybe meet some people from different groups and play together.
Yes, adults don't have all the time in the world. Which is another reason this feels odd to me. That adult now has to find ANOTHER group that lines up with their schedule to keep playing which isn't always easy. If they're invested in that campaign, they may want to stick around and see how it ends.
And if they are friends with the group, maybe this is the one time a week they have. Maybe they don't have TIME to also play darksiders or wahtever.
If people enjoy this then that's fine, but it feels like this would be appealing to very specific circumstances. Like, you're using D&D to meet new people but not as a means to long term hang out with them? I don't go into a new D&D game to play FFXIV or Halo with them. If that happens then great but I go into the game to play D&D with them, as that is the assumed common interest. 'Skip a campaign and come back for the next' also only works for short campaigns. If a campaign lasts for a year or two and you die in the first few months, then that is a LONG time to wait to play with those people again.
I feel that there's a level of irony here. The point of One-n-Done seems to be that it gets you to invest in the character more, but the result is that you're investing less in the actual people around the table.
I get it that people play for different reasons, but if I just wanted to invest in a character I'd play a video game. If for some reason I wanted people to watch me invest in a character, I guess I could play on Twitch or Youtube. Not every game is going to have a great set of people around the table, but any game could. And building those relationships - having fun with those real people - is more important to me than building my relationship with my imaginary elf.
And I'll say again what I said months ago - there are better ways to make people care about their characters. Google it. Many bright and talented people have tackled that challenge and come up with solutions that don't require you to be a social drifter.
It's not being ignored.
I consider myself extremely fortunate that I've been in two D&D groups over the last 15 years. The current one is 7, the last one was 7. I am the absolute minority when it comes to stable D&D.
Again, going into probing questions now because your responses multiple times have been "everyone is being negative" when the reality is everyone sees a lot of negatives to this because of the social ramifications. Are you looking to play in this game or host it? Have players actively signed up for it as of yet? What are their initial thoughts? How is character creation working? Is there a 16 con wizard because of the meme of keeping the wizard alive till 5 and then everything turns out fine(and the fact that a wizard can be truly one shot by a long bow crit, no saves if they roll double 7s or 8s, assuming no dex modifiers?)
The flip side to this coin is I do see some value in the type of playstyle considering I'm stupid fond of roguelikes in video games and permadeath in video games, but those are single player experiences.
I do think some people are coming at you a bit too intense because of it, but I think the intent is to try and drive their point home about the social ramifications. Ultimately, we don't know your table and their mindsets. This could very well work and have people super invested and create dynamic roleplay moments. Or the dice just **** someone instantly and now they're out because the dice just didn't play fair on session 1.
This is actually something I've thought about using as a personal rule for myself when I get to be a player again. I kind of like my stakes being higher, and it means I can quash being tempted by my character backlog (at least to a degree). The problem is that for it to work, I probably couldn't tell the DM or other players, which I think is a bit of a breach of trust. On the other hand, I feel I should be able to pull the ripcord, so to speak, whenever I want. I just wonder if this is being too selfish for it to ever fly at a table.
The problem I think is that you are not separating the game to the story.
The game is a group of friends who gather round a table and play D&D. This is done because we enjoy each others company, and it's fun.
The Story is what you make when playing dnd, with your characters and such, and is the result of playing the Game. The Characters are not a representation of the person playing, they are a representation of their imagination. Your character isn't you, your character was made by you, breathed into life by you, and ultimately piloted to their death by you, but it is not you.
Permadeath of a character should, if you've played long enough and built up relations with the other players characters, be a dramatic and momentous occasion, and should be felt greatly in the Story - like Gandalf falling at the bridge. It should also be felt, to a lesser degree, in the Game, because the player who's character has died should feel some loss, and the other players should feel in some way about the character's death, but their death is a part of the Story - it is the end of the Character's story, but that does not mean it needs to be the end of the player's story. If you have a favourite character in a book, you don't stop reading when that character dies (except if you're reading game of thrones, it might make that series interesting if you treat it like a game...), you keep going to finish the story.
I feel that perhaps if permadeath of a character is not a big enough ramification for your table, then you will need to work more on getting the players attached to your character, rather than trusting that they are attached to you. The feeling of a player leaving the game is entirely divorced from the feeling of a character who dies in the story.
I am curious as to which you will be implementing, and how you expect it to work out; are you applying this to yourself, or are you the DM applying it to everyone?
Important things to ask:
The only way I could see this sort of working would be a gaming club westmarches campaign where people are in a queue to join. 5 players out of 20 in the club are in this game, and when one dies, someone else in the club must take their place. People who die go to the bottom of the queue. That could work, because it becomes a big colalboration - you could even have the world affected by the oneshots and other campaigns running on other tables, if you plan it right. But it only works because it's not permanent, and there are already others to take the places.
Another thing to consider is the exposition - every time a new player joins, you will need to explain what has happened, where they are, what the world is like, do a session 0, establish their character, introduce them to the players, wait for the players to get used to each other and relax into roleplay, and so on. That's a lot of work when the original player would probably prefer to make a new character, already knows the table dynamic and so on, and can slip back into the game smoothly and easily, in a way that helps the Story keep going.
I'm personally against it, I don't think that the characters should have consequences for the players - it's a one-way street; players control characters, not the other way around.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
All I have left to say is, when everyone is this unanimous in their opinions, it's generally for good reason.
Anyone can do what they like, and if they enjoy it then that's all that matters. But "Last Man Standing" is only good for games that last minutes so everyone can start fresh not long after they're booted. It's not well suited to normal D&D where a game can last for hours per session and have months or even years worth of sessions.
I really don't think this conversation has much steam left in it - what's there to be said has been said, and is persuasive or not - so I'm out. Hope the game goes well.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well I did it. One N' Done.
I was already in a campaign when I started this tread. On the 4th of December after 7 months of online play, my character met his Death in Barovia. It was an unremarkable death. However, the party was able to win the encounter. Narrowly avoiding a TPK (Only 2 out of 5 survived). I expect that if the combat had gone on another round we would have TPK'ed. So despite only attacking twice his contribution was critical.
One thing I have noticed that it does force you as a player to put yourself out there and find new groups. So if that's something you have issues with it might be worth ago.
IMHO, the style can be very different from what people are used to and it can be fun. I have also played in tournament games in which this is the style of play (sometimes there is 1-3 resurrections and sometimes none) but those games tend to be 4-6 sessions with if you are lucky 4 of those.
I have also played in games in which player think "I can do crazy" because if it does not work I will just get to make a new PC which maybe more optimized to the current situation then my old PC.
But as someone said above, when playing you are generally playing with friends or hopefully soon to be friends. Also the players are not the PC's and the PC's are not the players thus as a GM I try and step in a remind said player when they may drive their PC in an unusual direction and or say your PC thinks they have a small chance this will go well and possibly a large chance they will suffer for it.
I'm perfectly fine with this sort of play. I'm from video games where checkpoints are a given in all of the games I play, and having the sense of danger of character death grounds me in the tabletop more, as do all the things a lot of people tend to dislike such as the admin and number-crunching outside of combat. Should my character die I'd leave with the great memories I had and be on my way, wishing all the very best. Just because I don't play D&D with that group doesn't mean I can't play Darktide with them afterwards; we can still be friends, and we don't have to share the same hobbies or even campaigns. Maybe it's because I play exclusively online that my perception is different to many here. I'm used to losing contact with online friends after being absent from MMOs and such, and while I miss them I accept that life will go on.
None of this is to say I demand one-'n'-done of a DM. Session Zero is essential for setting expectations: if this is the sort of game where you're expected to roll up a new character upon death, I'll thank them for their time and leave if I was specifically looking for one-'n'-done. There's no point trying to convince them of my point of view, and them me. As far as I'm concerned as a player I am a guest, and I'm not about to tell the host how to run their game. I would expect the same courtesy of others were I to host/DM: if you're not interested in permadeath you need not apply. Granted, one-'n'-done is going to be an unpopular way of playing, but that's the risk I have to take if that's the sort of game I wish to run and waive any meaningful right to complain about not getting a group together.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
"I'm sorry, fellas. The Wizard accidentally cast Fireball in a small room. You all knows what happens next."
Gunshots rang out through the night. It was then that they group realized how seriously and literally the DM took TPKs.
There was no rolling for death saves anymore. The DM made sure that nobody was getting resurrected...
...Seriously though. What's the point of completely excluding someone, especially a close friend and a well-loved teammate, from continuing the game with someone else? I mean, I can imagine kicking someone out of the group for cheating and/or metagaming, but this is D&D. All sorts of silly shenanigans can cause someone to die. The Wizard can cast Fireball, and accidentally fry everyone. The Rogue could wind up pickpocketing the wrong guard. The Bard might find out why there are certain species that you don't roll to seduce. Sometimes, the situation just winds up not being in your favor, and you're gonna lose a character or two.
If the party gets rather abruptly cut in half, due to two of the party members getting cut in half, then instead of punishing the two remaining players with having to continue a four-person campaign by their lonesomes, and punishing the two who died with straight-up banishment, why not let the two survivors ask for help at a local tavern? A tavern that two newly-written adventurers just so happen to be visiting, mind you, both of whom would be more than happy to help the two survivors build up their strengths and take revenge on whatever killed the pair that got drawn and quartered. Turn the deaths into a new adventure, a new plot-hook, a new chapter. Don't turn it into a way to banish players and ruin friendships.
So those two players are continuing the game and the other three players are out, then?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm the only 1 who left playing one'n'done.
The group is carrying on
So what happens exactly when player A dies?
Does the table recruit a new player? Or do you just have a dwindling party of PCs going on until it's just the DM and one other player eventually?
If you recruit new players, how is this an improvement over having a player create a new cahracter and staying at the table?
I feel like the former would just fall apart over time. The latter might work under certain circumstances but still feels to me like the cons outweigh any benefits here.
It might work in a storyline for a sort of salt marsh esque setting where you have a bunch of players in a pool without pre defined parties. But for an actual campaign that could take months or even years to finish, it seems like it'd be more problematic.
D&D for me is about more than just the game, it's the friends and people you're playing with. Sure you can do other things with your friends if you die and get the boot but...the limitation feels entirely artificial and forced to me. What is the benefit to doing this instead of making a new character and continuing to enjoy THIS activity with your friends?
The party replaces a player.
In the time I've been playing D&D it's rare that a whole campaign goes from 1 to X without a few replacements. It's just the reality of being an adult. People have kids, move, get married, get divorced, start demanding jobs, need to find the time for family commitments. Though I expect there will be a few people reading this who been playing with the same group for decades.
Being the player who leaves, gives you an opportunity to meet new people, play that character again in a new campaign.
I probably wouldn't recommend playing this way in EVERY game you play. But if you've got multiple games already it does broaden your horizons a bit.
I've noted that a lot of people who've read this think it's social non-conducive way to play. If you stop talking to your game-mates for ever then yeah it would be, you can still keep talking with them. I'm not in the been playing for same group for decades group, could always skip a campaign and come back for next. Maybe meet some people from different groups and play together.
Yes, adults don't have all the time in the world. Which is another reason this feels odd to me. That adult now has to find ANOTHER group that lines up with their schedule to keep playing which isn't always easy. If they're invested in that campaign, they may want to stick around and see how it ends.
And if they are friends with the group, maybe this is the one time a week they have. Maybe they don't have TIME to also play darksiders or wahtever.
If people enjoy this then that's fine, but it feels like this would be appealing to very specific circumstances. Like, you're using D&D to meet new people but not as a means to long term hang out with them? I don't go into a new D&D game to play FFXIV or Halo with them. If that happens then great but I go into the game to play D&D with them, as that is the assumed common interest. 'Skip a campaign and come back for the next' also only works for short campaigns. If a campaign lasts for a year or two and you die in the first few months, then that is a LONG time to wait to play with those people again.
So you were the only one the One&Done rules applied to? Everyone else made new characters?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes I was the only one with a self imposed limit on character sheets
I feel that there's a level of irony here. The point of One-n-Done seems to be that it gets you to invest in the character more, but the result is that you're investing less in the actual people around the table.
I get it that people play for different reasons, but if I just wanted to invest in a character I'd play a video game. If for some reason I wanted people to watch me invest in a character, I guess I could play on Twitch or Youtube. Not every game is going to have a great set of people around the table, but any game could. And building those relationships - having fun with those real people - is more important to me than building my relationship with my imaginary elf.
And I'll say again what I said months ago - there are better ways to make people care about their characters. Google it. Many bright and talented people have tackled that challenge and come up with solutions that don't require you to be a social drifter.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm