In historical settings, where status matters more, it just highlights the adaptability and agency of the character by how they work limitations and challenges. It also informs on their identity, as with so little to lose they can impress upon the audience how they are different or special.
I always thought and measured scenes by how much it showed the characters agency.
Agency and how a character defines his identity by the color of their actions, intentions, and objectives.
Looking at the DnD model of race, class, and role in character creation, I realize I cannot compete with that model in simplicity and how it captures the audience. It does it in a way that is so embedded with implied personal self identification.
Its just such a turn-off to decide to be a slave, serf, peasant, townsman, Warrior, clergy, vs the elite in comparison.
When playing a non elite it's about having agency what makes it interesting to me .In contrast being an elite it's about having no agency - doing everything to maintain status quo and raising it.
It's not impressive to play a game where character comes from mediocre background, with no messianic attributes of how special a character is. There is no great prophecy or destiny - there is shit and the agency to outwit, work through, or compromise with shit.
Maybe people will like it because if I work with this baseline, like a shepherds tone, I can make something great with out escalating. More importantly an awareness (availability cascades or denning Kruger effect) of great challenges, tragedy, and sacrifice in one's surroundings. Thus appreciate something that would have been otherwise overlooked after emerging from the distraction of play.