Strangers in a Strange Land

From the AD&D PHB, page 34:

In AD&D, it is presumed that "in all likelihood", the player character is unfamiliar with the campaign setting. They are a stranger in a strange land, and must work from the get-go to familiarize themselves with their environment.

It is also worth mentioning that players are expected to name an heir or next of kin to inherit their possessions should they die. This certainly isn't a new idea to me, and I'm sure plenty of old school games were filled with siblings and children of dead player characters who were eerily similar to the recently deceased. Yet, it feels like this doesn't get nearly enough attention in play. Player characters are assumed to have families, but too often, they are played as if they're purely individuals.

According to the DMG, player characters might have one or two "non-professional" skills (i.e., those unrelated to their training in a particular class). These represent those skills acquired "from early years or incidentally picked up" during their training:

Add to it that player character starting money intended to represent an inheritance or savings:

This to me suggests that, while player characters are exceptional (and thus fit to adventure), they also get their start as ordinary people. They have jobs and families. They give those things up to travel to a place they don't know, to adventure and seek treasure. This could be intentional - saving up every silver to someday embark on this adventure - or incidental - perhaps the character is the fifth son of some noble and happened to inherit a small windfall of cash. Either way, they leave their old life behind to seek their fortune.

But not exactly, because they also name someone from their family to inherit their belongings when they die. The connection is still there. I could be reading too much into it, drawing a link where none exists, but it almost sounds like adventurers leave their families to delve dungeons and battle dragons the same way immigrant workers come to America to support their families back home.

Or maybe not. Gygax is very thorough in detailing all of the expenses player characters must pay, and supporting a dependent family is not one of them. Maybe adventures are just deadbeat parents?

Continuing on with the PHB, under ESTABLISHING THE CHARACTER:

In this strange new land, the player character must first negotiate with a guard to gain entry into the settlement. Surely this interaction will be appropriately expensive and irritating. Likely, the character will need to dip into their life savings to pay some sort of gate fee to enter. 

Then the player character will need to find a place to live and sleep. In a town there might be one inn, or in a city, several - in a village or smaller settlement, the character will probably need to sleep in a barn or stable, or convince a homesteader to put them up somewhere else. Since the character will be known to all as an adventurer and assumed to be dragging unimaginable wealth from the depths of the nearby dungeon and storing it in such a place, that place must be secure. It is assumed that there will be unsavory types looking to rob the player character. I can't imagine many villagers wanting to house someone like that unless they anticipate a considerable upside (or plan to rob the adventurer themselves).

Finally, the player character can begin asking around to learn about the place to which they've come - including where to buy equipment and find other player characters with which to adventure.

It reads more like the opening scene of a movie than like the first session of a D&D campaign. If a campaign features a party of five player characters who are all just starting to adventure, is this same scene meant to be played out with each of them in turn? It seems laborious. 

I personally prefer to start my campaigns with the characters having met and already decided which adventure they'll embark on first. Others may even begin play with the characters at the entrance to the first dungeon - although I think this misses out on the fun of trekking across the deadly wilderness to get there. I had never considered starting a campaign with this level of detail, though it does sound fairly interesting/immersive to play out this scene if, for example, I had just a single player.

The final paragraph in this section even accounts for this, explaining that a lone player character - alone either because there are no others available or because those available "are not co-operative" (how quaint!) - may seek out men-at-arms or even henchmen:

This all stands somewhat in contrast to what is later written in the DMG under THE CAMPAIGN:

Here is is instead suggested that the DM "hard frame" the scene when beginning play - the characters have already met and chosen to adventure together. They are familiar with common knowledge of the area, but Gygax reiterates that otherwise "they know nothing of the world".

I think the advice in the DMG is much more practical than what the PHB tells players to expect. I don't think there's any hard and fast "rule" to follow here - even the presumption that the player characters know nothing (or very little) of the play area when the campaign begins seems flawed and will probably vary from one game to another. Take it or leave it as you see fit.