D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Chaosmancer]

Different people have different preferences. It's not an insult to not like something someone else likes.

But telling them you find the thing they like ridiculous can be insulting.

I don't like sweet food, like donuts. I always say to people "I find donuts too sweet." Because that is true, and it is why I don't eat them. I don't tell people "Donuts are disgusting and turn my stomach" because now it doesn't feel like I'm telling them what I prefer, but that the thing they like is bad.

So combining "I'd find it ridiculous" while comparing it to a cartoon, that does send a message of judgement, not a message of preference. Seems clear it wasn't your intent, since you seem to have said that you liked Zootopia, but of course, we don't know that. You might have hated the show for all we knew

 

[Maxperson]

I'm curious. How'd you decide that?

Well, the game is called Midgard. I'm guessing Vikings are default.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I swear, sometimes I think people are just looking for something to be upset by. You have your preferences, I have mine. I can't take a kitchen sink campaign seriously. Well, correct that. If there was a really cool story and justification behind it maybe. It could make sense in a planescape campaign for example.

I've never said kitchen sink campaigns were stupid or that people who liked them were dumb. People need to pursue their own bliss, kitchen sink campaigns are not mine. That's all.

And this is why I don't like responding one post at a time, because then I miss things that are said later and would change my response.

We aren't arguing that what you said was wrong, just that it didn't come across as you wanted it to

 

[ElRojo]

They live in a big city. That's why their player's ditched them. The players had other options to go to...
Me.

Had they lived in a small town, the player might have stuck around with them as DMs and not been happy. Or ditched D&D or rpgs altogether.

They aren't bad players either. They just had really bad settings they they couldn't find players willing to roleplay in.

One because he allowed too much and the setting made no sense.
The other because he allowed too little and the setting wasn't interesting to anyone he knew.

Tough luck for those two DMs.

I see you went with option #3: "Their campaign concept may have just outright sucked,..."

Totally called it.

The players can vote with their feet. That is the power they have.

But they are not the final authority at the table. The DM is.

I have never said that a DM has any right for potential players to actually like the game he wants to run.

That no one will want to play in some whacked ass campaign, has nothing to do with the fact that the DM is the Ultimate Authority at the table.

 

[prabe]

Well, the game is called Midgard. I'm guessing Vikings are default.

Well, yes, but I think Midgard is the broader world, but the Southlands is Egypt/Africa themed, and @Zardnaar specifically said it was Egypt themed.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, yes, but I think Midgard is the broader world, but the Southlands is Egypt/Africa themed, and @Zardnaar specifically said it was Egypt themed.

Vikings travelled. They made it to America, so why not Egypt. Samurai, not so much.

"In 859 a Viking fleet of 62 war ships invaded the Iberian (Spanish) coast and sacked Muslim Moorish Algeciras near Gibraltar. ... Vikings invaded Pisa in Italy and according to an Arab source, they reached Alexandria, Egypt."

 

[Monayuris]

The PHB can say anything it wants, the truth is that the DM has authority only with the permission of the group. The end.

If the group disagrees with the DM, it’s gonna be solved in the same way as pretty much any other disagreement in that group of people.

In my group, a person who tries to hold the fake authority of a game role over the heads of the whole group, in any context, gets laughingly told “no”, and that is pretty much the end of it. In other groups, there is a clear “strongest willed person” who speaks up and resolves the conflict. In another group, everyone may agree to abide by the rules of the game even if they think it’s stupid, while others may simply have an informal vote or other means of consensus.

Regardless of method, if the DM call stands in spite of a larger group consensus against it, it is only because the group has agreed to that circumstance.

I don't know what to tell you. That is not how it works for my group.

I have already mentioned that group dynamics get handled fine in my games. Everyone (DM included) is coming to the table in good faith with everyone's best interest in mind. Players and DMs come with new homebrew stuff they want to try, or tweaks to the rules, or they want to change up their character. It is reviewed and is normally not a problem. Even in the middle of games a player can state well "I think I should have succeeded at X because of Y". Often they're right and the ruling is changed.

But the ultimate authority is the DM.

This is something that I make clear in the Session 0. A player who feels they can not enjoy the game under that environment is free to not play.

When one of my players takes on the DM mantle and I become a player, I abide by the same rule and afford that DM the same authority. That DM is the final authority and I will always defer to their judgement. Even if I have my own idea on how something should work and even if the DM is in error on a ruling; that DM is the final authority of their game... it is not my place to correct them or tell them how they should do it.

I actually consider it rude to not confer the respect and authority to the person running the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wow, really? You are very lucky then.

When I tried running a Primeval Thule campaign with no full casters, the players lost their freaking minds. Gripe doesn't begin to describe the uphill battle I had trying to get that game off the ground.

That's a very specific idea though so yeah might not have mass appeal.

No Drow for example is a lot less specific. I'm thinking of running Rime of the Frostmaiden and gave told potential players if you've ever wanted to play a Drow this is the best it's ever gonna get.

 

[Zardnaar]

Vikings travelled. They made it to America, so why not Egypt. Samurai, not so much.

"In 859 a Viking fleet of 62 war ships invaded the Iberian (Spanish) coast and sacked Muslim Moorish Algeciras near Gibraltar. ... Vikings invaded Pisa in Italy and according to an Arab source, they reached Alexandria, Egypt."

Midgard has not Vikings. Not sure if it has not Samurai. As I said spent $300 on it so wanted to use it. That was the main reason.

Egypt game anthromorphic go for it btw ratfolk are also fine.

I would allow Vikings in Egypt but not ancient Egypt.

 

[prabe]

Vikings travelled. They made it to America, so why not Egypt. Samurai, not so much.

"In 859 a Viking fleet of 62 war ships invaded the Iberian (Spanish) coast and sacked Muslim Moorish Algeciras near Gibraltar. ... Vikings invaded Pisa in Italy and according to an Arab source, they reached Alexandria, Egypt."

If that's how @Zardnaar made the decision, that's cuper-cool, but the Chinese made it to the New World before Columbus--Chinese, IIRC, so not Samurai (as did the Vikings). I'm just curious about fitting weird things into a theme is all.