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

[Maxperson]

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.

Yeah. I'm just guessing here. No idea how he came to his conclusion.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Na Midgard has not Vikings and plot hooks. It was one of the other options I offered but they chose Egypt theme.

I wouldn't allow Vikings in an ancient Egypt homebrew but did on Midgard as both cultures exist same time.

This time around they chose happy pirates over Eberron, Vikings, Midgard, and generic FR.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah. I'm just guessing here. No idea how he came to his conclusion.

Real life money spent on gameworld. Players didn't object to much here's another 50 archetypes and 20 races to pick from.

My players get input on the theme, that theme always has generic D&D as option.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Never said the DM lacks the Final Utimate Authority of how the setting looks.

My point is if the DM can't sell their setting, what it allows, and what it doesn't allow, some players may not join.

I seen many people claim this then get all twisted if people say their setting seems boring or uniteresting. Becuase this is the internet and you mu might reach people of different tastes. Some people aren't used to that because a player never walked away from their table with real criticisms of their setting before.

As D&D grows, the percentage of fans who don't like what you like will grow and grow. Some people haven't figured that out. Other people don't like that is happening. Happens in every fan community that grows and widens.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If a player disagrees we discuss it. But the DM puts far more work into the campaign than the players do and they always makes the final call. Someone has to have final say and that's the DM no matter what side of the DM screen I'm on. If a player tried to bully me into changing my mind they could find another game.

Don't like it? Find a different DM or start your own game. The only people who ever had a problem with this in my game was one guy that wanted to play a half vampire half dragon and another that wanted to play an evil character, something I explicitly do not allow.

On one hand, I get the idea that you feel like you invested the most into the game, therefore you get to make the calls.

On the other hand, if you are in a "traditional" family. The Father is the breadwinner and makes all the money. That does not mean he gets to dictate what food and entertainment is allowed in the house, simply because he has the biggest paycheck.

You agreed to put in that extra work. That was your choice. And using that to hold over the other people at the table is just... something I don't understand.

And, just to think through an example. I have only watched a little of Season 2 of Critical Role, but I remember that Liam O'Brian's character had a backstory involving an evil wizard syndicate training brainwashed soldiers for the empire, in secret. Do you suppose that Mercer had that organization completely built and ready to go, and just Liam who played major parts in his backstory, and that this backstory was even an option? Or do you suppose that Liam had an idea and went to Matt, and they talked through it and found not only a thing that MAtt had sketched out, but then Matt allowed Liam to add detail work and build upon it?

Thinking about season 1, there is every possibility that the country of Draconia was developed by Tiberius's player, because when I found him after he had left the show on youtube, he seemed to be working on a story titled "The Knights of Draconia" . The Asheri and the Arementai was probably developed by Marisha. Whitestone by Talisen.


And I'm not saying every DM can or should do this, but I think it is very telling that there is a middle ground. Players can world build too. This conversation very much is painting the idea that the DM does everything to make the world, and the players build characters in it, and then affect the world afterwards. But other tables let the Players assist in the worldbuilding. To collaborate with the DM. And that isn't a bad thing, and it certainly seems like something a player who is very dedicated to a passionate idea might be more than willing to do.

 

[Mecheon]

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

Or, hot take: D&D is a mutual experience between various people, each with expectations. There's no authority in this. It should be an experience built on through that mutual aspect. If your players want to play in a thief-y heist game, then you're going to offer a campaign along those lines where that will be factored in. Its mutual, not declaring one person the authority and the players shambling along behind him.

There is no 'final' authority. The DM has authority based in them by the players and the expectations not to breach that.

 

[ElRojo]

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

This is the big bad internet.

People have opinions that are different than yours.

Rule 1:
Never take anything personally.

I don't know them, they sure as hell don't know me.

People will judge, they will insult.

So what.

Like water off a ducks back brother.


Rule 2::

Always assume no negative intent unless it is very explicit.

The written word can be horrible at conveying tone and inflection.

Especially when people are typing out reply's on the fly.

 

[ElRojo]

.... Its mutual, not declaring one person the authority and the players shambling along behind him. ...

The players do not have to shamble along anywhere they do not want.

They can vote with their feet.

....There is no 'final' authority. The DM has authority based in them by the players and the expectations not to breach that.

No, the DM is the final authority.

His word is law.

The players choose to place themselves under that authority because they trust that the DM will not be an asshat, and deliver a great gaming experience.

A DM can then proceed to breach the players trust, and be an asshat.

The players can leave if they don't like it, (they should!) and the DM can go pound sand.

...
You agreed to put in that extra work. That was your choice. And using that to hold over the other people at the table is just... something I don't understand.
...

Wait. What!? No one is holding anything over anyone's head. Everyone at the gaming table is there because they chose to be.

...other tables let the Players assist in the worldbuilding. To collaborate with the DM. ...

Functional gaming groups have a lot of trust, and good communication. No one stays in a group if they are constantly arguing over rules and the game world. (Or at least they shouldn't! Why would anyone do that?)

Establishing expectations and a willingness to collaborate with players on campaign ideas/details, has nothing to do with who gets to make the final call at the table during the game.

During the game the DM wears the viking hat, and wields the ban hammer.

Good DM's exercise righteous dominion.

Bad ones have no players.

 

[ElRojo]

...
My point is if the DM can't sell their setting, what it allows, and what it doesn't allow, some players may not join.
...

This is the normal state of affairs since the beginning of the hobby.. Always has been.

Seems we might be saying the same thing in different ways and talking past each other.

 

[Zardnaar]

On one hand, I get the idea that you feel like you invested the most into the game, therefore you get to make the calls.

On the other hand, if you are in a "traditional" family. The Father is the breadwinner and makes all the money. That does not mean he gets to dictate what food and entertainment is allowed in the house, simply because he has the biggest paycheck.

You agreed to put in that extra work. That was your choice. And using that to hold over the other people at the table is just... something I don't understand.

And, just to think through an example. I have only watched a little of Season 2 of Critical Role, but I remember that Liam O'Brian's character had a backstory involving an evil wizard syndicate training brainwashed soldiers for the empire, in secret. Do you suppose that Mercer had that organization completely built and ready to go, and just Liam who played major parts in his backstory, and that this backstory was even an option? Or do you suppose that Liam had an idea and went to Matt, and they talked through it and found not only a thing that MAtt had sketched out, but then Matt allowed Liam to add detail work and build upon it?

Thinking about season 1, there is every possibility that the country of Draconia was developed by Tiberius's player, because when I found him after he had left the show on youtube, he seemed to be working on a story titled "The Knights of Draconia" . The Asheri and the Arementai was probably developed by Marisha. Whitestone by Talisen.


And I'm not saying every DM can or should do this, but I think it is very telling that there is a middle ground. Players can world build too. This conversation very much is painting the idea that the DM does everything to make the world, and the players build characters in it, and then affect the world afterwards. But other tables let the Players assist in the worldbuilding. To collaborate with the DM. And that isn't a bad thing, and it certainly seems like something a player who is very dedicated to a passionate idea might be more than willing to do.

Actually the person earning the money does get to make that choice espicially if they're buying the food.

They might delegate by giving money to whoever and they can buy the food but ultimately the father (or whoever earns the money really) does get to make that decision.