D&D General I finally like non-Tolkien species for PCs

Well, if they have enough players for the campaign, they obviously sold it well enough!
This would be the point. If the idea has enough players, and I have turned away players just to keep the group size manageable, then it can go forward. I'm not saying DMs never target player preferences but when I do I gather that info before even starting a campaign and then present the campaign idea. I find if I'm really enthused about something that I will be a better DM and at least some players will want to engage that idea. I don't tend to try really weird stuff a lot.
I do not believe this follows.

People accept things for a variety of reasons. It is foolish in the extreme to pretend that because someone accepts something, they are therefore 100% happy with it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings are very well defined in the fantasy archetypal subconsciousness due to how prevelant they are in Tolkien and everything that came after; Humans are defined as being not defined by their species but generalists with tons of different cultures. Elves / Dwarves / Halflings tend to be 1-3 different subcultures in most genre fiction / TTRPGs, before they start to get either diluted or the setting becomes so distinct you need your own story bible to keep it straight.
What other Fantasy authors have you read, because your statements here are very specific to Tolkien (and unnamed writers you like?)

Also Tolkien was a scholar of mythologies and drew the races of his writings from mythological sources. Those same sources inspired ALL other Fantasy writers. It's important to put the horse before the cart if we mean to get anywhere

 


I do not believe this follows.

People accept things for a variety of reasons. It is foolish in the extreme to pretend that because someone accepts something, they are therefore 100% happy with it.

How are you going to measure this happiness percentage and how high it needs to be to be acceptable you? Like is 95% happy good enough?

It the players chose to play, then the campaign was successfully "sold" to them.
 

I do not believe this follows.

People accept things for a variety of reasons. It is foolish in the extreme to pretend that because someone accepts something, they are therefore 100% happy with it.
That may be true. They are acceptably happy with it. I've never played in a single campaign that I was 100% happy with but I also never have tried to get the DM to change the campaign for me. Now if a DM came to me and said he can't find any players, then I'd ask him what he is doing and offer advice. He could take it or leave it.
 

How are you going to measure this happiness percentage and how high it needs to be to be acceptable you? Like is 95% happy good enough?

It the players chose to play, then the campaign was successfully "sold" to them.
well you like to assume you've done so, and so long as they don't just start trying to re-negotiate any of the principle terms of the campaign concept.
 

I do not believe this follows.

People accept things for a variety of reasons. It is foolish in the extreme to pretend that because someone accepts something, they are therefore 100% happy with it.
Yea, but that's just how social things work. The minute two people have to choose one option for both of them, you're going to have a case where people aren't 100% happy.
 


Yea, but that's just how social things work. The minute two people have to choose one option for both of them, you're going to have a case where people aren't 100% happy.
I disagree.

I think it is quite possible for everyone to come to a mutually-pleasing agreement. There are many different ways to do that. Now, in rare cases it's not going to be possible, and it's important to figure out if that sort of thing might happen (rare as it might be) as soon as possible. But essentially all of the time, you drill down to what people truly care about, and build a way for everyone to get those things.
 

I disagree.

I think it is quite possible for everyone to come to a mutually-pleasing agreement. There are many different ways to do that. Now, in rare cases it's not going to be possible, and it's important to figure out if that sort of thing might happen (rare as it might be) as soon as possible. But essentially all of the time, you drill down to what people truly care about, and build a way for everyone to get those things.
A "mutually-pleasing agreement" is a far cry away from 100% happiness. We all routinely settle for things that are only moderately enjoyable for the sake of group consensus.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top