D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

[prosfilaes]

You are reaching no one is saying players who vote with their feet are bad people.

Then you are reading the sentence I quoted differently from me.

Why do people take things to the extreme there is a difference between trying to build a gaming world that is not the same as every other freaking world out there and being over protective off the world.

Right, because banning exactly the races in 5E that weren't in 1E is making a world that's not the same as every other world out there. If more of these arguments were about people not allowing dwarves instead of people not allowing ifrit or dragonborn, I'd be more convinced that they were building a gaming world that is not the same as every other freaking world out there.

Your comment of I will talk to the other players and take them with me almost sounds like blackmail the my way or the highway that you say you dislike so much.

How does it sound like blackmail? Why shouldn't I convince my friends who play with me at my house on Tuesday nights to play a game that I would enjoy? I'm not taking them with me; we're just deciding who should be the DM.

I would not want to play with a group of players who would force me to deal with an unreasonable player who was ruining my fun at the table to the point that I would want them to leave.

Great, go ahead and abandon what you've been doing on Tuesday nights for a decade, because it's more important to you to control the game then work out a solution with your players. Some groups are friends first and DM and players second. Sometimes players leaving is not a solution, and sometimes a DM would find that the player staying was not to their advantage.

No one here is advocating for unreasonable rules and draconian DMs.

You don't believe you're being unreasonable. I'm shocked.

 

[prosfilaes]

I am skeptical of players who can't find a PC to play out of 400 choices and just have to play what the DM has banned otherwise their fun is compromised. Because they don't sound very creative to me

Players are uncreative if they can't make something that works in the DM's world, but DMs aren't uncreative if they can't find something that works with the PCs.

I don't understand why a DM tailoring the game to fit the setting they are running equals being controlling and taking all the players freedom away.

As I said, Kenneth Hite found the time to offer his players four settings instead of just informing his players of what setting they were playing. At least some of this problem is mitigated when the DM works with the players to find a setting that works for them, instead of unilaterally declaring what setting is being played in.

 

[Sadras]

Gaming is about multilateral consent. If my wants aren't met, why should I play?

Or I tell the owner of the table and the other people in my group that maybe we should play someone else's game on these nights. I've got a bunch of ideas, but if someone else wants to run things I'd be happy to do that. If we have to go head to head like this, I think the DM should be careful to make sure that it's actually their table and their group first. My way or the highway doesn't really go well if it's not your house or the players have no interest in playing without the person the DM is kicking out.

Edit: Or, from another direction, my wants aren't met, but I'm not going to abandon my friends in my Tuesday night game. So I continue to come, but a little more grumpy and paying a little less attention. And it turns out that while I don't have the social weight to force your hand, you don't have the social weight to kick me out without possibly losing the entire group. And so it goes, everyone a little less happy because we focused on who was entitled to what instead of all working together.

To be clear, are we talking about a house-ruling made in game or limitations upon character creation? Secondly, if everyone else is enjoying it but your needs are not met why would you want to sour your friends' fun? What you are suggesting sounds like quite a dick move, I could me completely mistaken, but that is how I understood it considering that you stated "my wants are not met" and not "our wants are not met."


Generally, if I'm not having fun a table: I discuss the issue with the rest of the players so see if I'm alone in this experience or if the feeling is mutual. If it is mutual I would then broach the conversation privately with the DM. If it is just me, I'd either hang in there till the campaign ends or politely excuse myself from the group. And it matters not whose house it is as it doesn't establish one the right to be dickish or not, IMO.

As I said, Kenneth Hite found the time to offer his players four settings instead of just informing his players of what setting they were playing. At least some of this problem is mitigated when the DM works with the players to find a setting that works for them, instead of unilaterally declaring what setting is being played in.

Funny enough I recently did this, but, I come from a group where no one else would like to DM or cannot DM as consistently to meet the needs of the group, so sadly the mantle usually falls on my shoulders. If I'm going to take the time out to prep adventures and ensure everyone is having a good time - I don't always have to offer such options to the players - since the weight of DMing falls on me everytime, I might want to run something easy and simple, so should I decide to leave out half the races, spells, levels, feats... or offer only one setting, time frame.... with certain houserules or only use this particular edition that is my prerogative as the only reliable DM in the group. So yeah, I'm not willing to take any criticism on that front...as I would love to have the ease of playing.

And just to clarify, I do work with the players, a lot, - please do not view this minor rant as me being some kind of power-hogging DM extremist with no flexible bone in his body. So no strawmen please.

 

[prosfilaes]

Secondly, if everyone else is enjoying it but your needs are not met why would you want to sour your friends' fun? What you are suggesting sounds like quite a dick move, I could me completely mistaken, but that is how I understood it considering that you stated "my wants are not met" and not "our wants are not met."

What am I supposed to do? I'm not going to stop meeting my friends every Tuesday. You demanded I play a cleric, so I stopped arguing and I played a cleric. Now you're complaining that I'm not being enthused enough about how I play the cleric? It's not a "move"; it's the natural consequences of me acquiescing to the DM's demands made with the implied threat that I wouldn't get to see my friends regularly if I didn't go along.

And it matters not whose house it is

So being a DM now gives you a right to use the physical property of people who aren't playing? I was told that if I don't want to play the DM's game, I should find my own table; I find that an outrageous idea if I own the table.

 

[Sadras]

What am I supposed to do? I'm not going to stop meeting my friends every Tuesday. You demanded I play a cleric, so I stopped arguing and I played a cleric. Now you're complaining that I'm not being enthused enough about how I play the cleric? It's not a "move"; it's the natural consequences of me acquiescing to the DM's demands made with the implied threat that I wouldn't get to see my friends regularly if I didn't go along.
So being a DM now gives you a right to use the physical property of people who aren't playing? I was told that if I don't want to play the DM's game, I should find my own table; I find that an outrageous idea if I own the table.

My apologies. Good grief, you seem to have situation where the DM, from what you have described, is utterly horrible. I could ask numerous questions to get completely clarity to how you got to this point, if these were pregen characters...etc but instead, taking your post as gospel, the only thing I can suggest is that you bring this up at the table in front of everyone and just have a frank logical discussion about your dissatisfaction with general playstyle of this current campaign. I would expect your friends to understand and offer some valuable input into the conversation and perhaps an amicable solution can be reached.
Because continuing down this path of apathy and resentment will only make things worse both for you and the DM. Perhaps the current DM requires experience which he can earn by watching the ways of a better DM being at the head or perhaps he needs to change his playstyle to fit the groups - but ruining each others game is not worth it.

 

[Khaalis]

Wow, all I have to say here is one simple statement that covers my entire view and attitude towards those whom it doesn't fit.

D&D is a game of collaborative storytelling where the DM's ONLY job is to be an advocate of the players by finding reasonable ways to say YES in ways that makes the story interesting rather than trying to be the PCs' adversary.

'Nuff said.

 

[Elf Witch]

Then you are reading the sentence I quoted differently from me.



Right, because banning exactly the races in 5E that weren't in 1E is making a world that's not the same as every other world out there. If more of these arguments were about people not allowing dwarves instead of people not allowing ifrit or dragonborn, I'd be more convinced that they were building a gaming world that is not the same as every other freaking world out there.



How does it sound like blackmail? Why shouldn't I convince my friends who play with me at my house on Tuesday nights to play a game that I would enjoy? I'm not taking them with me; we're just deciding who should be the DM.



Great, go ahead and abandon what you've been doing on Tuesday nights for a decade, because it's more important to you to control the game then work out a solution with your players. Some groups are friends first and DM and players second. Sometimes players leaving is not a solution, and sometimes a DM would find that the player staying was not to their advantage.



You don't believe you're being unreasonable. I'm shocked.

Players are uncreative if they can't make something that works in the DM's world, but DMs aren't uncreative if they can't find something that works with the PCs.



As I said, Kenneth Hite found the time to offer his players four settings instead of just informing his players of what setting they were playing. At least some of this problem is mitigated when the DM works with the players to find a setting that works for them, instead of unilaterally declaring what setting is being played in.

You do understand that the entire point of 5E it to allow the playstyle of the editions that came before? To allow groups to tailor the game to fit their prefrences and for some that does not mean elves, dwarves, humans and halflings.

I ban races for flavor in a setting. Like I said I banned dwarves and the dragonborn I use is from Races of Dragons. In most of 3.5 games I ban the paladin from the pHB and use the prestige paladin from unearthed arcana and I use the ranger from a third party book.

What if your friends don't want to play what you want to what do you do? Do you say play elsewhere? That of course is fair it is your house but I would be wary if you pulled that a lot because then it becomes either do it my way or get out. And that is blackmail.

I am not saying just abandon a game but I have a question for you why you choose to abandon a game simply because the DM has banned a few things out of a hundred? Are you telling me that if he hates efrit but the rest of the game is good you will be unhappy and not be willing to go ahead and play over this one thing?

Well since I have never had a player who actually plays at my table accuse me of being unreasonable and walk I think I can fairly judge myself to be a reasonable DM. But I a interested in you telling me how I am unreasonable?

I think players are uncreative if they can't make a fun character with multitude of choices available just because a few things are not available. It seems very petty to me say if I can't play a dwarf in this game then you have completely ruined the game and you are a bad DM for doing so.

Yes DMs who ban a lot and refuse to work with their players ever are uncreative DMs. But sometimes what a player wants does not work. For example I played in a game with no elves they had left the world generations before. Why should the DM have to change that just because one player just has to play an elf this time it is not like the DM has banned elves in every game.

Not all DMs have the time to build more than one setting if the players don't like the idea then why don't they float an idea and offer to DM? I have no issue with someone else DMing it gives me a chance to play

 

[Khaalis]

Not all DMs have the time to build more than one setting if the players don't like the idea then why don't they float an idea and offer to DM? I have no issue with someone else DMing it gives me a chance to play.

The DM isnt a novelist. The campaign should be something collaborative between you and the players. It also shouldn't be 100% up to the DM to come up with the ideas anyway. The players should be putting forth ideas on what they want to play and how they want to play. I personally wouldn't be caught dead telling a player "No you can't play a Dwarf because I wanted to run an all Elf game." Even if I HAD planned to play a game centered all around elves, and I had a player that wanted to play a dwarf, we'd sit down with the whole group and brainstorm interesting ideas as to why this Lone dwarf is in the elven homelands. It opens up all kinds of interesting plot points, hooks, drama and possible story arcs. Personally I believe in allowing players to be creative rather than stifling them. JMHO.

 

[Elf Witch]

Wow, all I have to say here is one simple statement that covers my entire view and attitude towards those whom it doesn't fit.

D&D is a game of collaborative storytelling where the DM's ONLY job is to be an advocate of the players by finding reasonable ways to say YES in ways that makes the story interesting rather than trying to be the PCs' adversary.

'Nuff said.

So the DM does not get to be apart of the collaborative story telling by designing the world that players are going to be doing all the collaborative storytelling in? And it his job to play and design adversaries for the PCs. What he should not be is adversarial to the players.

DMs deserve to have some fun at the table too. People seem to forget that. The fun I get out of DMing is world building and and watching the players come in and explore it and do the things that change it from a static world to watch them leave their mark on it.

It is a two way street players need to be flexible too. They need to make the game fun for the DM too. Do you really think it is fun for the DM to feel that he has to argue every rule call. Or have to rein in the powergamer who is making the game impossible to run. Or argue why a combo is not allowed because it over powers the PC and steps all over another PC. DMs have a huge responsibility in making the game fun for everyone at the table we are the ones who have to craft challenges so everyone feels they got time in the spotlight. We often have to make things up on the fly and try and figure out the best way to adjudicate a rule.

I don't think it is to much to ask the players who agree to a game idea to actually design characters that fit the world they agreed to play in. Also a player whose DM has come to them and says look your concept is not working I can't balance it with the other PCs needs to find away to work with that DM to help the DM.

 

[Elf Witch]

The DM isnt a novelist. The campaign should be something collaborative between you and the players. It also shouldn't be 100% up to the DM to come up with the ideas anyway. The players should be putting forth ideas on what they want to play and how they want to play. I personally wouldn't be caught dead telling a player "No you can't play a Dwarf because I wanted to run an all Elf game." Even if I HAD planned to play a game centered all around elves, and I had a player that wanted to play a dwarf, we'd sit down with the whole group and brainstorm interesting ideas as to why this Lone dwarf is in the elven homelands. It opens up all kinds of interesting plot points, hooks, drama and possible story arcs. Personally I believe in allowing players to be creative rather than stifling them. JMHO.

I never said the DM is a novelist. I have met many players over the years who don't want to be involved in the world building or who won't even bother to read the setting or write a background or give me any idea of what they want. I would jump for joy if I had more players like that actually wanted to contribute more than just coming and rolling dice and having fun.

In my campaign world I had two players who are very good role players and they contributed a lot of the finer details to the game one helped with how the churches functioned since they had no access to divine magic since the gods had been blocked from the world. The other player helped me design the different guilds. I asked the player playing the wizard that since in my world all wizards and sorcerers have to belong to a wizard guild did he have any ideas on what he would like to do with it. Belonging to guilds gives you special extras and he was like nah do whatever.

Through the entire campaign those two players were very involved they wrote game journals sent me tons of emails on ideas it was truly a collaboration the other payers came had fun and that was all they wanted they told me after every session they had a blast but the heavy lifting was on me with help from the two players who are also DMs.