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

[doctorhook]

I felt the same about 3E and 4E.

Do I really want Pixie or Shardmind PCs in my game? Nope. It feels like half of the monster manual is open for PCs. Ugh.

Agreed. I always thought shardminds were kinda stupid, but recently I found myself absentmindedly thinking about them and realized that I would be totally cool with them if I was running an Astral campaign (like Spelljammer or something). I guess when it comes to races, I've got expectations of normalcy that I don't like to see violated*; I love warforged in Eberron, but they seem weird and exotic in FR. I'd probably be completely okay with pixies in a faerie/feywild campaign.

*I guess this means I'm officially racist.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

This is an easy answer to the OP: the people complaining about the splatbooks aren't the people using them. The people complaining are the other players and DMs who have to either disallow ALL third-party material or else carefully examine every new class, feat, spell, or ability that enters the game.

 

[National Acrobat]

Because power gamers and minmaxers get hurt feelings and sulk at the game table when you say no

Absolutely. I tend to run with Core Rules only, and when I do say no, the complaints about how 'it's official material' or 'but I bought this you should let me use it' start to roll in. The other person who takes turns GMing our group allows everything, so there is always an opportunity to use extra material. Just not in my game.

 

[TerraDave]

You may want rules supplements without power creeping nonsense. A long time ago (maybe during the glorious days of 2E AD&D)..

Personally, I blame this on the shift in mentality away from "balance is found during a game session" to "balance is found in the design of the rules" that occurred (for D&D at least) when Third Edition was released...

It goes back to the beginning. From some of the first classes printed in Dragon Magazine ( "NPC only" ninja class) and 3rd party supplements (Arduin).

But it becomes systematic with 2E and the complete books. And in their D&D 30th anniversary book, the WotC authors admit to it: inching up the power and not being so worried about balance helped sales. Bladesinger is of course the great example here, but certainly not the only one.

After 3 editions of massive splat, it would be nice to see less. I can live without a bladesinger. And there is already a ninja shadow monk, one that does not have access to explosives or contact poison.

 

[delericho]

Where does this compulsion come from that people feel like they have to go out, buy every book...

For me, two reasons:

- In both 3e and 4e (and, I expect, 5e as well), there were clear parts of the game that were ideal for expansion. Although the core rules of both were complete, it was clear that 3e could benefit from many more feats, while 4e could use more powers (and, in both cases, other areas as well, but those were the two that leapt out at me).

- If I'm actively running the game, I actually do like supporting the company who produce it. If nothing else, I want to encourage them to make more.

allow every book...

Actually, I never did. For the overwhelming majority of the time I ran 3e, it was either "core rules only" or "this handful of books" only. Still, if I'm spending all that money on books, I do actually want to use them!

and then complain about it?

I do try not to complain about the existence of those supplements. However, I do think it's fair to complain about the quality of those supplements, which was often not what it should be.

I did also find, partly due to that poor quality, partly due to deliberate power-creep, partly due to an expansion in complexity over time, and partly due to emergent issues, adding lots of supplements to a game actually made the game worse - and that was true even if you maintained rigid control over what you allowed! The sheer weight of those supplementary rules, on top of an already very heavy system made 3e, in particular, less than enjoyable to run.

People talk about supplement books drive people away because of their bloat.

Actually, I think that's a known phenomenon - if a new player goes into his FLGS and sees row upon row of books, he's less likely to invest in the core rulebook for the game as a consequence. This is true even if all those supplements are clearly marked as such, but when they're given unhelpful names like "Player's Handbook 2", or the back-cover text describes it as a "must-have accessory", that scares the new guy away.

The biggest thing for Wizards is just to make sure they come out with quality content.

Absolutely.

 

[Grainger]

This is true even if all those supplements are clearly marked as such, but when they're given unhelpful names like "Player's Handbook 2", or the back-cover text describes it as a "must-have accessory", that scares the new guy away.

Good point. I'm jumping on-board with 5e, after years of not playing D&D. There's no way I would have bought the game if it had seemed as complex as the 4e lineup (and I'm not someone who shies away from complex rules). So, let's say that I didn't see the PHB in my FLGS a few weeks ago (when I was buying board games there). Instead, I heard about 5e in two years' time, but WOTC had since released 20 "splat" or "core" books. I'd run a mile.

For the sake of new players, I suspect they should keep it relatively simple (or at least, that's my subjective take on this; of course, market research, and comparing the life-cycles of previous editions and the likes of Pathfinder would of course provide the definitive answer).

I'm not saying they shouldn't release optional rules. However, perhaps there's a way to clearly label material as optional. Having multiple "core" or "essential" rule-books, though, is very foolish IMO. Three is enough.

 

[Greg K]

Actually, I never did. For the overwhelming majority of the time I ran 3e, it was either "core rules only" or "this handful of books" only.

The latter is close to describing me with . Core books, some variants from DMG and Unearthed Arcana, a few specific player oriented bits from a few WOTC supplements and web enhancements, some WOTC monster books for the DM, and then specific third party products. That is it.

 

[Mistwell]

Many new rules inadvertently send the message that without that new character ability, you cannot do that thing. Often this has the effect of something PCs could do before with an ability check suddenly they cannot do because you can point to some new special ability that lets a PC do that thing...so if you don't have that ability, by implication you cannot do it with a simple ability check.

 

[Uchawi]

For me it will be hard to shy away from supplements or splat books for 5E just for the simple fact that there is already class imbalance in the game. So in theory to shore things up you need a DMG or a host of supplements to get what you want. Plus you can only play the exact same rule set for so long before the game gets boring and you tried everything. Even if the probability is low you will play every class or race, you will see a lot of those played out at the table by someone else.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Then, how to sell supplements without doing just that? As I've said previously in one or two other threads, instead of going deep, try to go wide. Instead of creating new maneuvers for the battlemaster, create a new class/subclass with a different approach to maneuver-based combat, but the same power level. Create new things instead of creating things to combo with previous things.

even that isn't a gurantee... two of the best examples are Psionics and Book of 9 Swords...

Psionics were self contained in 2 of the 3 editions I played. (2e and 3e) But it was seen as power creep.

Book of 9 swords is the master though... if you didn't like 3e melee non casters you might love this book, on the other hand it is also hated for 'Power creep'...

I find it funny that I think in 3.5 the later books were better balanced then the core, but it still they get hate... and then there is magic of incarnum