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

This is probably not entirely fair, but my impression from reading and participating in this thread leans towards an implicit bias towards DM as world builder and primary story creator and the expectation that setting exploration and dealing with procedural conflicts should be a primary priority for players in general, not just in a specific game run by a specific person. I mean we all have our expectations for players and its entirely fair to have them. To universalize our play priorities to a much larger subset of people is problematic. Of course I'm somewhat of a dirty hippy when it comes to the hobby. My expectations fall more under active engagement, pursuing dramatic conflicts, players taking ownership of the game beyond their particular PC and avoiding turtling than particular character types. Of course everyone should approach the game with good faith - to me that's a given. It's part of the dirty hippy story gamer code.

So I spent the last couple of days laid up and I see the circular argument is still going on.


The argument that if DMs restrict things then they are being high handed and dictatorial and only care about their fun is now 29 pages long. And the idea that if a player does not want to play he is being whiny and entitled even though over and over and over it has been said that not wanting to play in a game is fine and that asking and the DM for options is also fine that neither are whiny or entitled behavior. What I consider whiny entitled behavior is players who agrees to something upfront then using tactics like whining, manipulating, trying to wear the DM down to get his way when the DM has said no.

Hussar made a comment that when a DM say tieflings will be killed on sight is a DM being uncreative. That is like saying that you are running a Walking Dead game and telling a player who is insisting he play a zombie that he will most likely be killed on sight is uncreative.

Here is the disconnect I am having with people taking this approach that we are saying my way or the highway if I before we ever start to play come up with an idea for a game and tell my players this is my idea up front including the restrictions in place and they say yes sounds great I want to play and then during character creation decided that they don't want to use the restrictions that they already agreed to that some how by me not just saying okay I am a bad DM. How is that saying my way or the highway? I think the player who agreed to it is the one breaking the social contract.

My roommate wanted to run a Pathfinder adventure path she has never played or DMed Pathfinder. So after spending time on the Pazio forums and reading the material she decided that this first Pathfinder game was going to be core only. Her reasoning was she wanted to be more familiar as a DM how the basic rules work before adding in splatbooks and rules options.

Her are two conversations that happened.

DM I know you have had your heart set on playing a witch for a long time. But it is not core and I really want to get a grasp on the rules.

Me That is a bummer and yeah I am disappointed (which I was, I am been jonesing to play a witch for over a year) But I understand and since I have been wanting to play a paladin maybe that is what I want to play.

DM you should take a look at the paladins from Chelix they get to be LG and summon and control demons and I think you would enjoy that challenge.


The other conversation

DM core only

K I want to play a gunslinger. I have been reading up on Pathfinder and decided that was the first character I would want to play.

DM But it is not core and I am not comfortable using firearms and gunpowder in this game. Goes on the explain why she wants to run core only.

K sigh look everything I have read says gunpowder is not unbalancing to the setting. Pathfinder is just 3.75 so this should not be an issue for you.

DM But it is an issue for me. I want this to be core if I say yes to you then I have to say yes to everyone else and I just want my first time DMing Pathfinder to be a little less hard. What other concepts would you be interested in.

K none I don't know if I want to play if I can't play a gunslinger.

DM How about this you start with a core class and as the game goes on and I get more comfortable we will revisit this and maybe you can bring in a gunslinger later on.

K I don't know.

Any way K dragged his feet and eventually made a cleric. The game lasted two sessions because K was just such a pain in the rear over this. And since he was a friend the DM didn't want to cause friction so she took the easy way out and made up an excuse that she couldn't DM for awhile. So another DM stepped up and ran a 3.5 game and no it didn't have gunpowder even though he allows most splatbooks.

There were four other players at that table who got screwed over by the tyranny of the minority.

That is the kind of player BS I am talking about when I say entitled. And I think he was unreasonable and selfish.

Campbell said:

...this thread leans towards an implicit bias towards DM as world builder and primary story creator...

Click to expand...

I totally have that bias. That's how our games work: DM sets the boundaries, players create characters within those boundaries. (They can lobby for expanded rules, but no is no.) It's good to be reminded that other peoples' campaigns work differently.

To universalize our play priorities to a much larger subset of people is problematic.

Click to expand...

An even better reminder! It doesn't affect me at all if other people may want to allow everything and the kitchen sink*, or allow a halfling-only rogue- and sneaky-type-only campaign**. To each according to what they love.

* Kitchen sink: +2 Con, +1 Cha. Size small, move 5 feet, can survive underwater, resistant to piercing damage, vulnerable to blunt damage. May be used as a proficient improvised weapon by allies.

** I'd totally play in this game.

Elf Witch said:

There were four other players at that table who got screwed over by the tyranny of the minority.

That is the kind of player BS I am talking about when I say entitled. And I think he was unreasonable and selfish.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the real world. The tyranny of the minority is a common theme these days. Fortunately, not typically so much at the gaming table though (although it does happen). Your example pretty much sucks and I would have told that guy what a butthead he was. You find jerks everywhere, sometimes even at the gaming table.

Tell your roommate to "Game on!".

Campbell said:

my impression from reading and participating in this thread leans towards an implicit bias towards DM as world builder and primary story creator and the expectation that setting exploration and dealing with procedural conflicts should be a primary priority for players in general, not just in a specific game run by a specific person. I mean we all have our expectations for players and its entirely fair to have them. To universalize our play priorities to a much larger subset of people is problematic.

Click to expand...

I think that assumption (bias) is present in some posters, but not all.

But there are some posts - I've pointed to a few - which try to reply to those who obviously don't share that assumption from a premise of the truth of the assumption. Which is basically pointless: eg if someone is explaining how, as s/he approaches the game, the GM is first among equals for setting content creation, it is pointless to begin a reply to that person from the premise that the GM has unilateral power in setting creation!

Elf Witch said:

The argument that if DMs restrict things then they are being high handed and dictatorial and only care about their fun is now 29 pages long.

<snip example>

That is the kind of player BS I am talking about when I say entitled. And I think he was unreasonable and selfish.

Click to expand...

What you describe in your example doesn't seem to me to have much to do with player "entitlement" vs GM "authority" at all. The GM wasn't trying to restrict things by way of exercise of her authority as GM: at least as you tell the story, she was motivated by mechanical rather than world-building considerations, mostly her inexperience with the PF mechanics.

As my 4e game reaches its conclusion, my group is gradually warming up to start a new game with a new system. It will be our first time playing this system together, and I have expressly said that, because of our relative inexperience, I woud like to keep PC builds fairly vanilla.

To be honest, for me there is a degree of tension between (i) "K" being a friend of your GMing friend, and (ii) "K" wrecking your GMing friend's game. "K" doesn't seem like a particularly good friend, if he's trying to bully your friend into doing something she sincerely doesn't believe she is qualified to do.

But to my mind, at least, this is not very analogous to a GM saying "No tieflings because in my world civilised folk kill them on sight".

pemerton said:

What you describe in your example doesn't seem to me to have much to do with player "entitlement" vs GM "authority" at all. The GM wasn't trying to restrict things by way of exercise of her authority as GM: at least as you tell the story, she was motivated by mechanical rather than world-building considerations, mostly her inexperience with the PF mechanics.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The DM had a reason for the world as envisioned and the player tried to disrupt that and get his way (and eventually did).

The reasons why and how a given DM decides the game elements for his or her campaign are irrelevant. In fact, unlike this example, a DM shouldn't even have to justify his reasons. Either the player wants to play in the game as outlined, or the player does not. Don't pull the "I can't get my way" crap over it and make the game miserable for others. Either agree and join, or don't agree and don't join. Nothing wrong with trying to get the DM to change his mind, but once the DM says no, man up and accept it. If you don't like the decision, nobody is forcing you to play the game.

KarinsDad said:

It doesn't matter. The DM had a reason for the world as envisioned and the player tried to disrupt that and get his way (and eventually did).

The reasons why and how a given DM decides the game elements for his or her campaign are irrelevant. In fact, unlike this example, a DM shouldn't even have to justify his reasons. Either the player wants to play in the game as outlined, or the player does not. Don't pull the "I can't get my way" crap over it and make the game miserable for others. Either agree and join, or don't agree and don't join. Nothing wrong with trying to get the DM to change his mind, but once the DM says no, man up and accept it. If you don't like the decision, nobody is forcing you to play the game.

Click to expand...

I agree that it shouldn't matter. I don't agree that they don't need justification. A DM should always have a reason they can explain to their players why certain elements are not included, whether for preference, theme, or mechanic reasons. If the player is entitled to anything, it's to an open discussion on these issues.

billd91 said:

I agree that it shouldn't matter. I don't agree that they don't need justification. A DM should always have a reason they can explain to their players why certain elements are not included, whether for preference, theme, or mechanic reasons. If the player is entitled to anything, it's to an open discussion on these issues.

Click to expand...

DM: "I don't allow Tieflings as PCs."
Player: "Why not?"
DM: "Sorry, but it is a campaign element and if I gave you the reason, it would ruin part of the surprise of the game."
Player: "Ok, that's cool."

It's not that the DM cannot justify his reasons. I suspect that most DM's often do. But sometimes, there are hidden currents in a campaign and the DM does not want to hand out any hints about it. That is totally reasonable. Saying "sorry, but you just do not know why" is a perfectly valid response.

KarinsDad said:

The reasons why and how a given DM decides the game elements for his or her campaign are irrelevant. In fact, unlike this example, a DM shouldn't even have to justify his reasons. Either the player wants to play in the game as outlined, or the player does not. Don't pull the "I can't get my way" crap over it and make the game miserable for others. Either agree and join, or don't agree and don't join. Nothing wrong with trying to get the DM to change his mind, but once the DM says no, man up and accept it. If you don't like the decision, nobody is forcing you to play the game.

Click to expand...

Which only works if nobody is going to attack the player for leaving, and the DM is fine with the rest of the players leaving because that player did or even that player making a counter-proposal. The more autocratic the DM is, the less right he has to complain about independent action from the players, who are indeed independent actors. When you start harassing people for leaving, like you did Hussar, then you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Greg K said:

That I place campaign/setting restrictions on character generation has nothing to do with not wanting player agency.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with @Greg K in the above quote. It appears that some posters in this thread are not able to make the distinction between the two issues.