Downsizing what I play with

[ComradeGnull]

I've been heading this way myself both as DM/GM and player- not only do I not want to keep up with dozens and dozens of options as a DM, any one of which might be game breaking, I'm tired of looking through so many books to pick things as a player.

If you're worried about player choice, or if you have players that have one particular option that they would really love to have, I think saying: "core books only, anything else allowed on a case-by-case basis" can be a good alternative. Make a player make a case for their option in terms of the flavor of the character, fit with the campaign, balance in the game, etc. for what they want.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I would first talk to my players about what they are comfortable with.

Talking to your players, what a great idea!

I think the first rule of BDSM can apply to lots of other situations, including this one: Before you strap, gag or otherwise restrain your partner's [players'] options for the evening [game], ask if this would be fun for them.

Anyone else done this after years of basically allowing a LOT of the extra books into your games...what were your players reactions?

I briefly ran a core-only game to introduce new players to 3.x. The campaign lasted all of a month before my players' demands for more options brought the game to a halt. To be honest, I couldn't take my own core-only ban seriously by the end of that month.

The only good reason to disallow game material is balance issues or gross genre violation. I know core-only and other limited-material games are popular among ENworld DMs, but I've never heard a live player or DM say "Wow, I'm so glad we have so few options!"

YMMV, IMO, and so forth.

 

[Stormonu]

Back in 2E and part of 3E, I used to play with every book allowed.

By 3.5, I started paring down (Core 3 + Completes, maybe one or two items from another book)

Now, with most systems I play, I just reach for the core rulebook (set), such as in our recent Vampire game. For Pathfinder, I'm just using the Core rulebook, Bestiary (really only things showing up in the Rise of the Runelords adventure) and Advanced Player's Guide. I have the other books such as Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic, but I haven't seen anything in either that was a must-have for our group.

 

[S'mon]

I know core-only and other limited-material games are popular among ENworld DMs, but I've never heard a live player or DM say "Wow, I'm so glad we have so few options!"

I've told my DM that. My first 4e campaign I ran, I allowed everything, thinking all 4e stuff was 'balanced'. I was wrong. It sucked. Then I played in a restricted-source 4e campaign. It worked far better, so I told the DM so. And since then I have followed his example in my own games.

 

[Wiseblood]

You don't think this is a bit simplistic?

Players tend to like options. As a player, I know that I get frustrated with DMs who decide to arbitrarily limit the sources from which I can draw my character's abilities.

As a DM, do I occasionally get caught off-guard by an unfamiliar power or option? Sure. Do I let that minor frustration get to me? Heck no. My players deserve better than that.

I like Dice4Hire's approach above: the desires of the DM are more important than any single player, but less important than all the players.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. The DM is running the show, it should not be a requirement to cater to all. I LOVE core only as a player and DM. If players want everything under the sun they need to get behind the screen.

 

[Mercurius]

I like Plane Sailing's approach of giving options based upon the campaign world. Actually, I like how Talislanta combined race, culture and class into an archetype and gave hundreds of options. Now in D&D we don't have to do that, but if the player picks his or her race and class, you can further customize it by offering different cultural packets and/or perks based upon their individual biography.

I've always wished that the D&D rules would give more guidelines for creating your own races, classes, feats, whatnot. AD&D 2E made an attempt at a class-creation system which, while being clunky and perhaps poorly implemented, was a blast to play with. I'd like to see the hypothetical 5E take a more toolbox approach to campaign design; rather than give every possible option under the sun laid out in rules, give guidelines for customizing the basics of the game.

There is a sweetspot with each form of character option, after which the differences become smaller and smaller. The four core classes, for instance, cover a lot of territory; now you could safely throw in another dozen or so round them out, but after 12-20 (or so), classes start breaking down a bit. Races can be quite varied, but how many feats are needed? And why not have a system where the player can create a feat that suits their character concept, somewhat similar to FATE aspects?

I'd also like to see an option for a "classless class" in D&D. I was dabbling around with this for a bit, calling it a polymath class.

As a side note, looking at the OP from a non-gamer's perspective, it is an odd situation that using only five or six 200+ page books is "downsizing."

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've told my DM that. My first 4e campaign I ran, I allowed everything, thinking all 4e stuff was 'balanced'. I was wrong. It sucked. Then I played in a restricted-source 4e campaign. It worked far better, so I told the DM so. And since then I have followed his example in my own games.

What was the broken stuff that turned you to the Core Side?

As a side note, looking at the OP from a non-gamer's perspective, it is an odd situation that using only five or six 200+ page books is "downsizing."

Yeah, there's a lot of real comedic potential in there. Sometimes I wonder why Stephen Lynch is the only comedian who capitalizes on gamer culture.

 

[S'mon]

What was the broken stuff that turned you to the Core Side?

Moment of Glory and Pre-Errata Visions of Avarice.

 

[Elf Witch]

While I can sympathize that there is sometimes a an overload of materials and you can't always tell what is going to be gaming breaking until it is introduced going simpler can be very appealing.

As a player I shy away from core only games for the most part. Mainly because I have been playing so long I get bored getting stuck playing a class I have already played to death. I like options. I don't mind if a DM takes a class or race out for flavor.

As a DM I have a basic rule I allow everything from the core and the complete books anything else has to have my approval and I rarely allow classes out of published settings usually because they don't fit.

I do sometimes limit classes and races for flavor for example in my game right now only elves can be use psionics and they can't use magic. I have also at times listed what classes are allowed in my games in one game there were no wizards only sorcerers and warlocks.

I think as a DM you should try and work with your players to create a character that fits in your world and help them create their character concept.

This whole idea that it is the DM way or the highway does not sit well with me. I believe that both the DM and the players should work together to make a good game. Both are important and it is kind of arrogant to say do it my way or run your own game. I am not saying that the DM has to totally cave and give into players demands but not listening to your players and running roughshod over them is not a good DM at least not in my books. And the same is true as a player you need to work with your DM to help bring his world to life if that means no warlocks this time then find something else.

 

[Treebore]

You don't think this is a bit simplistic?

Players tend to like options. As a player, I know that I get frustrated with DMs who decide to arbitrarily limit the sources from which I can draw my character's abilities.

As a DM, do I occasionally get caught off-guard by an unfamiliar power or option? Sure. Do I let that minor frustration get to me? Heck no. My players deserve better than that.

I like Dice4Hire's approach above: the desires of the DM are more important than any single player, but less important than all the players.

Bottom line is, I as the GM have to enjoy running the game. If I am more frustrated with all the demanded add ons than I enjoy the game, I quit running the game. So if my players want me to run the game, they have to be happy living within the boundaries I draw. Otherwise they are free to run the game, if they can handle it more power to them. Since my groups tend to last for years, I imagine I have been adequately fair about what I allow.