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

[Gargoyle]

Because I'm not just a gamer, I'm a collector. I like reading fluff and crunch of RPGs because it interests me, even if I have no intention of actually using it. When I read something that I dislike, I complain on the Internet because sometimes designers read those comments and I'm hopeful they listen, or maybe I just like to vent. Sometimes it may sound like whining. Sometimes it certainly is whining. This post is sort of like whining about whining though.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not so sure the folks buying them are the ones complaining about them. In my experience it's more Dms and players that don't have them complaining about players showing up at the table wanting to use them and unbalancing the game. Personally, I still feel my blood pressure rise slightly at the words "Vow of Poverty". Never again, WotC, never again...

I had a player who took a Vow of Poverty Monk way back when it first came out and to this day, he says it's the best PC he ever played. And we only played that campaign for a few levels.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's because anybody who played through the 3E era was burned by the sheer volume of problematic splat-options; it became a lot lot simpler to just exclude everything from certain books than to go through the hassle of finding the diamonds in the rough. (Complete Psionic, I'm looking at you.)

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.

 

[TwoSix]

Why can't you just say no at your table and let others who may like it, allow it at their table? Everyone wins.

Because saying "No" breeds conflict. Not necessarily a fight, but at least some tension where, as a DM, you have to be the one who makes a big decision. Many DMs are A-OK with this, but just as many feel weirded out by it. (Which is completely understandable. Making authoritative decisions for a friend often feels paternalistic.)

If there weren't any splatbooks, then nobody would need to make those kinds of decisions.

And this is in no way a judgment of any DM style. I personally rarely say No to players about character choices because my game style is predicated on bending to player choice. For many other DMs, their personal vision of the game direction plays much more of a deciding role, which makes cutting down on contra-thematic choices more necessary.

 

[Authweight]

I love new books, as long as they're of decent quality. Even if they're bad, it's not a big deal, I'll just ignore them. I want to spend my money on good rpg products.

 

[Greg K]

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.

Which is why I would prefer each new race (and class) have their own supplement provided it was done right. I would rather say no to one book of entire an entire option that I disliked than not buy a book with one or two things I like, but with remaining content I cannot stand. However, if left with the latter option, I don't buy the book anyway.

 

[Grainger]

Whether you want to call them supplements or splat, these books contain extra options that players and DM can use to expand the game in many ways.

In my thread about splat books, something was mentioned that I find puzzling and yet all too familiar. Where does this compulsion come from that people feel like they have to go out, buy every book, allow every book, and then complain about it? People talk about supplement books drive people away because of their bloat. Just don't use them or allow people in your group to use them in your games. Just create a book limit. I would like to see 5th edition expand it's book count and thus provide us with more options. If a book comes out that I don't like then I just won't buy it. I mean it works for Paizo because they are still going strong. The biggest thing for Wizards is just to make sure they come out with quality content. I am patiently waiting on the Forgotten Realms stuff to start coming in and I really want to see tons of regional books and I don't want this whole fear of bloat to make that not happen.

If it was my contribution to that thread that you mean, my point wasn't that there should be a limit on the number of books. For all I care, they could release 10 books every day. My point was that I'd rather have these aimed at the DM, rather than players. I don't want my players buying rule-books, really. They never tended to in the distant past, in my experience, and I think it creates complications if they do (I won't go into details, because it isn't important; I am stating a preference, not an absolute). This is just my preference. Yes, I could set a limit of zero option books in my game, and I probably will, but I wish I didn't have to; I would prefer this material to be aimed at DMs, as I personally think the game is better when the rules are as least exposed as possible. Again, this is simply my taste; I am not saying anyone else should feel the same way.

To clarify, I don't prescribe this for other people's campaigns, nor do I recommend it as a business strategy for WOTC. I'd imagine marketing to players is a wise strategy economically. It's just my personal taste.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

You may want rules supplements without power creeping nonsense. A long time ago (maybe during the glorious days of 2E AD&D) our designers discovered that their books could sell better by allowing a measure of power creep. What they should have realized, though, is that this would make their games suck in the long run. Paizo has the choice of ignoring that, but I've yet to see someone who will defend that this is not an issue with Pathfinder, for example. Even with only a small number of hardcovers every year.

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.

Also, consider that WotC has some talented folks and a solid core game and create new games using the same engine. Think about d20 era with games such as Call of Cthullu, Star Wars, Wheel of Time and d20 Modern, but knowing that the core rules are just better than 3.X era rules (in my opinion).

WotC has a lot to sell me before the feat I need to increase the DPR of my hunter ranger by 1.23 (1.92 if I also pick that other awesome optional combat style). They are creative and passionate, it can't be that hard.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

This created a presumption that everything put out by the first-party publishers (WotC, for D&D) was balanced unless shown otherwise. In other words, players would simply take it for granted that everything WotC publishes is allowable in play - there's no need for a discussion about if they can use something, they just show up with a new book and expect that they can use it, being honestly surprised if the DM objects. Obviously, that's a generalization, and so won't apply to all players in all cases, but the general sentiment is there.

Essentially, this creates a train of thought that goes like so: "If you (implicitly) acknowledge that this material is balanced, then how can you have any non-personal reason for disallowing it at the game table? After all, if something is balanced then it by definition won't be disruptive. Ergo, this is you either pulling a power trip, or making your personal issues into my problem."

I don't agree with that line of thinking, but I've run into it more than once.

This puts the GM on the defensive, as they now have to swim upstream to say why this "balanced-ergo-non-disruptive" material is being disallowed anyway.

One possible answer that some GMs use is "this is being disallowed as an 'appropriateness of the setting' thing." Unfortunately, the issue of "disallowed for in-game reasons, rather than balance issues" opens up its own can of worms.

Basically, this one runs afoul of what some people's ideas of "PC exceptionalism" means. Some people don't care that their characters don't fit the tone of the campaign world, because the nature of PCs is to be characters who break the mold. As such, it's not a big deal if their character is completely at odds with the in-game assumptions of the setting, since they think that's what they're supposed to be doing anyway.

As with the above stance on balance, I don't care for this idea, but it's not an unpopular one that I've seen.

 

[Grainger]

Talking of Paizo, I'd actually rather more RPG companies concentrated on GMing aids, rather than more rules (I have no idea how many rules Paizo put out, but they also put out a lot of great GMing aids). As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather WOTC put their resources into giving us DM advice, campaign world variant guidelines (maybe how to run a game based on different historical periods or "exotic" cultures), modules, face cards, power cards, DM screens, cardstock "minis", plot ideas rather than more variant rules. The only variant rules I'd like to see would be things like mass combat, seafaring rules, dominion rules - some of which may be in the DMG anyway.

Given infinite resources, that's not a problem, but they have limited time to design materials, and limited budgets to publish them. I'd rather they make the DM's job easier than harder by adding more rules.

Again, this is just my taste, and I have no idea how many GMing aids the market will bear. For all I know, Paizo have cornered the market, and there's no call for more face cards etc.