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

[Grainger]

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.

Well, everyone has different tastes, but surely in an RPG you're playing characters, not the rules. People played (and still play) 1e, BECMI or 2e for decades without getting bored, because they could always play a different character (or long-running characters evolved as they gained in power, and the focus of the campaign shifted). If you're getting bored, maybe it's time for the DM to take a rest, and someone else to take over for a while... or to try to introduce new players, to shift the group dynamic. If you like the crunch of D&D, that's fine, but I really feel the spirit of the game should be about a lot more than the rules.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

Good insight and very good post. I think you're onto something. It seems that the culture has shifted from, "DM's table, DM's rules" to "RAW with maybe agreed upon house rules." I prefer the former if the DM is reasonable. But I dislike the fact that the cultural shift has been made as if the former inherently implies a totalitarian, douchey DM. I've played with one of those and it wasn't fun, but they are the exception rather than the rule, IME.

As for products, I see nothing wrong with a nice assortment. But quality trumps quantity, and I'd prefer to see a Paizoan approach to something like 3.5/4E.

 

[DM Howard]

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.)

That's currently how I feel about Pathfinder. It's one of my best friend's (who is, let's say, a mechanics nut) favorite system because he enjoys system mastery like 3E itself had. 5E feels like a breath of fresh air in that regard. Sure you can limit things (and I have) but it's hard to limit everything without feeling like a jerk, at least I do sometimes to my friends. Then again I always have the expectations talk with any group I run before my campaigns begin so we are all on the same page.

I am also one of those people that likes to collect the whole line. If they only put out no more than four books a year, not counting campaign settings and adventures I'd be happy, but I may be in the minority. Going faster than that would make me feel like I have to really try to keep up on everything for the sake of the group as I'm the one that reads forums like EN World and keeps a pulse on things in my group.

 

[transtemporal]

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.)

Its more than that though. Anyone who has been playing the game since the first edition has bought multiple copies of essentially the same book. Its not that we don't love the game, its that 20 years and 5-10k later it starts to feel like they're recycling the text and taking the mickey. A friend came up with the term "edition fatigue" which I think describes it perfectly.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I still don't get this "feeling like a jerk" bit if I limit things in a specific game.

If you have been playing with people for a while, or they themselves have been playing for a while, then they should know that everything isn't always allowed. New players shouldn't be a problem either because I seriously doubt they would understand the whole "core" and "not core" aspect.

If you step forward and say: "okay lads, I would like to run X game but I am only allowing ABC books. Anyone up for it?" I simply don't believe in that player who is going to be crushed if he can't play his mutant ninja salamander, and if he is then that's life; just wait for the next game.

 

[transtemporal]

If you step forward and say: "okay lads, I would like to run X game but I am only allowing ABC books. Anyone up for it?" I simply don't believe in that player who is going to be crushed if he can't play his mutant ninja salamander, and if he is then that's life; just wait for the next game.

I totally know what you mean but I've also played in games where the DM laid down the law, then caved in when their partner said "I want to run a Half-Shadow Giant Hybrid Barbarian/Rogue/Psion, you're OK with that right?".

 

[delericho]

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.

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.

One thing they could do which I think might help, is move away from making every book 'evergreen' and instead deliberately try to keep the number of books on the shelves relatively small. Publishing adventures helps in this - if "Tyranny of Dragons" stops being easily available in a year it doesn't matter because there will be other adventures in its place. Likewise, if they use a similar "three books and out" model for settings as they did with 4e.

Splatbooks and other supplements are a bit more tricky. However, even there they could make the material available in Dungeonscape and/or PDF form, and thus let them quietly become unavailable in hard-copy. (Besides, the vast majority of sales for any RPG supplement happen within a few months of publication, so there's actually not many people missing out too much if it ceases to be available thereafter.) They could even publish occasional big "best of" compilations that gather together and reprint the most popular options from now-out-of-print supplements, if they felt there was a market for them.

 

[pemerton]

It seems that the culture has shifted from, "DM's table, DM's rules" to "RAW with maybe agreed upon house rules."

Gygax was pushing this culture-change in his DMG (1979). I don't think it's an especially recent thing.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I still don't get this "feeling like a jerk" bit if I limit things in a specific game.

If you have been playing with people for a while, or they themselves have been playing for a while, then they should know that everything isn't always allowed. New players shouldn't be a problem either because I seriously doubt they would understand the whole "core" and "not core" aspect.

If you step forward and say: "okay lads, I would like to run X game but I am only allowing ABC books. Anyone up for it?" I simply don't believe in that player who is going to be crushed if he can't play his mutant ninja salamander, and if he is then that's life; just wait for the next game.

I totally know what you mean but I've also played in games where the DM laid down the law, then caved in when their partner said "I want to run a Half-Shadow Giant Hybrid Barbarian/Rogue/Psion, you're OK with that right?".

what about when what you want to disallow isn't weird or out there?!?!?

lets try this hypothetical

DM designs a basic 3.5 D&D world... says "Hey lets play, here is the world"

Player A says... "Cool, I want to play a half drow Warlock... my mom was a bar maid and my father a raider, I don't know where my powers come from, but I suspect my dad sold his soul to loth or something."

DM "No too weird..."

Player B says "I want to play a human Druid"

DM "OK"

Player A then says "OK, I'll play a Sword sage who travel's the world looking for new fighting styles"

DM "No, book of 9 swords is way broken"

Player B "My third level feat is the one that lets me cast in wild shape"

DM "OK"

Player A "BUT Sword sage is over powered?!?!"

DM "Just play something normal"

Player C "I want to be an Elven Ranger"

DM "OK"

Player A again "Fine, I'll play a sorcerer/monk with vow of poverty"

DM "No, I don't like that either"

Player A "So what can I play?"

 

[Mercurius]

Gygax was pushing this culture-change in his DMG (1979). I don't think it's an especially recent thing.

We've danced this tango before. All I can go on are my own observations. In the TSR days the default among most groups seemed to be "DM rules supreme," and as the saying goes, rulings over rules, whereas in more recent years--going back to 3E--there seems to have been a shift towards RAW and the rule book as final arbiter, not the DM's judgement.