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

[Sailor Moon]

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?"

I don't like these intentional corner case scenarios because they prove nothing in the end. DM's fully have the right to disallow whatever they want, even core. Now on that same token, you have the right ro refuse to play in his/her game. The reasons don't uave to be valid and the DM has always had the backup of the DMG. It's up to you to find a DM that fits your needs, what you don't have the right to do is enforce your wants on someone else unless they are willing to accept those. If the DM won't budge because he feels it won't fit or he just doesn't want that in his game then either play something else or find another game.

These scenarios are few and far between so they shouldn't be considered when making the judgement about book limits.

 

[DM Howard]

[MENTION=6776331]Sailor Moon[/MENTION]

I would feel like a jerk because the system mastery, plethora of options, and outright bloat of the system is what my friend very much enjoys. It doesn't bother me ever so much that I feel like I need to step on his enjoyment. Is it a solution? Most certainly not, but we hardly play as it is to worry too much about it.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I don't like these intentional corner case scenarios because they prove nothing in the end. DM's fully have the right to disallow whatever they want, even core. Now on that same token, you have the right ro refuse to play in his/her game.

you don't see a problem with the fact that you singled out the DM as end all be all ? you don't see where it create conflict at all?

The reasons don't uave to be valid and the DM has always had the backup of the DMG.

and has in every edition, but the basic social contract is still the same... "don't be a jerk" should be the real rule 0

It's up to you to find a DM that fits your needs, what you don't have the right to do is enforce your wants on someone else unless they are willing to accept those.

wait... what?!?!?!

you don't have the right to do is enforce your wants on someone else unless they are willing to accept those.

but the DM does... what if I DM, does that then give me the right to enforce my wants on someone else?!?!?!

If the DM won't budge because he feels it won't fit or he just doesn't want that in his game then either play something else or find another game.

and this creates CONFLICT.... see there is the problem.

These scenarios are few and far between so they shouldn't be considered when making the judgement about book limits.

really? few and far between says who? where is the study that shows this? heck I bet atleast 10-20% of enworld arguments are based in this "few and far between" "Corner case"


the problem with putting out books full of classes and feats, then no one letting you play them is if no one lets you play them why buy them. if you don't but them then why would wotc put them out?


just look at warblade from Bo9S... it is a fighter with more tactical options that falls far short of 3/4 the PHB for power... but it is fun and more powerful then a PHB fighter. From a flavor in world stand point it is no different then fighter or ranger or paliden. from a power level it is still far less then a core only cleric, wizard or druid. Yet the top two reasons given even on these boards for disallowing that class is "Bo9S is over powered" and "It doesn't fit my world" both are basicly excuses for "I said so".... so why not say "Because I said so" maybe because that breed conflict and makes you look like a jerk...

hiding behind an excuse only gets you so far.


I also have to laugh that my very basic examples "Half elf warlock" "Human Sword sage" are corner cases compare to what I responded to

 

[doctorhook]

the basic social contract is still the same... "don't be a jerk" should be the real rule 0

I think you nailed it here; D&D relies on a ton of cooperation between DM and players (and between players and player) to function and be really enjoyable, so the social contract really is Rule 0.

 

[Grainger]

.

 

[Grainger]

.

 

[Sailor Moon]

you don't see a problem with the fact that you singled out the DM as end all be all ? you don't see where it create conflict at all?



and has in every edition, but the basic social contract is still the same... "don't be a jerk" should be the real rule 0


wait... what?!?!?!

but the DM does... what if I DM, does that then give me the right to enforce my wants on someone else?!?!?!
and this creates CONFLICT.... see there is the problem.
really? few and far between says who? where is the study that shows this? heck I bet atleast 10-20% of enworld arguments are based in this "few and far between" "Corner case"


the problem with putting out books full of classes and feats, then no one letting you play them is if no one lets you play them why buy them. if you don't but them then why would wotc put them out?


just look at warblade from Bo9S... it is a fighter with more tactical options that falls far short of 3/4 the PHB for power... but it is fun and more powerful then a PHB fighter. From a flavor in world stand point it is no different then fighter or ranger or paliden. from a power level it is still far less then a core only cleric, wizard or druid. Yet the top two reasons given even on these boards for disallowing that class is "Bo9S is over powered" and "It doesn't fit my world" both are basicly excuses for "I said so".... so why not say "Because I said so" maybe because that breed conflict and makes you look like a jerk...

hiding behind an excuse only gets you so far.


I also have to laugh that my very basic examples "Half elf warlock" "Human Sword sage" are corner cases compare to what I responded to

Sorry but "jerk behaviour" is subjective. Trying to corner me into letting you play what you want is being a jerk. You can spin it however you want it but that is what you are saying. Social contract isn't one sided I'm afraid and no matter what you say, DM "always" has final say so. You can't speak for other players so it's just you standing there having to decide whether or not you want to play if the DM has said no and made it final. Social contracts aren't all about you get to play what you want to play. A social contract is I tell you before what the proposed game is as well as if I am only allowing XYZ. If I am comfortable with allowing ot then I may, but if not then I don't have to.

 

[Greg K]

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.

I place a lot of blame on the DMs. The PHB has Rule:0 ask the DM while the DMG tells the DM in several places that he or she is in charge of how the game is run at the table, which rules are used/followed, and which supplements in use. The DMG even provides numerous variants and starting points for customizing the game.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I think you nailed it here; D&D relies on a ton of cooperation between DM and players (and between players and player) to function and be really enjoyable, so the social contract really is Rule 0.

The number 1 rule in all editions of D&D is the DM makes the final call. The designers have always realized that everyone is not going to agree on everything so that final say so is given to the DM. People want the DM to respect the players by letting them play what they want, but respect goes both ways. An agreement is not always going to be met with.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Sorry but "jerk behaviour" is subjective. Trying to corner me into letting you play what you want is being a jerk.

so jerk behavior is subjective... but you then say what is and isn't being a jerk

You can spin it however you want it but that is what you are saying. Social contract isn't one sided I'm afraid and no matter what you say, DM "always" has final say so.

ok, so that was my whole idea of rule 0 not being a jerk...

You can't speak for other players so it's just you standing there having to decide whether or not you want to play if the DM has said no and made it final.

what about when he says yes... see it is 3-8 people all trying to have fun... giving one final say means 2-7 of them just have to accept it. Why does that 1 player get final say, what if all 2-7 other players agree to want to let the pc in?

Social contracts aren't all about you get to play what you want to play.

no it's about comprmise, something that some how gets lost here and on discussions.

A social contract is I tell you before what the proposed game is as well as if I am only allowing XYZ. If I am comfortable with allowing ot then I may, but if not then I don't have to.

so look back at my example... he said "here is my world" then the PCs pitched ideas.