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

[Greg K]

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""

a) there is no basic 3.5 D&D world unless possibly using just the 3 core books without DMG variants. So no half-drow PCs. No. Warlock. No Sword Sage. Those are from supplements which are purely optional material. However, even then the DM's setting might not contain certain monsters, may be dungeon crawl or the week (or may not use dungeons at all).
b) I ask the DM to see the house rules and setting document(s) on what are playable races and classes, notes for players of clerics, etc. If they can't produce such info I pass. If something is questionable, I ask and then make a decision on whether or not to play.

 

[BryonD]

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.

True. It also comes with the reality that 100% of the players are homo sapiens. Then it goes downhill from there because tabletop gamers include a disproportionate representation of homo sapiens with enhanced lack of social skills.

If you can't be bringing the cooperation to the table, even when you think someone else is the problem, then you might want to consider a hobby outside of tabletop RPGs.

In the strawman case presented, the DM is being a bit of a dick. But, frankly, Player A is as well. Every example that Player A offered was some form of special snowflake that was going to have impacts throughout the game simply by its presence. Now, it is certainly ok, cool even, to want to roleplay that kind of super-special character. But it brings baggage with it. And if a player absolutely insists on it then THEY are bringing baggage. It doesn't leave much room for arguing about other people's "social contract" obligations.

At the end of the day, the DM is either good enough or not good enough. If there is an awesome DM with a slot open, but I am required to play a kobold rogue. I'm there.
If I can play anything I want, but the DM sucks, then it doesn't really matter what I can play because I'm going to do something else.

Reality will be somewhere in between. But to take a requirement of being able to force any option into the DM's world or campaign as a litmus test is just stupid.
If the DM says you can't do this, don't complain. If you don't know any better then give the DM the benefit of the doubt. If you know the DM puts on a good game, then get over it and start having fun. If you know the DM sucks, don't complain, just be glad for the early reminder and move on to something that is fun. If the DM has a reason, the players should respect that because the game IS a social contract and reducing the fun for everyone is not a fair trade for you not having to settle for not being the special snowflake. If the DM doesn't have a good reason, then basically the DM is being a dick. In this case, it won't stop there and it is safe to assume that this attribute will manifest in other parts of the game. So you are back to be happy that you got the early warning.

But it goes in reverse. If I am at a table (as a player or DM) and one player is being demanding like Player A, and won't be agreeable, then I am GLAD when they walk away. I'd rather lose them than have them bringing everyone down. This applies even if the DM is just a jerk. The game may be doomed anyway, but adding a player that won't work with the social contract doesn't solve anything.

 

[Sailor Moon]

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



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


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?

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

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

First off, compromise is always easier said than done nor is it always 100%. You are phrasing it with a single answer intended. Unless he is a complete noob to DMing then he would tell you his world and most normal players would then ask about that world in order to see what kind of PC would fit best. You are setting up a scenario that is again rare.

 

[Greg K]

even that isn't a gurantee... two of the best examples are Psionics and Book of 9 Swords...

Psionics were self contained in 2 of the 3 editions I played. (2e and 3e) But it was seen as power creep.

Book of 9 swords is the master though... if you didn't like 3e melee non casters you might love this book, on the other hand it is also hated for 'Power creep'...

I find it funny that I think in 3.5 the later books were better balanced then the core, but it still they get hate... and then there is magic of incarnum

They may have been better balanced, but I didn't like the mechanical approach or feel. I prefer Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin) and, for maneuvers and a few other bits to make fighters more interesting, The Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc) so those two books are what get used when I run.

 

[Greg K]

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.

And these are among the people I try to weed out. When I run, I am running a particular setting with a particular feel/style. Part of the creation of the setting will be weeding out things that I don't like conceptually or mechanically while other things may be excluded for being inappropriate. Some things may be included and replace official rules, because it better captures the feel that I want. If a player has an issue, they can find another table. Just because I am running a game of D&D doesn't entitle someone to participate.

 

[Greg K]

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?

No, I don't see a particular issue with singling out the DM as the end all be all. He or she is the person running the game. They should be able to run the setting and style they want. If a player does not like it, they don't have to participate. They can find another table. They can start their own game. Just because someone is running D&D doesn't entitle a player to come in and have their particular wants met. Different people have different tastes and sometimes those are cannot be reconciled. You will never get me to play in certain campaigns/settings including Eberron, Planescape, or Spelljammer. Similarly, you will not get me to play in all hack 'n slash or dungeon of the week. Not my types of fantasy, but I am not going to complain about a DM offering to run D&D and insisting on one of those settings/styles. I will simply decline to play.

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

"Don't be a jerk" /= allow a player to play what they want because it appeared in official product

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.

Yes, it does give you the right if it is going to be uninspiring or interfere with the game being fun for you to run, If it is not fun for the DM, it is, probably, not got to be fun for everyone else or the DM gets burned out and the campaign ends early. If the player cannot handle the DM's choices, they are better off finding someone more compatible for their preference. Again, not everyone needs to play D&D together simply because someone is running a game.

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?

What is stopping you from creating your own campaign and using them?

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...

When I run 3e, I would tell the player, I don't like the mechanics of Bo9s as it leads to a disconnect for me. Instead, we are using the maneuvers from the Book of Iron Might along with a few other changes/variants from that book.

 

[doctorhook]

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.

Frankly, I disagree, mainly on the basis that the game cannot exist solely for the DM's enjoyment; we all play D&D because it's (supposed to be) fun. If someone at the table isn't having fun, then either that person has "gaming needs" that don't fit with the group (i.e.: would rather be playing a different game or style of game), or the social contract is being violated.

Even more than adjudicating the rules, the DM's primary role is to facilitate a fun game for everyone at the table; adjudicating the rules is his main tool for doing so. The social contract is just the idea that everyone agrees to be on the same page about what sort of game they're playing, and to communicate and compromise to this end.

Enjoyment has to be the ultimately purpose of D&D, because if you're not enjoying it, why bother playing?

 

[Elf Witch]

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.)

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.

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?".

I play 3.5 and have since it came out and I was not burned out by the sheer amount of supplements nor was the other DMs in our group. One of my biggest peeves is how people think their game experience is the same as everyone else and that they speak for us all. I did get burned out by other things but not that.

So because some DMs are unable to handle conflict and whiny player outbursts the rest of us who enjoy splat books should have to do without? Because that is what some of you are saying. Instead of the better option of not allowing them in your game while allowing other tables to use them in there you basically saying I matter more.

The fact that a DM can't say no to his partner is not a supplement book problem and believe me I wish it was as easy as saying no to certain books.

I love splat books as both a DM and player they give me more options. As a DM I I often limit things based on my game world. I give players a list of what is allowed and what is not allowed and if they don't like it then they don't have o play in this campaign. As a player I accept what limitations a DM puts on the game if it and if the game does nor sound like something I want to play then I simply don't play. I don't try and whine and force my DM in run what I want.

 

[Ackbladder]

I've read this entire thread with interest, because I have pretty much made the jump from PF to 5E because of "Splatbookitis". For me, I like a classical D&D feel, and PF jumped the shark with the ARG and crap put out since then.

When I DM, I can ignore this and enforce Core+APG only (my preferred rule set), but I have to deal with disappointed players, and it is also harder for those who use d20pfsrd to keep an eye on what is Core+APG only.

If the optional books are used in AP's/Adventures, it can render them worthless as well, or at least require me to reword or modify lots of encounters. The last AP I subscribed to was Mummy's Mask, and I was very let down. Not only did I find it just mediocre in tone and outline, but the crunch draws heavily from Bestiary 4, a third party monster compendium and things like the Ultimate Equipment Guide. So I'd need to buy about 4-5 books I have no interest in, just to run it without reworking most encounters. I've unsubscribed, and don't see myself signing up for any more AP's in the future.

But the real problem comes for me as a player. I use Roll20, since I live in a small town. For the last several months, pretty much every group I've found on Roll20 has the party looking like something from the Cantina scene in Star Wars. I hate seeing yet another group of tieflings, aasimars, catfolk and kitsune. My latest group is an Ifrit sorcerer, a catfolk ninja, a weird space-man using a secretive 3rd-party psionics class/package and my dwarven Inquisitor (a musketeer-type follower of Cayden Cailean). If you stick to a core race, you end up feeling lame as the Aasimar's many perks come in to play in pretty much every encounter.

So I've reluctantly switched to 5E, despite my respect and admiration for Paizo as a company, and my certainty that Wizards is going to cock up the electronic delivery aspects as opposed to Paizo's stellar approach to PDF's and online crunch.

Sure, I like the 5E rules in general, but it's really the lack of Splat that is a draw for me. For 6 months, perhaps a year, I'm hoping I'll be able to find groups on Roll20 where people actually have to think about a personality to make their halfling wizard stand out, as opposed to rolling up a dhamphir monk and letting that define their character (this is a gross generalization of course, but I find that people who play weird race/classes usually tend to have weak to non-existent character personalities - an exception is the Ifrit previously mentioned, who has perhaps the best character in the group).

Once 5E splatbooks start rolling out, I'll likely be disgruntled once again (Dragonborn and Tieflings in the core rules already push my personal Cheese Meter). Perhaps some day I'll find a reliable DM and group on Roll20 that share most of my personal preferences - I guess that's the Holy Grail.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

so where does compromise start?

lets look at what has been said (I'm totally not going back and quoting everyone) and imagine where a group or a game might be better.

lets start with why do people complain about splat books... well someone likes them and someone else doesn't... It isn't even always a DM vs Player thing... sometimes it's just Player vs player. Someone said they disliked Bo9S and what it ment to the setting. SO if that person sat down to play a paliden, and the person next to them a Crusader how does that affect the game?

Also as far as DMs go I remember something I read back when I was a kid about... "What the DM says goes, and if he says enough stupid stuff his players go too." Players aren't just players, they are the audience, and you have to give them what they want too. I'm not suggestion anything too huge, but some compromise is pretty easy.

Maybe instead of "My game I say so" the DM and player could talk it out like... gasp... reasonable adults, and find something in common.