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

[Mistwell]

Again, my objection to splatbook overload is not that I have trouble saying no to additional books in my game. And it is not that my campaign world simply doesn't have those concepts in it. It's not even that I am concerned about overpowered things in those books.

My objection to splatbook overload is that with each new rule in a new supplement, you run the risk of eliminating options for others. Even if you don't even use that splatbook. Here's what I mean:

Let's say a new rule in a new supplement says if you take this feat you can move through the space of a foe the same size as you by making a Dex or Str check (athletics or acrobatics, if you have it) check versus a fixed DC.

Up until that new feat, DMs were just allowing players to make an Dex or Str (athletics or acrobatics) check versus some DC to try and do just that. But now it's a feat. So now many DMs will assume the rules were never intended to allow it with an ability check without the feat. So all of a sudden, an option all characters had that they could try, has gone away because of a new feat - even if none of them took the feat.

That's just one of many examples of the impact from new rules in supplements. Once you become aware of the new rule it's hard to pretend it doesn't change how you view other rules, in meaningful ways, even if you are not using it. It's serving as essentially errata to the core rules, when you say something that could have been done using an ability check can only be done with a feat or class ability or spell.

 

[Elf Witch]

but when one person (on either side of the DM screen) says "Can we talk about it" and the other side says "No my way or the highway" I don't understand how it matters whitch side of the screen your on.




I see it very differently, the DM is just another player of the game, and as such is no more or less entitled to anything. He has final say of rules when there is a despute, but the social contract means he has to at least try to hear out the other players. He is also not supposed to try to force anything anywhere...



again it seems odd to me that every world you run is the same, and no one could ever pitch you an idea to run a slightly different style...





I still don't get this... I'm not seeing talking about "Hey I have this fun idea for your game" to be "Making a deal out of it" especially when it is just something as small as a race...



again with this "No discussion" "My way or the highway" thinking that seems to fit your "whiny, self important, and entitled" lable then the player that just wants to talk about it...


That is CRAZY BONKERS.... of course the DM can be questioned... the Title of DM isn't some god given infallible perfect title... it is just the girl or guy sitting across the table from me. Why can't everyone question him, and heck maybe even show him a new way to look at something...


you would rather everyone let everything build up until they walk then question the judgment of there DM... not even just you as a DM, but in general you feel that ANY DM anywhere and time can only be "voted with there feet" not just "Hey I disagree with x because of Y"




I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here...

I have 0 problem with the DM making minor adjustments to my PC... but I have a big problem with them basicly laying out a set of rules and if you dare question them even a little being labled entitled...



there is 0 room in your thought here for a discussion at all. It is if you disagree with the DM you walk away or sit there and put up with it until you walk away... what about the idea that maybe you could talk to the DM and share your thoughts and then maybe work out something... maybe even the DM might learn to like something new... or not, the option to walk should be a last resort... but not the only...


Are DMs so insecure that they can not even consider there might be a different way then there's?

now you see here is a great example... lets say you sat at a FLGS to run your world every Wednesday night... I came by and said "Cool is there an open seat for a player" and you said sure and gave me a brief bit of this and I asked if I could be a warlock, and you said "Not this time, but if you become a regular maybe next campaign" that is even a compromise... but "I don't ever allow those" isn't especially if you went on to say that about a large % of the classes



since I'm the one pushing compromise I have to say I think that is a very jaded way of looking at it... give and take until BOTH parties are happy is compromise... give and take until both are miserable, that is just a waste of time.


Of course compromise can't always be reatched, but some people seem to not want to even entertain the idea... like if they gave an inch anywhere it would be the worst thing ever. There are times you can't reach a compromise, but very few times you can't atleast try first..


and isn't really a compromise... see above.



there are times you have to say no, there are even times that it means a player will need to walk. However again I'm not saying everytime it happens... just for god sake try to talk to the person...


I have seen that, but I also have seen DMs who said No psionics ever be shown it isn't that bad, and then continue on for years not having a problem with psionics... ok that was 1 DM...


I'm not sure I get why it would piss you off... as I said at the time, if I pitched a fighter/cleric he would be fine with it, but because it was my back up way to play a holy knight he flipped... it is kinda the whole reason his game fell apart he could never be reasoned with at all. Me showing that his problem with Paliden was not really a problem with paliden the class (or else the fighter/cleric would be fine) was the final straw. If he just said no fighter cleric and I just was a cleric of war with plate a sword and sheidl would that also be wrong? I just don't get it




when I say compromise I mean settle a dispute by mutual concession."in the end we compromised and deferred the issue"
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"][TR][TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD][TD]meet each other halfway, come to an understanding, make a deal, make concessions, find a happy medium, strike a balance; give and take


[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

First of all I think I see the disconnect here. You seem to think we are saying no you can't question the DM. That the DM should never be willing to talk to his players over things. That is not what I am saying and I don't think it was what anyone else is saying either. What we are saying is that that final say after the discussion comes down to the DM and the player then has a choice to stay and play or leave. Do one is saying the DM has the right to force things on anyone. If the player does not like what the DM is doing then they should not play in this campaign.

I would not want to play with a DM who would not talk and listen to me and then explain why he is saying no. Because he has the rigid an attitude I know I am not going to like how he adjudicates the rules. I also know that if a player is so rigid that they can't enjoy the game unless they can play exactly the character they want even if the DM would rather they didn't and offers them 400 other choices I don't want them at my table because they are going to be a headache and argue over every ruling that they don't like.

What I allow or ban changes with every campaign I base it on if it fits the world. In Vanderhelme the reason I discourage warlocks is because of the history of the world. The world was almost destroyed in a great war the world lost its access to the gods because of it. Tiamat made a pact with devils to grant her followers powers that is where the original warlocks came from. Warlocks are hated by not only the churches, the wizard guilds but the common people. If caught using their dark inherited powers they are burned at the stake.

Now if a player says to me I really want to play it and I explain what could happen and they say fine and since it can have an impact on the other players they get a say too if they are also fine with it and the risks involved then I will allow it. But with the understanding that if they are careless on who sees them using their powers I will not pull my punches just because they are PCs.

The reason it would piss me off is if you did it as a way to do and end round around me as a DM. If I say there are no holy warriors/paladins in my world and you think well fine I will play a cleric fighter and that way I can get around the DM that would be an issue to me. Because that would make me wonder what else you are going to try and get around me. Now if it was okay I understand no paladins but I want to play a more warrior style cleric then yes I would allow it and a compromise to the no paladin.

Race is not a small issue. If in my Vanderhelme campaign dwarves are an evil race they were tainted by their betrayal to their god and causing his death. They worship devil and demons. They are cannibalistic to other sentient races and have enslaved many races. There is no way I would allow a PC to play one even one who has turned on his people because of the conflict it would cause when he went into any town or city. They would be killed on sight. I don't think I or the other players would enjoy this kind of conflict. That does not mean that I ban dwarves in every campaign.

What I consider a whiny entitled player is one who after I have listened explained why I don't allow something and I may even have offered a compromise and the player won't budge because there is no way they will have unless they play the dwarf warlock.

 

[KarinsDad]

Dragonborn are not monsters. They did not debut in the MM, they debuted in the PHB, because WotC knew that people wanted a draconic PC race. You're twisting their nature in making them monsters, and it's a frustrating choice to take a race specifically designed as a PC race and make them NPC monsters.

It doesn't matter if Dragonborn are not monsters in your game. They are monsters in my game. Duh.

Dragonborn were introduced in 2E, basically a half-dragon creature with a humanoid parent (limited to certain humanoid races) and a dragon parent (limited to certain dragon races). They were not PCs. So yes, they started out as monsters.

In 3.5, Dragonborn were in the book Races of the Dragons where humanoids were converted to a Dragonborn by Bahamut to a race of its own. It was basically a racial template and the first time Dragonborn were created as PC races. If the PC did evil, he lost the template. So, it wasn't as much a race as it was a magical spell. That's the book that also introduced Kobolds as PC races. But again, just because a publisher writes something down does not mean that it has to be allowed.

Dragonborn did not debut in any PHB. A new PC variation did debut in the 4E PHB, but Dragonborn were not originally a PC race.

So the crime is not wanting the DM to have the DM's fun. Because If you do not believe that the DM should have the final word, this is not a style difference, you are a bad person. If you do not like how the DM runs their game, you are whiny for complaining or for leaving.

Anyone can like whatever they want.

If you do not believe that the DM should have the final word, great for you and the DMs willing to put up with your POV.

Players can vote with their feet, period. If they don't like what's presented to them and the DM doesn't want to change it, they don't have worry about whether the DM is overbearing or not, they can just leave.

Of course they can.

 

[Elf Witch]

Dragonborn are not monsters. They did not debut in the MM, they debuted in the PHB, because WotC knew that people wanted a draconic PC race. You're twisting their nature in making them monsters, and it's a frustrating choice to take a race specifically designed as a PC race and make them NPC monsters.



So the crime is not wanting the DM to have the DM's fun. Because If you do not believe that the DM should have the final word, this is not a style difference, you are a bad person. If you do not like how the DM runs their game, you are whiny for complaining or for leaving.

Players can vote with their feet, period. If they don't like what's presented to them and the DM doesn't want to change it, they don't have worry about whether the DM is overbearing or not, they can just leave.

Are DMs so insecure that they can not even consider playing a game where their pet idea is not going to happen? If someone is tired of playing humans (with pointy ears) is playing under someone who only lets his players play characters that are humans (with pointy ears), and the player quits, I see no reason to heap insults on the player; he was under no obligation to continue playing a game that wasn't providing him what we wanted.

Again, my objection to splatbook overload is not that I have trouble saying no to additional books in my game. And it is not that my campaign world simply doesn't have those concepts in it. It's not even that I am concerned about overpowered things in those books.

My objection to splatbook overload is that with each new rule in a new supplement, you run the risk of eliminating options for others. Even if you don't even use that splatbook. Here's what I mean:

Let's say a new rule in a new supplement says if you take this feat you can move through the space of a foe the same size as you by making a Dex or Str check (athletics or acrobatics, if you have it) check versus a fixed DC.

Up until that new feat, DMs were just allowing players to make an Dex or Str (athletics or acrobatics) check versus some DC to try and do just that. But now it's a feat. So now many DMs will assume the rules were never intended to allow it with an ability check without the feat. So all of a sudden, an option all characters had that they could try, has gone away because of a new feat - even if none of them took the feat.

That's just one of many examples of the impact from new rules in supplements. Once you become aware of the new rule it's hard to pretend it doesn't change how you view other rules, in meaningful ways, even if you are not using it. It's serving as essentially errata to the core rules, when you say something that could have been done using an ability check can only be done with a feat or class ability or spell.

prosfilaes well you know if a DM wants to make a race a monster race that is their right to do so under rule 0. It maybe frustrating to you but that does not mean it is frustrating to everyone. The trick is finding groups that work with your playstyle.

Who said anyone was a bad person? What I am saying is if you don't like playing with a DM who believes this then you as the player should find a DM who is more to your liking. The DM is not a bad person for running his game the way he wants.

Are players so insecure that they can only have fun if they they play their pet ideas. See how easy it is to make blanket statements like that.

No player is obligated to play with a DM and a DM is not obligated to play with a player. And both should behave in a mature fashion over it.

Mistwell I can understand your frustration over that but I can't see a way around it. There are times any new material may conflict with what you are doing at the table already. I think the only way to handle it is to ignore it for the campaign you are running. And then decide how or if you want to add it later.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

First of all I think I see the disconnect here. You seem to think we are saying no you can't question the DM. That the DM should never be willing to talk to his players over things. That is not what I am saying and I don't think it was what anyone else is saying either. What we are saying is that that final say after the discussion comes down to the DM and the player then has a choice to stay and play or leave. Do one is saying the DM has the right to force things on anyone. If the player does not like what the DM is doing then they should not play in this campaign.

my problem isn't with "Hey I listened and talked and tried, but we couldn't get it to work" my problem is... well the post after yours

 

[KarinsDad]

your the unreasonable one if you think I need to read through 100 class/race options that are disallowed before saying "Can I play X" and even more so if you think 100 is a small number 20%ish

I do not allow 2 races out of 14, and 3 or 4 subclasses out of 40. I'm not forcing you to read 100 class/race options. No Dragonborn. No Tiefling. No Assassins, etc. 5 or 6 things not allowed out of 54.

You are exaggerating.

or play with the DMs who are willing to work with players... well I have DMed I play a lot more, and I still see DMs as just another player...

So, the players get to change the campaign however they want? 5 PCs, 1 DM. So the players get to outvote the DM 5 to 1? He's just another player after all.

I call BS.

maybe the player would love to hide in the shadows in towns and 'let there guard down' in the wilds...

And maybe I do not want to impact all of the players by splitting up the party every single time they go into town because of the hairbrained idea of one player.

Do you ever take into account how your non-standard character ideas can adversely affect other players at the table? Or do you just not care about the other players? Or the DM for that matter who spends hours crafting his world?

then why can't they ask for a change in your rules?

They can and they do. And often, I say yes. I tend to not say yes when it comes to the race and class houserules that I have crafted as part of my envisionment of the campaign world.

the DM has as much authority as the players give him...

Yup. True.

but you made your final ruling before meeting your next player... so can they try to talk you out of it?

Sometimes. Probably not if they want to have a disallowed race or class allowed.

you... entirely you... I have never said "Here is my ruleing if you don't like it walk" I am WAY more likely to say "Ok, if not x how about Y"

I have never said "Here is my ruleing if you don't like it walk" either. That's your spin on what I said.

how could you listen when your mind was made up about some races/classes before meeting your next player... you can't even imagine one would say "Let me pitch you this Dragon born" and you would give him or her a fair shot... you just want to say "No Dragon born"

I seriously doubt that someone could give me such a great storyline as to allow a Dragonborn. If they did, I would warn them about the implications. And I would also warn them that I will not pull any punches. Dragonborn are monsters in my campaign world and even the PCs might consider them fair game (i.e. outlaws, kill on sight). If another PC killed that Dragonborn on sight, that too would be ok because it would be honest roleplaying.

You want to be a rebel and play a hated race, there are consequences.

I've never meet one... but then again I normaly say things like "Not normally, but whats your idea" and/or "You know what I like the idea but maybe we can tweak it to make it fit" not "No dragonborn no way no how"

As DM, that's your prerogative.

 

[prosfilaes]

Of course they can.

Then what does "players can vote with their feet if a given campaign gets too overbearing. But most games where the DM disallows some aspects of the game are not heavy handed. They are just as envisioned by the DM." mean?

 

[prosfilaes]

prosfilaes well you know if a DM wants to make a race a monster race that is their right to do so under rule 0. It maybe frustrating to you but that does not mean it is frustrating to everyone.

There are dozens of draconic humanoids in D&D. Taking the one that was explicitly designed for PC use (which it was, unless you can show me the book before Races of Dragon that has Dragonborn in it) and turning them into monsters is frustrating. Maybe it's not frustrating to everyone, but it is to me.

Who said anyone was a bad person?

Now, DMs are human and can be heavy handed or make mistakes, but players can vote with their feet if a given campaign gets too overbearing. But most games where the DM disallows some aspects of the game are not heavy handed. They are just as envisioned by the DM.

I don't know how to read that as anything but "players who vote with their feet when a given campaign is not too overbearing are bad people."

Are players so insecure that they can only have fun if they they play their pet ideas. See how easy it is to make blanket statements like that.

? That's exactly what I was replying to and making fun of.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I do not allow 2 races out of 14, and 3 or 4 subclasses out of 40. I'm not forcing you to read 100 class/race options. No Dragonborn. No Tiefling. No Assassins, etc. 5 or 6 things not allowed out of 54.

You are exaggerating.

no I trusted your numbers

The core game has about 540 class/race options. My game has about 440 class/race options.

Are you telling me that the class/race option you want that just happens to be one that is disallowed in my game and that the other 440 options are not enough, and I am the unreasonable person here?

540 your number... 440 your number... so 100 out of about 500 so just under 20%... by your numbers not mine, don't call BS on me when I used your numbers

So, the players get to change the campaign however they want? 5 PCs, 1 DM. So the players get to outvote the DM 5 to 1? He's just another player after all.

I call BS too, of course if 6 people sit down to play a game and 5 say we want X and one says no I want Y it doesn't matter who the one person is... come on how entitled would it be to assume any one person was more important then the other 5...

And maybe I do not want to impact all of the players by splitting up the party every single time they go into town because of the hairbrained idea of one player.

and again... it is harebrained, you wonder why I think you aren't giving someone a chance... what about an illusionist who can hide his race?

Do you ever take into account how your non-standard character ideas can adversely affect other players at the table? Or do you just not care about the other players? Or the DM for that matter who spends hours crafting his world?

the only time I worry about is time at the table... if we can get all 6 of us to have fun then no I don't care about anything else then fun at table...

They can and they do. And often, I say yes. I tend to not say yes when it comes to the race and class houserules that I have crafted as part of my envisionment of the campaign world.

and again, you made up your mind long ago on rce/class...

Yup. True

hey something we agree on

Sometimes. Probably not if they want to have a disallowed race or class allowed.



I have never said "Here is my ruleing if you don't like it walk" either. That's your spin on what I said.

add the first half of this quote to your whole vote with your feet and that is exactly what you said...

I seriously doubt that someone could give me such a great storyline as to allow a Dragonborn. If they did, I would warn them about the implications. And I would also warn them that I will not pull any punches. Dragonborn are monsters in my campaign world and even the PCs might consider them fair game (i.e. outlaws, kill on sight). If another PC killed that Dragonborn on sight, that too would be ok because it would be honest roleplaying.

You want to be a rebel and play a hated race, there are consequences.

gee... almost like there is a subset of players that enjoy those consequences...

 

[KarinsDad]

Then what does "players can vote with their feet if a given campaign gets too overbearing. But most games where the DM disallows some aspects of the game are not heavy handed. They are just as envisioned by the DM." mean?

It means that most DMs and players are reasonable. Most games are fun.

DMs have houserules. Usually players do not make a big stink about the DM's houserules.

If a DM is playing a reasonable game, but disallows a certain race, that's ok. It's not ok for the player to keep harping on that. If the player does not like this houserule enough, he can leave. But just because a DM is not willing to change a houserule does not make that DM heavy handed or unreasonable. It just means that this is his campaign world, modeled in the vision that he set up for it.