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

[KarinsDad]

no I trusted your numbers
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

14 * 40 = 560 core race/class combos allowed.

12 * 36 = 432, 12* 37 = 444. race/class combos allowed in my game (off the top of my head, I do not remember if it is 3 subclass or 4 subclasses disallowed)

Yup. 20+% of the combos disappear. That does not mean that players are handcuffed in their choices.


What I was calling BS on is that you said that you had to read 100 combos. Nope. You just have to read a single sentence with 2 disallowed races and 3 or 4 disallowed classes. It takes 3 seconds to read that sentence.

 

[KarinsDad]

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...

Never been in a game where the DM said "No evil PCs" and 5 players said "Come on, let's play evil PCs" and the DM said "Nope" and the players were so unreasonable that they walked from the game.

Then again, you wrote that you've walked away from a lot of games, so maybe you have seen this.

But no, generally the players do not get to outvote the DM. The DM may give in to peer pressure, but every game I've ever been in, the DM had the final say.

If you like outvoting the DM, more power to you. That's screwy, but then again, so are a lot of things people like to do.

 

[Hussar]

en you would walk out of my game. I do not include Dragonborn, Tieflings, the Assassins subclass, and two of the Warlock patrons. I like running heroic fantasy, not entitled to do whatever I want evil/monstrous PC fantasy.

Funny how "people who want to play things I don't like" automatically equates today whiny, self entitled players who are obviously the entire problem at the table.

As if anyone who dares question the obvious superiority of the all knowing DM is self evidently revealing him or herself as a problem player.

Yeah. No thanks.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Funny how "people who want to play things I don't like" automatically equates today whiny, self entitled players who are obviously the entire problem at the table.

As if anyone who dares question the obvious superiority of the all knowing DM is self evidently revealing him or herself as a problem player.

Yeah. No thanks.

I'm coming in late here but I am confused... [MENTION=6777224]Hard[/MENTION]coreD&Dgirl keeps bringing up dragonborn and [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] keeps talking about evil/monstrous PCs... I only know the 3.5 and 4e version (was there a 1e or 2e version) and both were like paliden up right heroic good guys... what am I missing (warning sorry if I missed answer I just tried to read 8 pages of this thread well watching cut throat kitchen)

 

[KarinsDad]

Funny how "people who want to play things I don't like" automatically equates today whiny, self entitled players who are obviously the entire problem at the table.

As if anyone who dares question the obvious superiority of the all knowing DM is self evidently revealing him or herself as a problem player.

Yeah. No thanks.

Well, we all know how you feel about DMs that do not do what you want them to.

5 or 6 disallowed races/classes out of 54 is absolutely horrible. Horrible. How dare that arrogant, superior DM yank out 5 or 6 races/classes out of 54!!!

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm coming in late here but I am confused... [MENTION=6777224]Hard[/MENTION]coreD&Dgirl keeps bringing up dragonborn and [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] keeps talking about evil/monstrous PCs... I only know the 3.5 and 4e version (was there a 1e or 2e version) and both were like paliden up right heroic good guys... what am I missing (warning sorry if I missed answer I just tried to read 8 pages of this thread well watching cut throat kitchen)

It's a campaign element of mine. The PC races are generally Dwarf(2), Elf(2), Gnome(2), Halfling(2), Half-Elf(1), Human(2), (and to a lesser extent, Half-Orc(1)). These are the PC races in a points of light setting. Dragonborn are reptilian, not warm blooded and like most reptilian creatures, alien and foreign to humankind and their allies. Tieflings are devil spawn.

These two normally PC races are only monstrous because that's how they are categorized in my campaign setting. This does not necessarily make them evil, but it makes them monsters.

HCD&DG thinks that I am an unreasonable DM because I have this house rule and am unwilling to budge on it.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

14 * 40 = 560 core race/class combos allowed.

12 * 36 = 432, 12* 37 = 444. race/class combos allowed in my game (off the top of my head, I do not remember if it is 3 subclass or 4 subclasses disallowed)

Yup. 20+% of the combos disappear. That does not mean that players are handcuffed in their choices.


What I was calling BS on is that you said that you had to read 100 combos. Nope. You just have to read a single sentence with 2 disallowed races and 3 or 4 disallowed classes. It takes 3 seconds to read that sentence.

I really just took your words at face value, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Your right, taking 2 races and 3 or 4 classes is way more reasnoble then it sounded before... still I disagree with your thoughts, but Im really not trying to misconstrue your thoughts...

Never been in a game where the DM said "No evil PCs" and 5 players said "Come on, let's play evil PCs" and the DM said "Nope" and the players were so unreasonable that they walked from the game.

not exactly that... but way back in the 90's I watched a game fall apart at character creation because the DM wanted to use an option book for building classes by point buy (Skills and power I think) and more then half the PCs didn't want to... we tried to compromise with "hey can't I just buy up the normal class" but the DM didn't want us to do that... I also brought up the Paliden thing before... so yea, I have seen something like that. now unlike the Paliden story the Option book one has a happy ending where we did play a very odd but fun ravonloft game instead (once the DM realized his prepared game would have to be put on back burner)

Then again, you wrote that you've walked away from a lot of games, so maybe you have seen this.

why yes I have... when DMs are unreasonable and start to over step into being bossy sometimes there whole game falls apart... then again sometimes it doesn't

But no, generally the players do not get to outvote the DM. The DM may give in to peer pressure, but every game I've ever been in, the DM had the final say.

If you like outvoting the DM, more power to you. That's screwy, but then again, so are a lot of things people like to do.

I don't like outvoteing DMs, I like to talk and reason through likes and dislikes and find a game that the most amount of people could enjoy is...

Lets say I made a 5e campaign and my girlfriend, and our 3 best friends were the players. Part of my idea is that it is like darksun, just with no psychics and all the magic is held by dragons (regular dragons not kings) hidden in the four corners of the world... then my PCs want to play a warlock, a cleric, a fighter (eldritch knight) and a rogue (arcane trickster) then I would reconsider my world... I mean I would say "My idea was X Y Z, but maybe we can do something else instead"

edit: [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] I just realized, have you only ever run 1 game and that is it? I mean you talk about how this one world must be X Y Z, but then you say things like "In my games X Y Z" maybe I'm confused, are these limits just for your current game, and you would atleast entertain the notion of changing in the next game you start?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's a campaign element of mine. The PC races are generally Dwarf(2), Elf(2), Gnome(2), Halfling(2), Half-Elf(1), Human(2), (and to a lesser extent, Half-Orc(1)). These are the PC races in a points of light setting. Dragonborn are reptilian, not warm blooded and like most reptilian creatures, alien and foreign to humankind and their allies. Tieflings are devil spawn.

These two normally PC races are only monstrous because that's how they are categorized in my campaign setting. This does not necessarily make them evil, but it makes them monsters.

HCD&DG thinks that I am an unreasonable DM because I have this house rule and am unwilling to budge on it.

OK, well I just wonder, since you changed Dragonborn so much (not warm blooded, reptilian, alien/foreign) and made them monsters would you be opposed if a player asked to let them take Dragonborn and play it as something else... like say a half dragon or something. I mean that way you still have your Dragon born, and the player gets to play a Dragonborn just not the same thing. Even going so far as to say the name is part of your race so he has to be something else?

I mean [MENTION=6777224]Hard[/MENTION]coreD&Dgirl is being a little unreasonable if she thinks it is just PCs can play what ever when ever, DMs do get a say right?

 

[billd91]

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...

That depends on who that 6th gamer is and how the group handles things. If the group handles things strictly by consensus, then they've all got veto power. One objection means no game. That's perfectly fair.

And if that 6th person is the only one willing to GM and he isn't willing to GM the game the other 5 want, again, no game and it's still perfectly fair. Who really wants a game run by a GM who doesn't really want to run that game?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

HCD&DG thinks that I am an unreasonable DM because I have this house rule and am unwilling to budge on it.

I think anyone un willing to budge on anything is at least a little bit unreasonable, but the farther you get from life and death the more unreasonable it is... when it is in the game we play of make believe I think it is pig headed to say "I'm unwilling to consider a compromise"

OK, well I just wonder, since you changed Dragonborn so much (not warm blooded, reptilian, alien/foreign) and made them monsters would you be opposed if a player asked to let them take Dragonborn and play it as something else... like say a half dragon or something. I mean that way you still have your Dragon born, and the player gets to play a Dragonborn just not the same thing. Even going so far as to say the name is part of your race so he has to be something else?

I mean @HardcoreD&Dgirl is being a little unreasonable if she thinks it is just PCs can play what ever when ever, DMs do get a say right?

I'm not the one being unreasonable, I just don't like the way it got thrown around that "problem players" are the only issue...

That depends on who that 6th gamer is and how the group handles things. If the group handles things strictly by consensus, then they've all got veto power. One objection means no game. That's perfectly fair.

And if that 6th person is the only one willing to GM and he isn't willing to GM the game the other 5 want, again, no game and it's still perfectly fair. Who really wants a game run by a GM who doesn't really want to run that game?

it also comes down to why is someone not willing to bend. Witch again is a Discussion. In an above example the DM said what he didn't like about evil games, the compromise could be to run the evil game BUT the players avoid the behavior in question. I mean no rule that is so set in stone come from no where right? There is a reason, and if that reason can be addressed you can play a game you all want... of course if you can't sit and discusse it, then the whole game goes boom.

just like if you don't like paliden's because you read a book where they were saints, and you can't imagine anyone playing a saint... then being a fighter cleric, and as such someone below saint hood but still in the same wheel house should be fine.