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

[KarinsDad]

so maybe I'm miss reading this, but what your saying is that there are some things you so strongly feel (Example Dragonborn PC in your current world) that you could not change them, but you could play under a DM that would. Well would you be willing to tell a PC that they can play a Dragonborn next time because your next world WILL have them, just play something different for now? or are all of your worlds the same when it comes to this split of pc/npc?

DO you understand why some people can't play under DMs like you?

Actually, I suspect that most people can play under DMs like myself. You are getting one single caricature image in your head about how I DM, but I've been doing it for 35+ years and only in a few rare instances did people have a problem. I DMed in one area for 10 years with one group, moved 3000 miles, DMed another group for 9 years, moved 1000 miles, DMed a group for 13 years (although we had a lot of turnover because a lot of people were in the military), and now moved back and was DMing 4E with part of the same group that I DMed 3 decades ago (I actually drive 90 miles one way twice a month to game with these particular friends).

And yes, I can understand how some people can have problems with some things I do as a DM. But I suspect that the differences here on the forum are a lot sharper than the ones at an actual gaming table.

I'm somewhere in the middle of the road. I make games with heavy restrictions that I wont waver on, but I always have a few in the wings so that I can match the world to the Players. I also take requests.

I also take requests. I also usually agree with those requests.

For instiance I once made a whole world around the fact that 1 PC wanted to be a starlock and another wanted to be a warden.

I also know there are something's some players can't take. When I pitched my darksun game to both groups I found the Tuesday night group would be a problem. One of the players from both Saturday and Tuesday immediately pitched an idea for a runepriest who is seeking ancient runes, and another player (one who only plays Tuesdays) said he didn't want to have divine classes or it would not seem like darksun. After 15-20 mins going back and forth I just wont run that game, we will find one that works for all of us.

That's cool.

now at first I was with one side on this thread, but I have to say you all paint each other in such negative lights

Yup, that can happen.

 

[KarinsDad]

So what do you consider to be a legitimate reason for bowing out of a campaign? If "I'm pretty sure I'm not going to enjoy this game" isn't good enough, what is?

That is good enough. Never said it wasn't. I said that it sounded like you used that option in order to get your way at the table. Not saying that is what happened, but it sounded that way, especially with your "all for one" speech. By threatening to bow out, you were not being "one for all", rather you were being "one for me". Or at least it sounds that way. It's a moot discussion though.

 

[Hussar]

I hear you, but....

What if the players want to play Halflings in a Dragonlance setting? What if they want to play Kender in a Forgotten Realms setting? What is they want to play walking-talking Minotaurs in Karameikos/Mystara? What if they want to play a Warforged in Greyhawk? What I'm getting at is, when one selects a setting to play in, one has chosen it due to the distinct canon, lore, myth, races, geography, personalities, politics...etc.

Would you not agree that it seems reasonable to afford the right for DMs to create their own settings, with lore, myth, races...etc since we already afford that right to published settings?
We certainly do not call the creators or the users of Greyhawk, Darksun, Eberon, FR, Ravenloft...settings who are obviously fixated about the details of these campaign worlds, as "strong-arm DMs". I deem it a little unfair for players to demand such strong authorial roles (such as the inclusion of races) in unpublished settings just because they are not published.

Since you have currently mentioned that you will be playing in a Dragonlance setting, how will the request to play a warforged character sit with the DM? Just curious. I mean a DM can obviously pull it off, anything can be included, but I imagine there is also a certain level of respect/decorum for the setting - at least there is for me.

Lastly, I'm fairly optimistic (perhaps foolishly so) that the majority of DMs first propose a campaign concept to their players along with all its various chargen restrictions for that setting and then the group decides if they are on board or not with the concept. It is generally not a surprised authoritarian limitation that is unleashed on the players.

Funnily enough, the idea of a war forged character came up during chargen. No one jumped on it, but, it was discussed. We decided that a war forged could very easily be a Gnomish invention. Would not have been a problem to add whatsoever.

As far as the other examples, good grief, do people really balk that much at that sort of thing? Dropping minotaurs into Mystara would be hardly a jump in a setting that already has dog people (Lupine) and cat people (Rakasta). Would adding bull people really cause any angst? Our current Dark Sun campaign includes a druid that can create water and a Shardmind computer from the Red Age. How's that for breaking with canon? And considering that Greyhawk had robots in it in the 1970's, why would anyone have an issue with Warforged in Greyhawk?

See, when I see DM's talking about protecting their campaigns against certain ideas (no tieflings because they get attacked on sight) all I see is a failure of imagination on the part of the DM's. If you can't fit something into your campaign, particularly anything that's already in a D&D source book, you're probably not trying very hard. I stand by my earlier comment that having a fully engaged player is far, far superior than protecting my setting. I don't expect other DM's to agree with that. But, that's certainly how I roll.

 

[KarinsDad]

But characterising anyone who disagrees with you as whiney, or self entitled apparently does apply well?

Actually, nobody did this here. We were talking about hypothetical gamers with hypothetical behaviors. If someone takes this personally, then that's their issue.

The only time we talked about specific people is when you gave the example that happened at your game, and when HCDDG said she quit a lot of games.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

It's not coming across that way when people talk about "how the DM is my way or the highway" because of a campaign element, or "how they quit games", etc.

your race restriction really come off as "my way or high way" because if someone really wanted to play X you cant' consive of a reason to let them...

I'm all for discussion. I suspect that we discuss our games ahead of time, just like you do.

then the answer to the question of "What do you say when someone wants to play a dragonborn" is "Oh, then I would have made my world fit dragonborn, but none of us are using the race anyway"

I think that the difference is that when our DM says "I'd like to play a game of heroic PCs in the Forgotten Realms, no evil alignments, no Tieflings because they are devil spawn and I don't want to deal with the NPCs wanting to attack the PCs all of the time", etc., our players just tend to say "Sure, that sounds fun" instead of "Well, why exactly do you want to remove Tieflings?" or "Why do you want to play in the Forgotten Realms?".

it depends, sometimes it sounds fine... maybe we all really wanted to play elves and dwarves... then it would be "cool, sounds like fun." but if someone had spent the last few months really wanting to play a tiefling warlock then they might say "Man I really had my heart set on tiefling warlock" and then that would dove tail into a whole discussion.

It sounds like a trust issue, but maybe it isn't. To me, campaign settings are trivial things as a player, important things as a DM.

I agree, the important things to me are friends, story, and character. the story and character can fit 99% of games and worlds...

As a player, I trust the DM to do a great job putting together a campaign.

I do to, inless the DM does something to breach that trust...

It's the time spent playing with friends and having a great time which is important for me. I don't actually have any real angst about my PC. I don't "plumb the depths of his emotional state to the nth degree". I play to be social with friends, not to be a thespian. It's the real people in the room that are important, not the made up people on the piece of paper. If I have a sketchy background for my PC, that's ok. If I have a real in depth background for my PC (which I usually do), that's ok too.

see 100% on the same page here... that is like a perfect description of my play style

As a DM, I want to give my players a really good experience, so I put a lot of time and effort into my campaign details (once the group decides to play that campaign) and do try to be more of a thespian, and details are critically important for consistency and flow.

100% agree here too... it's amazing we have so much in common but can be at odds so much...

Quite frankly, the biggest issue that we had for our table this entire year is when I said "I want to start playing 5E. I think that it's a much better system." and some of the players (who had only been playing 4E for 6 months) said "Great, I was just getting into this PC, now you want to change game systems.". Those players are now really into 5E, but I do understand getting a PC up to level 4 or so and then not liking switching systems. The timing really sucked. But it wasn't "my way or the highway". We discussed it and agreed. And, I'm not even DM, even though I brought the idea to the group (I was the 4E DM).

so just to be clear, you have no problem discussing things... when you are a player, so how is that different then discussing someone playing a dragonborn?

I hear you, but....

What if the players want to play Halflings in a Dragonlance setting? What if they want to play Kender in a Forgotten Realms setting? What is they want to play walking-talking Minotaurs in Karameikos/Mystara? What if they want to play a Warforged in Greyhawk? What I'm getting at is, when one selects a setting to play in, one has chosen it due to the distinct canon, lore, myth, races, geography, personalities, politics...etc.

If you wanted to play those it would have come up at setting discussion, aka I don't want to play a hafling in Dragonlance, because I don't want to play in dragonlance if I want to play a hafling...

What if they want to play Kender

Then they are a bad player and need to be beat... with a stick... no matter the setting...

Would you not agree that it seems reasonable to afford the right for DMs to create their own settings, with lore, myth, races...etc since we already afford that right to published settings?

yes, but if the players don't want to play it, they should either a back burner it till the do, or modfie it until they do... not force people to play something they don't want to

We certainly do not call the creators or the users of Greyhawk, Darksun, Eberon, FR, Ravenloft...settings who are obviously fixated about the details of these settings, as "strong-arm DMs". I deem it a little unfair for players to demand such strong authorial roles in unpublished settings just because they are not published.

look at [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], he is going to allow a rune priest is Athus. or look to my own DM who let warlocks run around Greyhawk...

Since you have currently mentioned that you will be playing in a Dragonlance setting, how will the request to play a warforged character sit with the DM? Just curious. I mean a DM can obviously pull it off, anything can be included, but I imagine there is also a certain level of respect/decorum for the setting - at least there is for me.

well not really directed at me, I will just say in a Forgotten Realms game a few years back that happened... I just said "well if you want to play the rules of warforged and the fluff of being a 1 off awakened construct that would be great." and the player ran with it for months.

Lastly, I'm fairly optimistic (perhaps foolishly so) that the majority of DMs first propose a campaign concept to their players along with all its various chargen restrictions for that setting and then the group decides if they are on board or not with the concept. It is generally not a surprised authoritarian limitation that is unleashed on the players.

I have seen both (although mostly the propose first) but my problem is when in that propose step, before the game starts, when just talking about creation of characters, not even dice out yet, the PC says "I don't like x restriction" isn't that the perfect time to talk it through?

 

[KarinsDad]

See, when I see DM's talking about protecting their campaigns against certain ideas (no tieflings because they get attacked on sight) all I see is a failure of imagination on the part of the DM's. If you can't fit something into your campaign, particularly anything that's already in a D&D source book, you're probably not trying very hard. I stand by my earlier comment that having a fully engaged player is far, far superior than protecting my setting. I don't expect other DM's to agree with that. But, that's certainly how I roll.

And that's cool.

You do seem to be anti-DM to DMs who do not share your "use anything from any source book in any campaign" POV. Some DMs like certain boundaries and do not want free for alls.

 

[KarinsDad]

your race restriction really come off as "my way or high way" because if someone really wanted to play X you cant' consive of a reason to let them...


then the answer to the question of "What do you say when someone wants to play a dragonborn" is "Oh, then I would have made my world fit dragonborn, but none of us are using the race anyway"

it depends, sometimes it sounds fine... maybe we all really wanted to play elves and dwarves... then it would be "cool, sounds like fun." but if someone had spent the last few months really wanting to play a tiefling warlock then they might say "Man I really had my heart set on tiefling warlock" and then that would dove tail into a whole discussion.


I agree, the important things to me are friends, story, and character. the story and character can fit 99% of games and worlds...


I do to, inless the DM does something to breach that trust...


see 100% on the same page here... that is like a perfect description of my play style

100% agree here too... it's amazing we have so much in common but can be at odds so much...


so just to be clear, you have no problem discussing things... when you are a player, so how is that different then discussing someone playing a dragonborn?

It sounds like you are I are a lot closer then the beginning of the conversation illustrated.

A minor issue on campaign decision making / boundaries seems to be the main difference.

As for the dragonborn, if a player really had his heart set on playing one for a few months, then we would work it out. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't pitch the original idea of the campaign world without dragonborn and as a general rule (like 99% of the time), my current fellow players would just not even blink. If one of them had thought of playing a dragonborn, they would probably realize that there are a dozen other races to play and that player might not even bring it up. This often happens with friends that you've known for 35 to 40 years, or family members that you've known since they were born (which is what our table currently is like).

At an FLGS, it's totally different. Practically everything is allowed and the campaign world is often fairly sketchy. Not always, but usually since the players rotate in and out.

 

[Sadras]

Funnily enough, the idea of a war forged character came up during chargen. No one jumped on it, but, it was discussed. We decided that a war forged could very easily be a Gnomish invention. Would not have been a problem to add whatsoever.

Great idea. I like lots - I can see some fun in it.

As far as the other examples, good grief, do people really balk that much at that sort of thing?

No, not really. We were playing 4e Mystara and one of my players really wanted to play a Revenant. Well between myself as DM and him as player we worked something out regarding backstory for this character and included him in and that is not the only time I have done this. Of course I would like to say everything is possible - but sometimes their are hard limits the DM would like to impose for the setting and I think from my perspective it is unfair to chastise a DM for wanting to impose such limit for flavourful setting purposes.

See, when I see DM's talking about protecting their campaigns against certain ideas (no tieflings because they get attacked on sight) all I see is a failure of imagination on the part of the DM's.

I find that statement incredibly unfair. If I would like to run a political and nationalistic storyline within Karameikos and I make the restriction that I would like all the characters to either be human Traladaran or human Thyatians I should be able to without others calling for 'failure of imagination'
Sure I can introduce elven and dwarvern characters into the storyline, but perhaps I don't want to as DM. Like I said before, these campaign ideas a proposed to the players beforehand so its not like its sprung on them and if they agree, well then it is ok. You seem to be ignoring that step completely.

If you can't fit something into your campaign, particularly anything that's already in a D&D source book, you're probably not trying very hard.

It is not a question that one "can't" fit but that one "does not want to" fit.
Staying true to setting, trying to play it in its natural state, authentic...and all that crap.
I do not go to Sushi Restaurants and order burgers or pizza and if they do not serve me pizza or burger, I tell them their chef is unimaginative or that he is not trying very hard.

I stand by my earlier comment that having a fully engaged player is far, far superior than protecting my setting.

The PHB is full of options. If the player can only be fully engaged with the KNOWN option/s that conflict/s with the agreed upon setting well then frankly I'd rather not have that player in my group. And as a player I would conform to the DM's prescribed setting, but I understand that is me.
Despite this statement or hard line above that I have made - I generally work with the players, but I have also denied them when I felt that they were straying too far or selecting prohibited character concepts purely for mechanical reasons.

I don't expect other DM's to agree with that. But, that's certainly how I roll.

Fair enough. I respect your position, despite that I do not agree with it. No worries.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

It sounds like you are I are a lot closer then the beginning of the conversation illustrated.

A minor issue on campaign decision making / boundaries seems to be the main difference.

As for the dragonborn, if a player really had his heart set on playing one for a few months, then we would work it out. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't pitch the original idea of the campaign world without dragonborn and as a general rule (like 99% of the time), my current fellow players would just not even blink. If one of them had thought of playing a dragonborn, they would probably realize that there are a dozen other races to play and that player might not even bring it up. This often happens with friends that you've known for 35 to 40 years, or family members that you've known since they were born (which is what our table currently is like).

At an FLGS, it's totally different. Practically everything is allowed and the campaign world is often fairly sketchy. Not always, but usually since the players rotate in and out.

ok, then I guess we pretty much are on the same page...

 

[Sadras]

I have seen both (although mostly the propose first) but my problem is when in that propose step, before the game starts, when just talking about creation of characters, not even dice out yet, the PC says "I don't like x restriction" isn't that the perfect time to talk it through?

Sure, I agree.
Apologies I'm only replying to this quote and not all your others, because generally, having read your other posts, I believe you and I are on the same page. I was only replying to @Hussar because he, IMO, takes a very hard stand, which is fine, I just wanted to challenge it to see if he really believes DMs should be that flexible which it looks like he does.

As DM, I generally propose a plethora of campaign options and let the players choose where/when they want to play. They know the settings - and sometimes they propose non-standard character options for these settings which for the most part I work with them and allow.

But I imagine if someone came to me and asked me to play a Warforged character (and since we do not play Eberon) I would undoubtedly say no. That would be my hard limit. And its not that I'm unimaginative - I just do not like the concept of Warforged - I as DM do not want to deal with Warforged, just like Hussar does not want to deal with Planescape.

Now Hussar's point would be that I as DM am unimaginative and that I have lost a fully engaged player (because whatever else he/she chooses, will result in that player not being fully engaged) - this is where he and I disagree.

@HardcoreDandDGirl let me know if there is still an issue you would like me to answer back on from your previous post.