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

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

That's because both sides are wrong, but the player was more wrong. Both DMs and players should, to quote Dan Savage, be GGG (Good, Giving, and Game). If the player bring a supplement to your attention, let them try it out! Trust them (and yourself) to make it work. Likewise, as a player, if a DM says there's something they can't allow, and there's a good reason for it, TRUST them. Find something else that makes you excited to play. If you really can't get excited about playing because that concept get nixed, you need to a) bow out and b) figure out what your hangup is.

that is a great way to look at things. Infact I may have to check out this Dan Savage

 

[Greg K]

I finally asked him what I should play, and he designed a telepathic character that I customized with some alien Tech. Game 1 I meet the other players and we started. I had no fun at all in the game. not one bit. the story was weird, I always wanted to be playing something else. when asked why I was honest "Because every superhero I wanted to play was said no to." It was a crappy way to start a campaign.

This is why I think GMs owe it to their players to be clear about what is and is not inappropriate for the particular campaign before characters are even created. Genres like fantasy and superheroes have such a variety of material of different themes and power leves that people can come to the table come with divergent influences and expectations. If the GM just says, "I am running game "x" or "x" with a certain number of character points , then they are to blame when players present inappropriate characters (power level, concept, or whatever), because the player has been given no guidance as to what is and is not appropriate for a character or any real information to make an informed decision of the game will be for them. Worse is making the player, repeatedly, go through the process, because the GM sends the player back to the drawing board with no additional guidance.

easier said then done. I don't like being forced to play things I don't want to play. If the DM is saying "Don't play what you want" then yea, it may become a lackadaisical play as a result. .

If I can't find something I want to play, I leave and let everyone play rather than dragging down the energy. However, i would be asking the GM questions before ever creating a character. For M&M, what are the GM's influences for the campaign? Examples of characters that are both appropriate and inappropriate in terms of theme and power level.
Powers that are inappropriate.

 

[Greg K]

That's because both sides are wrong, but the player was more wrong. Both DMs and players should, to quote Dan Savage, be GGG (Good, Giving, and Game). If the player bring a supplement to your attention, let them try it out!

Let them try it out? Sorry, no. Agree to look it over (if I am not familiar) and decide based upon mechanics, theme, etc. or if the concept is currently, being handled by something I prefer, yes!

 

[Sadras]

Let them try it out? Sorry, no. Agree to look it over (if I am not familiar) and decide based upon mechanics, theme, etc. or if the concept is currently, being handled by something I prefer, yes!

Yup! I say it is the DM's call at chargen, especially once consensus of the proposed campaign (theme, genre...etc) has been agreed upon by all.

And for heaven's sake all you DM-bashers, we are speaking of reasonable DMs.

As for the newbie DM example: I can understand how a newbie DM could feel intimidated about supplements, especially if they are not familiar with them. Perhaps the DM did not want to learn classes as well as prepare for adventures. The player was definitely at fault in my opinion. I'm surprised by some of your reactions here since we all take extra care when growing new players into the hobby, yet here you guys are chastising a newbie DM and not affording him/her the same treatment.

Sorry to say this, but I feel it has to be said, it sounds like many of you have DM-issues to work over cause your scars seem deep.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Yup! I say it is the DM's call at chargen, especially once consensus of the proposed campaign (theme, genre...etc) has been agreed upon by all.

but in order to get there... drum roll please...

You NEED TO AGREE....

all of the problems disappear if you agree, by its nature this thread is about what happens when you disagree.

And for heaven's sake all you DM-bashers, we are speaking of reasonable DMs.

except that is the argument... what makes a DM Unreasonable?

lets take 4 DMs (at least one of these is me by the way) lets see if you think any are or are not unreasonable.

1) The DM shows up to a 3.5 game with a binder, in it is a 20 page expanded history of the world (also has a 1 page hand out with condensed version) a list of races allowed (human, elf and half elf from phb, Elan from Psi hand book, and two races from incarnum) mixed with 2 new races (one is a kender like race, the other a dragonborn like one) and a list of classes 15 from the books and 2 full homebrew classes (the magister and the ravager) and a list of 22 prestige classes from diffent books, and 18 home brew (some just modified from books) Prc. He tells the players they will be starting in the floating city on the east coast of his 7 page fold out map.
One of the players says "Um, are you crazy, is this even D&D anymore?"

2) 5e playtest. The DM has watched WAY too much game of thrones, and wants to run a game where there is a lot of political infighting... human only, no spellcasters.
all the players to one way or another ask the same question "Is this worth play testing next? wouldn't fate or something fit better?"

3) 4e game The DM takes a piece of graph paper, puts a dot on it, lables it a city name. Then takes out a single sheet of paper writes the name of the city and 4 NPCs and 6 Locations all within the city. Then says "OK, so lets make some characters"
Some players start thinking, but one says "How can we make characters with no idea what the world is like?"

4) set the way back machine to 2e, and the DM says that this world is ruled by an alliance of Gnomes and Kobolds and Dwarves. It is a world full of technology, and you will be part of the reblian against this evil empire... races allowed are human, hafling and elf, and spell casters only, level limits strictly enforced

Sorry to say this, but I feel it has to be said, it sounds like many of you have DM-issues to work over cause your scars seem deep.

maybe instead of pretending the issue is 100% on my side of the discussion we can say we all have had some issues, becus the deep scars from 'bad' players seems stronger still from where I am sitting

 

[TwoSix]

1) The DM shows up to a 3.5 game with a binder, in it is a 20 page expanded history of the world (also has a 1 page hand out with condensed version) a list of races allowed (human, elf and half elf from phb, Elan from Psi hand book, and two races from incarnum) mixed with 2 new races (one is a kender like race, the other a dragonborn like one) and a list of classes 15 from the books and 2 full homebrew classes (the magister and the ravager) and a list of 22 prestige classes from diffent books, and 18 home brew (some just modified from books) Prc. He tells the players they will be starting in the floating city on the east coast of his 7 page fold out map.
One of the players says "Um, are you crazy, is this even D&D anymore?"

I'm in. Totally not how I run D&D, but I like a DM who asks me to get invested. I know and play with many players who would balk at this level of house-ruling however.

2) 5e playtest. The DM has watched WAY too much game of thrones, and wants to run a game where there is a lot of political infighting... human only, no spellcasters.
all the players to one way or another ask the same question "Is this worth play testing next? wouldn't fate or something fit better?"

In, but very vary cautious. No spellcaster 5e is not a lot of options. I'd probably be one of the people saying that another system would be a better fit.

3) 4e game The DM takes a piece of graph paper, puts a dot on it, lables it a city name. Then takes out a single sheet of paper writes the name of the city and 4 NPCs and 6 Locations all within the city. Then says "OK, so lets make some characters"
Some players start thinking, but one says "How can we make characters with no idea what the world is like?"

In. (because its 4e!) I immediately start brainstorming other lands and areas my character could be from for my backstory.

4) set the way back machine to 2e, and the DM says that this world is ruled by an alliance of Gnomes and Kobolds and Dwarves. It is a world full of technology, and you will be part of the reblian against this evil empire... races allowed are human, hafling and elf, and spell casters only, level limits strictly enforced

In. Although spellcaster only seems weird with halflings. I would have said humans, half-elves, and elves, and I pitch that to the DM. If half-elves are allowed, I'm going Cleric/Mage. Maybe we can use Skills and Powers? Because then I'm going Cleric.

 

[Sadras]

but in order to get there... drum roll please...
You NEED TO AGREE....
all of the problems disappear if you agree, by its nature this thread is about what happens when you disagree.

Actually @Hussar argues that the DM has to be fully flexible, no matter if the group has agreed to the theme or setting. And it appears that only the usual suspects ("DM-lovers") disagreed with that. So no, this thread is not only about that.
Your comments about the newbie DM did not help matters either - I noticed you didn't quote that part of my post.
And lets be honest here, even if the PCs agree to a setting, they still come asking for little extra's and what not.
It also doesn't help matters when people here confuse player/character agency with chargen limitations.

except that is the argument... what makes a DM Unreasonable?

According to you, at least part of the definition is a newbie DM who wont allow supplement books, despite him having communicated to the players that they feel intimidated by additional unfamiliar matierla and would like to first get a handle on DMing.
I disagree and say, the player was unreasonable.

lets take 4 DMs (at least one of these is me by the way) lets see if you think any are or are not unreasonable.

We have not come to the part where the DM is unreasonable. You have essentially only relayed the "proposal phase." Player are still engaging the DM about the campaign and setting.

PS: I would gladly play in any one of those campaigns I am so easy-going, plus in relation to what [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] said earlier, I generally throw my trust with the DM. I'm always for giving the DM an opportunity. Why burn him at chargen - makes no sense.

maybe instead of pretending the issue is 100% on my side of the discussion we can say we all have had some issues, becus the deep scars from 'bad' players seems stronger still from where I am sitting

Actually I do not have a problem with players. If anything I was a poorer DM in my earlier days. I'm just advocating that it is unreasonable to chastise DMs for having limitations/restrictions on proposed settings/campaigns for thematic, backstory or whatever reasons.

 

[prosfilaes]

And for heaven's sake all you DM-bashers, we are speaking of reasonable DMs.

That, especially combined with some No True Scotsman, will win any argument. If you have a perfect DM, of course you can just run with it. If you have a real-world DM, you can just dismiss anything as "unreasonable".

The player was definitely at fault in my opinion.

The solution proposed is that he should just leave, but some of the people making that proposal would criticize him for it, and that may not have been socially easy.

Sorry to say this, but I feel it has to be said, it sounds like many of you have DM-issues to work over cause your scars seem deep.

Internet psychoanalysis of people you're arguing with. I think I've got a Magic 8-Ball that's slightly more reliable.

 

[Sadras]

That, especially combined with some No True Scotsman, will win any argument. If you have a perfect DM, of course you can just run with it. If you have a real-world DM, you can just dismiss anything as "unreasonable".

So, either the DM is unreasonable or perfect, those are some extremes you live by. A reasonable DM will engage with players and compromise or come to some sort of solution or will be flexible with some options in certain campaigns and have harder limits in others. He does not have to be "perfect"

The solution proposed is that he should just leave, but some of the people making that proposal would criticize him for it, and that may not have been socially easy.

Actually in the case of the newbie DM, I would rule that that player leaves the group - he was completely unreasonable at chargen stage. And I have been in the situation where I dislike the DM's playstyle during a campaign and yes it is incredibly difficult to leave I agree with you wholeheartedly. I didn't have the guts at the time - I was waiting it out.

Internet psychoanalysis of people you're arguing with. I think I've got a Magic 8-Ball that's slightly more reliable.

Hey, its part of my Virgoan trait and I have expertise

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Actually @Hussar argues that the DM has to be fully flexible, no matter if the group has agreed to the theme or setting. And it appears that only the usual suspects ("DM-lovers") disagreed with that. So no, this thread is not only about that.

no [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has argued that you need to compromise... just like I have.

Your comments about the newbie DM did not help matters either - I noticed you didn't quote that part of my post.
And lets be honest here, even if the PCs agree to a setting, they still come asking for little extra's and what not.
It also doesn't help matters when people here confuse player/character agency with chargen limitations.

well the reason I quote is when I disagree, My problem is until the moment the game starts we are just friends sitting around making plans to play... I include Chargen in that.

According to you, at least part of the definition is a newbie DM who wont allow supplement books, despite him having communicated to the players that they feel intimidated by additional unfamiliar matierla and would like to first get a handle on DMing.

and again, there are circumstances that fly, and ones it doesnt'... again running a PF AP is the big glareing issue here... the DM has to learn the basic rules (was already a player so basics are a check)... how to set up a campaign (hey look he choose a premade pre packackaged one)... how to handle players (wow that is a hard skill... up there with herding cats)... and learning the rules of each PC. D&D (and pathfinder) are really packages of rules. Learning all of one package over another is not a big deal. to be honest learning gunslinger is way easier then learning wizard...

I disagree and say, the player was unreasonable.

that is where we disagree... he may have been but we don't know...

We have not come to the part where the DM is unreasonable. You have essentially only relayed the "proposal phase." Player are still engaging the DM about the campaign and setting.

your right... it is how the DM reacts to the others...

PS: I would gladly play in any one of those campaigns I am so easy-going, plus in relation to what [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] said earlier, I generally throw my trust with the DM. I'm always for giving the DM an opportunity. Why burn him at chargen - makes no sense.

well sometimes char gen is a problem in and of itself...

Actually I do not have a problem with players. If anything I was a poorer DM in my earlier days. I'm just advocating that it is unreasonable to chastise DMs for having limitations/restrictions on proposed settings/campaigns for thematic, backstory or whatever reasons.

I don't chastise DMs for having limits, I worry when DMs hit hard limits at char gen with no ability to forsee anyone ever wanting to play other things...

I'm in. Totally not how I run D&D, but I like a DM who asks me to get invested. I know and play with many players who would balk at this level of house-ruling however.

yea, it was crazy levels of house rules... someone had way too much time on there hands

In, but very vary cautious. No spellcaster 5e is not a lot of options. I'd probably be one of the people saying that another system would be a better fit.

yea, it was a spur of the moment idea, and one that went no where...

In. (because its 4e!) I immediately start brainstorming other lands and areas my character could be from for my backstory.

man I wish you were around back then...

In. Although spellcaster only seems weird with halflings. I would have said humans, half-elves, and elves, and I pitch that to the DM. If half-elves are allowed, I'm going Cleric/Mage. Maybe we can use Skills and Powers? Because then I'm going Cleric.

all 4 games are ones I pitched and either never got played at all, or made it less then 7 game sessions....