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

[Piratecat]

As a side note, I'll never understand the impetus to play a character with mechanics that the DM hates. If my DM hates psionics, and I want to play a psion, it's pretty unlikely that we'll find cool psionic monsters or treasure or NPCs or organizations in the world that my PC can relate to. Psionics would make my friend cranky every time I used them, too. It seems like a sub-optimal approach for me if I want to feel integrated in the world.

 

[Greg K]

And this is why I talk about lack of trust in the players. Because it's pretty clear here you have little trust in the players.

It has nothing to do with lack of trust in players. So get off that horse. It has to do with campaign settings, meeting my mechanical sensibilities, meeting my aesthetic tastes, whether I have another set of mechanics doing the same, keeping everyone on the same page, providing enough information prior to character generation to determine if the game will be for them, and to a degree, a lack of trust in the WOTC designers to meet my preferences.

When I run 3e, Book of 9 Swords will never be used. I use the maneuver system from Book of Iron Might. I don't care for the mechanics in Bo9s, but do like the maneuver system in BOIM. WOTC's Psionic's books will not be used, because I use Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook. If they want to play a scout, they can use the Martial Rogue variants from Unearthed Arcana or the non-spellcasting Ranger from Complete Champion. If they want to play a Shaman, they can use Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook instead of the WOTC version. If they want to play a monk, the closest thing I use for most campaigns is a slightly tweaked OA Shaman.

At the moment, I will not run 5e. The issue with 5e at the moment, is the design of most of the classes. I have a few other issues (most of which are very easily house ruled), but I can't stand the mechanical design of most of the classes.

 

[Elf Witch]

So [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION], you bring up an example of a player being a problem. But then admit that the problem had pretty much nothing to do with the game but because of a host of real life issues.

So how does that help your point that players should respect their DM? The issues you were having have pretty much nothing to do with this conversation.

And this is why I talk about lack of trust in the players. Because it's pretty clear here you have little trust in the players.

Exactly. The example is of a bad player. What does that prove other than, don't play with jerks? He wasn't a jerk because he asked to play a Gun character. He was a jerk AND he asked to play a Gun character. Had he gotten to play the Gun character, he'd still be a jerk. Or do you think he would magically become a great player and a joy to be around had the DM given him what he wanted?



Does this apply to everyone at the table, or only players?

You really reach don't you. The whole unhappiness started because he couldn't play a gunslinger. This player who I have known for 18 years is the type to allow his out of game life to intrude if he is unhappy in the game. If he is happy and having fun in the game then it doesn't. He derailed both campaigns because he was unhappy in the game. Gaming is his escape from the real world pressures so if the game is not going well he gets frustrated and angry. He also gets very attached to his characters so the DM asking for changes is something that will not go over easy for him.

Because of that if I DM I will never say yes to anything that I think might end up being an issue because I know that he won't take it well. In DnD he tends to be a powergamer and the interesting thing the few times he has DMed a DnD game he is very strict about sticking mostly to core no third party. He tends to be more of a do as I say not as I do.

So yes what his behavior does have very much to do with the conversation.

Tell me how not being willing to allow the kitchen sink in your game equates to not trusting your players? I find it very telling that you have this issue of players not being trusted but you don't seem to think it should work the same way for DMs shouldn't players trust their DMs and trust that the DM is trying their best to run a game that is fun for everyone?

Hussar you must only know perfect people lucky you. Can K sometimes behave like a jerk in some games why yes he can but it is not in every single game. He does better with some DMs than others. But because of certain things he does a DM has to handle him differently than a more laid back player.

And yes he is a lot more fun to be around when he gets to play exactly what he wants. When he is happy in the game the jerk behavior does not rear its head nearly as often and when it does it is because he has issues with playstyles different from his.

Holy crap you really are being combative here. Of course it includes the DM and I think you damn well know that. Tell me when I ever said in any post I have ever made here that I think that the DM should be treated like a god and be allowed to act like petty dictator?

There is a huge difference between saying in this campaign core only and the DM having the final say when it comes to a rule decision and being allowed to run rough shod over the group. The more I read the more I think you have had such bad luck as a player with bad DMs that you lack the capacity to give any of them the benefit of the doubt in these conversations. And before you say shouldn't players get the benefit of the doubt I have never told ant DM who comes here for help with a player issue to just kick the player out of the game and nor do I assume the player is being a jerk. I always advise the DM to talk with the player to see if the issues can be fixed.

 

[Piratecat]

Folks, a gentle reminder to everyone: it's fine if other people don't agree with you. Please stay away from insults (including sly backhanded ones) and ascribing intent to other people. I'd much rather the thread stay interesting.

I mention this now to forestall problems later.

 

[Elf Witch]

As a side note, I'll never understand the impetus to play a character with mechanics that the DM hates. If my DM hates psionics, and I want to play a psion, it's pretty unlikely that we'll find cool psionic monsters or treasure or NPCs or organizations in the world that my PC can relate to. Psionics would make my friend cranky every time I used them, too. It seems like a sub-optimal approach for me if I want to feel integrated in the world.

I am the same way. One of the DMs I played with since 1986, she passed away last November, hated psionics with a passion she hated the rules for them felt that they didn't really fit in a fantasy world with magic. She never came out and said no you can't play one but it was obvious anytime someone did she hated it. So I never asked to play one because of this.

DMs like players are humans and not perfect so you need to work with that in mind. If you know the DM has certain things that annoy them but you enjoy their campaigns why go out of your way to do it.

And I know Hussar and others are going to say shouldn't it work the same way with players. In theory it should and can if every player at the table likes the same thing but often they don't. For example I really hate long drawn out dungeon crawls I prefer political intrigues and solving mysteries another player likes dungeon crawls and prefers not to deal with political intrigue. So a DM wanting to give everyone at the table to have fun is going to have to balance the needs of one player with the needs of the others.

 

[Piratecat]

So a DM wanting to give everyone at the table to have fun is going to have to balance the needs of one player with the needs of the others.

Yup. I run into this myself; until recently I had one player out of 6 who really loved 4e's tactical combat. I wasn't crazy about it, and prefer to not always use miniatures during combat, but we made sure there was a balance of both types.

And (to get my part of the thread back on topic) I generally really like any supplement that doesn't introduce wacky sub-systems. The more easily new rules can be integrated into play, the more likely I am to say "sure." It's when I have to fundamentally change aspects of my campaign world, or try to accommodate new rules systems that feel tacked on, that I'm less likely to feel satisfied with the results.

 

[Hussar]

Again: allowing new mechanics, or not allowing them, can have nothing to do with trust in the players. Nothing. And I put the word in italics and everything, so you know I must be serious.

My watchword when dealing with player requests: is it fair? Is it fun?

An easy example: I love plenty of games with guns in them, but I detest gunpowder in D&D. I don't want to mix my D&D and my firearms because I don't like the feel. Such games aren't fun for me. If Sagiro, one of my best friends and a superb DM in his own right, asked to play a gunslinger I'd say no. It has nothing to do with trust or character balance—I trust him implicitly in all aspects of gaming and real life—but gunpowder doesn't doesn't fit in my world, so the answer is no.

Hussar, you keep conflating the two, implying that a DM using good sense is somehow betraying her players' right to unlimited choice. That right doesn't and (in my opinion) shouldn't exist.

Interestingly, in my above example, I might work with the player to reskin the gunslinger as a magical wand-wielder, assuming it was the mechanics and not the flavor they liked. I'd find that fun. But I reserve the right to reject rules based on mechanics as well, especially if those rules aren't fair to me or the other players. Designers in Renton don't know what works wonderfully in my game as well as my players and I do. I remember way back in 2nd edition when a player tried to talk me into letting his race be "polymorphed young silver dragon." That'd probably be fun, but it wouldn't have been fair to the other players. I declined, and he happily picked a human.

My take? If you don't like a DM's gaming style or campaign, it's fine if you choose not to play with them. Same thing for a DM choosing not to include a player who's a bad match. But a single player doesn't get to unilaterally force feed their wishes on the rest of the group. That's neither fair or fun.

I think the key here is that you will go a ways to figuring out what the player really wants and come up with a way to give it to him (reskinning the gunslinger) that is acceptable to you too. That's perfectly fine and, if you wander way back to the early pages of this thread, I said exactly the same thing.

I was then told that this was unacceptable. That once the DM says no, the player should shut up and choose something else. That there was no obligation whatsoever for the DM to at least try to compromise. The DM, after all, has the authority and control over his or her campaign, so, a player who asks for something, and is told no, should simply either walk or choose something else.

At least, that's the response I got several times in this thread.

 

[Hussar]

It has nothing to do with lack of trust in players. So get off that horse. It has to do with campaign settings, meeting my mechanical sensibilities, meeting my aesthetic tastes, whether I have another set of mechanics doing the same, keeping everyone on the same page, providing enough information prior to character generation to determine if the game will be for them, and to a degree, a lack of trust in the WOTC designers to meet my preferences.

When I run 3e, Book of 9 Swords will never be used. I use the maneuver system from Book of Iron Might. I don't care for the mechanics in Bo9s, but do like the maneuver system in BOIM. WOTC's Psionic's books will not be used, because I use Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook. If they want to play a scout, they can use the Martial Rogue variants from Unearthed Arcana or the non-spellcasting Ranger from Complete Champion. If they want to play a Shaman, they can use Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook instead of the WOTC version. If they want to play a monk, the closest thing I use for most campaigns is a slightly tweaked OA Shaman.

At the moment, I will not run 5e. The issue with 5e at the moment, is the design of most of the classes. I have a few other issues (most of which are very easily house ruled), but I can't stand the mechanical design of most of the classes.

And you see nothing wrong with this statement at all? Me, all I see is how the game is all about you, but, I'm missing where you compromise in order to make sure your players are getting what they want too.

You don't see how this looks like you have pretty much zero trust in your players to know what might make the game fun for everyone? You refuse to use a book because you don't like it. That the player might like it is irrelevant. You don't like it, so, it's not going to get used. End of story.

Doesn't look like a whole lot of compromise going on there.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As a side note, I'll never understand the impetus to play a character with mechanics that the DM hates. If my DM hates psionics, and I want to play a psion, it's pretty unlikely that we'll find cool psionic monsters or treasure or NPCs or organizations in the world that my PC can relate to. Psionics would make my friend cranky every time I used them, too. It seems like a sub-optimal approach for me if I want to feel integrated in the world.

back in 2e we had an issue where 1 DM hated Psionics, and 1 player who pretty much only liked psychic characters... so they could not really play together (the DM in question never was a PC until one of my 3e games years later)

The reason that Larry (DM) hated psionics was because he didn't understand them. He used to say things like second level characters having disintegrate at will, or then everyone needs to get defense modes.

The player Ross on the other hand was flighty and hated preparing spells, and also hated playing combat characters (3e and 4e really widened his repertoire with sorcerer bard and warlock). He tried playing Theives once or twice and always had a problem with one part or another...

The way we fixed this was I (third party) spent an entire weekend not only explaining the psionic book and cards to larry, but pitched that he try it, by having his new game have an illythid invasion...

We are now about 17 years later... Larry afterwards let psionics in no problem, and even found he kinda like them... and when he played his first 3e PC was a multi classed Psywarrior.


In less successful news was me trying to run a forgotten realms game, and me trying to play in a pathfinder game (both I have talked about a lot on these boards.)

It isn't something that works everytime. Infact I am sure that a lot of times it doesn't. However I have a few examples of it working great.

I have a problem with "In all my worlds I will never have X" if at the same tiem you want a player to play in those games and they love X.

to use your example [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] you said you would never use guns (well to be fair you had a cool refluff idea I like because I also like magitech stuff, but lets pretend you wouldn't even do that.) If one of your regular players said they really wanted to do a gunslinger, and can only play once a week they would have to choose not to play your game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

GMforpowergamers just because you had a different but similar situation does not make it that there is only one right answer. From what I read your DM was in the wrong with what he did with your character. But it is not the same because while she banned anything but core she didn't tell them how to build their characters as long they used the rules in the core book.

do you not see how that could be my answer to you as well?

just because you had a different but similar situation does not make it that there is only one right answer. From what I read your Player was in the wrong with what he did with his actions. But it is not the same,

I mean in reality that is the answer to all of this. Some times its a problem player, some times its a problem dm (heck some times I'm the problem player or dm) sometimes there is no problem player or DM sometimes it's just conflicts in two people trying to be reasonable and not communicating well, and sometimes it is BOTH a problem player AND a problem DM...

I know this is all about a D&D environment, but I also play oWoD, and I used to have a Vampire storyteller who was a HUGE control freak... I mean you couldn't even make your own character sheet, you submitted a background (min 800 words max 4,000 words), he read it, made changes then sent it back to you to get your approval, and you could make changes and back and forth until it was agreed on, then he would send you a character sheet fully made (yup the multi page one with backgrounds spelled out in detail) for the game.
He also expected you to keep a log of every xp spent and every change to backgrounds and have it avalibul for 'inspection' at a moments notice...

we put up with it because he had extremely open ended and aswome stories... until the Art issue came up. Art was his best friend who had been away (college another state) who came home and wanted to play a character that he designed... so he wrote in detail everything he trained in, and submitted an example character sheet... The character was a Tremere (magic vampire) and the Story teller had this rule of only 1 Tremere per campaign and another player already had one. Art asked since we all wanted to play a tremere anyway (Yes whole group would love to) what the harm would be if the next campaign the story teller ran was an all tremere group... as a group we discussed how much we wanted to, but the story teller was firm "One tremere per campaign.." So art made a chemist and blew up the entire Elysium (meeting place for PCs and NPCs) TPKing the game... then submitted his tremere for the next campaign...

BOTH problem DM(well storyteller) and A MAJOR problem Player... to make matters worse, the story teller would not kick art ot the curb or even get mad at him... because they were best friends...