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

[Elf Witch]

some how I doubt (but I will concead if it is the case) the DM said "Hey this mod is no skill checks all player skill" so bad analogy...


of course it can... it is entirely dependent on the players getting in the right mind set... so it could work or could blow up horrid,.


wait no one said he didn't like mysteries... just he wants mysteries to rely on in game resources not out of game knowledge...

nope happens all the time both as a player and a DM... when I DM I throw out more hints or ask for int or wis checks...

yea, but imagine if your DM made you loose a fight because you couldn't out fight him (as apposed to out think in a mystery) even if your character was better then you at combat...



I don't mind liner I mind only one way... and it seems very one way..
so if I was playing in that mod as a Barbarian with an 8 int and 9 wis... what would you say if I figured out the mystry? is that the same?


no it is dumb because your advice was to do exactly what I did...

again... you are argueing something else not my example... I did exactly what you suggested, so no brats...

what are you talking about... who suggested that? We could eat at a place that serves seafood and non seafood, we could eat out with our friends at different reastrants, or I could over 6 months 3 times eat at this place that serves no entrée I like... but at no point was it ever suggested that she not eat anything...
but did he expect you to play and enjoy golf even if you do not enjoy it? I bet he didn't I bet he would love if you tried even if you didn't like it...

not what happened in the game or the dateing... are you reading what I wrote?



no his was below that and there's above...

wait you believe that 3.5 core is balanced? so a Druid and Monk are totally on par? if so you are in denile and we will have to just forget this whole train of thought...


I entirely agree, but since you can make a MORE balanced game from supplimints then core I find that a hard postion to defend...

Human barbarian 1 Cleric X where x= all levels after first... I have seen it core only ruin many games by power gamers...

and I disagree DMs may have final say but they should rarely if ever have to use it, and no where near as much as is thrown around this thread...

I know very few people who allow third party stuff, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about routinely showing up saying "Hey can I play this basic concept" and the DM basicly saying "No, I don't like it so neaither should you"

are we talking about the same thing? Even if I take every page of every book in 3.5 that has warlock stuff on it takes up a lot less then the phb gives to spells. ANd no one has to learn all of them. You start with 2-3 powers, then as you level I don't get one every level... so less then 20 powers the DM needs to know over 20 levels...

I really have no idea what you are talking about, it is not a different mode of character building it is just like building a fighter or rogue... a lot less complex then any other caster...

But it was your analogy and the DM didn't say there were no mod rolls he said there were somethings that didn't get one hardly the same thing.

And that is true about every encounter some work out great some not so much this could be a failure of the DM to explain things it could be a failure of the players a failure of the dice. What I question is getting angry over it at the end of the day it is game nothing more yet I have seen players and DM lose their cool over things. If you find yourself yelling at the table then you need to tke a deep breath and step back.

Then why was it dumb advice to? Compromise is at the heart of every human relationship. It is not always possible for example huge difference of being highly allergic to seafood and risking an attack and not liking how it tastes. In gaming terms you have friend you enjoy gaming with when they DM you know that they don't handle powergamers well so so you can compromise with the DM and agree to change your concept if the DM can't handle it or you don't powergame.

No he didn't expect me to learn to play though we did go out several times and he taught me rudimentary skills. BTW that was a hell of a lot more fun than standing around watching people play golf. Seriously watching paint dry would be more entertaining. I know he hated opera when it was in a foreign language and ballet just bored him. But he stood inline overnight to get tickets to see Mikhail Baryshnikov to surprise me for our anniversary. He even sat in on some role playing games something else he didn't really like. He wanted to see what it was the made me like it so much. Healthy relationships should be give and take and that includes gaming groups too.

No I never said it was perfectly balanced I said it was not broken. 3.5 and older editions require input from the DM to provide balance. I have seen what happens when they try and perfectly balance a game it was called 4E and imo that was the most unfun version I ever played. I am of the school of gaming that says give the DM the power to balance the game for his table because he knows his table better than the designers of the game. You don't have to agree with that and that is perfectly fine but it does make me wrong it makes me view gaming differently.

Actually he said the player does not like mysteries and you know what I would hate to play with players who would rather roll and be told what te answer is. As a player who loves mysteries I want to figure out for myself. So shouldn't I be allowed to have that opportunity in the game? Isn't part of the social contract of gaming is to allow everyone at the table to have fun? I hate dungeon crawls but some people like them so when we are in one I hide my boredom and play the best of ability because I know that eventually we will be out and doing stuff I like more.


You cannot make more balanced game by allowing every supplement in without banning somethings. And again I didn't say you couldn't make a broken class with core I said that it is harder to do because you are limited in your choices.

First of all this is thread and things get taken to extremes to make points. I have yet to have an issue with a player at my table over this and the things I ban. I had a player who wanted to play a warlock a class that is problematic from a world view in my game. Since warlocks are burned at the stake if caught using their powers she came up with the idea to also have levels in sorcerer to hide her warlock abilities. She didn't ask me to change my world to fit her concept she fit her concept to my world. And she thoroughly enjoyed playing a character living on the edge. The other players were asked by her if they minded this character because it could impact on theirs and they fully supported her playing it. But then when she had her world sorcerers were considered evil by the wizards guild so I played a sorcerer with a few levels in wizard to hide my sorcerer power. This is what I am talking about the player finding away to make a concept work in the DM worlds without making the DM have to change it.

 

[Elf Witch]

Or things get amplified in the heat of argument. I'm personally responding to the people who want to run the same hoary old AD&D 1e races and classes, tell me to leave if I don't like it (implying this is an existing group), putting limitations on when I'm justified to leave, and feeling it outrageous if I do say I'm leaving and the rest of the players say "well, let's do something else then". If you're recruiting for a game, that's one thing, but if you're in a group, you're part of a group and need to work with group, not just tell everyone "if you don't like it, leave".

First of all I don't think anyone should give someone a hard time for not wanting to play in a certain game it is not betraying the group or a friendship.

I don't think that every member of a gaming group has to play in every game either. Look say the group wants to play 1E in the classic fashion roll 3D6 in order and you hate that idea but you are the only one who hates it then I feel that that the burden is on you to make a decision to either play and try and have a good time or say no I don't want to play tis guys but have fun.

 

[Hussar]

I said to myself I would not reply. But once should do no harm.

Because from the outside reading the posts, it comes across as entrenchment and inability to see past differences in opinion. There will be no solution.

One poster said it well. Sometimes its the player causing issues. Sometimes its the dm. Sometimes both.

But posters in general have taken sides to "prove" their view.

IMO.

If that's what you are taking away from this, then I do disagree. This is more about simply presenting differing viewpoints. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am not going to convince anyone here.

For some, taking the advice of "always trust your DM" works great. And that's fine for that group. For me, that advice led to years of piss poor gaming and incredible amounts of frustration. Had I been able to read things like, "Y'know what? No, the DM isn't always right. Sometimes your DM really is a dick and you need to leave and that's FINE" years ago, I would have saved myself a lot of very bad games.

Of course it's sometimes a problem with the player. Good grief, that's pretty obvious. But, IMO, just as often, it's a problem on the DM's side of the screen as well, and that fact should be recognised. Yes, give your DM the benefit of the doubt, but, if you're not enjoying the game, don't blow up, don't have a temper tantrum, don't spoil the game for others, just walk. And, again, just walking away is perfectly fine and should NEVER be a problem.

There should be big bold letter advice in the DMG that says, "Yes, the people at your table are your friends, but that does not mean that you will be able to game together. Recognize that people have different tastes and either compromise or don't play together. If you try to force it one way or the other, no one is going to be happy".

 

[Elf Witch]

It is apparently completely reasonable for a DM to tell the player, "You may not have X because I do know how X works" [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s example, boiled down)

Why is it so unreasonable for the player to offer to teach the DM how X works and then try it in the game? Apparently K's issue wasn't actually breaking the game, because he's played in perfectly acceptable fun games in the past without breaking the game. So, why not trust K that he again won't break the game, trust him to know the rules of his new option and allow the option with the proviso that perhaps down the line this conversation might be revisited?

Again, why is it perfectly acceptable for the DM to flat out refuse X, but it's not acceptable for the player to refuse to play without X?

I have to admit, there is a part of me that agrees with K and feels that [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s DM needs to grow a pair.

No that is not my example boiled down my exampe boiled down is not wanting something in a game that does not fit the thematic nature of the game iE gunpower. Secondly how is it teaching a novice DM to DM if you just dump a lot of extra classes and powergames on them? That would be like telling someone who has never baked a cake before that the first cake you are going to build is an elaborate specialty wedding cake with a lot of fondant and specialized decorations. When my roommate became a cake decorator she took all the Wilton cake decorating classes they started with the basics and built on that.

That was what she was trying to do start with the basics and learn how to DM from doing that and then build on what she learned. As she got experience show would have been in a better position to add things and allow more things. That was her goal and I don't think it wa poorly thought out goal.

Because K had shown in the last game she DM and unwillingness to not to bring in broken PCs and then when she had issues trying to balance the encounters for everyone at the table he was not understanding at all. K has never been good with the whole yes I will let you bring this in but we might need to revisit it down the line.

Again no one is saying that a player most certainly can refuse to play. That is there option just as it is the DM option to say no I don't have an interested in running a fantasy game with gun powder in it.

And it does not surprise me that you agree with K since you sound very much like him.

 

[Greg K]

Or things get amplified in the heat of argument. I'm personally responding to the people who want to run the same hoary old AD&D 1e races and classes, tell me to leave if I don't like it (implying this is an existing group), putting limitations on when I'm justified to leave, and feeling it outrageous if I do say I'm leaving and the rest of the players say "well, let's do something else then". If you're recruiting for a game, that's one thing, but if you're in a group, you're part of a group and need to work with group, not just tell everyone "if you don't like it, leave".

If everyone else is on board, tough luck. You don't have to play in every game. Otherwise, if compromise cannot be reached and it is important to everyone that you be included or the group is not on board, someone else can DM, the group can play a different game, or the group can find another activity. insisting the DM needs to allow something they don't like or don't want to include? Hell, no.

And, if you don't like the terms of what is being offered, you are justified in leaving. Nobody should play in or run a game that they do not like.

 

[Greg K]

Really? Why?

To me, this is the sort of discussions that should be going on around every gaming table. So much time gaming is wasted on poor games that go nowhere and fall apart. And they fall apart for any number of reasons, but, one of the biggies is a mismatch in play style in the group. A lack of communication between everyone at the table is probably responsible for more frustrated gamers and people dumping the hobby than anything else.

So, I look at threads like this and wonder why these sorts of issues aren't being discussed in rule books. We spend thirty pages detailing different ways of sticking a sword in someone, but, we won't spend a page or three on making the game work for everyone at the table? That's some messed up priorities right there. The players handbook should be about 30% this sort of thread - how to start a group and keep that group happy.

It's fantastic advice that isn't given nearly often enough.

And one of the things that needs to be covered is destroying the geek fallacy that just because someone is running D&D everyone should play together. Sometimes tastes and influences are too divergent. These differences can make individuals inappropriate for playing with certain groups.

 

[Elf Witch]

If that's what you are taking away from this, then I do disagree. This is more about simply presenting differing viewpoints. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am not going to convince anyone here.

For some, taking the advice of "always trust your DM" works great. And that's fine for that group. For me, that advice led to years of piss poor gaming and incredible amounts of frustration. Had I been able to read things like, "Y'know what? No, the DM isn't always right. Sometimes your DM really is a dick and you need to leave and that's FINE" years ago, I would have saved myself a lot of very bad games.

Of course it's sometimes a problem with the player. Good grief, that's pretty obvious. But, IMO, just as often, it's a problem on the DM's side of the screen as well, and that fact should be recognised. Yes, give your DM the benefit of the doubt, but, if you're not enjoying the game, don't blow up, don't have a temper tantrum, don't spoil the game for others, just walk. And, again, just walking away is perfectly fine and should NEVER be a problem.

There should be big bold letter advice in the DMG that says, "Yes, the people at your table are your friends, but that does not mean that you will be able to game together. Recognize that people have different tastes and either compromise or don't play together. If you try to force it one way or the other, no one is going to be happy".

I am one who believes that you need to trust your DM and if you can't then that is an issue that can lead to bad gaming. Now that is not saying that a DM can't abuse that trust and thereby lose it. But from what I have been reading here there seems to be a lack of trust for DMs who have not abused that trust. I go into every game with the idea that I am going to trust my DM that he wants to run a game that is going to be fun for everyone that is his goal. I don't automatically assume just because he does not allow everything in the world in the game or if he limits things because of the theme of the world that he is doing that just to spoil my fun. I give him the benefit of the doubt and make a character that fits his world and his rules.

If he turns out to be a bad DM and I don't have fun then I start to lose my trust. If it happens in more than one game then I don't play with him as a DM anymore. Take K when he runs Shadowrun I am right there eager to go because in the 15 years he has run Shadowun he has never run a bad a game or given me reason to mistrust him. But I have been burned when he runs DnD games so I will no longer play in a DnD game he runs.

 

[Elf Witch]

And one of the things that needs to be covered is destroying the geek fallacy that just because someone is running D&D everyone should play together. Sometimes tastes and influences are too divergent. These differences can make individuals inappropriate for playing with certain groups.

Bingo.

My son who is in thirties plays DnD I have played in his games and I found that they are not for me. He and his gaming buddies love to powergame they love to play evil alignments quite often. This is not my gaming style at all. He does not really enjoy my games because they have to much role play , political intrigue and not enough combat. Neither of us think the other is a bad player or bad DM we recognize that we want different things out of the game.

He and his gaming buddies are my go to for advice when someone wants to bring in something I am not familiar with. If they say something is overpowered then it usually is.

 

[billd91]

For some, taking the advice of "always trust your DM" works great. And that's fine for that group. For me, that advice led to years of piss poor gaming and incredible amounts of frustration. Had I been able to read things like, "Y'know what? No, the DM isn't always right. Sometimes your DM really is a dick and you need to leave and that's FINE" years ago, I would have saved myself a lot of very bad games.

It's true that some GMs aren't very good, some outright suck. Some are abusive of their power. But if you're ever in a game in which you can't trust the GM - you shouldn't be playing in that game. Period. It'll just be an exercise in aggravation.

But until you reach that conclusion - is there something wrong with giving the GM the benefit of the doubt? I approach games assuming I can trust the GM until he or she proves otherwise to me. I feel that's appropriate considering the task they are volunteering to take on and the effort it will require.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But it was your analogy and the DM didn't say there were no mod rolls he said there were somethings that didn't get one hardly the same thing.

but again, that is the crux of the argument we are having, I agree with the player that out of game should not be brought in game most of the time. That means that you need to be spesfic. Yes if the DM said "Hey we are going into the boxing ring to resolve fights, and I played I couldn't complain... but I doubt the DM said that up front. You claim the player should know up front the mystry is out of game, how should he know going in?

And that is true about every encounter some work out great some not so much this could be a failure of the DM to explain things it could be a failure of the players a failure of the dice. What I question is getting angry over it at the end of the day it is game nothing more yet I have seen players and DM lose their cool over things. If you find yourself yelling at the table then you need to tke a deep breath and step back.

I've very rarely seen in my 20 years gameing (man im getting old) anyone yell over something like this, and only once where that someone was me. SO I agree.

Then why was it dumb advice to?

well because the same reason why telling someone who just said "So I shoveled my driveway" that they should have "shoveled there drive way"

Compromise is at the heart of every human relationship.

funny... that is someo of our points... let me make a note of that:
Compromise is at the heart of every human relationship.
you know what relationship needs compromise... DM/Player...

It is not always possible for example huge difference of being highly allergic to seafood and risking an attack and not liking how it tastes. In gaming terms you have friend you enjoy gaming with when they DM you know that they don't handle powergamers well so so you can compromise with the DM and agree to change your concept if the DM can't handle it or you don't powergame.

you could tone down your play style and he or she theres... meet in the middle somewhere

No he didn't expect me to learn to play though we did go out several times and he taught me rudimentary skills. BTW that was a hell of a lot more fun than standing around watching people play golf. Seriously watching paint dry would be more entertaining. I know he hated opera when it was in a foreign language and ballet just bored him. But he stood inline overnight to get tickets to see Mikhail Baryshnikov to surprise me for our anniversary.

I will admit I would rather play golf, but even that I wouldn't have that much fun with.

He even sat in on some role playing games something else he didn't really like. He wanted to see what it was the made me like it so much. Healthy relationships should be give and take and that includes gaming groups too.

you know it almost seems like you are argueing my point now...

relationships should be give and take and that includes gaming groups too. .

I have seen what happens when they try and perfectly balance a game it was called 4E and imo that was the most unfun version I ever played.

another issue of us being so different. 4e was the most fun edition any of my group ever played... and we felt it could have been balanced BETTER... and yea it has it's flaws, but damn to call it unfun seems strange to me.

I am of the school of gaming that says give the DM the power to balance the game for his table because he knows his table better than the designers of the game. You don't have to agree with that and that is perfectly fine but it does make me wrong it makes me view gaming differently.

the funny part is I agree, give the DM the power to balance the game for his table because he knows his table better than the designers of the game. I would just add give them everytool to make it eaisr to do. (I think 4e was great at that and hope 5e would be too)

Actually he said the player does not like mysteries and you know what I would hate to play with players who would rather roll and be told what te answer is.

you don't have to tell him the answer, just think about every clue the party is supposed to find... and if they find it on there own great, if not let them roll to see if there characters see what they don't

As a player who loves mysteries I want to figure out for myself.

I really don't get that thought at all... shouldn't it be if the character solves the mystery?

So shouldn't I be allowed to have that opportunity in the game? Isn't part of the social contract of gaming is to allow everyone at the table to have fun?

yes, except your way doesn't sound like anyone I know would enjoy it...

I hate dungeon crawls but some people like them so when we are in one I hide my boredom and play the best of ability because I know that eventually we will be out and doing stuff I like more.

ok, but are you sure you are hiding it well, are you sure other players are also trying to hide it??

You cannot make more balanced game by allowing every supplement in without banning somethings.

true... you have to ban every spellcaster from core and replace them

And again I didn't say you couldn't make a broken class with core I said that it is harder to do because you are limited in your choices.

nope... it is WAY eaiser to break core. You have less things to go through. If you give me 25 books to mix and match to break, or 1 book to mix and match to break, the 1 book is way less work (aka easier)

First of all this is thread and things get taken to extremes to make points.

yes I noticed

I have yet to have an issue with a player at my table over this and the things I ban.

yet you feel so strongly as to argue it for hours on line... if it never came up what is your argument?