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

[billd91]

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 don't know, maybe it's because you're late to this party that you haven't noticed it but most people have been arguing that give and take, some compromise is necessary. The difference in positions is really about what happens when the limits are reached - when a topic is hit at which no more compromise is possible. At that point, there's no value in saying that relationships should be give and take - the giving and taking has already and is already occurring. The question is more along the lines of whether there is a reasonable limit to the compromise or must one side always give in. And, frankly, the way you've been arguing about Elf Witch's case and the warlock, it sounds to me like you believe the GM always has to give way to the player on this. But that's not exactly a give and take relationship in the game, is it?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And, frankly, the way you've been arguing about Elf Witch's case and the warlock, it sounds to me like you believe the GM always has to give way to the player on this. But that's not exactly a give and take relationship in the game, is it?

except for the part where I never said such... the closest was a comment I made about there being a ratio (I think I said 60/40 or 70/30 I really don't remember) where yes is the right answer... more often then not letting the player play what he wants is the better answer... always... HELL NO...

the problem is that there is a give and take that gets so skiped over... lets look back...

one poster said no dragonborn ever... they could not imagine a world where they would run a PC dragonborn.
another poster said no warlocks ever...

notice there wasn't in either case a "Well one of my worlds is x but maybe the next one" and in neither case could the even imagine a player might have an idea worth listening to. It wasn't at the end the DM had to make a call, it was the DM went into the discussion with no comprmise.

now we have a conversation about weaither or not it is ok to use in game skills instead of out of game skills,

I don't see much comprmise at all. Hell I even was told running a warlock was harder on the DM then a cleric... for ?reasons?

my problem is that time and time again there is some excuse "Hey some splat book somewhere is broken" or "It didn't fit my game" and when those are addressed, people pretend it is horrable.

 

[billd91]

notice there wasn't in either case a "Well one of my worlds is x but maybe the next one" and in neither case could the even imagine a player might have an idea worth listening to. It wasn't at the end the DM had to make a call, it was the DM went into the discussion with no comprmise.

now we have a conversation about weaither or not it is ok to use in game skills instead of out of game skills,

I don't see much comprmise at all. Hell I even was told running a warlock was harder on the DM then a cleric... for ?reasons?

my problem is that time and time again there is some excuse "Hey some splat book somewhere is broken" or "It didn't fit my game" and when those are addressed, people pretend it is horrable.

You're right there's no compromise coming from your arguments when it comes down to the details. There may be hundreds of points at which a GM may have compromised with the players, but on the subject of dragonborn, warlock, gunslinger, whatever - the presence or absence of the thing in question - the player and GM are at loggerheads. And you're basically telling me the GM must give way. That any reasons, plenty of which have been given as examples in this thread, are excuses to not compromise. The reasons in Elf Witch's example, sticking to the better known and understood core game for a first time GMing job in Pathfinder is a damn good reason to stick to core and to ban the gunslinger.

But you don't seem to see that wheedling or browbeating the GM into including those items or sabotaging the game after the GM holds firm isn't really a compromise either. It's the player not accepting no for an answer until he gets his way or the game is discarded.

 

[KarinsDad]

one poster said no dragonborn ever... they could not imagine a world where they would run a PC dragonborn.

Yup.

If you want to play a dragonborn PC, play in someone else's 5E game. Simple as that.

I don't want to compromise that and am not going to. My friends who play with me wouldn't force me to. Only people who believe that DMs must compromise or some such believe that.

Just like I don't want to play GURPS. If I'm DMing, we are not playing GURPS and nothing a player says will get me to switch from 5E to GURPS (or to Pathfinder or to any other game system as long as I am in the mood to DM 5E).

To me, these two points are the same. The player is not entitled to play a Dragonborn in a campaign that disallows them, just like the player is not entitled to play GURPS when the game system is 5E.

People make their own decisions. If someone else is DM, that person is making the campaign decisions. If our group of players decides that we want to play Star Wars and the person willing to DM it says no droid PCs, then there are no droid PCs. A player might try to convince the DM, but if the DM says no, then the DM says no. End of story. The player can move on, or the player can play a different PC.

It wasn't at the end the DM had to make a call, it was the DM went into the discussion with no comprmise.

Yup. If I am DM, no compromise on this point. Going in. No dragonborn PCs.

And no, some people's opinion that this is the sign of a "bad DM" does not make it so. My campaign world is the way it is, your opinion of my not compromising on a handful of campaign rules doesn't mean squat. There is no one right way to DM, and fun does not just exist with me having to allow players to get their own way.

 

[Piratecat]

Weirdly, I don't really like dragonborn but I LOVE lizardfolk. If someone wanted to make a lizardfolk PC who could spit poison, I'd be all over that... and then just use the dragonborn stats.

Damn, I'm fickle.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I really get the feeling somepeople have this argument already in there heads no matter what I say...

You're right there's no compromise coming from your arguments when it comes down to the details.

except when they are...

There may be hundreds of points at which a GM may have compromised with the players, but on the subject of dragonborn, warlock, gunslinger, whatever - the presence or absence of the thing in question - the player and GM are at loggerheads.

and my solution is to sit down and talk through said loggerhead with no one on either side being better but 2 equal friends talking...

And you're basically telling me the GM must give way.

have you read what I wrote? because at no point did I say that...

That any reasons, plenty of which have been given as examples in this thread, are excuses to not compromise.

yea, I disagreed with it... not that there is no reason, that the reason given was a great example of being able to open a diolog instead of shutting one down...

The reasons in Elf Witch's example, sticking to the better known and understood core game for a first time GMing job in Pathfinder is a damn good reason to stick to core and to ban the gunslinger.

maybe maybe not, but it didn't work... the game with said ban failed... so maybe a different approach would have worked.

But you don't seem to see that wheedling or browbeating the GM into including those items or sabotaging the game after the GM holds firm isn't really a compromise either. It's the player not accepting no for an answer until he gets his way or the game is discarded.

now again we have someone that takes the words I used
comprmise
open discussion
talk
work through
and changes them to
wheedling
browbeating
sabotage

even though I was very firmly against all of those things, you try to morph my argument into it...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yup.

If you want to play a dragonborn PC, play in someone else's 5E game. Simple as that.

and here we go... shutting down discussion and deciding that one player is above the others... "My game my way or get out"

I don't want to compromise that and am not going to.

you wont even discuss the possibility

My friends who play with me wouldn't force me to. Only people who believe that DMs must compromise or some such believe that.

the only must is be resnoble... you don't have to compromise but you must realize that will alienate some people...

Just like I don't want to play GURPS. If I'm DMing, we are not playing GURPS and nothing a player says will get me to switch from 5E to GURPS (or to Pathfinder or to any other game system as long as I am in the mood to DM 5E).

but would you discuss at the end of a campaign if a player said "Hey instead of the next campaign being D&D can it be gurps?"
or more on topic, "Hey in your next game can you make a small group of dragon men that are PCable for me?"

To me, these two points are the same. The player is not entitled to play a Dragonborn in a campaign that disallows them, just like the player is not entitled to play GURPS when the game system is 5E.

OK, so again as above "Can you make a world I CAN play my idea in?"

People make their own decisions. If someone else is DM, that person is making the campaign decisions.

the group gets to decide... just because all of your players give up there chance to speak doesn't mean everyone should

If our group of players decides that we want to play Star Wars and the person willing to DM it says no droid PCs, then there are no droid PCs. A player might try to convince the DM, but if the DM says no, then the DM says no. End of story. The player can move on, or the player can play a different PC.

except if the DM say "No we can't even talk about it" lets go back to

A player might try to convince the DM,

that means the DM actually listens and evaluates not makes up his mind before the talk starts...

lets take your example... 5 people sit down to play star wars 1 says "No droids" another says "But I really want to play the droid idea" if the other 3 people say "hey nothing wrong with droids let him" is it ok to not listen?

Yup. If I am DM, no compromise on this point. Going in. No dragonborn PCs.

why?? I have asked a doxzen times... all you say is no...

[quite]And no, some people's opinion that this is the sign of a "bad DM" does not make it so. [/quote]
yea just like your opinion that it is "good" does not make it so...

My campaign world is the way it is, your opinion of my not compromising on a handful of campaign rules doesn't mean squat.

ok, then why argue? I'm trying to get an idea across, one that at times you seem fine with then snap like someone just told you off...

There is no one right way to DM, and fun does not just exist with me having to allow players to get their own way.

fun does not exist with me having to put up with people telling me I can't play what I want...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Weirdly, I don't really like dragonborn but I LOVE lizardfolk. If someone wanted to make a lizardfolk PC who could spit poison, I'd be all over that... and then just use the dragonborn stats.

Damn, I'm fickle.

it almost sounds like you would... gasp.... talk about an idea with the PC....

 

[Piratecat]

it almost sounds like you would... gasp.... talk about an idea with the PC....

Quit that, you! At this point we've all made it clear that it's not a binary issue, it's a continuum. I don't think ANYONE is arguing that "DMs must make unilateral edicts" or "players must always get their every preference." The question comes in where the proverbial rubber meets the road, and who makes the final call, and why.

I always talk about ideas with players. I had a player who wanted to play a drow, but I don't have drow in this campaign. So we made him an Odassian elf from the deep dark, decadent southern jungles of Odassia, an area barely and only intermittently conquered by the empire. Same abilities, different chrome. Everyone was happy. If he wanted the chrome of being an original drow elf (spiders, Lolth, etc.) he might have been disappointed, because in our campaigns the DMs always have the final say after discussing things with players, but luckily that wasn't the issue.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Quit that, you! At this point we've all made it clear that it's not a binary issue, it's a continuum. I don't think ANYONE is arguing that "DMs must make unilateral edicts" or "players must always get their every preference." The question comes in where the proverbial rubber meets the road, and who makes the final call, and why.

the problem is even when I say that I get accused of 'brow beating'

maybe we should all start again with this as our start...

does anyone belive

a)players must always get their every preference

b)DMs must make unilateral edicts

I personaly do not... maybe the best way to move this discussion is to remove both of these options from the talk...