D&D General I’m Trying to Love D&D Again—and I’ve Got Some Complaints. Young Grognard posting.

James Gasik · 2026-04-15T15:59:50+0100

djotaku said:
Interesting addition to the 3PP conversation: I own the Tales of the Valiant Player's Guide 2 and the Pathfinder 2e Player Core 2. The ToV one explicitly says it is at the GM's discretion whether these new classes, subclasses, etc will be allowed. The PF2e one is (IIRC) a little more subtle by tagging the ancestries as Uncommon or Rare - which already signals something the GM must approve. And both of these are FIRST PARTY books. So it definitely makes sense that the GM would have say on whether a player can use 3rd party content.

However, for a well-functioning table, this should be resolved at session 0 if the GM (for story, balance, or other reasons) wants to limit options.

This is quite true. I think almost every DM has house rules that impact their table, which can greatly alter the characters you play. I once banned Paladins in a game for plot reasons, and feeling that the game wouldn't suffer from losing the class- you can still play a Cleric or even a Fighter/Cleric as a holy warrior if you choose.

You can imagine my surprise when the instant a player noticed that he didn't have the option to play a class in the core rulebook (le gasp!), he was instantly indignant and demanded to know what my problem with the class was, prepared to argue for not only it's inclusion, but to counter any arguments I might had for it being "overpowered" (which wasn't even remotely an issue). He specifically took umbrage to the fact that I allowed other classes outside the core book, as if there was some kind of equivalence.

So if you can sit down to join a game and find out that Rogues lose Sneak Attack and instead gain bonus Feats (a 3.5 option in Unearthed Arcana) and spells above level 5 simply don't exist, being annoyed that you can't play a Blood Hunter or Conduit or Shinigami is a bit surprising.

And don't get me wrong, I've had 3pp stuff I wish I could use in a game, like the time I bought Spheres of Power for Pathfinder 1e. But at the end of the day, the GM has veto power to not deal with new potential headaches if they don't want to, just as you have the right to simply not play in their game.

djotaku · 2026-04-15T16:06:35+0100

James Gasik said:
This is quite true. I think almost every DM has house rules that impact their table, which can greatly alter the characters you play. I once banned Paladins in a game for plot reasons, and feeling that the game wouldn't suffer from losing the class- you can still play a Cleric or even a Fighter/Cleric as a holy warrior if you choose.

You can imagine my surprise when the instant a player noticed that he didn't have the option to play a class in the core rulebook (le gasp!), he was instantly indignant and demanded to know what my problem with the class was, prepared to argue for not only it's inclusion, but to counter any arguments I might had for it being "overpowered" (which wasn't even remotely an issue). He specifically took umbrage to the fact that I allowed other classes outside the core book, as if there was some kind of equivalence.

So if you can sit down to join a game and find out that Rogues lose Sneak Attack and instead gain bonus Feats (a 3.5 option in Unearthed Arcana) and spells above level 5 simply don't exist, being annoyed that you can't play a Blood Hunter or Conduit or Shinigami is a bit surprising.

And don't get me wrong, I've had 3pp stuff I wish I could use in a game, like the time I bought Spheres of Power for Pathfinder 1e. But at the end of the day, the GM has veto power to not deal with new potential headaches if they don't want to, just as you have the right to simply not play in their game.

Exactly it's almost as if entitled people (whether players or GMs) are a pain in the butt.

Maxperson · 2026-04-15T16:40:21+0100

KnightofCaliban said:
James G. Thank you! That was a good read and I appreciate hearing from the perspective of those here longer.

If you use @ in front of a name, it sends them a notification. Just using a name like you did can easily be missed in posts. For example, @KnightofCaliban.

Belen · 2026-04-15T17:12:35+0100

jasper said:
More random thoughts.

3PP distrust goes back for me no actual distrust of add on books go back to me to 2E when the “Complete Paladin’s Handbook” Where a subclass of paladin got a +5 holy avenger right out basic training. 3pp may not fit the campaign, power level may be off compare to rest of the group, or Oofta likes so I must hate it.

That is an example of official content and a good example of DM's being able to limit sources for campaigns even if it is official published content.

Gorgon Zee · 2026-04-15T17:17:45+0100

KnightofCaliban said:
sIt seems that the old Christian adage I was taught growing up of hate the sin love the sinner is recommended to be just thrown out.

Sort of a minor aside here, but I think it's helpful to point out that this is not a core Christian concept. It was first mentioned as a concept by Augustine, but in reference only to deciding how to mete out punishments. Gandhi mainstreamed it in I think the 1920s in his biography as "Hate the sin and not the sinner".

So it's really a comment on judicial procedure for Christians, amplified by a Hindu who focused on truth and non-violence. But it is now used pretty much exclusively by mostly right-leaning Christians referring to people they don't like.

If you are looking for a more solidly Christian phrase to use, "Love your neighbor" is probably the closest. It does not judge or ask for any condemnation, which is overwhelmingly the general thrust of what the bible says.

For a very tenuous RPG connection, you could use this as tension between Lawful Good types, who could be crusaders or zealots torn between punishing sins and doing good, and Pure Good types, who will just attempt to do good and not care about judging people.

So, speaking as a Christian, yeah, throw out this "old" (1930s), slightly Christian piece of advice. As a gamer, keep it, as it's a good way to generate tension and portray people who focus on the hate while stating they focus on the love.

Xenolith234 · 2026-04-15T17:45:00+0100

Clint_L said:
Definitely. The idea of a brand new player showing up with the expectation that the DM will integrate all of their preferred 3PP just strikes me as really entitled, and kind of oblivious to all the work the DM is already doing to make the game happen, and to the cost in time and actual money involved. And I write that as someone who really tries my best to incorporate player ideas.

OP, I would really temper that expectation; I suspect it hinders you more than you realize.

I think there’s an expectation that all 1st-party content will be allowed, which definitely wasn’t a thing I recall prior to 3e. Even restricting species/classes in the PHB should be up to the DM, but that’s a bridge too far for many.

Dannyalcatraz · 2026-04-15T18:05:35+0100

Mod Note:

That’s far enough down the road of discussion of RW religion to warrant staff attention.

No futher, please.

Belen · 2026-04-15T18:18:48+0100

Xenolith234 said:
I think there’s an expectation that all 1st-party content will be allowed, which definitely wasn’t a thing I recall prior to 3e. Even restricting species/classes in the PHB should be up to the DM, but that’s a bridge too far for many.

Publishers want to push that idea so that more people buy the books. I do not allow kitchen-sink in my games. I allow a lot but I have no issue restricting 1 party content.

AlViking · 2026-04-15T18:20:10+0100

Xenolith234 said:
I think there’s an expectation that all 1st-party content will be allowed, which definitely wasn’t a thing I recall prior to 3e. Even restricting species/classes in the PHB should be up to the DM, but that’s a bridge too far for many.

There are certainly some restrictions or lack therein that would mean a game isn't for me - personally I don't care for evil PCs - but it's always going to be up to the DM what kind of game they want to run. I would never expect to use something from 3PP or even the core books without double checking what is allowed.

Dire Bare · 2026-04-15T19:18:04+0100

Clint_L said:
Definitely. The idea of a brand new player showing up with the expectation that the DM will integrate all of their preferred 3PP just strikes me as really entitled, and kind of oblivious to all the work the DM is already doing to make the game happen, and to the cost in time and actual money involved. And I write that as someone who really tries my best to incorporate player ideas.

OP, I would really temper that expectation; I suspect it hinders you more than you realize.

I think it's okay to ask!

If a new player came to my table with a character option from a 3rd-party source, I'd be okay with the ask, and I'd certainly consider it.

But if I decided to not allow the specific option the player was hoping to use, I would expect them to be okay with that also and not get upset.

I understand why many DM's are hesitant to allow 3rd party options, but I wish more folks were open to the idea. It's rarely campaign breaking (never, actually, IME).

I'm more likely to say "Yes" if the player is a friend that I trust. I'm also more likely to say "Yes" if I own the source myself, or the player can share the source with me.