Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 6350377" data-attributes="member: 12377">Yes.Splat books create a player expectation -- &quot;Wizards wrote this and I paid good money for it and it sounds fun to me, so it should be allowed, right?&quot; Unfortunately this creates a huge burden on the DM, who needs to understand all that material and judge it for balance problems and other issues. So I'd pay good money to avoid that player expectation.And according to Mearls, the people have spoken and they want a simplified core rules. Endless splat books defeats that. There is a win-win solution:&nbsp; make it blindingly obvious that supplements are not core. The easiest way to do that is to make the supplements things that clearly are not appropriate to every table. This eliminates &quot;big book of fighter options&quot; because fighters are part of every D&amp;D game and players always want more options. &quot;Guide to Samurai&quot; would be OK though, because many games won't be expected to include them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="77IM, post: 6350377, member: 12377"] Yes. Splat books create a player expectation -- "Wizards wrote this and I paid good money for it and it sounds fun to me, so it should be allowed, right?" Unfortunately this creates a huge burden on the DM, who needs to understand all that material and judge it for balance problems and other issues. So I'd pay good money to avoid that player expectation. And according to Mearls, the people have spoken and they want a simplified core rules. Endless splat books defeats that. There is a win-win solution: make it blindingly obvious that supplements are not core. The easiest way to do that is to make the supplements things that clearly are not appropriate to every table. This eliminates "big book of fighter options" because fighters are part of every D&D game and players always want more options. "Guide to Samurai" would be OK though, because many games won't be expected to include them. [/QUOTE]

Verification