Allowing stuff beyond the core books.

[Quasqueton]

I'm DMing again, after a few years out of practice. Since D&D3 came out, I've DMed about a dozen times -- 9 times in my current campaign.

When I DMed this game years ago, it was with the AD&D1 rules. Players used the PHB, and I used the DMG, MM, MMII, and FF. We had UA, but we didn't really do much with it. Player options for their PCs were very limited, but no one really cared (or even thought of it).

I played only one campaign in AD&D2, but we Players only used the base PHB. I've heard all the "horror stories" of how the supplemental and expansion books for AD&D2 added complications and changes and what not to that game edition. It sounded like a DM nightmare to keep track of, and to keep PC powers at manageable levels. House rules seemed rampant and convoluted.

Now, my current D&D3 campaign is based out of the core materials. Players can use the PHB, and I'm using the DMG and MM. I have most of the other "official" books (softcover and hardcover), but I've not used them in this campaign so far.

I'm seeing all kinds of neat and interesting things in the supplemental/expansion books for D&D3 that I'd like to incorporate and use in my campaign (the class books, MMII, FF, SS, BoVD, A&EG, etc.), but it doesn't seem quite fair to the Players to keep them restricted to just the PHB. I also know that as a Player, I've enjoyed looking through the class books to find feats and spells for my PCs. So, I'd like to open up these books for my Players to use and enjoy in my campaign.

But, I also don't like the idea of having to house rule a bunch of stuff to restrict or modify problematic additions. I like things neat and tidy -- I'd prefer to say, "you can use Sword and Fist for your PCs," instead of "you can use Sword and Fist with this list of errata, updates, and house rules." I don't like making house rules at all, much less having to go through book after book, feat after feat, spell after spell, class after class, to make sure everything is sensible and compliant with the revised system.

[I have only a handful of house rules for my current campaign -- 5 total, I think.]

It is hard enough for me to figure out exactly how many of the core things (like wildshape and summon monster) work in the base rules without worrying about how some additional power or ability from a non-core book will interact with them.

I want to offer variety, but I also want (relative) simplicity. I want to offer options, but I don't want chaos.

You DMs out there: what has been your experience with opening your campaign to any or all the optional books out there? Has it created headaches for you? Has it complicated the game more than they're worth?

You Players out there: are you satisfied with just the core books for creating and advancing your PCs? Do you need more options?


Things that keep me timid and hesitant about allowing options: I've heard of DMs allowing Players to use Savage Species, and then the whole party becomes a managerie of strange and exotic creatures. I've seen lists of the PCs in various groups, and everyone has 1 or 2 prestige classes. I've seen spell lists for wizards include spells from a dozen books. I've seen and heard players admit that they searched through lots of books to find broken or powerful feats and spells and classes. Quite frankly, this scares me.

Quasqueton

 

[Henry]

Opening your campaign to everything going can be fun, for a while, but the main problem is that combats become "who wins the coin flip" battles. The players who go first in round one will seriously screw over the opponents, and all battles go pretty darned quickly.

What I do in my current campaign (an FR game) is to allow the PHB, and the FRCS, and nothing else. Then, I pick and choose the cool stuff from the splatebooks, and other supplements, and add that in in dribs and drabs. I release rumors that there is a master of thus-and-such a Prestige Class in an area; I release rumors of a unique weapon (containing one or more magic effects from the splatbooks). If they want the thing in question, they must go seeking it out, confident in the knowledge that they are one of the few people in the world with access to that PrC/Weapon/Spell/Whatever.

In other words, I use my splatbooks as seasoning, instead of the main course. Using Ice cream as a dessert is far healthier than using it as the main meal; I have found it works the same way in my gaming.

 

[Mercule]

Well, how I've handle it (basically) for my Greyhawk game, is that the Core Rules are the only real certainty. The Variants presented in the DMG were discussed by the whole group and voted on. Then I wrote them down.

Anything beyond the core rules is explicitly a suggestion and its inclusion in the game is subject to DM approval. If it is included, it constitutes a house rule, and each bit is judged independantly. I did do some things like blanket approving Feats in "Song and Silence", but that's the exception not the rule.

 

[fusangite]

I'm not a big fan of including books beyond the core materials. I'd recommend that you include only the core WOTC books. If there is something you need to model in your game for which the core books are insufficient, then find an outside source that provides a good model. In one of my campaigns, I use From Stone to Steel and Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook because I am representing a primitive society; in another, I use Magical Medieval Society because I want a dynamic pricing system and some other key features.

 

[Voadam]

It is fine to restrict player options to the PH so you can have a better handle on the PCs abilities.

It is not unfair to then start using noncore monsters and trap books, those are a DM only purview and they offer variety in challenge to the players.

You can even have NPCs with neat abilities and feats and not allow them to
PCs by strictly enforcing them as secret techniques and secret society perks.

Decide what PC options you are comfortable with running and tell people up front what the guidelines are for your campaign so they can choose accordingly.

Restrictions can give a world some definition and flavor. My wizard in a banewarrens game was limited to the PH, T&B and the BoEMs for spell selection from levelling and buying scrolls, even though I was a contributing author on Relics and Rituals II I couldn't learn spells from there in this campaign. And it worked out fine. I would have been fine if the DM said PH only, there is plenty of core material to work from and have a good time.

If you are worried about balancing new PC materials then that is a reason to restrict it as a DM. It is just better to do so up front.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't have a list of stuff I allow or disallow. Rather, my players know that they can ask to bring anything they want into the game, but it's subject to my approval. Once they suggest it, I take some time to look it over. Is it balanced for this campaign? Is it appropriate to the setting? Then I decide yes or no.

It would be almost impossible to go through all the supplements out there and create an approved list ahead of time. (I say almost; I'm sure someone's done it.) But it's more work than you need to go through.

Don't lock yourself into accepting or rejecting whole books at once. That's just not a good ides; even the best books have some poor ideas, and even the worst books have one or two concepts worth salvaging. (Well, usually.)

Tell your players, "I'm allowing the core rules. If there's something else you really want, bring it to me and we'll discuss it, but I very well may not allow it."

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Well, if you have the time, you can do what I'm doing with my Arcana Unearthed campaign- make a campaign bible that contains the additional options for your campaign. Take a binder, and put in a few sheets of "options"- rules outside the core that you're using, prestige classes or references to books, feats, etc. For instance, my campaign bible contains a map of the Diamond Throne setting, a calendar for the setting, the Prestige Class section from the Diamond Throne book (containing both prestige classes and a list of appropriate ones from other sources that can be referenced on their own), as well as a few additional spells and new options for humans.

In the past, I've run into similiar situations to the one you fear- add the "Savage Species" rules to the mix, and soon parties begin to look like the Cantina scene from ANH (I had similiar problems with the Complete Humanoid's Handbook from 2nd edition- remember that? I do. I wish I didn't.) On the other hand, you could put in your campaign bible a reference to a few species you'll allow. You can handle prestige classes, feats, equipment, etc. in a similiar manner.

 

[Olive]

Opening your campaign to everything going can be fun, for a while, but the main problem is that combats become "who wins the coin flip" battles. The players who go first in round one will seriously screw over the opponents, and all battles go pretty darned quickly.

To respectfully disagree, I haven't really found this at all. I mean I guess my players mostly take core stuff anyway, but if you're allowing FRCS stuff, then what from the splats or Magic of Faerun is worse than that?

 

[Wombat]

I essentially have two campaigns -- one totally goofy for off times, and the more serious one.

For the goofy campaign the motto is, "You find it in print, we'll use it!" I mean, at that point, who the heck cares?

For the serious campaign I use a lot of non-Core material, but it is all on a "As Vetted By The GM" basis. I cheerfully clip out Core classes, add in new ones, limit the number of PrCs (and, yes, finally one of my characters is moving into one! yeah!), and allow great flexibility in Spells and Feats. But nothing gets in, nothing, without my pre-approval and no arguments if I say "No".

That being said, my group is good with that, as they are with most matters.

I like having a very cooperative group that way.

 

[Kichwas]

I find most d20 material is more imaginative and better balanced that WotC material. A few exceptions will stand out, but I find even more exceptions in the WotC material. So for me, the big issue comes down to theme - does it match the style of the game I'm running? For example some sort of steam-gun would not fit in my Kalamar game -so it would get removed.

That said I allow just about anything thematically appropriate in, and reserve the right to later edit or disallow it. I have a list of things I've put a definate stamp on, and anything else is open given the above guidelines.

In fact when I run I make a point to try and have at least one d20 element show up every session in order to encourage more use of the stuff.

I've not had any problems, as my players who take an interest will accept an edit when I hand it down. Of late some of them have taken to proactively pre spotting the problems and coming to me with them so that a later edit doesn't happen.