D&D 5E Do you allow fan made material in your games?

[Sacrosanct]

I'll also add, even though it's not reflective in the question, that I don't allow all "official" WoTC stuff either. Just because it's in the official book doesn't mean it's automatically allowed in the game. We (my gaming group) had discussions about that when the game came out. For example, at my table, there are no deck of many things, and no evil PCs (unless it's a very specific exception and I know the player very well). I imagine there are a lot of other people like me, who basically don't care that much where the material is coming from, but how much it aligns with the game we're running.

 

[Sunseeker]

No, but there's a corollary question that should be asked: do you disallow "official" content that you don't like? Because that's also a "no" for me.

For the context of this conversation I'm going to assume "official" means "in a physical book". If the material does not fit with my campaign, yes I very much do. In one game I played Warlocks were out because the world was "sealed" from outside influence. Any material that I cannot appropriately tweak with ease to thematically fit my game is also out.

Sometimes I run completely randomly generated "Kitchen Sink" games where everything is good, no questions asked, but they're mostly filler and any problems that arise from them are ones I don't have to deal with for long campaign runs.

 

[MiraMels]

I don't even allow all of the officially published material in my games. I don't even allow all of the Player's Handbook at once.

 

[77IM]

I don't allow any material at all in my games! You'll play a 0-HD commoner, and you'll like it!!!

 

[cbwjm]

I don't allow any material at all in my games! You'll play a 0-HD commoner, and you'll like it!!!

0-HD commoners? Your incredibly indulgent. For my games we just sit in silence around a table for 6 hours and the players are grateful I allow that!

 

[Hussar]

Absolutely yes. There's just so many goodies out there.

GregK's thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?510759-What-s-in-YOUR-house-rule-document-collection shows a lot of them.

Me, I'm using rules from Farland for Herbs and Plants, as well as rules for Surgery that I found somewhere or other on the net (allows the surgeon to "cast" cure light wounds at various levels - each level reduces your max HP by that amount until your next rest). I'm pretty sure I'm going to be using more.

I've been finding 5e such a huge breath of fresh air in allowing the freedom to go hog wild on the rules.

 

[Gradine]

I voted no, but like many it's a soft no. Typically I DM for new players, so I try to limit available content for ease of entry. For subsequent characters/campaigns I tend to loosen up what I allow, though I take a very skeptical eye to fan-made content. Baseline D&D, especially in 5e, allows for a very wide range of character concepts, especially if you're able to file off a few serial numbers here or there and slap on a new coat of paint. I've had to homebrew some Eberron content but not much. There's a lot more there than you'd find at first glance.

Thus, I only really allow fan-made content if:
*My player has taken the time and energy to research it, which usually means it matters to them
*Their character concept is better served by the new content than existing content, even if re-purposed
*The new content passes muster with me; in terms of quality, balance, and depth. I want to know this content was made to convey a missing concept, not to simply optimize currently existing concepts (looking at you, 3.X sub-race bloat).
*The new content meshes with the setting I'm currently running. These days that means Eberron (and specifically my conception of Eberron).

 

[MostlyDm]

I don't even allow all of the officially published material in my games. I don't even allow all of the Player's Handbook at once.

The two aren't really correlated.

I don't allow all of the PHB either, in most games. But I often still allow 3rd party content.

For example, Sharpshooter is a poorly designed feat (from a conceptual/design viewpoint, not from a game balance perspective, though perhaps that too.) So I don't typically allow it.

But some 3rd party stuff is great, so I'd allow it. A user here on ENWorld, @Capn Charlie, is amazing at creating low-magic, high "realism" content, whether it's his 5th Age sci-fi work or his low-magic class alternatives. The level of thought and polish that goes into his work is easily on par with WotC... for example, he made a better 5e "Warlord" (in 5th Age) than any official 5e Warlord-replacement class. I'm dying to run a 5e Sci-Fi game using his 5th Age rules.

@dave2008 also has excellent design sensibilities, even if I feel they're a little too influenced by some 4e-isms I dislike. I have no qualms stealing some of his ideas, like the far superior "Unstoppable" mechanics to replace Legendary Saves.

@Hemlock also has some amazing material, such as 1e and 2e-inspired multiclassing, magic resistance, and initiative subsystems. I may not use all of them, but... I don't see any categorical reason not to. Just a matter of what I'm interested in.

I can't really fathom categorically answering no to this question. Why would you? I guess if you're just 100% satisfied with the base game, then there's no reason to add anything at all. I can respect that. @pming comes to mind.

But otherwise... I don't get it. People are creative and intelligent... that's not an exclusive trait of WotC employees. 5e is not nearly as finely tuned as 4e, or as prone to ludicrous over-abuse as 3e, so there's nowhere near as much risk of "breaking" the game. Broaden your horizons! Try new stuff. Support content creators on the DM's Guild!

Or don't, your call. That's just my take.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, right, I forgot. My very first Thule adventure features monsters from Reddit's Monster a Day Project:

https://www.reddit.com/r/monsteraday/comments/3svbki/monster_a_day_hires_monster_pages_and_album/

Man, that's some fantastic stuff right there.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I can't really fathom categorically answering no to this question. Why would you? I guess if you're just 100% satisfied with the base game, then there's no reason to add anything at all. I can respect that. @pming comes to mind.

Just got the "mention" alert...figured I'd add a bit here.

I am almost completely happy with the core 5e rules. Almost. We (my group and I) hated the "POOF! You're healed before breakfast!" right from day one. Literally...day one. After reading the rule, letting it slide the first time that session, but after that I came up with our current healing house rule.

I also use d12 for Initiative; it puts a bit more emphasis on really quick and really slow NPCs/PCs/Monsters. Plus, the d12 is cool!

I also have a house rule regarding Material Components, the Focus item, and that kind of thing. Basically, if you use the actual material components, you get a boost to the spell. Think of it like Material Components being top grade, fresh, cooking ingredients; fish from the fish market that day, just-picked veggies, etc. But using a Focus or Material Component Pouch is like using frozen fish, frozen veggies, Ms.Dash/Spike for spices, etc. Someone who knows what they are doing can make a frozen-focused dinner palatable...but if they get access to everything they need and fresh as a daisy ingredients, they can make amazing tasting dishes.

There are one or two other little things we do, but it's more of a 'different interpretation' of the rule in question than a houserule.

Anyway, sorry for the derail; I just wanted to point out that I add stuff all the time...I just don't find the need to change much of 5e.

PS: And the stuff I do add I come up with myself. I don't think I've used anything other than one or two monsters from "5e Foes" from Frog God Games (I think they were the ones who did that book).

^_^

Paul L. Ming