Do you allow third party material in your games?

Schmoe

Explorer
Absolutely! There are tons of inspiring and interesting ideas outside of official books. The only caveats are that I (the DM) have to review and approve it, and I (the DM) have the right to amend the mechanics at a later point if they prove to be problematic. Of course I maintain that position for all material outside of core, official or not, so it's not a big change.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
What qualifies as "vetted?" Do you mean that you, as the GM, always want a chance to look it over? Or do you mean "it's from a reputable company" rather than "some guy on a forum"...?
Means I have looked it over. Generally DMGuild or 3pp. Usually I provide that sort of stuff anyway or a player might ask for something interesting or concept. I can do a melee fire cleric for example. Copy and paste off a forum probably not.
 
Last edited:

Schmoe

Explorer
What qualifies as "vetted?" Do you mean that you, as the GM, always want a chance to look it over? Or do you mean "it's from a reputable company" rather than "some guy on a forum"...?
This wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway :)

Vetted to me means that I've had a chance to look at it ahead of time. I don't really care about the source, although over time some sources acquire a reputation of being more or less consistent in their quality.
 
I always houserule my games to Hell and back, so I see 1st and 3rd party material as roughly equivalent-- someone else's house rules.

I am a little more careful with it, and tend to start with a position of "these books are allowed, these specific rules are banned, ask about anythng else".
 

Arilyn

Adventurer
I allow it for sure. I find that Pathfinder, especially, has very strong third party support. Lots of creativity out there that should be used and supported.
 

Voadam

Adventurer
I've used lots of 3rd party stuff in my pathfinder games. As a player I used Dreamscarred Press's psionics book and lots of spells. As a DM I allowed things I reviewed and specifically approved, generally not any sight unseen stuff though. I had a player use the Magogol race from Alluria Press and it was great. I also used lots of 3rd party monsters and modules and setting material. Lots of stuff from 3.5, 3.0, and d20 Modern as well.
 

Retreater

Adventurer
As a rule of thumb - no. I used to allow it in the 3.x era, but found so much of it to be poorly balanced (more often than not, underpowered instead of overpowered). Then it created a massive rules bloat, and we were using literal luggage and rolling carts to transport our manuals.

If you can't make your character concept from the hundreds of options in the core rules, or just tweak the flavor text with a bit of creativity, then you need to find another character to bring to my table.
 

the Jester

Legend
On the DM's side, absolutely; it's easy for me to fix things that prove broken and rebalance, or ultimately rewrite or stop using stuff that is out of whack.

On the player's side- it really depends. No TPP are allowed in without a thorough review, and many things (e.g. spells and magic items) aren't simply available to pcs even if I allow them in the game. To use a non-PH spell, a pc has to be exposed to it first, so that is a strong control I use- even things from Xanathar's or whatever aren't simply open for players to use without first encountering them.

OTOH if I like a new subclass, I'm inclined to grant easy access to it. Sometimes, as with a few of my custom domains for clerics, something has to happen to 'unlock' access for the campaign- e.g. nobody got to play a Luck cleric until the pcs encountered the hidden priestess of the hidden Luck goddess.

Things like races are especially problematic; my world has a deeply detailed history and is highly developed. Most new races either simply don't fit my vision of a largely humanocentric setting or don't work as pcs for me.

Then again, not even all PH material makes it into my game. Drow, for example, are monsters, not pcs, in my campaign.
 

Advertisement

Top