Does Your Group Allow Homebrew or 3PP Material for D&D Games?

Mine does, although so far we haven't actually used any, other than a couple of minor tweaks to the core material for flavor's sake. A few items were brought up and discussed and we said we'd try them out, but then they were never followed up on.

So although right now everything in our game is from the core material, we're totally open to the possibility of 3rd party or homebrew material.

 

[Jester David]

ROFL

Your profile isn't private.
You have been here every day this month, posting over 240 times during that period, an average of 7 1/2 posts each day.

"Don't have time." Whatever you say...

 

[Jester David]

Re: Playtesting in 3rd Party products.

How much playtesting do you think takes place for most D&D accessories? None. Or so close to none it might as well be none.

That WotC is playtesting new subclasses new in a private playtest is new. Prior to that there might be some short playtests in house, but nothing particularly in depth, and seldom every single feat, class, or option presented.
And their ability to test material now is only possible because of the slow release schedule.
And even now, do you *really* think they tested every single one of the 300 monsters in the Monster Manual​.

From my experience, 3rd Party Products are fast to respond to feedback and correct errors, and incorporate feedback from purchasers. Which means number of the better selling products on the Guild HAVE been tested, because people used them in their games and the products were then updated. You can easily check the date of the last update or revision of a product to see if the author corrected errors.

 

[Maxperson]

Your profile isn't private.
You have been here every day this month, posting over 240 times during that period, an average of 7 1/2 posts each day.

Minutes each day, yes. Just like I have popped in here for a few minutes here and there, multiple times today. I have not been here for any single significant period of time, because I am busy. And this is one of my less busy days.

 

[Shiroiken]

I suppose the reason for the different understanding comes down to that I as a DM have always disagreed with the old sentiment (found in the AD&D 2nd DMG, if not also other places) that players are inherently going to be trying to get one over on the DM or squeeze out unfair advantages (and thus would approach character options looking to "sneak" something into the game that makes them "win"), so I don't normally think of things like that a DM would be saying "I don't allow 3rd party material" meaning not that they don't allow their single cooperative team (the way I view myself and my players, as we all have the same goal of shared enjoyment - not the AD&D 2nd assumed DM trying to have a fun game and players trying to wreck shop and embarrass/agitate the DM), but that they don't let the other team that is the players have access to the same kinds of tools that they give their team access to.

That's certainly the difference. Unfortunately I've played with far too many players who have tried to slip one by in an attempt to "win." In fact one player (whom I no longer associate with) openly admits that his job as a player is to ruin the DM's adventures & campaign. I am fortunate to now be part of a group of great players who understand my job is provide challenges for them (and serve as a neutral referee as they face them) while we create a story together.

 

[the Jester]

I use a substantial amount of homebrewed material, but very little stuff that is third party.

 

[Sketchpad]

We do use 3rd Party books, but not everything.

 

[Zhern]

Cross-posting from that "other" thread because it is applicable to a lot of the back and forth here too. That and I didn't want to retype and reword after reading 33 pages worth or stuff...

Two hours and 33 pages later..

I see a lot of inflexibility, fear of creativity, hyperfocus on balance, and apples to oranges comparisons. Comparing current 3PP offerings from the established 3PP houses to anything from 3E is a bad idea. 3E, by nature of the system (focus on superhero instead of hero, hyperfocus on balance, etc.), resulted in an exponential increase in character power and consequently, a ton of splat books as Tom, Dick, Harry, and Ed all jumped on the OGL train. Some very talented developers rose above the rest and you still see their contributions in 5E today because they do work for companies that were established by longtime TSR and early WotC developers - Frog God Games/Necromancer Games, Kobold Press, Sasquatch Games, Green Ronin.

I allow 3PP at my table and let my players be the first judge of it (because I trust them - they just want to have fun - and no, I don't have a set group of people I know all the time, I have new players in and out every few sessions depending on availability, interest, small character arcs) and then I will evaluate it and we'll talk it over and tweak it as works best for the game. Oddly enough, the stuff I don't allow at my table is largely WotC-created. And if my players want a specific feature or characteristic or trait or whatever that isn't already in the material, we'll create it so that it works with the game and the story. I would be doing my players and myself a disservice if I didn't try to work out what they were hoping for - my players might not have a good time and it also wouldn't stretch my creative muscles.

There is even some decent stuff on the DMsGuild (which seems to be categorically condemned by a lot of the respondents in this thread and that isn't without merit because there is some total trash on there, but if you look at the feedback those authors get, you will see they are getting good advice and feedback from DMs and players alike). I tend to avoid the DMsGuild because most of the stuff up there doesn't interest me because I can create it on my own as I need for my games.

I understand where the focus on balance comes from but I take very little stock in something being balanced. The players aren't always going to be able to win every fight or get the biggest and best loot. That is very much an MMO attitude. I'm telling a story where the players overcome adversity and overwhelming odds to be the heroes, to save the princess and kill the dragon (or quite possibly get killed in the process because it isn't easy to be a hero (not a superhero, a hero)). The game is what you and your players make it. If a DM is resistant for fear of players trying to take advantage or lack of confidence, discuss it with them and provide a cogent, meaningful reason for them to go outside their comfort zone - offer to work with them and let them know that if either of you feel like it isn't working out you will revisit it and adapt accordingly. The DM-player relationship is a partnership that requires compromise to be successful.

Anyway, this entire thread has been amusing and infuriating.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Like I said, the difference is one of degree. When you decide that a white dragon lives in the mountains near Neverwinter, you're creating your own world and making a ruling fitting the game to your group. When you decide that centaurs are a playable race in your game, you're also adding to your world an making a ruling fitting the game to your group. Turn that white dragon into a monster from Fifth Edition Foes and turn that centaur into a dragonborn, and it's still the same kind of decision. When you decide that a 15 on 1d12+1d8 is an encounter with 2d4 owlbears, you're doing the same thing. When you declare that a high Perception check reveals the hidden doors in a room, it's still the same kind of thought process. The difference is mostly in how big a potential impact these decisions have on the game going forward - a centaur or dragonborn in the party is a larger-scale decision tha "this room has hidden doors," which itself by the same token is probably smaller in scale than using a third party monster in your dungeon.

Or to put it another way: your decision to let Perception search a room isn't any less significant than your decision to allow the Noble from EN5IDER.


I mean, I probably am, but not for these reasons.

To maybe clarify a bit: I don't think that having to make a ruling on Stealth is all that different from making a ruling on whether or not to allow a 3PP race, and so if a DM is comfortable doing one but uncomfortable doing the other (ie, you ban all 3PP content because you don't want to make that ruling), it undermines some of my confidence in that DM, and might make me question if I'd be comfortable in that DM's campaign. Not because of any specific thing that DM permitted or banned, but because that DM seems uncomfortable with making rulings to make the game better for their players, which is something I'd want my DMs to be comfortable with.

So now I'm a bad DM. And someone said there was no badwrongfun, One True Wayism going on here...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[pkt77242]

So now I'm a bad DM. And someone said there was no badwrongfun, One True Wayism going on here...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Except that is not what he said. Nice try though. What he said was that he wouldn't want to play with you, that is a personal preference, nothing about you being a bad DM.

For example, I don't see Tom Hanks movies (generally) because I they don't match what I want out of a movie. It doesn't make his movies bad or him a bad actor just that his movies are a bad match for my enjoyment.

 

[Hussar]

So now I'm a bad DM. And someone said there was no badwrongfun, One True Wayism going on here...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

That's a pretty serious misread of what he said.

What he said was the didn't want to play with a DM who "seems uncomfortable with making rulings to make the game better for their players".

Not wanting to play at your table does not mean that you are a bad DM. It means you are a bad DM for [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]. Which is perfectly fine. Not everyone is a good fit at everyone's table. I gotta admit, I'd be rather reluctant, based solely on that information, to sit at a table with a DM who absolutely refused anything that didn't have the WotC seal of approval. I play far too much home-brew and 3PP stuff to ever really be happy at that table.

I mean, good grief, currently I'm playing a homebrew 5e Knight of Solamnia. In our Ravenloft game, my ranger has a musket.

The WotC seal of approval hasn't ever meant much to me. I almost never bought anything from WotC other than core books. So, yeah, if I sit at your table and the first thing I learn is that ONLY WotC official content will be considered, then yeah, I'll probably be a bad fit for your table.

Does that make me a bad player? Or you a bad DM? Of course not. Just not a good fit for each other's table.

Why would you take this so personally?