Downsizing what I play with

[GreyLord]

Well, I finally am tired of dealing with all the extra books and everything that goes with 3.5 or 4e.

In addition, while playing PF recently, I've gotten to really like the limited number of materials needed with the group I'm playing with.

So, recently I decided when playing 3.5 or 4e from now I'm going to only use a small amount of books overall.

I think the final kicker was someone played a factotum and though I've loved the class in the past...it just seemed to be one of those deals where for once it just seemed like trying to turn the knob to 11 in everything for the class.

So with books I'll use campaign books when PLAYING in that campaign, but not otherwise...and probably core books.

For 3.5 types I'll be a little more lax and let

the 3 core (PHB, MM, DMG), PHB2, Oriental Campaigns, Forgotten Realms campaign setting, Dragonlance Campaign setting, D20 Modern and D20 Future...Star wars saga with the Ships book and that's it. The specific campaigns such as Oriental are only for those campaigns...not mixed with things like DLCS, and Star Wars and Modern are both standalone.

With 4e its simply going to be the PHB I, PHB II, DMG, MM I-III, Heroes of Shadow than the Dark Sun Campaign setting and bestiary, the Forgotten Realms two books...and that's it. I may do an essentials only campaign with only the essentials books, but that's it.

No more complete Warrior, or Martial Power, or complete Arcane or Dungeonscape, or Psionic Power or anything anymore.

I'm thinking some players may find this too harsh, but I simply wnat something simpler...Pathfinder is fine but I have more familiarity with the other two...not completely comfortable doing a DM of PF.

However, wanting more of that simplicity type style of PF where it's not exploded into Prestige this and so many options anymore.

Easy to pare down by simply cutting back what I allow to be used in my next campaign.

What do you think on this. Do you think my players will revolt, that I'll lose players...or that they'll be happy with whatever I DM?

Anyone else done this after years of basically allowing a LOT of the extra books into your games...what were your players reactions?

 

[Dice4Hire]

I would first talk to my players about what they are comfortable with.

The DM preference is more important that one player (so I believe) but less important than all the players (or a majority of the players)

As for me as a DM, if I really hate all the splatbooks, I am tempted to go to a different system than D&D. I am running Labyrinth Lord in a PBEM right now and it is just great. Simple, basic rules and nearly zero add-ons.

But if you wanna pare down and the players agree, go for it.

Though IMO, in 4E I am not totally sure it is a huge difference. If I wanted less cheese, limit races and leave most classes alone, if you want my advice.

And ban DDI in 4E. At least require classes and materials you own and have read thoroughly. Any other way is madness.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've always tended to play with just the core books - PHB, DMG, MM (and additional MM as helpful).

I prefer the players options to come from the adventure and the campaign world rather than additional books. This has been how pretty much all the games I've played in have been run too.

It's certainly my preference.

Cheers

 

[IronWolf]

I think scaling back the number of books allowed in play is fine. Just make sure the players know ahead of time before they get too far with their character creation process.

When I picked up Pathfinder before the additional rulebooks came out (APG, the Ultimates, etc.) one of the very attractive things was that it was just one rulebook. It felt freeing to now have all these optional rulebooks in the mix and to just focus on what you could do with one.

As a player I wouldn't object to joining just a Core Rulebook or Core Rulebook + APG campaign if given the opportunity.

 

[S'mon]

I'm finding the best approach is core books + a very limited number of campaign-specific books to give a campaign a particular flavour.

In 3e-3.5e I only ever used PHB, DMG & MM, although I acquired PHB2 recently & some of it looks ok.

In 4e my core books for players are PHB + PHB2 & Essentials.

Additional per-campaign material allowed is:
Wilderlands: Martial Power 1 & 2
Forgotten Realms: Forgotten Realms Players Guide

However I'm starting to think I should have disallowed the Primal stuff from PHB2 in my Wilderlands campaign, and Essentials hasn't really worked out the way I expected. If I had it to do over I'd probably narrow the sources further. I'd be tempted to restrict Essentials PCs to Essentials stuff and non-Essentials PCs to non-Essentials stuff.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Ever since the 2e days of the Complete Munchkin series of splatbooks and the battles I had with players wanting to bring in this or that min/maxed combo, I've been a core rulebooks only DM.

As a player and DM I also prefer 'character building' to be something that is done in-game during play, so this can accommodate 'options' that seem missing during initial character creation.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

My PF group is using only the Core Rulebook. It makes it handy that there's the PRD, so not everyone needs a copy. I'm the only one who has a paper copy of the CRB and it works out fine.

We handle 'outside material' (APG, Ultimates) on a case by case basis and so far, nobody has really looked at that stuff to bring in. We're happy with our base characters.

In the 3/3.5 I used to run, we had rotating DMs, so things got ludicrous. Every book on Earth was available to everyone, so things got out of hand. Now, I'm a 'Core Rulebook and ask on anything else' kind of DM.

 

[Treebore]

The DM always has the final say as to how complex and difficult they want their game to be, so have every right in the world to do so. If your players don't like that, tell them to DM, otherwise, its going to be how you want it to be.

 

[was]

I've played in several campaigns that were PHB/Core book only and I've never found that aspect to limit my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Dannager]

The DM always has the final say as to how complex and difficult they want their game to be, so have every right in the world to do so. If your players don't like that, tell them to DM, otherwise, its going to be how you want it to be.

You don't think this is a bit simplistic?

Players tend to like options. As a player, I know that I get frustrated with DMs who decide to arbitrarily limit the sources from which I can draw my character's abilities.

As a DM, do I occasionally get caught off-guard by an unfamiliar power or option? Sure. Do I let that minor frustration get to me? Heck no. My players deserve better than that.

I like Dice4Hire's approach above: the desires of the DM are more important than any single player, but less important than all the players.