Downsizing what I play with

[S'mon]

I suggested allowing the Martial Power books in my Forgotten Realms campaign, but my players objected, so I gave in and banned them again. B)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I suggested allowing the Martial Power books in my Forgotten Realms campaign, but my players objected, so I gave in and banned them again. B)

I wish you could see me right now, because my jaw is literally hanging open.

*Picks jaw up*

Okay, help me wrap my head around this. I can understand players wanting specific options banned for balance reasons -- they don't want to be tempted with a cheesy trick and/or they don't want other players similarly throwing the game out of whack.

But whole books? I don't get it. If I'm not interested in eleven new martial builds or whatever, I just ignore them. Getting a book banned doesn't take if off my radar, so to speak, any more than ignoring it.

Help me, Obi Won S'mon, I'm confused!

 

[jedavis]

My groups here have recently had a Core Revival. Last fall I ran True20 with all the supplements, and it was just a mess. Next semester, ran Traveller with no supplements and it ran beautifully; occasionally I'd introduce a piece of hardware or an extra rule from Mercenary, but it was strictly DM discretion and it kept the powercreep way down. Over the summer, we played Trailblazer / 3.6 or so, again core-only, and it was also wonderful (as far as 3.x goes). So I really think that's probably the way to do it... saves money on books, too

 

[scourger]

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

Yes, I went core in 2e. It was the skills & powers and all the magic spell books that broke my AD&D campaign. I was much happier when I took it the to core: PHB, DMG & MM. My players didn't mind. I took the same lessons forward to 3.0 & 3.5, although I prefer 3.0. I even found it better for d20 games in other genres and other games like Savage Worlds. I haven't gotten into 4e, but if I do I expect it to be just the Essentials; which is still a lot of material. I do find the 4e derivative game Gamma World is just fine with the core box and doesn't really need the expansions.

I don't mind it as a player, either. In fact, I actually prefer it. A core game, or one limited to certain material, is easier to master. I can craft the character I want to pay without getting sidelined by some strategist who has ferreted out the most powerful options available (or mis-read them to get that effect).

The bottom line is that less is more.

Unfortunately, that is not good for the business of game publishing, and I recognize that. Game companies need new products to sell to keep a revenue stream coming into the business so that they can keep printing the games I love to play. I buy adventures & settings both so that I can enjoy reading and possibly running them but also to support the games & companies.

Pre-painted minis with stat cards are especially good for these aims. I wish I had bought a bunch more D&D minis when they were in print so that I could run one of the several campaigns I have in mind with them. Again, less is more so I just use them as-is as a DM and let the players have their fun of more options while I get some fire & forget foes to use while concentrating on the story.

 

[BryonD]

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.

My answer to that is: As DM you have to make your game so awesome that the players like playing in a game you run MORE than they like anything that you feel needs to be excluded.

And don't make it be a battle of wills. Make it be a matter of trust and confidence. If you are saying "no" because you can't handle something, then you are simply telling your players they are being denied something because of your lack of skill. If, on the other hand, you say "no" because you know you are making this specific game event better by saying "no" then you are telling the players they are being supported in maximizing the experience. You just have to prove that you are right.

All that said, I don't see blanket rejections as fitting with this approach. Only say "no" if there is a reason. It is easy to imagine campaigns in which there are a lot of reasons to say "no". But have a good reason.

 

[prosfilaes]

D&D 3.5 leads me to interminable searches for character options I feel reasonably optimized. Banning the expansions may help solve part of that problem for me as a player. I'd actually rather see a neat set of partially new options; give me options of dwarf, elf, half-dwarf, half-elf, orc, human and monk, favored soul, wu-jen, rouge, factotum. That would fun, especially if the campaign setting was set up to fit that (i.e. no halfling fighters wandering around.)

 

[S'mon]

I wish you could see me right now, because my jaw is literally hanging open.

*Picks jaw up*

Okay, help me wrap my head around this. I can understand players wanting specific options banned for balance reasons -- they don't want to be tempted with a cheesy trick and/or they don't want other players similarly throwing the game out of whack.

But whole books? I don't get it. If I'm not interested in eleven new martial builds or whatever, I just ignore them. Getting a book banned doesn't take if off my radar, so to speak, any more than ignoring it.

Help me, Obi Won S'mon, I'm confused!

I don't know what to say, really - many people prefer the game to have limited, defined options, to be able to point to one or a small number of books and say "these are the rules". It's just personal preference, same as your preference is for the opposite.

Personally I find WoTC's attempt to market D&D as a Magic: The Gathering type game with endlessly expanding options to be quite odd and not very attractive.

 

[Dannager]

There's nothing arbitrary about it. The DM is running the show, it should not be a requirement to cater to all. I LOVE core only as a player and DM. If players want everything under the sun they need to get behind the screen.

The opposite argument works just as well: "If the DM wants to heavily restrict his players, he needs to get players who are okay with that level of restriction."

I have found, in my experience on both sides of the screen, dealing with other players and with other DMs, that the amount of work necessary for a DM to do to make your typical player character concept work in the game is minimal, and the amount of enjoyment a player receives from being able to play his concept is great. Similarly, the increase in enjoyment a typical DM receives from heavily restricting his players is minimal, and the amount of displeasure such restriction can cause in a player is significant.

I DM more often than I play, and those are the observations that have fueled my thinking and my policy on the subject. It's just food for thought.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Some people like 6, some like a half-dozen.

I am fine with either, but I vastly prefer a game with more options.

 

[delericho]

In my experience, it's much easier to give too little and then add more, than it is to give too much and then try to pull back. I've never had a problem starting with "Core Rules only" and then adding a few things; but I can certainly see some players having problems if they've been used to playing "anything gooes, full DDI" 4e and are now told "use can use these few books."

It is also my experience that most games run best with Core Rules only, or with a small set of carefully selected expansions. This may well be inevitable.

For my own campaigns, I generally set out a list of what is available and what is not at the outset, and then strongly resist expanding it. And I'm much more likely to allow new spells/feats/magic items than I am to allow new classes, and much more likely to allow new classes than new races.