Downsizing what I play with

[Wednesday Boy]

While my GMs generally have very few restrictions, I would personally be disappointed if they instituted a core only rule. I can appreciate that all of the splat books can be overwhelming to some people or they think that a new race or class is unnecessary. But I like having additional options. I like finding something new from a splatbook that sparks my creative imagination.

I think many of the issues that GMs have with allowing splat books can be solved with a conversation between GM and player with the always necessary dash of trust. If the GM doesn't want to pore through endless splat books, ask your player what feats/powers/magic items/etc they want for their character now and in the future, why they want them, and what sort of build or catches will their build have during the campaign (if your players are the sort who make "builds"). As long as there's trust and honesty between player and GM, the GM will be fully aware of what the PC is capable of and can make an ad hoc decision on each element instead of banning entire sets of books.

(On a side note while I do recognise that splat books can tend to up the ante power wise, the issue is more specific to the individual player than books available. In that last D&D game I played in one player used PH1 and PH2 exclusively and his PC was vastly more powerful than anything I could come up with using all of the books because he enjoys optimizing characters.)

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I'm not a fan of 4th Edition's everything is core model.

The last time I ran 3.5, I allowed the Core books (PHB I, DMG I) and let each player to select a book to add to the table's library. If a player picked Complete Warrior and another picked Spell Compendium, then all players could take anything from those two books.

 

[Greg K]

I am not a complete core only. When I run 3e, I tend restrict WOTC material to the core books, specific options from UA (some being mandatory), and a few hand selected things (class variants, feats, spells, equipment, and PrCs) from various other supplements and enhancements. The rest of the WOTC stuff that I use (certain monster books, some environmental books, BOVD, Fiendish Codex I) are restricted to DM only.
Anything else that I use (e.g., alternate mechanics, base classes, etc.) comes from third party material (including WOTC designers and freelancers writing under their own imprint or website)

A conversation with a new player joining the group might go like this if they wanted to use certain options:

Can I play a Spirit shaman?
No. We use the Green Ronin's Shaman from the Shaman's Handbook. However, Shaman's come from only a few cultures in the campaign world so it will limit your starting race/culture.

Can I play a class from the XPH?
No. we use the Psychic class from Green Ronin Psychic's Handbook. Psychic powers are only found among humans in this setting. Psychic's are rare in the setting. Also, there are also no, psionically, created blades or psychic warrior orders in this setting (if you are thinking of Psylocke or Jedi as your inspiration).

Can't we use both XPH and Psychic's Handbook?
No, I prefer the mechanics in Psychic's HB and want just one set of mechanics to handle mental powers

Can I play a class from the Book of 9 Swords
No we the combat maneuver system from Book of Iron Might (Fighters also have access to the 1st level Fighting Styles from BOIM).

Can't we include both Bo9S and BOIM?
No. I prefer the mechanics in BOIM.

Can I play a PHB2 knight?
No, Use Hong's Knight Class (free on the web) or the Fighter. You can also use Green Ronin's Cavalier's Handbook (except for the class itself) and Avalanche's Noble Steeds as resources, but talk with first if you do.

Can I play a Swashbuckler from Complete Warrior?
No. Play a Rogue with the Martial Rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana. You can give up 4 skill points per level and Decipher Script, Disable Device, Open Locks, UMA for Full BAB and d8 HD. We can make a few other changes to class abilities.

Can I play a Scout from Complete Adventurer
No. Play a Rogue with the Wilderness Rogue and Martial Rogue variants from Unearthed Arcana.

Can I play a warlock?
No, the closest things in concept are the Green Ronin Witch from the Witch's Handbook (since they make pacts with entities) and Thaumaturge from their Book of Fiends. The latter is restricted to NPCs. If you play a witch, you can't be evil and you are a priest/priestess of the old ways and limited to certain races and cultures.

Can I play a ninja or samurai?
No. Play a rogue (or martial rogue) from one of the guilds (there are no throwing stars in the campaign and you will not have mystical abilities) or, for samurai, use the fighter or Hong's knight to play a "knight" and serve in one of the knightly orders (if you want to be a "ronin", one of the kingdoms has a monarchy that has been usurped. You play a knight that refuses to serve the usurper, thus, making you "masterless" and wandering).

Can I play some other class not listed in your handout?
No. However, let's, first, look at the class variants from Unearthed Arcana, the Complete Champion spellless Paladin and Ranger variants, the Urban/Wilderness skill swaps from the Cityscape web enhancement, and some home brew variants to see which, if any variants, can get you close to the concept (if the concept is campaign appropriate for the cultures and races as defined).

Can I use this PrC?
Only if it is listed among those available in the handout and, then, you have to be from the proper culture, school/organization. Otherwise, you have to discover it in play. For most PrCs, you need a trainer, convince them to train you, and time to train as stated. There are a few secret societies and those most be discovered in play and contacts made in play.
First, let's see if any of the class variants being used will bring you closer to your concept, but this may restrict your starting race and/or culture (again, if the concept is campaign appropriate)

Can I play a drow, a warforged, a vampire, a dhampyr, a tiefling or some other race you did not include for PCs?
No. There are no drow. if you want to play a drow, there are a group of surface dwelling elves that resemble drow. They use normal elf stats and produce the settings best sailors (and, often, pirates). Favored classes are Rogue(martial), sorcerer and shaman. They have no clerics or druids.
Any other race not listed is unavailable. They either don't exist or are limited to monster or NPCs.

Can't I use a race or class not listed and justify it as they were transported from another setting/world/dimension.
No. The only other dimensions/planes of existence are the Abyss, Hell, The Spirit Realm, The Fey Kingdom and Realm of the Gods.

 

[Voadam]

I expect the DM to set the rules for their game. I expect a player to be able to ask about options but the final call on game rules is the DM's. I expect players to be OK with that.

I am normally big on options. I own a lot and like a variety of character concepts as a DM and as a player. As a DM though I want to be comfortable running the game and understanding the capabilities of the PCs so I can comfortably run games for them. I house rule a bunch of things to my taste and exclude or change things even from core rules.

In my pbp games I generally only want mechancal things I can access easily so srd plus free online things plus things I own.

In face to face games I am more open to players using stuff I don't own as long as they provide it to me so I can know what they are capable of and judge the mechanics before they enter the game.

I've played in a number of open options games and they've been fun. I've played in a number of core only games and they have been fun too.

Running a game is a lot of work. The DM is responsible for managing a lot of aspects of the game including world design, adventure design, and running the mechanics of the game as the players interact with the adventure and the world. Most gamers IME are aware of this and are happy to give the DM authority over the mechanical options available.

I would suggest the OP talk to his players and find out whether they would be fine with him limiting options or if they would insist on only playing if they can do stuff outside the limits he wants to impose.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.

Food for thought for whom? I DM more than I play (I dont think that I've played for YEARS now) and I find that sticking with core and letting other things in on a case by case basis works excellently for my groups. My players who i've been running games for monthly for about 2 - 3 years are fine with this and understand exactly why I do it that way. I'm pretty clear about why it's done and it has nothing to do with lack of skill. It's the way that I like to run my games.

If a player that comes to participate in my ongoing game is so put out because we're not going to use a feat/class/prestige class that he feels he cant play the character the way he wants then we'll talk about possible alternatives. If not they can find another game more suited to their tastes.

As DM I'm the one putting the most time into the game as it stands, if I'm not having fun doing what I do then my players arent going to have fun. I've done the everything-under-the-sun tango, IME that way lies MADNESS. I've been surprised to see both: what players will do when everything under the sun is available and what they do when their options are pared down to the basics. We've all had more fun with the latter approach. Not so much with the former...

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

So your group has a sort of chargen agoraphobia? Well, to each his own.

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.

There are things about I don't like about WotC's business model either. Though D&D does have certain advantages over MtG; nobody ever shows up to a 4th edition D&D game with an OD&D character expecting to play. (At least, not more than that once.)

 

[S'mon]

So your group has a sort of chargen agoraphobia? Well, to each his own.

You must have chargen claustrophobia, then.

 

[Dannager]

As DM I'm the one putting the most time into the game as it stands,

So am I.

if I'm not having fun doing what I do then my players arent going to have fun.

Same goes for my game.

I've done the everything-under-the-sun tango, IME that way lies MADNESS.

I've somehow managed to have tons of fun running games for players able to use all the official options available to them. Weird, I know.

I've been surprised to see both: what players will do when everything under the sun is available and what they do when their options are pared down to the basics. We've all had more fun with the latter approach. Not so much with the former...

And my experience has been very different.

I just don't want anyone getting the impression that campaigns allowing all official material are inherently unworkable. Some DMs might be overwhelmed by them, while others might be more than capable of handling them without becoming too frustrated to continue.

So, again, just food for thought.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I just don't want anyone getting the impression that campaigns allowing all official material are inherently unworkable. Some DMs might be overwhelmed by them, while others might be more than capable of handling them without becoming too frustrated to continue.

So, again, just food for thought.

Again, here the not so subtle inference that not using all available options makes one a less than capable GM. Unless I'm reading too much into what you're saying here.

As I stated before, the entire table (that's five players and one GM) are having more fun with the core + case by case basis approach. Does that make them less capable players as well? And less capable in comparison to whom exactly?
I've had more than one of my players mention how that playing in an anything goes game starts out great then eventually degenerates into an arms race between the DM and the optimizers in the group.

This has been my experience as well and it's not like I'm going lose an arms race with players. My resources are vast and I know their tricks and how to counter them when they start to get abusive. It's not about frustration or inferred lack of ability. Dealing with that sort of thing just isn't fun or productive for me and it's not what the game is about for me. If you enjoy that sort of thing then by all means more power to you. I'm serious, no snark or sarcasm. Play your heart out man. But for me it took me a couple of groups to realize that style got old. FAST.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Being the GM is like being in any other leadership position - as long as you're getting the job done and taking care of your followers, you are doing it correctly. Further, every leader has to find their own style and methods, because no two leaders are exactly alike.
Every DM has their own, unique, style (once they find it). This is the style that works best for that individual[/u]. For that DM, it is the best possible style of DMing. But each DM is unique, so each style is unique. There will be elements in common with many other DMs, but no one style is "the true path of Dungeon Mastery" because no one style will work for every single DM. A trick or style that works perfectly for me could be a colossal failure for you, and vice versa.


TLDR: If you're running stuff and everyone is having fun then you are DMing "the right way". Ignore nay-sayers that are not players in your games.