Downsizing what I play with

[Dannager]

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.

Well, I mean, it goes without saying that one who is overwhelmed with frustration because of allowing all official options is less able to handle either frustration or lots of options. It doesn't make him a less capable DM, necessarily - indeed, anticipating this problem and restricting options as a preventative measure could even argue for that person being a more capable DM.

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?

I'm not sure we can say anything about the players' capabilities.

And less capable in comparison to whom exactly?

I don't know. You brought it up.

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.

That's unfortunate, but it's never been the case in any game I've played. In fact, I've typically found that, if an optimizer is interested in pushing the game's envelope past the DM's comfort zone, he will do it with core-only if he has to. Curbing options in an effort to stop rampant over-optimization is like putting a band-aid on a missing limb. You're much better off addressing the player(s) in question directly.

 

[kitsune9]

At the start of the campaign, I indicate which books are allowable content for the campaign for the players. Since, I play Pathfinder, I stipulate that it's only material from Paizo as there's enough of it there for anyone. I don't mix the books with 3.5

As DM, I can use whatever source I want though usually this falls in the category of monsters, but sometimes a prestige class or a variant core class generates a cool idea to create an evil NPC.

 

[Treebore]

For me I like having as few things for my mind to track as possible. I don't want or need to juggle 200 things in my head when running a game. I do not find that fun. Its not that I can't do it, even after my brain damage and loss of IQ I still have a higher IQ than "average", I think I am still even one SD above average.

So it isn't a lack of "being able", I simply don't want to. I want to focus on running the encounter, and keeping everything on track with the over all story goals, as well as keeping everything reasonably balanced so the Campaign doesn't run out of control.

So I keep everything at a nice and comfortable level of play, so I have fun, and my players have fun. If I don't provide them with enough options then I am not, and never will be, the DM for them and they are free to run the game for our group or go find a group of their own.

If they can't do one or the other, and still want to play in my game, then they better get over themselves and learn to enjoy how I run my games.

Like others have mentioned, I put in far more time and effort into these games then any of my players, and even more than they collectively put into it. So I am certainly entitled to running my games however I find most enjoyable. If I don't run it "right", no one forces them to stay.

 

[Votan]

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.

My approach to allow any books that the players enjoy using. One of my players in Pathfinder even uses a class that I do not own the book for (Gunslinger). It has worked out well so far.

Part of what helps is that people are really, really cool with rule disputes. There is a good table dynamic on figuring out what makes sense and checking rules. This makes it a lot easier to allow stuff that I don't own (as the player who owns that book is happy to discuss how his class works).

 

[Gilladian]

hmmm... I must have really casual players. I allow feats from many many books (I've compiled my own spreadsheet of them), and classes from several. However, my players have, in the entire time we've played 3.5, NEVER taken a non-core class, only 2-3 have taken non-core races, and I've had ONE prestige class in the entire time we've played.

I tend not to use them myself, as DM, just because making up NPCs with abilities I'm not very familiar with bogs down my speed of play; but I don't understand why my PCs won't play them!

So, while I have in the end decided to pay E6, it isn't to limit my players; it is because I like the FEEL of the campaign and campaign world.

However, my philosophy is this: if a PC wants badly enough to play a class or race, I'd think about it and try to work it in. But the Player is obligated to follow whatever restrictions or limits on the background I set. There's only ONE group of monks in my campaign world, and they have ONE philosophy/viewpoint. You're either OF them, or you've split from them. No other options. Same with the paladin. There are a dozen or more knightly orders that a paladin must choose from. Don't like it? Don't play a paladin.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Some might be overwhelmed by them, sure. Some, of course, might just not like it, even if they're not overwhelmed by it. Safe to say, yeah?

I mean, I created an RPG based on character options. The majority of the book is about character creation, and ways to go about adding things to make the concept you like. However, in my longest running 3.X game, I ran a core-only game. I'll tell you this much, it's not because I am (or was) overwhelmed by the options.

Just seeing if you're open to the ideas that people might place restrictions on things for reasons other than because they're "overwhelmed" by all the options. I think you are open to that idea, but I'm curious. As always, play what you like

 

[Blackbrrd]

My best campaing (3.5) had only the PHB and prestige classes from the DMG. The best campaign I have played in only used PHB+DMG+Dragonlance (3.5).

The advantage of restriced material to start with is that you as a DM is free to give out fun stuff to the characters without totally wrecking the balance of the game. For instance I allowed a Wizard to spontanous cast Conjuration spells, but he had to ban Evocation. It's one wizard that I will always remember. Another player basically got to play a Chaotic Good Paladin multiclassed with Rogue.

The players were explaining to me the character concepts they wanted to play, not the classes and feats they wanted. It shifted the power a bit more over to me as a DM, but at the same time the players really appreciated the twists I added to their characters.

 

[Dannager]

Some might be overwhelmed by them, sure. Some, of course, might just not like it, even if they're not overwhelmed by it. Safe to say, yeah?

I don't really consider "I don't like it," to be a reason for just about anything, and I don't think you ought to either. Is it possible that there are reasons for restricting player options beyond "I'm overwhelmed by options"? Sure. Is "I don't like it" one of those reasons. Nope. "I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a reason. After all, "I'm overwhelmed by options" can easily be rolled into "I just don't like it" by someone who doesn't care to give reasons. It begs the question: "Why don't you like it?" A reason might be "Those options are out of place in the campaign world," for instance.

Regardless, my post was addressing the "Options are overwhelming" perspective.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It begs the question: "Why don't you like it?"

Well, for me, I wanted the focus back on character personality. There had been too much of a focus on differentiating your character mechanically, rather than by personality. I cut down on options to help draw the attention to personality, rather than to mechanics. I certainly have nothing against options (again, my RPG is based on character options).

Regardless, my post was addressing the "Options are overwhelming" perspective.

It was, but I'm not sure why it's restricted to that, I guess. I was just curious, though. As always, play what you like

 

[El Mahdi]

Well, I mean, it goes without saying that one who is overwhelmed with frustration because of allowing all official options is less able to handle either frustration or lots of options...

I don't really consider "I don't like it," to be a reason for just about anything, and I don't think you ought to either...

After all, "I'm overwhelmed by options" can easily be rolled into "I just don't like it" by someone who doesn't care to give reasons...

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.

I find the arrogance and politely couched derogations expressed here almost completely flabergasting...though only almost.

If someone wants to play a game limited to certain materials, it's just as viable and valid a choice as playing with all materials available. And both are just as viable and valid as what game system they and the group choose to play. The only real question is whether the "group" has agreed. It is a social contract that requires the cooperation of all involved, players and DM alike.


If a DM wants to limit the materials for a game, then the only consideration is whether the players are willing to accept that. If they aren't, then the question becomes whether the DM is willing to accept that. Or whether DM and players can find an agreeable middle ground, or simply part ways. But it's definitely nobody else's place in this thread or anywhere else (with the only exception being the DM's group), to tell said DM that they are wrong, are doing it for the wrong reasons, or that you don't approve.

In a "recreational hobby", the response of "I don't like it" is not only a valid reason, it's the most valid reason. Playing something you don't like or in a manner you don't like, especially when you know you won't have any fun if you do, seems the height of foolishness. What point is there to wasting one's recreational time on something one doesn't like?

I'll send the rest of my thoughts as a PM, as they are likely inappropriate for posting in these forums.