Downsizing what I play with

[El Mahdi]

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.

This has been my experience also.

 

[Dannager]

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

I think you'll find your righteous indignation misplaced.

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.

I agree completely.

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.

Again, you won't find me disagreeing.

In a "recreational hobby", the response of "I don't like it" is not only a valid reason, it's the most valid reason.

You and I have very different definitions of "reason", then. When I talk about a person's reasons, I'm speaking of the actual reasoning they use to make their decision - such reasoning always goes deeper than "I don't like it." There is something that they don't like, and a reason why they don't like it. When you talk about reasons, you're talking about something else.

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?

There isn't one.

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

I'm not going to report you for it, because I believe you felt you had good intentions, but for future reference if something isn't worded appropriately for the public forums, it probably isn't worded appropriately for unsolicited PMs either.

Consider perhaps pursuing a greater understanding of what is being said before responding to it in a reactionary fashion. JamesonCourage and I have had a very civil discussion despite disagreeing on certain things, largely because of his willingness to seek clarification in the face of potential misunderstanding.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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?

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it as well. Whether or not someone wants to go into semantics about your use of the word "reason", I'd like to think the average person knew what you meant by that and didn't need to to try and circumvent the point.

I think several people here have already pointed out that we've tried the "everything included option" and found that that didn't really work for us as GM's. That' hasn't stopped a few people in the thread from passive-aggressively questioning someone's GM skills because of it. Then comes the comment about it's the players not the rule set. And to an extent that much IS true.

However, it's takes less effort and time to reference and regulate the contents of one core rulebook as opposed to say in the 3.5 days 10 to 15 splatbooks and in Pathfinder about 3 (Ultimate Magic, Combat and the APG) So even if a player wanted to get freaky with the Core, you'd still kinda know what to expect from it as it's just the one book.

Bottom line though, people should be free to run their games as they see fit without it being insinuated that they are a bad GM for not using all of the options available or vise versa.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'm not going to report you for it, because I believe you felt you had good intentions, but for future reference if something isn't worded appropriately for the public forums, it probably isn't worded appropriately for unsolicited PMs either.

Consider perhaps pursuing a greater understanding of what is being said before responding to it in a reactionary fashion. JamesonCourage and I have had a very civil discussion despite disagreeing on certain things, largely because of his willingness to seek clarification in the face of potential misunderstanding.

Frankly, I could care less if you "report" me for my pm. What was in their wasn't for "public" consumption, which is the reason why I pm'd it rather than posting it. But nothing in that pm was "reportable" or violated the rules of this forum. If you feel other than that, then by all means report it. Save your subtle threats for somebody else. There are very few things in this world that scare me, and all of them involve either high explosives or threats to my family. You don't even rank as a "threat".

If you're going to report it, then do it.

If you're not, then keep it to yourself.

But since you don't want to keep it to yourself, then by all means we'll let everyone see it.

And for the record, there is no misunderstanding of your intentions, points or stance on my part or most other readers on this forum - potential or otherwise.

Keeping things to yourself seems to be one of your main problems. You have an inability to keep your baser opinions to yourself. So instead you couch them in language that on the surface, complies with the rules of this forum. All the while knowing full well exactly what you're communicating.

You are consistently arrogant and insulting. You have been so over and over in many threads before this one, and are so in this thread also.

If one name keeps being present at the point of conflagration, despite not appearing as the match itself, logic would dictate that the name in question is consistently the catalyst. That Sir, is You. It's time for you to start accepting that it's not the posters of ENWorld that have the problem, but that the problem is you and your consistent behavior.

Everytime someone states an opinion about anything outside of a "pure" form of the game. Along comes you: Sir Dannager, Paladin and Defender of the RPG True Faith. And I'm plain fed up with it.

Well, I can tell you for fact Sir, you're proselytizing is not "winning" anybody over. All it's doing is at the minimum, cluttering up a wonderful forum with vitriolic tripe; and at the worst, driving people away from this site in frustration and upset.

I have in the past, though very rarely, used the ignore function to blot out posters much like yourself. The problem in this case is you tend to shotgun your views so invasively throughout a thread, that the very presence of you, and the holes left behind when your posts are ignored, ends up making what otherwise would be very worthwhile threads completely unreadable.

You're a "polite" bully, an arrogant snob, and a self-chosen enforcer of the "proper" way to play.

And I'm not silently ignoring it anymore.

 

[Umbran]

Someone here apparently forgot Rule #1 - Keep it civil.

Ladies and gents, there are better ways of dealing with interpersonal problems than going into public, name-calling tirades. Such will not be tolerated on these forums. Period.

 

[The Human Target]

I would much prefer if my DM were to limit options (which is fine) he'd do it on a case by case basis instead of "Nothing at all from book X!"

In my experience no splat book is completely devoid of merit.

 

[Dannager]

Frankly, I could care less if you "report" me for my pm. What was in their wasn't for "public" consumption, which is the reason why I pm'd it rather than posting it. But nothing in that pm was "reportable" or violated the rules of this forum. If you feel other than that, then by all means report it. Save your subtle threats for somebody else. There are very few things in this world that scare me, and all of them involve either high explosives or threats to my family. You don't even rank as a "threat".

If you're going to report it, then do it.

If you're not, then keep it to yourself.

But since you don't want to keep it to yourself, then by all means we'll let everyone see it.

And for the record, there is no misunderstanding of your intentions, points or stance on my part or most other readers on this forum - potential or otherwise.

Keeping things to yourself seems to be one of your main problems. You have an inability to keep your baser opinions to yourself. So instead you couch them in language that on the surface, complies with the rules of this forum. All the while knowing full well exactly what you're communicating.

You are consistently arrogant and insulting. You have been so over and over in many threads before this one, and are so in this thread also.

If one name keeps being present at the point of conflagration, despite not appearing as the match itself, logic would dictate that the name in question is consistently the catalyst. That Sir, is You. It's time for you to start accepting that it's not the posters of ENWorld that have the problem, but that the problem is you and your consistent behavior.

Everytime someone states an opinion about anything outside of a "pure" form of the game. Along comes you: Sir Dannager, Paladin and Defender of the RPG True Faith. And I'm plain fed up with it.

Well, I can tell you for fact Sir, you're proselytizing is not "winning" anybody over. All it's doing is at the minimum, cluttering up a wonderful forum with vitriolic tripe; and at the worst, driving people away from this site in frustration and upset.

I have in the past, though very rarely, used the ignore function to blot out posters much like yourself. The problem in this case is you tend to shotgun your views so invasively throughout a thread, that the very presence of you, and the holes left behind when your posts are ignored, ends up making what otherwise would be very worthwhile threads completely unreadable.

You're a "polite" bully, an arrogant snob, and a self-chosen enforcer of the "proper" way to play.

And I'm not silently ignoring it anymore.

I'm sorry to hear that. I've explained myself about as clearly as I think can be reasonably done, and I don't actually hold any of the beliefs you seem to think I do. I'm not sure why you keep trying to insist that I think or believe something that I don't, but I really don't appreciate your trying to convince others that I do. It's unkind at best and character assassination at worst, so I'll ask you to stop, please. It's clear that you have a personal vendetta going on, and that doesn't really have any place here.

Mod Note: After a moderator has spoken on an argument, we expect it to be dropped. Taking shots at someone who has been warned is pretty darned rude. Getting the last word doesn't earn you any points, and can earn you a boot from the thread. ~Umbran

 

[Jacob Marley]

I would much prefer if my DM were to limit options (which is fine) he'd do it on a case by case basis instead of "Nothing at all from book X!"

In my experience no splat book is completely devoid of merit.

Not all restrictions are due to the quality of the content. In my case, in one of my campaigns, it is entirely for logistical reasons. We play once a month, after work, in a board room at my office. It is just not feasible to bring a large collection of books to my office for a monthly game. It is easier to just say "everyone brings their Player's Handbook and one other book of their choice and those books will then constitute the entirety of the rules we will be using for this particular campaign."

 

[S'mon]

Not all restrictions are due to the quality of the content. In my case, in one of my campaigns, it is entirely for logistical reasons. We play once a month, after work, in a board room at my office. It is just not feasible to bring a large collection of books to my office for a monthly game. It is easier to just say "everyone brings their Player's Handbook and one other book of their choice and those books will then constitute the entirety of the rules we will be using for this particular campaign."

Heh, I *wish* my players would bring their books! So often I've seen a player with an apparently wrong interpretation of a power, but no book in which to check it!

As DM I always bring a PHB these days, but even with limited sources I can't fit them all into my RPG bag. I can see a case for bringing netbook + DDI subscription instead since the pubs I play in have wifi and the online Rules Compendium is very good these days, but I'm worried about breaking it while in transit through the London Underground.

 

[Jhaelen]

I would much prefer if my DM were to limit options (which is fine) he'd do it on a case by case basis instead of "Nothing at all from book X!"

In my experience no splat book is completely devoid of merit.

That may well be but it makes a DM's job a lot easier to ban whole books instead of having to check and judge every single item. Ultimately it's also easier for the players to remember what is and what isn't allowed in the game.

In our current campaign we're using a white-list rather than a black-list. I.e. as a default nothing is allowed. When I was the DM I didn't allow anything from books I didn't own or hadn't read.