As a DM, I don't find it any easier. I am sure there would be some things that I would not use regardless of what was or was not included.
As a player, I assume that the DM will not allow everything. Therefore, I ask up front what is and will not be allowed. And, to be honest, I would avoid a D&D game where the DM allowed anything from a splat.
Some players have unreasonable expectatons. And, based upon various message boards dating back to 2e, many DMs do feel that the existance of gun to their head with the existence of new classes, spells, etc. How many threads have we seen in which DMs were complaining about the number of new base classes and PrCs for 3e alone and glad to see 4e on this account alone. Now with 4e we already seeing similar complaints about the number of supplements, new powers, etc for 4e (as if people thought that would not happen).
I agree with this to a point.[/quote]
To me that seems a little like "hey, we gotta sell this stuff so make sure your players can use all of it [/quote]
Like you wrote, its an attempt to increase profits. We saw this with 3.5 as well.
Back during 3.0, Andy Collins, in Dragon 293 wrote:
"If you want to a way to make your campaign more unique, try creating a custom list of prestige classes available in your campaign. Not only does this pare the prodigious variety of existing classes down to a more manageable list, the task of creating the list can provide you plenty of ideas on how to develop your campaign
When evaluating a prestige class for inclusion in your campaign, ask yourself: Does my campaign world need a specialist in this niche? Not every role in your game requires a specialist; if the class's area of expertiese is little used in your world, you probably don't need to feature it. On the other hand, whenever generality threatens to obliterate significant differences in campaign roles, you can use prestige classes to emphasize contrasts".
Later in the article he writes, to look at your cultures and other areas of the setting to see which are appropriate and to give your players the list as "Not only does this help them plan their character's careeers, but it gives them greater understanding o fthe various classes' place in your world and a better understanding of the world as a whole".
The above is keeping with the intent of prestige classes as described in the 3.0 DMG- PrCs are an optional DM tool for campaign building.
Contrast the above for 3.5, he writes in Sibling Rivalry:
" Every group of players has a "Dennis" in it -- someone who inevitably comes to the table with a character concept that doesn't fit the game you've envisioned. (Sometimes they're even named Dennis.) It's like they can't wait to disrupt the careful balance you've so carefully created, introducing a character who doesn't even begin to fit the mold you've set up for the PCs. Don't these people understand the beauty of a perfectly designed world? I tell you, sometimes I think our job would be easier if it weren't for those blasted players mucking it up.
Remember, DMs, "your" campaign world belongs to the players, too. They're not just actors performing predetermined roles in a story you've written -- they're helping to write the story that all of you will enjoy over the coming months (or even years). Not only do they need to know that their decisions during the campaign are significant, but that their decisions before the campaign -- that is, creating characters -- are also theirs to make.
When a player comes up with a character idea that doesn't quite fit your world, don't just reject it out of hand. Talk to the player. Figure out what makes this character concept so exciting. It may be so interesting that it causes you to rethink some of your assumptions about the campaign, but even if it isn't, do what you can to accommodate it. The setting of the game may be your dream, but every PC is that player's dream. Rejecting a character concept because you're too selfish to share your world with the players is the D&D equivalent of taking your ball and going home because you don't get to play quarterback. The game depends on everyone participating and contributing, and that can't happen without a little give-and-take.
"
While I disagree about players mucking up the setting (imo, that is what they are there for), the idea that limiting players to creating characters appropriate for the setting is "performing predetermined roles in a story you've written" is a leap. You can enforce setting concerns on character generation and still give players all the freedom during play. And as for Andy's brother, Greg, stating that their is little the players can do after play starts, for example, not wanting to go into a jungle when the adventure is going to Yuan Ti temple, I say, "Bull". Take the initiative and communicate with your DM. If something else interests you, tell the GM you want to go there rather than waiting for the DM to create some adventure and thrust it upon you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for talking with the players prior to agreeing to use a campaign setting, prior to character generation to communicate house rules, allowable classes, races, subsystems, etc. (this is the time I am willing to consider ideas that fit within the setting) and to bounce character concepts and tweak characters to fit seemlessly into the setting. However, once the campaign setting is created and the mechanical details are settled, you don't come with a race, class, or subsystem that was left out and expect it to be incorporated.
Finally, for the Dennis, he appears to be the person being selfish as he someone that can't or won't follow the campaign guidelines (in which case he can find another DM willing to put up with his shennagins).
What horrible passive agressive advice if he was serious. Discuss issues with players before character generation. Have the player pitch character concepts that are appropraite and require them to tweak the concepts to be appropriate (as necessary) before ever mechanically creating the character.
Then, review the mechanical version to make sure it fits the character concept discussed (if you have players that will try to sneak things past you) and to familiarize yourself with the characters.
If a player will not build something appropriate, they don't play.
As a GM, players should not expect everything will be used. I expect them to talk to me. I will generally have
- a one or two page campaign document with an overview of the setting and its deities and cultures. Generally, we can discuss this without a handout, but a handout is available for players that want to see it visually
- a half page to two page cultural document for each culture describing the culture, its social organizaiton, religious practices, body adornment, clothing, naming conventions, the classes or class variants found within the culture etc. Important NPCs or places of note are also mentioned. A player only gets a handout for the culture or cultures that interest them.
-another handout for specific classes or class variants as necessary. For example, players of clerics get a document with notes about their deity, its domains, doctrine, vestments, spells, planar allies, etc.
- a list of house rules
- a list of approved supplements and material used from those supplements
- a list of banned supplements
As a player, I expect not everything will be used. I talk to the GM before agreeing to join the campaign. I ask about the setting (I won't play in kitchen sink settings, certain types of settings, or games without an actual setting). I ask about house rules and supplements. I also expect to communicate with the DM prior to and during character generation to ensure my character and its background fit the setting.
