GMing vs. Playing: Are Different Books a Double-Standard?

[Umbran]

What I want to know is, was I holding a double-standard, on either of these points? Namely, is it unfair to want to keep the number of books used to a small few as a GM, but that I want to use a lot as a player?

Before you go further, consider a possibility:

The root issue may be more basic - you say no to them, but want them to say yes to you. What you are saying no or yes about may be secondary to what they think of as fairness.

 

[Desdichado]

The players know how to play their characters with those options; it's harder for me to run a game when I'm near-totally unfamiliar with the books they're using - sometimes fairly heavily - because when I don't know what they can do I can't run better adventures.

I disagree, but that's neither here nor there. In one facet, at least, I think you're absolutely wrong and that's not a matter of opinion, as my disagreemnt here is. See below...

If they start pulling out spells and using feats I've never heard of, it's usually a precursor to things going off the rails, and not in a good way. It's not a "hey, the game is going in unexpected directions" thing, but more of a "the BBEG just moved? If he's in 10 ft. of me, I get an AoO with my whip. I'm tripping...yep, that's a 41 to trip. I get an AoO on a successful trip also. And everytime he tries to stand, I'll be using the AoO to trip him again." Suddenly, the villain is locked down, and the exciting fight goes into a grind-fest slaughter.

I'm not saying I need to have the books memorized - I just want to be familiar with the pool of options they've got so that I'm not being overwhelmed in the game I'm running.

This makes no sense to me. Why do you need to know about all of the potential options that they could pick? Surely, the only ones that are likely to "throw your game off the rails" are the ones that they do pick, right? You don't need to read several books to learn about how the characters work; you just need to read a few paragraphs of feat text or class ability text, because you only need to know how the options that they picked work. The options that they didn't pick are completely irrelevent.

Of course, I also disagree that you really need to know how the options that they picked work, but that's a question of GM style and opinion, so I won't argue it with you. If it's important to you, then me saying it isn't to me is hardly going to have any impact on your game.

 

[Jupp]

Just to give some experience from our group where I am usually a player but at the moment I am the DM and our old DM is the player.

Since the beginning (AD&D) it was quite common that the DM had access to book we had no access to and also that sometimes he would not allow certain books (like in 2e alot of the Everything for... books were usually not allowed). The main reason was that he did not want to have too many rules to enter the game. And for us it was a logical thought because we had a phase were we were allowed to use some of those books in the campaing. But what we found was that it was dragging down our gameplay over time.

You allow too many additional rules and the game will get more complicated, and thus it will take longer for actions to take place and this in turn means that you are not accomplishing things as you would without those additional rules.

So at one time we came to the agreement, after our DM had given his opinion on the situation, that we would reduce the number of rules/books to be allowed. He would be the one that would define what is allowed and what is not. And it has been like that ever since.

I took over his stance when I took the DM seat and to be honest I find it a good thing when the last word comes from the DM if new rules should enter the game. And up until now all players are still in favor on how we do it.

Sometimes people get get careless on what can be brought to the table and later on they realize that it just drags the game to a sluggish pace and the only thing it adds is overcomplexity. So it is good to have someone that can say no at the table.

 

[jasper]

Why is it again that you need to know so much about those options in order to allow them as GM?

The way we play, it's the player's responsibility to know how to play his own character, not the GM's. The GM just needs to have a fairly vague idea of what the players are capable of. ....

On the other hand, I can totally see restricting options from a flavor standpoint. ....

Cheers to Hobo for having players he can trust not to choose options which will not
break the campaign/encounter.
And I totally agree with limiting books for flavor options. However I have to disagree with the GM only needing a vague knowledge of pcs abilities. With rules\options\supplement\spat books bloat how is a GM suppose to keep up? Look up thread at the whip comment how an vague knowledge will mess up an encounter. I guess I have played with too many goobers who saw the game as PC vs DMs. Example had a player loan me the Complete Paladin from 2ed. I quickly reviewed the paladin type he wanted to bring in. Ask was there anything major I needed to know. He said no then pulls out a +3 holy avenger at first level. And was mad at me when I down graded to +1 and because I did not review the paladin type completely.
Now the OP is being kind of two face about not allowing books in his campaign but wanting his new book in all the other campaigns. I suggest he compromise. Allow one of books in his campaign. And talk with 1 GM to allow his new book in that Gms campaign.

 

[Agamon]

Near the end of my final 3.5 game (we were running Age of Worms), the new PCs would be some odd classes with some weird feats, and there were a couple I had little clue about. I felt a certain disconnect with the game at that point, plus it slows the game down when an ability or feat is used and the DM doesn't know about it.

As a result, I'm not in favor with supplement bloat, and have started to play some smaller press games where books aren't constantly churned out.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Players and GMs always have a friendly arms race going on. If the players have Swordsages then the orcs might have them as well.
The side who takes the advantage always risk aggrieving the other side. In this case you have an arsenal of your own (different books) so the players feel that you're having an unfair advantage in this arms race. In my opinion they should give you a little more leeway but they aren't, so that's it.

 

[Yora]

Things like these are why all my campaigns have always been core books only. I simply don't want to have to bother with such questions.

 

[delericho]

It's not unreasonable for you, as DM, to restrict the supplements that players can use for their characters.

It's not unreasonable for you, as a player, to ask your new DM to allow the use of a particular supplement for your character.

But, in the latter case, you should be prepared for the new DM to say "no". And if he does, be sure to accept it with good grace. IMO, it only becomes a double standard if you object to your new DM's decision.

 

[ComradeGnull]

I don't see anything hypocritical about it all. But I can see how it can come across as a little self-centered.

In the first case, the type of game you want to run as a DM, vs. the type of game that the other DM wants to run doesn't have to be the same. You want to run a game that has a smaller set of core options that you are very familiar with. By including every other Paizo book under the sun, the other DM is saying that he is comfortable with a broad range of options, some of which he may not know that well. There is nothing wrong with wanting to run the first type of game, but using as many options as you can have available when playing in the second type of game. Nothing hypocritical about that.

The key I would see is this: how do your players feel about playing a core-only (or limited books) game? Were they on board with it from the start, or was it something that you had to impose? If it is the latter, the root problem may be that they are unhappy with that decision, rather than anything else. That seems more likely to be the root of the problem.

If the players really like the extra options from the extra books being available to them, then in essence you are saying 'can you guys play a game you enjoy less in order to make it easier on me to run the game, because I have limited time to review expansions'; then with the second game you are saying 'hey, I've had lots of time to look at this expansion- how about having the DM (and maybe the other players) learn these extra rules because it will help me enjoy the game more.

In the first case, you are asking others to give something up to improve the experience for you. In the second case, you are asking to be allowed something new (that may impose extra work on the DM) in order to, again, improve your experience. The rest of the group may get the impression that you are too often asking others to change their play to accommodate you if they were not thrilled about the decision to restrict options in the game that you DM, particularly if this was a change from how the games were run before.

 

[Jhaelen]

The disagreement arose when the group expressed their point of view that I was being a hypocrite for wanting to restrict their options even as I tried to persuade them to let me maximize my own (since a point-buy system is option-rich).

It doesn't seem to be at the core of your issue, but I'd like to note that if I was the DM I wouldn't allow you to use a point-based, third party system, no matter what.

I.e. even if you'd have allowed the use of all the 'Advanced' and 'Ultimate' books you mentioned.

Point-based systems are _always_ breakable and coming from a third party I'd be even more wary about it.

And there's something else, too:
You mentioned you have rotating DMs. Does this mean you also rotate campaigns and pcs, i.e. the games are completely separated from each other?

To be honest, as a player, I'd find it confusing if in addition to all the campaign-differences, there was aslo a different rule-set used in each of these games. This is, imho, bound to cause problems.