D&D 5E Greg Leeds talks about D&D

[Corpsetaker]

It depends on how one is handling things.



If a DM simply says, "we're only using WotC D&D books and content, no questions asked" that takes virtually no effort at all.

If a DM says , "we're only using WotC D&D books and content," but the DM will allow players to come to him with non-WotC material so he can then make a judgement call about allowing it or not (instead of just automatically dismissing it), that takes a modicum of effort.

If the DM instead allows all the WotC D&D books and content and then takes it upon himself to scour thrid-party material so he can compile a list of things allowed and not allowed, then he's doing more work than he really needs to.



Alternately, you could have a situation where the additional material is also created by WotC. In that situation, the various scenarios would be more like this:

If a DM simply says, "we're only using the options from the PHB (or PHB and DMG), no questions asked" that takes virtually no effort at all.

If a DM says , "we're only using the options from the PHB (or PHB and DMG)," but the DM will allow players to come to him with other material so he can then make a judgement call about allowing it or not (instead of just automatically dismissing it), that takes a modicum of effort.

If the DM instead allows all the options from the PHB (or PHB and DMG) and then takes it upon himself to scour other WotC material so he can compile a list of things allowed and not allowed, then he's doing more work than he really needs to.

Or you could simply say everything from books AB and C.

Done.

 

[MechaPilot]

This has been explained to death elsewhere, but I'll try to give you the TL;DR:

D&D is a collaborative game with a strong community aspect played in a consumer culture. So whenever a new official book is published a large number of players will want to buy it and use it. This puts the DM in the position of a) being a hard-ass and saying "no," b) allowing a few new options... introducing power creep (since many players will want the most powerful options allowed), or c) just allowing everything, tremendously increasing complexity.

Allowing new options does not automatically mean you must allow power creep. A DM is not prohibited from placing conditions on the allowance of new options. In my game, I have a player who loves Warforged. He doesn't particularly care for the WotC version that was offered a while back, so he came to me with a fan version he found online. To be blunt, it was broken as all hell: just one example, it had a natural AC as if it was wearing plate armor, and it still got half its Dex bonus to AC as well.

Now, I could have said yes, and I could have said no, but I said "I'll think about it." I took about an hour to sit down with the fan version and the PHB, and I assessed each ability in relation to what other races get. I cut out a lot of stuff, and some of the stuff I didn't cut out was powerful enough that I had to tell the player that he had to choose one of X number of things to keep, and the rest would go (but could potentially be allowed as racial feats later on if he talked it over with me). In the end, I invested very little time in making the race fit in with the power level of my game, and the player got to make and play the character that he wanted.

Now, Wizards' current approach may cause a different set of problems for people who don't care about any of that and just want options options options. But please don't dismiss other people's problems as non-existent or trivial just because you don't experience them.

No offense intended, but "because I don't want to have to say no to my players" is not a valid defense for not offering more options. I mean, there are things in the PHB that I don't allow: for example, teleportation can go screw itself. Do I have a problem with those options existing in the PHB for others to use? Of course not.

Look, I consider myself to be a fairly permissive DM, but I often have to say either "no" or "yes, but with conditions or modifications." It's just a natural aspect of being the DM. As rules referee and as the one responsible for trying to create a specific theme or feel for a game and the world it takes place in, saying "no" sometimes is just a fact of life. If you have good reasons for saying no, and if you have mature, rational players, then it's not even a bump in the road. You explain your reasons (which should themselves be rational and consistent) and the players accept them and everyone continues to have a good time.

 

[MechaPilot]

Or you could simply say everything from books AB and C.

Done.

Sort of.

New books will come out. You will then either need to actively update the list (which means either 1) just adding the new book to the no list without looking at it, or 2) assessing all or most of the options in the book and making a decision about putting that book in th yes or no column), or you will need to be open to players asking if they can use specific options from new books.

As I see it, the least work-intensive way to handle it is to state which books are guaranteed to be allowed, and then to evaluate other options that are brought to you on an individual basis.

 

[Mistwell]

Explain.

If you only buy and allow certain books in your games then what is the problem?

It's been explained to you, in detail, more than a half dozen times. Each new time you dismiss other people's preferences, tell them they're doing it wrong, and then act like you've never heard of such explanations. Why should we trust you to hold the football this time, Lucy?

 

[darjr]

Also referees need to know the new material, and so that means they either need to borrow it or buy it. Usually buy it because the player that wants it kinda needs it. I think that puts a subtle pressure in the fewer referees direction.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Also referees need to know the new material, and so that means they either need to borrow it or buy it. Usually buy it because the player that wants it kinda needs it. I think that puts a subtle pressure in the fewer referees direction.

If you aren't going to allow it then you don't need to know it.

If you are going to allow it then there is no argument.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

One of the issues I had with 3E power creep was that I simply did not have the time to read every new sourcebook--whether from WotC or a 3rd Party product--that landed on the store shelves.

Of course DMs have the right to limit content, but if a DM is going to make that decision he or she out to take the time to read and understand the content. Spending $20-$40 on a book just to have a DM say no without so much as a look at it is bad form.

It's not as simple as issuing a yes or no.

 

[darjr]

If you aren't going to allow it then you don't need to know it.

If you are going to allow it then there is no argument.

Yea, what if players want it. What if it could be cool. What if there are a few options you'd like. That answer of yours is a non answer.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yea, what if players want it. What if it could be cool. What if there are a few options you'd like. That answer of yours is a non answer.

If players want it then you can evaluate it after they tell you they want it. If new material comes out and a player never says "can I use this?" then you never have to look at it.

As far as "what if it could be cool" and "what if there are a few options you'd like" those sound like questions promoting the promulgation of options, not excuses for making less options.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Yea, what if players want it. What if it could be cool. What if there are a few options you'd like. That answer of yours is a non answer.

Mine is actually not a non answer. It's really quite simple but you choose to make it more difficult than it really is. What is all boils down to is I can't have more options because you can't say no.

When you DM do you prep? Do your players not come to you wanting to play XY and Z before your game starts?

Are we really going to get into that argument about that mythological player who will only play X?