D&D 5E I don’t really care what rules the players use.

[Micah Sweet]

Your would have to decide which version of spells and feats etc you'd want to use, and let the players know

I guess the only other concern is the volume of different books or PDFs you'd need to have available at any one time if you're pulling classes from one version, spells from another, etc etc

And some versions classes are going to just outshine others. But I am definitely in the camp of "I'm going to take use what I like."

I solved this problem by picking a base ruleset (Level Up) and creating a houserule reference document that includes every option I want to have in a game I run from a wide variety of materials, all sourced by title and page number. I have pdfs of every one of those sources, and all of them (along with the reference doc) are available to the players through the wonders of the internet. If a player comes to me with something new, and it doesn't appear ridiculously out of line, I add it to the document.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not a good or bad faith thing, sometimes it's just a difference in play styles, and more often than not one side or the other will "cash in their chips" and leave the table (in our group's experience). That's not ideal, though, and if it can be avoided, that's for the better. Finally, I've seen good DMs burnt out trying to create viable encounters for games with too many options in complicated systems. It's not always a question of whether it's impossible to do one's job but whether that is actually fun for them.

Point is, so much of what you are saying is highly dependent on the DM's skill, free time, enthusiasm, and the personalities at the table (not necessarily a judgment on those personalities either.)

Is that a problem? Different strokes.

 

[TiQuinn]

Is that a problem? Different strokes.

Well that’s my point. Different strokes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Your OP basically makes the rules flexible. Players and DM can pick and choose which set they want to use.

Another big part of my inference come from this later exchange:





Now, I may be wrong here, but I interpreted this to mean that it's the job of the players to communicate what versions of spells and feats they want to use. But you, as the DM, are under no burden to communicate what you are using.

Combining that with this from the OP:



Putting all this together, it sounds like you're advocating for using 5e as a loose set of rules to start from, basically a tool to give the players a baseline for creating characters. But not as a hard set of rules anyone must follow. Especially not the DM, who is not required to communicate which version of any ruleset they are using. The DM is allowed to not only pick and choose any version of a monster they want, but is free to "make stuff up as they go". From there, my inference is that the DM isn't really holding themselves to any set of rules at all; what's the value of a rule if it changes on a whim with no notice?

Admittedly, going all the way to "I don't track the HP of the BBEG, he falls when it's appropriate for the battle to end" from there is obviously taking the inference to a bit of an extreme. But it's also a completely legitimate playstyle that people advocate for, and seems very in line with the philosophy "I don't really care what rules we're following."

Alternatively, looking at this whole idea from the other end: If you don't care about what rules people are using, what do you care about?

The key to freedom is to untetter yourself from all attachments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The key to freedom is to untetter yourself from all attachments.

I don't know. We all saw what happened to the Jedi...

 

[John Lloyd1]

I'm a firm believer in not having to know what the player rules are as a DM. I run a casual table at a game store and never know what what people will bring to the table.

The annoying player-facing rules are those always-on abilities that disclose secrets. I need to know those with some precision if I am going to apply them.

 

[nevin]

Your would have to decide which version of spells and feats etc you'd want to use, and let the players know

I guess the only other concern is the volume of different books or PDFs you'd need to have available at any one time if you're pulling classes from one version, spells from another, etc etc

And some versions classes are going to just outshine others. But I am definitely in the camp of "I'm going to take use what I like."

Yes but a lot of times for those of us who don't care it doesn't come up till a player pulls out a book and says "I like this better" then you house rule. nothing requires you to actually think about it first.

 

[nevin]

I don't know. We all saw what happened to the Jedi...

who were free but couldn't get married, have kids? I think Jedi were far from Free.

 

[nevin]

OK so your type of game rewards high system-mastery. If player 1 knows that there's a fireball spell that does 2d6 more damage than another fireball, but player 2 brings in the lower damage fireball, I assume you'd allow player 2 to switch to the higher damage fireball.
If player 3 takes two feats from two different books that let them take up to a -10 penalty to hit, but add up to +20 to damage with each attack, and they have features that let them roll 3 dice and take the highest to hit- no issue? Or are these the instances where you'll start scrutinizing, the people that have high system mastery?

Edit: This isn't a combative question btw, I just try to understand tables how "anything goes" with dozens of books/sources work without the GM bogging down combat by having to throw more and more difficult/complex monsters to handle their power- and then there are the other players at the table that aren't looking for the best options and just pick "whatever," who are getting toasted by the higher difficulty enemies being brought to bear vs. the powerful characters.

the way I handle that not being anal or OCD and often allowing things before I think it through is if necessary give the other players something to bring parity. God granted abilities, a relic, the right magic item etc. I try to keep all the players at a point that they can feel they are the best in the party at something.

 

[Micah Sweet]

who were free but couldn't get married, have kids? I think Jedi were far from Free.

No attachments was my point.