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

[Distracted DM]

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.

Btw do you use Gate Pass Gazette by default or only allow the core stuff by default?

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.

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.

I think I look at game balance, content, etc beforehand because I hate taking things away from folks- I'd rather consider it first than let it ride, and find out later that it's problematic and have to take it away/nerf it.
That's definitely my own aversion though

 

[Ringtail]

Reynard's game philosophy here seem a little chaotic for me, but I don't think I'm that far off either.

My usual group are all close friends, I know they aren't bad actors, so I allow them to make characters without any input, using official materials. Anything 3rd party I would ask to see though for approval. The thing is, I've never said no. I haven't yet seen a piece of 3rd party material that I had to explicitly disavow.

When it comes to 2014, 2024, Valiant or Level Up I'm a bit more unsure. I don't really know how "compatible" they are. But if a player was really interested I'd probably give it a shot. Both my players and I are mature enough to recognize when something is too powerful, nor do I have an issue letting a player swap classes or feature mid-game if its really an issue.

I just like consistency. I do feel like an outlier sometimes for preferring trad games, but I like rules that are explicit and straightforward. So the idea of having two versions of the same thing that works different just feels weird, but if we're also mixing 4 different core rulebooks, what version does the GM use for all non-player facing rules? Monsters there's no hope though, as even explicitly "5e compatible" monster books can be wildly off 5e's basic monster design.

 

[Reynard]

Monsters there's no hope though, as even explicitly "5e compatible" monster books can be wildly off 5e's basic monster design.

That's no problem, though, because WotC's basic monster design is not particularly tight, and swings wildly for even the same CR. You are better off picking monsters that are fun to fight and run, eyeballing difficulty.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I would say I prefer official but appreciate flexibility.

If something trivializes challenges or makes other characters seem superfluous, I would avoid the material, of course.

But there is a lot of room to run with 5e; it’s not at baseline on hard mode…

Really if the idea is for people to have fun being agreeable can help. We don’t deal a ton with 3pp. When I play, one party member mines campaign books and adventures for feats and goodies with impunity (e.g. Ravnica etc.) and it has not done much to my fun or the game.

 

[Seramus]

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

Jedi are not supposed to have any strong emotions at all. They are calm and order, as opposed to the chaos of strong emotions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Btw do you use Gate Pass Gazette by default or only allow the core stuff by default?


I think I look at game balance, content, etc beforehand because I hate taking things away from folks- I'd rather consider it first than let it ride, and find out later that it's problematic and have to take it away/nerf it.
That's definitely my own aversion though

I allow GPG by default. The main reason I Kickstarted the annuals (other than wanting to support the game) was to have a physical copy for my players. My wife in particular only uses pdfs under duress.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Reynard's game philosophy here seem a little chaotic for me, but I don't think I'm that far off either.

My usual group are all close friends, I know they aren't bad actors, so I allow them to make characters without any input, using official materials. Anything 3rd party I would ask to see though for approval. The thing is, I've never said no. I haven't yet seen a piece of 3rd party material that I had to explicitly disavow.

When it comes to 2014, 2024, Valiant or Level Up I'm a bit more unsure. I don't really know how "compatible" they are. But if a player was really interested I'd probably give it a shot. Both my players and I are mature enough to recognize when something is too powerful, nor do I have an issue letting a player swap classes or feature mid-game if its really an issue.

I just like consistency. I do feel like an outlier sometimes for preferring trad games, but I like rules that are explicit and straightforward. So the idea of having two versions of the same thing that works different just feels weird, but if we're also mixing 4 different core rulebooks, what version does the GM use for all non-player facing rules? Monsters there's no hope though, as even explicitly "5e compatible" monster books can be wildly off 5e's basic monster design.

Setting consistency matters to me far more than mechanical consistency, or even mechanical balance.

 

[Zaukrie]

Given there are millions of people in most planets, I didn't know why there would be consistency across people that fight, or use magic. Variety is what makes the world interesting and grow.

 

[Thondor]

This is a refreshing take, and a freeing one.

I recall a story about Dave Arneson running games at conventions and handing out character sheets from different editions (3e, Basic, AD&D and I believe something else entirely like Adventures in Fantasy maybe). Some of the players were naturally confused and he just smiled and said "Hi, I'm Dave Arneson."
You can run a satisfying game experience for people with wildly different characters and powers, each can have their own special mechanics even. If you apply consistently how the world reacts that can be all that matters.

I wouldn't go quite that far in most circumstances, but there's a reason that in my game Simple Superheroes #0 you basically make a rule for every heroes powers. There's just a solid framework so that you can do that quickly.

 

[Distracted DM]

I allow GPG by default. The main reason I Kickstarted the annuals (other than wanting to support the game) was to have a physical copy for my players. My wife in particular only uses pdfs under duress.

GPG reminds me of the 3.Xe-era Dragon Magazine. A lot of cool stuff but some of it can be wonky/imbalanced or just downright disrupt core gameplay (low-level spells that will make fatigue/havens a non-issue)- personally in future I'm going to restrict the content from it, especially spells, and let stuff like that be potentially permitted if requested or, with spells for instance, discovered like the two mystic maneuver traditions are already designed to be (which I think is very cool).