"If you can't share, don't bring it..."

[Driddle]

Do you allow gaming source material -- alternative campaign setting books and the like -- into your game when only one player has access to it? For example, a player brings "Swashbuckling Adventures" to the table and asks if he can play one of the character classes or use the listed feats, but no one else in your group has had a chance to buy the book or peruse it at the store. Do you request that he share the book with others, or just play it on a case-by-case basis?

 

[Haradim]

I only allow books and materials that I personally own, though I'm willing to look up small online items (classes, etc) if someone wants to use one. Though I don't lend books to others (nor borrow myself), rules are generally freely available for use by anyone, unless house ruled.

 

[Driddle]

I only allow books and materials that I personally own, though I'm willing to look up small online items (classes, etc) if someone wants to use one. Though I don't lend books to others (nor borrow myself), rules are generally freely available for use by anyone, unless house ruled.

Is that fair to limit a player's resources, just because you don't have it yourself?

 

[Crothian]

As long as I feel that the stuff is okay. I mean usually people don't use the same books anyway. The Wizard has wizard books, the Cleric has clerical books and there is very little in one for the other.

 

[Aaron L]

I'm usually the one who has new books, and I try my damndest to get the rest of my group to use new things when I DM. Likewise, when I play, I try my damndest to let the DM let ME try new things. Doesn't always work out. I wish it would.

 

[Davelozzi]

Is that fair to limit a player's resources, just because you don't have it yourself?

In my opinion, yes it is. I need to be able to know what a PC's abilities are in order to plan a fun game for everyone.

That said, I have a lot more books then any of my players, and if one of them wanted something that I didn't have, I'd borrow it to see if it was something that I'd allow, and if it was, I'd probably go pick up my own copy.

 

[CRGreathouse]

In my opinion, yes it is. I need to be able to know what a PC's abilities are in order to plan a fun game for everyone.

That said, I have a lot more books then any of my players, and if one of them wanted something that I didn't have, I'd borrow it to see if it was something that I'd allow, and if it was, I'd probably go pick up my own copy.

I'm with Davelozzi here. While I *might* vet a class or two from a player's book, I'm loathe to allow much -- if anything -- from books I don't have, since I need time to think and look things over.

 

[Bagpuss]

If I ever get a player that's willing to spend more money than me on this hobby, or even buy more than the player's handbook (or in some cases even that), then I'll let you know how I rule on it.

 

[the Jester]

Is that fair to limit a player's resources, just because you don't have it yourself?

It's not only fair, it's necessary.

I mean, I've seen some whacked-out unbalanced crap in 3rd party stuff... heck, even in WotC products. Things I'd never allow into my campaign. If I don't have it, I need plenty of time to look it over and examine the implications before I'll let it in.

Although, in all fairness, I will allow stuff from books I don't have once I've looked em over closely, assuming it passes my dm test. However, if the player doesn't bring the resource and tries to use something from it, any disputes about its functionality lead me to rule in the most conservative way. The onus is on the player to bring that material every time if I don't own it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Once one of us has a book, we all have it.

If he wants to use Swashbuckling Adventures for his char, and I allow it, anyone else can, too.