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

[Cor Azer]

Gotta agree

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.

I've had the "If I don't own it, you can't use it" rule in my games for a long time (including earlier editions). It's not that I don't trust my players, but... I don't trust my players

Well, to clarify, I've had too many players (intentionally or not) misread something from a book I didn't own, making their characters significantly more powerful than they should have been. Plus, a lot of books are balanced by the other things in the same book (ie, you generally only find psionic monsters in the psionic book; Draconomicon, I believe, had both dragon stuff and anti-dragon stuff), and if I don't have access to the book (generally by owning it), I don't feel I can adequately supply challenges for character's concept without causing the rest of the party undue problems.

That said, I've always told my players they're free to buy me such books

And to show the flip side, just because I own a book doesn't mean everything in the book will be allowed. In my opinion, all the rulebooks are possible ingredients, but I only choose a limited number (even if that number is large) for each campaign recipe.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

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.

Same here.

 

[Shallown]

I allow all osrts of stuff in my game and have most the books myself. If a player wanted to introduce something I would read it first then probably okay it with the prevision I can snatch it back if its unbalanced. I always have that rule in my games. I know I'll make a mistake and let something slip through and I'm not letting some small mistake suddenly upset the game. My players have always helped me maintain game balance in the game. Its not just the Gm's job.

So I would allow it if I need to read more and think or if I'm unsure then they just have to wait while I think about it. my players are good about forwarning. I do err on the side of caution but I still make mistakes.

Later

 

[dreaded_beast]

I'm of the opinion that what works for one character, works for all characters.

As a previous poster mentioned, if 1 player has the book, I think it would be fair to allow PrCs and rules to be used in the game with DM consent.

I think that just as long as the book in question is always brought to the game, no problem. In the event that the player who owns the book doesn't show, I think that the pertinent information from said book could be photo-copied and brought to the game. (*don't know how "legal" this is, but I figure just as long as you don't go and pass out flyers of the stuff, heh )

I don't believe that every player "owning" the book is requirement to use it. Just as long as "someone" in your group has it, I think it is OK. I have come from groups that share books, borrow, trade, forget who owns what, etc.

 

[Arnwyn]

Do you allow gaming source material -- alternative campaign setting books and the like -- into your game when only one player has access to it? Do you request that he share the book with others, or just play it on a case-by-case basis?

Well... As others have mentioned, the policy put in place for my group is "if I (the DM) don't own it, you can't use it". In fact, Haradim seems to have exactly quoted how I run things:

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.

Exactly that. Creepy.

 

[CCamfield]

Gee, I thought this was the first post for that "who's responsible for balance" thread.

In that particular case, my answer would be "no" because I am aware of the fact that the Swashbuckling Adventure classes are designed to be used in a Thean environment without much in the way of magic items.

If I was the DM I'd want to be able to look at the book first. If I thought it was good, I'd see no reason why only he should be able to use it.

 

[Driddle]

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.

So it's your game, and the players are just guests who participate with your permission?

 

[Wombat]

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

Well, as the GM, I have to vet the material I want to let into the game. Without the ability to read through, I cannot know how the material will affect my plot(s).

As such, yes, feel it is a fair limit.

Then again, my supplements are also our groups Game Library. My players do have certain games and supplements that I do not, but we generally assume "If Wombat has it, it is a possibility". This also means that players try to sell me on given supplements.

In a few cases where a single item in a book is found to be good, but the book as a whole is not considered useful, we will photocopy that short section (never more than 5 pages) and give a copy to everyone.

 

[Umbran]

So it's your game, and the players are just guests who participate with your permission?

Now, don't read too much into things, Driddle. Don't ascribe entire unrelated attitudes based upon a sentence or two.

The DM is final arbiter of rules in the game. That is a large part of the job. It seems pretty silly to me for a DM to allow rules that he or she cannot regularly reference. I know that I'm not terribly comfortable prepping up games if I don't have all the relevant rules on hand, or running using rules I cannot guarantee are on hand to reference. I also take a great deal of time in deciding if I'll allow outside material, especially after the campaign is already up and running. That means the player is going to have to at least give me an extended loan of the book to familiarize myself with the contents.

And, if I allow one player to take an option from a given book, that option will generally be available to all. It isn't fair to play favorites - "Jimbo has more money to spare, and buys more books, so his character get more options than starting student Steve."

 

[diaglo]

So it's your game, and the players are just guests who participate with your permission?

i don't think anyone on this thread has said that but you.

i'm with Bagpuss.