If You Give a Mouse a Cookie... Players and Power Creep

[GoodKingJayIII]

A player that has 1 idea only or one pet book he cannot play without sounds a bit arrogant to me...

I don't think that's a fair generalization. Sometimes the mechanics match concept purposefully; changing the mechanics changes the concept too. Or that "pet book" may be the only book besides the core three. $35-$40 is a lot for a book, and I wouldn't blame anyone for needing that money for something more important.

And by the way, if you cannot have fun with the 3 core books, you're probably a kind of gamer that cannot play with the same rules/options/concepts for a long time...

I don't find this generalization fair, either. Not all concepts are covered by the core. If a DM chooses those three books as the only three books, I agree that players should generally accept that and find a way to cover it, but why can't the DM be a little flexible as well? I sometimes get this sense of "my way or the highway" with some DMs, and I just don't get it. IME most games just don't work this way. People play with their friends, and generally friends don't talk to each other like that. Nor should they. Were I ever to take a game so seriously that I felt the need to rebuke my friends about it, I would have to step back and reconsider some of my priorities.

I'd rather work with the player than to throw all the doors open and let them cherry-pick, because some of those cherries are Cherry Bombs instead.

I think you're right, and I think case-by-case is a pretty good way to go. I don't think it's right to take something away without offering something else in return. Especially when other players have those extra options available.

Also, like you said, Wizards' are fallible. Just because it's in print doesn't make it perfect, and it shouldn't be put on a pedestal because it comes from the guys who hold the "Dungeons & Dragons" license.

Next time, I lay down the rules at the beginning and don't make exceptions.

Ok, but I think the situation could still happen even if there's a clear rule about splatbooks from the start. I'm sure many people have revised their rules mid-game, especially if a player introduced something cool and unique, whether they be interesting mechanics or story. As I said before, sometimes the mechanics and flavor mesh really well.


Obviously the buck's gotta stop somewhere, and that buck's gotta be the DM. If everything else changes about Tabletop RPGs, that at least should stay the same. The referree is necessary. But it's a big game. It's a flexible game. This game is so big it's constantly changing. You may not allow Complete Book of Cheese from Wizards of the Coast, but it's out there and, whether or not it's good, "balanced," or whatever, it's official. You may not need it to play the game, but it's still part of the rules. And it happens quickly too. WotC produces how many books a month? I guess it depends, but even if it's only 1, that's 12 books a year; that's a lot of change!

So with that constant (and rapid) evolution in mind, is it really that unreasonable to have a flexible outlook on player options and what's allowed into a campaign?

Edited for some clarity

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I allow all WOTC stuff unless i say otherwise.
At the start of the game i have a list of Classes im not allowing and an list of Races i am Allowing.
I as the DM do this for my benefit and for the benefit of the players. When i take a break and one of my players starts a game and i ask about restrictions and i get none other than no Level Adjsutment then im going to get pretty ticked off if the DM suddenly decided to ban something in the middle of the game. Which has happened on more than one occasion.

So if you started the game with a Core only Policy unless approved other wise then fine. But if you made it sound like it was a free for all on your books and then say well not that one, then i would say just allow it anyway and from then on make sure all your players know that after this one time it is no longer an option.

 

[Pbartender]

Ok, but I think the situation could still happen even if there's a clear rule about splatbooks from the start.

That doesn't mean you can't have a clear and concise rule about that from the very beginning...

"Anything from the 3.5 Core Rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM) is fair game. Anything from outside those books, MUST be submitted to the DM for approval before use. Submissions MUST be the original text, or a direct photocopy. The DM reserves the right to reject any submission for any reason. Any rejection may be appealed once and only once."

...or something similar.

The point is, lay down the rules for what can and cannot be used. Enforce those rules fairly and consistantly, and don't change them halfway through a game. Inconsistancy is what causes the problem.

 

[Greg K]

Prior to character generation, I provide the following to the players:
1) a list of unacceptable WOTC books

2) a list of books (WOTC or otherwise) with acceptable content. For books with acceptable content, I provide a list of what is pre-approved, what is limited to the DM (very rare except for BOVD), and what is outright banned. Feats and Spells unless specifcally listed as banned or preapproved will be allowed on a case by case basis.

Material not from a book on either of the two lists will be judged on a case by case basis. Furthermore, I have the right to amend the lists as new books are released or presented to me by the players.

 

[skippy_the_witch]

I run a rather unique homebrew which allows most everything from Dragon and WOTC sources, as long as I have at least a photocopy of the relavent pages (if I don't already also own the book). That said, I do NOT allow everything in the core books, as there are NO CLERICS in my game, of any sort. EVER.

This is NOT due to my fear that the cleric is the strongest class, or that it is broken, or much of anything else. It is merely a matter of flavor, for THIS world has been blocked from access to the outer planes (which means no gods, no summoned demons from the abyss, no fiendish/celestial creatures, etc). I allow other divine spell casters, most especially Paladins (which gain there power through their group belief in Saints and their Orders), Druids (who gain power from "the World"/Gaia/Nature/whatever, but have to worry about Taint), and Shugenjas (which get there powers from the elements, as the connection to the inner planes still exists).

That said, I have also found that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER whose FIRST choice has been to play a cleric has also been a munchkin. In a lotta years of D&D (been playing since the 80's), I have not yet met ONE exception to this rule. Key word is FIRST choice, NOT "gee, seems like Bob is a fighter, Bill is a rogue, and Ted a wizards, so I best be a cleric" choice. Or even, "I just saw movie xyz with a cool priest in it and I want to play somebody like that". Only the "I have no concept of which god I will worship but I want to play a cleric".

Now, cleric pc's are not the only munchkins out there. Far from it. And like I said, I did this for flavor. Conjurors are also sorta screwed in my world (or more limited to conjoring elemental beings). I also believe that I am more clever than my players, and if I am not, then I should not be running the game. I think this simple rule would eliminate most of the problems groups have with munchkins are GMs who simply are not quite as clever or knowledgeable as their players.

No direct or implied insult towards those GMs, but the very term GM means "Game MASTER". If you are not the complete and total MASTER of your game, then you do not need to be running it (because in actuality, you won't be). Again, I do not mean some sort of meglamaniac control freak that doesn't let his players breath, but rather someone who can handle whatever odd, and sometimes just plain idiotic thing the players might do to your game (i.e. burning down the village in order to SAVE the village). I keep control of my game, allow almost every new book in from WOTC or Dragon, but usually only to a specific race and/or region that already had something similar.

For example, Psionics are almost unknown in my world outside the insectoid species, which are UNIVERSALLY psionic. Any bug character can pull from any approved psionic source (basically WOTC, Dragon, anything by Cordell, and that new book [untapped potential<?>]). Any mammal psionic must be from a VERY isolated and hidden community called Vra'Duun, and will be considered an abomination by said insects and slain on discovery by them if possible. Thus, I have a Gnoll Soul Knife/Blade Manifester player from Vra'Duun who has already inadvertently destroyed a village when the Insect Collective Ghetto swarmed, trying to kill him.

Well, that was longer than expected...I hope my point was made somewhere in the above babbling.

skippy
The GM of the Cursed Earth Campaign

 

[Drowbane]

For the most part, I've never understood the "Core Only" mentality.

For any standard D&D Setting, I'm fairly open to all things WotC... and will allow 3rd Party if given a chance to read it over once or twice.

For my homebrew I'm quite abit more strict... Certain Races and Classes are regional. Such as my halflings being the only standard PC race that is (known for being) psionicly active.

 

[mmu1]

I usually have no problem with any level of restriction the DM chooses to impose - as long as he's completely open and honest about it up front, and I can make an informed choice as to whether I want to play in that game or not.

In fact, most of the time I prefer it when a DM restricts the options available, for at least a couple of reasons. One, I don't want every fantasy world I play in to be a gigantic mish-mash without an overriding theme of some sort. It's nice if it seems like the DM actually put some thought into the world design, instead of taking the path of least resistance. Two, the perfectionist in me is relieved when he no longer needs to worry about all the options in a couple of dozen books when designing a character.

Still, I think that the most important thing a DM can do is restrict himself, and not his players, from using certain books. For example, if your players create a 4 PC 28 point party of characters pretty much straight from the PHB, but you hit them with monsters from MM3, classes from the Book of Nine Swords, Prestige Classes with exotic abilities they don't know how to deal with and encounters taken straight out of the Age of Worms, then some players might enjoy it, but others might feel like the whole game world is out to get them. It's vital to make sure the supplements you use match the kind of game your players want to be in.

 

[Nyaricus]

Remember, just an example. I picked the books randomly out of the sky; it could be any non-Core rulebook, really. Now, player 1 has lots of options at their command, player 2 is worried you might tweak her character concept into oblivion, and player 3 is disappointed because his idea was shot out of the sky. How do you compensate 2 and 3?

Obviously you're worried about power creep. A fair thing to worry about. But it's no longer a question of power. Right now, it's possible players 2 and 3 are having less fun. Maybe even no fun. And really, that's what we're all about as DMs: creating fun, for ourselves and our players. At this point, the mouse already has his cookie, so to speak. Now the other mice want their cookies too, or at least better ones. Mouse 2's cookie fell on the floor and has a little bit of hair on it, and Mouse 3's cookie is pretty and moldy.

So, what do you do now? Do you leave things as they are? Do you offer some other kind of compensation? It's a slippery slope. On one hand, you don't want to be overwhelmed monitoring all the players' options. On the other, it's possible you took away some serious enjoyment from some of your players, and that could affect the game as well. How do you respond?

As the DM for my group, I purposefully go through PC creations with my players and build them the characters that they want that will fit into my campaign.

So, for example, my friend Brian wanted a monk in my campaign. I said "no, no monks in my campaigns unless we're playing an oriental campaign" (this was a Forgotten Realms game, mind you - and I edit out monks and put paladins as a PrC from UA). So, I knew that there was this awesome Pugilist class I found on EN World awhile back, and proceded to ask him if this class would work for him. He said "heck yeah!". Then came race. He wanted dwarf, but I felt that that wouldn't fit very well with the pugilist class. I suggested human, he wanted something a little different. I suggested Earth Genasi (a race with a +1LA from the FRCS) and he mulled over it, not liking the +1 LA which would mess with his BAB and HP. I said "okay, well tell you what: I'll make this race LA +1, if you'll take it, since you seem to like it." He agreed. Now, we have a pummeling Earth Genasi Pugilist on our team

So, if (hypothetically sepaking here) player C wanted some arcane option from CA, I'd do a search of my other magic books and help him make the character he wanted, even if a bit different. Moral of the story: If a DM plans to intervene in a PCs character choices, he better be able to fix the problem he started.

cheers,
--N

 

[Remathilis]

I recently shot a warblade down, so I have no issues with saying no to a class or such.

However, I do keep my door open rather than try to micromanage every single thing.

 

[Crothian]

I wonder do people restict things because they have players that will abuse it or are they just worried about rules balance and not if the players will cause problems with it?