Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GoodKingJayIII" data-source="post: 3131559" data-attributes="member: 13804">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. 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 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.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</blockquote>

Verification