Is there too much cost disparity between DM's and players?

[renau1g]

In the 3.xe days my group would vote if we wanted to buy a new book, as a group, and if we agreed, the 5 people threw in the money, like $6/each. If we didn't, the group didn't buy it, but sometimes someone really wanted it so they bought it on their own (like me buying the Dragonlance CS book). It worked well for us, even though one of the guys was making minimum wage, he said that it was way cheaper than any other entertainment he could partake in.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the DM didn't have to bring snacks, the players rotated bringing the munchies.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I buy books because:

1) I want more options as a DM

2) I want more options as a player

3) I want to share those books with other players in the group, who may not have the money & storage space for them (I am a "group librarian")

 

[TheYeti1775]

Not in my experience.
I play more than I DM by a wide margin.
But my DM's always new, I would buy new books and read them than ask my opinion on them and borrow them to see if they wanted it themselves.

If you feel the cost is a burden, put the rule up that you most have a copy of the book available for it to be used.

 

[Mallus]

When you decide to DM, you assume certain costs, both in terms of materials and time. I feel I should no more be compensated for the supplemental gaming materials I decide to purchase then I should be *paid* to DM.

Now if the group I'm running for wants to chip in for extra goodies, that's swell.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I buy more books than my players, but really only because I like reading them (and most of them I bought only in the early days after the 4e release when they were cheap). I buy less dice than my players. All that other stuff I find unnecessary and even counterproductive.

I don't think that there is any inherent problem in the hobby with regards to DM cost (or DM time spent for that matter). It's very easy to enjoy this hobby without spending much time or money on it, especially with an open game. Anything you do spend is your own choice.

 

[Halivar]

A RBDM would say, "You may use any material from any book, so long as I have a copy of the book. Feel free to contribute to my collection."

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The way that D&D is set up though, it seems that the DM is assumed to wear a lot more of the financial burden. Even at a very base level, the DM is expected to buy 3 books (PHB, DMG and MM), whereas the players only have to buy the PHB.

So what do you think? Does the way D&D is set place too much disparity between the DM and the players in terms of cost? How is the cost spread in your group?

I've quoted this part of your text as the majority of replies focuses on a personal level.

Judging from my personal experience, the disparity in costs between DM and players just reflects the disparity in levels of commitment.

Many (of my) players see RPGs as a nice pastime and enjoy the social aspects and the story of an adventure more than the technical parts of the thing. As such, they don't have a lot of interest in hundreds of spell descriptions, and avoid even the PHB. Maybe they once bought a PHB or whatever is needed for any other game system and noted that they didn't actually use it. So why should they buy even more of the stuff?

TSR once tried to answer the question of what they could sell to players

The GM demonstrates a greater commitment by virtue of taking on the task. As long as he's no miser or coin-shy I easily see him buying into the game. Also his interest covers more ground. While the players would need basic rules and information on their race and class - to stay in D&D lingo - the DM has to have (access to) all that, but background, monster, and adventure information as well.

I can only remember three players who bought more than the absolutely necessary stuff:

One, a master of system mastery, bought the books to be able reach his desired level of achievement.

The second, a rather well-to-do guy, bought a lot of books to have them and maybe leaf through them in an idle minute.

The third one, finally, is currently running 4e for us. She had offered to run a 3.5 game several years ago and went on a shopping spree. Now she has repeated the procedure for 4e. I can tell you she isn't keen on 5e!

 

[Elf Witch]

Yes, but I think the cause and the effect could be viceversa: those who are more interested in the game tend to buy more books and also tend to become the DM.

This has been my experience as well. I owned a lot of gaming books before I started DMing because I was interested in the hobby. Eventually this led to my wanting to DM.

I know some players are more casual and don't see much use in buying more books. Though we have a table rule that unless it is a matter of being so broke you can't afford it you must have your own players handbook.

 

[the Jester]

Er... if you feel like you're spending too much, quit buying more books.

The disparity comes from the tendency of dms to be harder-core, more invested D&D gamers, not from some gun to your head that forces you to buy the newest books when they come out.

In fact, I'll bet there is at least one book from your chosen edition that you don't have and don't feel obligated to buy. Extend this thinking, and suddenly you only need the core rules- or LESS!

 

[Kobold Boots]

At a very basic level yes, but it's hardly an issue.

The players should have a PHB
The DM should have a PHB, DMG, one monster manual and enough of whatever he or she needs to run combats.

The rest of the stuff that really adds up is unnecessary or trivial