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

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I think it depends on what you are playing, at the base of D&D (as well as PF) the "needed" books are as everyone else says, 3 books for the DM and 1 for the player to run a game. Then I think it equals out as per what people decide to spend their money on. You have all the player option books which are targeting players, but a lot of DMs buy as well to keep abreast on the rules and new options. You have the added DM books (i.e. DMGII, DMGIII for D&D), then you get the modules or adventure paths which are targeted at the DMs.

I think overall, it is the person(s) who spend the most time researching the game, rules, and options as the one(s) who spend the most money on the game. In most cases this is the DM, but some players are very interested in having all the available options open to them so they purchase everything they can get their hands on.

 

[was]

I think DM's do spend more, but it's not absolutely necessary. I don't know about chipping in for books, but when I played we did chip in to buy the DM food and soda. I think that was more of a bribe though.

 

[Janx]

We all know the DM doesn't HAVE to buy al the books.

As [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] indicates, the tendency to so is related to GM's greater intest,

In 2e, I bought all the non-world-specific rule books. I spent a lot of money.

Since 3e, I own the 3 core books and only buy a book if I specifically intend to use it.

I do not own very many extra books (MM2, MM3 and Complete Adventuer).

WotC is probably sad.

Some of my friends who are only players, have all the splat books. For them, the splat books open up PC posibilities with classes, skills, feats, etc.

But as DM? I can make up new material for anything the core rules don't cover.

My wallet is happy. Given that 2e lasted 12 years, 3e lasted 4, and so on, I made the right choice...

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Now I'm not complaining about my personal expenditure on RPG products. I purchased all of those books, minis, etc. because I wanted to. I didn't buy any of them simply so my players could have access to them. I wanted them for myself. Having said that, I certainly let my players use my books when we game (we play at my house), as I want my books to be used, not just sit on the shelf collecting dust.

Just quoting this paragraph of my OP, as I am unsure if some of the posters felt that I thought it was unfair that I had spent more on books, etc. than my players or if they were using the generic "you".

It was too hard to tell, so I just wanted to reiterate, I'm not complaining about how much I have spent on RPG products. I know I didn't have to buy anything beyond the core rulebooks. I did so because I wanted to have them for myself and no other reason.

I do agree with other posters that there is likely a very strong positive correlation between being the most interested/invested in RPG's and DM'ing (or even interest and expenditure).

Olaf the Stout

 

[Elf Witch]

I was thinking about chipping in for books and know some people do it but I have to wonder how that works.

My gaming group has changed over time as people have moved away it also consist of two different groups.

Who gets the books is it decided that if the current DM moves away the books stay? What kind of rules do you have about sharing them?

I could never do it because I am book whore and I am selfish and don't share my toys well with others. I don't loan out books or DVDs. I will allow someone to use the book at the table but everyone knows not to ask to borrow it and take it home.

Now I have chipped in and helped buy a player a PHB she was so broke living on her elderly mom's couch and hiding from the condo Nazis.

My gaming group chipped in and bought me a copy of the Stargate book when we were playing that and I couldn't afford it.

I would even be willing to chip in and buy a DM a module or Adventure Path if he wanted to really run it and could not afford it.

But in all those cases I views the book as belonging to that person not the group.

 

[Grogg of the North]

My group is all over the place.

I own the core three, most of the completes, the "alignment books" and a few of the environmental books.

Another player owns the core three.

A third is on a quest to buy every 3.X book out there. This is partly because he just wants to and I secretly suspect that he's also doing it to stop one player from meta-gaming.

And the last two don't own any of the books. Which isn't so bad ... except they sometimes don't know how the stuff they want works. Too many actions to activate their items; assuming they get abilities when they don't. That kind of stuff.

 

[Drowbane]

I am looking now at my bookcase of 3e (and 2e) books. I've spent a lot of money over the years on D&D. Most of this material has been used as a Player.

 

[Umbran]

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

Not necessarily level of commitment. Disparity in interests.

Running a game is not much like playing a game, is it? While there's some overlap, they're largely different activities, different experiences, and require different skillsets.

While everyone wants to have a good game, on the detailed level, these two people have different goals in play. It should not then be surprising that those people actually want different materials to help achieve those goals. The player wants the things that allow him or her to play the character they want to play. The GM wants things that help populate an entire world. That doesn't mean the GM is actually more committed to the game, but that the player simply needs less game-book information to do what they are there to do.

 

[Li Shenron]

I was thinking about chipping in for books and know some people do it but I have to wonder how that works.

My gaming group has changed over time as people have moved away it also consist of two different groups.

Who gets the books is it decided that if the current DM moves away the books stay? What kind of rules do you have about sharing them?

I could never do it because I am book whore and I am selfish and don't share my toys well with others. I don't loan out books or DVDs. I will allow someone to use the book at the table but everyone knows not to ask to borrow it and take it home.

Now I have chipped in and helped buy a player a PHB she was so broke living on her elderly mom's couch and hiding from the condo Nazis.

My gaming group chipped in and bought me a copy of the Stargate book when we were playing that and I couldn't afford it.

I would even be willing to chip in and buy a DM a module or Adventure Path if he wanted to really run it and could not afford it.

But in all those cases I views the book as belonging to that person not the group.

We've never shared ownership of books, it's not feasible IMHO... people move around and change hobbies, so it's best that each book has its owner.

But as for loaning out books to others, I have no problems. And I have myself borrowed tens of D&D books from friends who had tons, just to take a look before I decided to buy them or not... my friends know that I am super-respectful of their books and trust me I'm taking good care of them, and the same I expect from them if they borrow mine (but goes without saying, if you spoil someone's book, you buy him/her a new copy).

Also, we've never chipped in, mostly because none of us was ever broken but also no one ever really needed to buy a book... we've had several who played even without the PHB for a long time (when they were beginners and didn't know yet if they liked D&D), just the SRD and a bunch of photocopies from the DM.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Buy-in for players is 1/3 the cost for DM's simply because they don't need a MM or DMG. If the DM is pretty savvy to start with then he doesn't really need an MM either... or a DMG for that matter though it sort of depends on the edition you're talking about.

If you want to use miniatures and similar cool props then yes, the cost to support the game becomes significant - but that cost need not be borne solely by the DM. Players can be supporting the habit for everyone by contributing equally to the ongoing investment in widgets. The difficulty there comes in deciding who ultimately OWNS the widgets. With a little maturity and effort it's not hard to keep track of who owns what miniature or what percentage of the dwarven forge pieces or the battlemats if someone should decide to quit or move away, but then I also don't have an issue with players letting the DM simply keep the fruits of the group investment as compensation for the significantly higher time and effort the DM puts into running a good game. If your DM sucks then why would you be putting money into the game in any case?

Though I have no experience at all running or playing 4E I have yet to become aware of any version of D&D that requires any significant cost to continue to play. I have chosen, personally, to expand my own enjoyment of the hobby by expending my hard-earned dollars on a lot of miniatures. Yes, my players get a lot of benefit from this that they haven't PAID for but I don't CHARGE players for the privilege of playing in my games and the money that I put into it is ultimately for VERY selfish reasons. If they have more fun, I have more fun, but I have more fun with a lot of miniatures at hand no matter who bought them.

Still, I can and still do occasionally run large swaths of D&D without more cost than paper and pencils. My players don't need to invest tens or hundreds of dollars in new rules and power-ups and neither do I. That was sort of the attraction of the hobby - the benefits of using nothing more than your imagination to entertain yourself and others.

So, no. There is no cost disparity between DM's and players that at least cannot be easily overcome - and the edition that you play is irrelevant in this determination.