Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 7700527" data-attributes="member: 6834463"><p>It's a big and complicated topic IMO and it varies a lot from table to table, there are plenty of GMs out there (I assume) that would love for there to be book after book of player options.</p><p></p><p>Running a game can be a lot of work, and most GMs (especially those that have been at it a while I think) are not a fan of things that are put upon them that make running more difficult and less fun. They might make choices for the game that increase overhead or make things more complicated, etc, but they would rather do these things when they are appropriate instead of them being the default. Telling your players "No, you can't take that, or do that" isn't much fun, for either side, especially if it's "part of the rules". A GM can/will still do that if it makes the game better, but it is less fun than if the choice were expressly optional in the first place, and particularly not in a book that the player spent money on.</p><p></p><p>Increasing player options (in general) is bad for bringing in new players. A lot of people will simply be overwhelmed by the choices, and while of course the GM can help guide them through character creation, as the number of complicated options grow the player will feel less and less a part of the process. They often feel like there is a giant gap between more experienced players and themselves, which is less fun.</p><p></p><p>As options increase, many players tend to become more and more defined by the mechanical choices. People will argue about this, but it is a part of the human mind works. A good example is if an option becomes available that lets you do something specific that players of varying classes were doing before. There is a dissonance there that can manifest itself in many ways but will often lead to players without that option doing it less.</p><p></p><p>A lack of options makes it apparent to a lot of players that more options aren't actually needed. I have seen players come into a system with less options and be frustrated for a short time, until they realized that all they had to do is either play against type in a few ways, or simply try something new. It is extremely unlikely that they have actually played a fraction of even the mechanical combinations available, let alone actual characters.</p><p></p><p>In the end, 5e's stated intent of only allowing the core books +1 (or 2?) seems like a generally good idea for everyone. Players who for whatever reason want to try something "new" can get it without putting much of a burden on the GM and then the default conversation becomes "Which book to include?" rather than in other systems where it was "Which books is the GM going to argue to try to exclude?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="happyhermit, post: 7700527, member: 6834463"] It's a big and complicated topic IMO and it varies a lot from table to table, there are plenty of GMs out there (I assume) that would love for there to be book after book of player options. Running a game can be a lot of work, and most GMs (especially those that have been at it a while I think) are not a fan of things that are put upon them that make running more difficult and less fun. They might make choices for the game that increase overhead or make things more complicated, etc, but they would rather do these things when they are appropriate instead of them being the default. Telling your players "No, you can't take that, or do that" isn't much fun, for either side, especially if it's "part of the rules". A GM can/will still do that if it makes the game better, but it is less fun than if the choice were expressly optional in the first place, and particularly not in a book that the player spent money on. Increasing player options (in general) is bad for bringing in new players. A lot of people will simply be overwhelmed by the choices, and while of course the GM can help guide them through character creation, as the number of complicated options grow the player will feel less and less a part of the process. They often feel like there is a giant gap between more experienced players and themselves, which is less fun. As options increase, many players tend to become more and more defined by the mechanical choices. People will argue about this, but it is a part of the human mind works. A good example is if an option becomes available that lets you do something specific that players of varying classes were doing before. There is a dissonance there that can manifest itself in many ways but will often lead to players without that option doing it less. A lack of options makes it apparent to a lot of players that more options aren't actually needed. I have seen players come into a system with less options and be frustrated for a short time, until they realized that all they had to do is either play against type in a few ways, or simply try something new. It is extremely unlikely that they have actually played a fraction of even the mechanical combinations available, let alone actual characters. In the end, 5e's stated intent of only allowing the core books +1 (or 2?) seems like a generally good idea for everyone. Players who for whatever reason want to try something "new" can get it without putting much of a burden on the GM and then the default conversation becomes "Which book to include?" rather than in other systems where it was "Which books is the GM going to argue to try to exclude?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui
Top