Material allowed ingame by a DM

[Cyclone_Joker]

Core-only baffles me. Core is, second only to Serpent Kingdoms, the worst-designed book in all of 3.5 in terms of being hideously broken. It's thanks to it we have Shapechange, Gate, Wish-loops, the Candle, Wildshape, and so on, and on the other hand, Monk and Fighter. If anything, I'd run a no-core game over a core-only game.

That aside, I allow all material. Cuz, you know, I actually trust my group.

 

[S'mon]

Core-only baffles me. Core is, second only to Serpent Kingdoms, the worst-designed book in all of 3.5 in terms of being hideously broken.

It's not about quality, it's about familiarity. Although I won't run 3e over 10th level anyway so I avoid a lot of the broken stuff. 4e core though is mostly well balanced, wonky stuff tends to be from the Power books or Dragon.

Edit: I can't "trust my group" since I'm often running more or less open access games at the Meetup.
Usually I don't know the players before the campaign starts.

 

[haakon1]

In my friend's campaign (where he's the DM), we update our 4e characters with his Character Builder account, and it seems all the options are turned on, though none of us are sure. We really only think about it when it's time to level up -- we don't do "builds".

In the campaigns I run (where I'm the DM), people update their 3.5e characters with my PHB's or their own books. Most stick to the PHB out of convenience. Some use d20srd.org (which is mostly the same as a PHB, perhaps a bit more), or the Netbook of Feats, or other 3.5e books.

For the NBOF, any feats need to get approved by me before use, with criteria being the balance rating it's been given and whether the feat makes sense to me (could logically exist in the campaign) -- though this sounds restrictive, in practice no one has ever asked for a feat I had to say "no" to.

For the other WOTC rule books of 3.5e -- PHB II, DMG, DMG II, Unarcaned Arcana, and splatbooks -- I've gone through and declared several rules "in", and everything else is out by default, unless someone wants it, requests it, and I think it's OK.

If a player has a character concept that's not easily accommodated in the rules, I'll work with them to make rules that fit the campaign universe and the character concept. For example, I came up with a variant Ranger class that doesn't have animal companion, spellcasting, and favored enemy, but is more of a scout or ranger lower-case -- a wilderness warrior who is good at doing reconnaissance. it fit better with both of our conceptions of what Ranger should mean, so it's an alternative class now in my games.

In general, it seems a whole lot simpler for everyone for the rules to be simple and short, with additions "as needed". We don't really believe in "builds" as a goal of the game -- we just want to play.

I think for 3.5e/Pathfinder and earlier, the philosophy was the initial PHB had everything you reasonably needed for D&D, and the splatbooks were just expansion. Whereas for 4e, it seems like the initial PHB was purposefully understocked, to make the splatbooks nearly mandatory for a complete game.

 

[haakon1]

I won't run 3e over 10th level anyway

Me too. Well, more like 12th. I think high level D&D has always been boring, in every edition, though.

 

[Crothian]

I restrict the options in each campaign we play but rarely for these so called balance reasons. I restrict content to fit the campaign. There is such a wide range of races and classes that many of them are just silly in certain campaigns depending on setting and theme. This can include some core material as well and I find it really helps the players focus on the themes of the campaign when everything fits together.

As for high level games I think the highest we got to was around 38 in 3e. It was a lot of fun and as long as the players can handle it my campaigns have always gone to about 15th level and higher.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think for 3.5e/Pathfinder and earlier, the philosophy was the initial PHB had everything you reasonably needed for D&D, and the splatbooks were just expansion. Whereas for 4e, it seems like the initial PHB was purposefully understocked, to make the splatbooks nearly mandatory for a complete game.

Really? I always figured that the paradigm change was the result of 1) the CB and 2) the (albeit silly) marketing slogan "Everything is core."

You yourself say that your group probably has all the CB options turned on, though you're not sure. I myself have never met a 4e DM who restricted character options, other than in that one Dark Sun game we played, and I think that's because so many 4e gamers use the CB. The CB, and 4e's structure/balance, just makes it so easy to allow everything.

Whereas in other editions there are by necessity physical books involved, which tend to create many lines in the sand -- at least in the minds of many DMs.

(To be fair, I understand when a new DM wants to run core-only until he gets familiar with the game. D&D is a complicated game, 3.x not least of all. But too many DMs never take the training wheels off. Especially DMs who have fan forum accounts which allow them to pop into a forum to ask "Hey I've got a player wanting to use splat book X; anything I should look out for?")

 

[haakon1]

Especially DMs who have fan forum accounts which allow them to pop into a forum to ask "Hey I've got a player wanting to use splat book X; anything I should look out for?"

That's not a common scenario in my experience.

In the group where I'm a player, we've been playing for over a decade, and only one player ever wanted something "special", beyond the rules the rest of us were following -- PHB from 3.0 and 3.5, and then whatever was pre-loaded in Character Builder for 4e. It might not be a coincidence that the requestor is the only one of the players who prefers 4e, and has gotten deep into the rules of it. The rest of us still use 3e terms and assume 3e rules for things like AOO's . . . in the most recent session, the DM yelled at us for not learning the right rules for 4e.

For my two groups, one has done AD&D, 3.0. and 3.5e. Special (non-core) rules requests have come from 3 players out of more than a dozen that have been in different incarnations of that group since 1996. Two of the special requestors were not looking to use splatbooks at all, but had character ideas that they didn't know how to fit into the rules, and we ended up making custom house rules for each situation because there really wasn't a precise fit out there -- in both cases, it was about getting closer to literary/real world inspirations for PC's, not about min-maxing or reading new crunch. Only one was thinking in build terms, with existing non-core rules.

The other group has had about 6 players and has always been 3.5e core, with no requests for non-core rules at all.

Wanting to color outside the lines of the rules seems like a rare trait with gamers I know. I think that's because we play much, much less often than the alleged weekly norm, so we don't get burned out on normal rules. Plus, if your interest is in action and/or story, creating builds just isn't that interesting or necessary.

Actually, power differences between "buildy" and non-buildy PC's are more noticeable in the 4e game. As I said to another "non-buildy" player, I stick with the feats that give you a +1 under most circumstances, not the crazy stacking stuff where it's +20 if you're fighting a red-headed gnome who's bloodied and you've already cast "breakdancer's mark" on him and are within 3 burst of somebody who's cast "obscure dailies".

 

[Greenfield]

Any time I've heard of a DM who allows all sources, what I hear are the complaints from the DM.

Some players hear the word "maximum" and consider that to mean "minimum". As in, the max the DM will allow is the minimum acceptable. They always try to stretch the limits.

I've had five players come to my table in recent months. To each of them I said the same things: "PHB 1 and 2, DMG 1 and 2, the Completes, MM1, and the three environment books. 32 point build. Spells and items from other sources (such as Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium) are allowed on a case by case basis."

From this I've gotten exactly one who didn't roll their stats (and all always rolled very well), and all of them reached into other books. One managed to use exactly none of the books I mentioned. Heroes of Horror, Libris Mortis, Fiend Folio, Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. He left the game after he discovered that we were serious about those limits.

Two of the players are still with us, and both of them used Savage Species for their base races.

So to ask if players will try to exceed the limits is like asking if water is wet.

Okay, that's not exactly fair. Most of the players in my group are happy with the scope of books we've allowed. They voted for that range, in fact. But the temptation to exceed the limits is always there for some.

As for what sources we use: See above.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I allow PHB, the first four Completes (Adv, Arc, Div, War) and BoED. Anything else is to be run by me first. I reserve the right to reject material for any and all reason and to retroactively ban. I also consider it a professional(?) courtesy to be given a heads up about what feats/classes you're planning to take. Especially for classes that have special requirements. I like to have time to work that in.

I've been lucky that, for the most part, my players tend to not to be dip/build crazy.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

For the most part, I allow everything by default, including third party, net-book, or home-brewed materials, so long as I am supplied with a copy of it. If something turns out to be disruptive or not to work out in play the way that we expect it to, we make changes or creatively interpret that thing until it is no longer disruptive or it works like we think it should.

Of course, this approach may not work for everyone. I have the luxury of being able to play only with people that I want to play with, so if someone is actively trying to be disruptive or to break my game, I am more than happy remove them from my presence.