D&D 5E Merits of including too much or too little in the PHB

[Thaumaturge]

Basically, "It isn't core," is insufficient justification to begin with, as far as the player is concerned. The player *doesn't care* if it is core, he or she wants it anyway. So the core/non-core distinction is meaningless in this sense.

So you think, from an average player's perspective, the same level of angst exists now as in 1996 if the player wants to play a wild mage and is told no?

Interesting. (And please correct me if I'm restating that wrong).

I think, at the very least, the on-line community and the awareness that other DMs are allowing wild mages in their games has increased said angst.

However, I remember having arguments with friends who wanted to use the sci-fi halflings in my Dark Sun game. So I don't, at all, dispute that as a thing that happened and continues to happen.

I also acknowledge I read more about said angst now than I did then, which almost certainly increases my perception of its prevalence.

Still, regardless of the existence, or growth, of player angst, having more options in the PHB only improves the game. I'd much rather have to tell a player no to wild magic than invent a wild magic system and then constantly tweak it for balance reasons.

Thaumaturge.

And, no, you may not play a sci-fi halfling in my Dark Sun game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And, no, you may not play a sci-fi halfling in my Dark Sun game.

How 'bout a film-noir half-orc? Can I play a film-noir half-orc in your Dark Sun game? He's really cool. He smokes, you know.

 

[Thaumaturge]

How 'bout a film-noir half-orc? Can I play a film-noir half-orc in your Dark Sun game? He's really cool. He smokes, you know.

But... I don't even...Abalach-Re killed all of the...

/sigh.

Why don't you go write his backstory, and I'll call you when my table has a spot open.

Thaumaturge.

It's a pretty small table, actually.

 

[TerraDave]

I am sure there will be a few player options that I will found annoying or jarring.

But overall, I do prefer the more inclusive approach. Why? I want one book for rules and player stuff.

One book I can pick up and reference. I can live with another book for monsters and a third for magic items and random tables of random stuff.

But otherwise, I want one, unerrated, single, unique, only, primary reference.

One book, did I mention that?

 

[Umbran]

So you think, from an average player's perspective, the same level of angst exists now as in 1996 if the player wants to play a wild mage and is told no?

Pretty much. People are people. Disappointment is disappointment. That hasn't changed in the intervening years.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Pretty much. People are people. Disappointment is disappointment. That hasn't changed in the intervening years.

I remember when I bought the 2e Barbarian handbook, and drew up a character with d12HD fighter attack benfits with two weapon fighting and a %chance to negate sneak attack... Several players didn't want me to play it because of the power creep... the DM (Who was with me when I bought the book to use in his game less then a week before) said he had to think about it...

I was pissed, what was there to think about... it was just another class.

a few months later when we meet some new guys in our college rp club they had psionic books and cards and we weren't sure how we felt about 'sci fi stuff' in our games... they also had the Archmage rules from mayfair and we got into a big argument weather stuff made by people not TSR counted...

Later still this hit it's most ridicules when we joined a group that let crazy stuff in then threw a fit when it was in fact crazy...

example:

Player 1: "Can I play a half elf"
DM: "Sure"
fast forward 45 mins when player 1 introduces his half gold dragon half grey elf...
DM: "I didn't say you could be a half dragon!"
Player 1: "Not my fault you never asked what my other half was..."
The the damn fool let it in... and complained, like he was forced to except such a crazy answer...


The group from the example above was also using the rules they called 3rd edition... because the players options rules totally made it a new edition... and this was 96 and 97



so yea, 4e had nothing on those days...

 

[mach1.9pants]

You say that as if it is a new thing. It isn't. Back before we talked about "core" game rules, there was instead an argument about "official" material - some folks said anything "official" should be allowed, and others disagreed. This went back to early Dragon Magazine, and whether its contents were "official"....

It seems to me that having a definition of "core" was intended to alleviate that. To communicate "that bare minimum of stuff that everyone should expect *will* be in a game, and anything beyond that is up for debate". Except, that never really coalesced into reality. There was always stuff in core (of any game, not just D&D flavors) that GMs would edit out, and there was always stuff in supplemental sources outside of core that players thought should be allowed, despite what the GM said.

In practice, I have not seen having a definition of "core" alleviate that tension. It still exists. "Core" as something stable, reliable, that everyone agrees on, is a myth. Thus, it really doesn't matter what's in what book. GMs always have to make decisions as to what's going to appear. And player swill try to argue for other supplemental material be included.

Rather than depend on some publisher-determined line be drawn in the sand as to what will or won't be, we should learn to communicate with our players like rational adults. Go figure

I sort of agree with this but with things like modules and design decisions there has to be an official (even if only in WotC house) Core Rules. To base their planning/creating/writing around. And Wizards have very cleverly decided to make the Core a living document. Instead of a physical book the Core (and everything required to play future D&D products*) is in a PDF available for free. And they will keep adding to it. To me this is genius, living documents are much better for that than books! So yeah there is a Core, and if you want to play pure Core, go ahead and DL it for free! Similar to the SRD except the Basic PDF will be much more newbie user friendly as a book rather that data dump.

As to options, that is what the other books give you, loads more options (though, uniquely, the triad PHB/DMG/MM will also include the Core Rules as well as the options, I bet no other book will so they blur the lines a little bit). So the PHB really should be called Player's Options: Classes & Feats But that would be the death of a sacred cow.

*though I assume there will eventually be world books that will be required to play modules in that world, but maybe I am wrong and you will just need the PDF. Just teh awesome if true 'cos the free PDF will become quite an awesome resource if so.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Pretty much. People are people. Disappointment is disappointment. That hasn't changed in the intervening years.

Indeed. People were actually more upset, in my experience, when "Obscure kit #112428" or "Overpowered and ridiculous Skills & Powers nonsense" or the like was disallowed than when I've said no to specific PrCs, races, classes etc. in 3.XE and 4E, even ones that were supposedly considered "core".

I think there were actually two factors in play:

1) People "buying into" a race or class or whatever before they ask - often this was *literal*, particularly back in the days of "Complete book of X" - a player may well have bought a book specifically to play something, so may feel pretty sad when it isn't possible.

2) We were younger and not as good at negotiating or as mature about it, which produced more upset.

 

[Li Shenron]

So the question is, what are the merits of adding into the base PHB lots of flavor, and I suppose what are the drawbacks too.

Merit: very very simply, it allows lovers of those PC concepts to have them available in early books. Presumably, WotC researched about what were the most popular concepts they could squeeze into the PHB.

Drawbacks: in theory players' entitlement, but it's becoming more clear than playing D&D 5e is going to be "Basic + XYZ" rather than "PHB+DMG+MM" as it was in earlier editions. IOW, core = Basic, not core = PHB/DMG/MM. And that puts players' entitlement back into a more reasonable case.

 

[Uchawi]

The criteria should be the rules add on from where the basic edition left off and any rules or features that are included in the PHB have been tested and work well together. Don't add a sub-system that does not play well with the other rules. When they release the DMG, then you are on your own.