Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GobiWon" data-source="post: 7675162" data-attributes="member: 6796529"><p>The problem with bloat is that you put the DM in a hard position. I've heard plenty of people say if don't want something at your table, just say no. The problem with five hundred supplements becomes the DM saying no to 60 to 70 percent of the official printed material. You end up looking like a killjoy when an excited player comes to you with a psionic infused pixie vampire. You want to create a story around classical fantasy tropes ... your players want to play with these new "toys" thrown at them by the game developers. In the long run bloat hurts the game. It ends up breaking the game because there always ends up being unintended combos. The more moving parts you add, the more likely something is going to break. When additions to the game are added in setting expansions, though, it becomes easier for a DM to say no to something. I find it easier to disallow the current minotaur, because the minotaur presented was one for Dragonlance. Since my campaign is not set in Dragonlance, no becomes a legitimate answer that my players readily accept. On the same token if I like the minotaur presented it becomes something that I can easily adapt and allow. This segregation of new rules makes for a better and more vibrant game.</p></blockquote><p></p>