Should a DM buy the player splats?

[Tequila Sunrise]

But I have to question, why should a DM buy a book that's about player options? Why should he be the one spending the money, when it's 1) the players using it, and 2) the only reason the DM has it is to check the rules?

I agree; there's no reason for the onus of buying player options to fall on the DM. That said, I've never met a DM who didn't also play, so they all had at least a few player books anyway.

Does a DM have to own the book for it to be allowed in the group? I know that this is how quite a few Dms operate (if I don't own it you can't use it), but that 1) assumes the DM reads the entire thing and knows all the broken bits anyways, 2) puts the purchasing burden on the DM.

The sense I get from these DMs is "If I don't own it, you can't use it, and I'm not buying it." Which I think is a harshly perfunctory rule, but all DMs have flaws.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I buy a lot of books. I use maybe a tenth of what I have.
I primarily am a player.
On occassion I DM. Generally DM'ing I'm more comfortable with Core only or maybe a few things from the splats.

'Kay, I have to ask: Buying a lot of books and then not allowing them when you DM is almost like buying a car and not driving it. (I know, I know, some do. I don't get that either.)

Do other DMs let you use your splats when you play? Why are you more comfortable with core-only when you DM?

 

[Jhaelen]

Do you think DMs should be the ones buying the splats?

Nah. I still enjoyed buying player splats when I was strictly a DM (which now payed off since I'm no longer DM and merely a player ).

I didn't allow splats I hadn't read, though. So if a player bought a splat, he'd first have to lend it to me, so I could read it back to back before she was allowed to use anything from the book (and even then I reserved the right to veto anything from the book).

 

[TerraDave]

I almost never buy player splats anymore. But I have bought many.

Thing is, there are two kinds of players. Those who DND seriously and those who take DND as just a game. The people who take DND seriously will end up buying there own stuff, but what about those who just want to play a game? There not the type to sit around studying a DND book all day, and probably won't know what their options are unless the DM points them out. Therefore, A DM should collect some books for his players who are just playing a game.

Just about...

I have long believed that most "player" books are sold to DMs, or people who DM at least some of the time.

They like charecters. Not a charecter. But many, many possible charecters. They are interested in what is out there.

And they are the people more into the game. They buy the books, they post on these forums...they DM 'cause they want to or since no one else will.

Of course, at some point they buy Complete Elf or its latter day equivelent, and say to themselves, WTF am I doing.

 

[Kaodi]

I think it depends somewhat on the degree to which you think " splatbook " is synonymous with " Supplementary Volume of the Monster Manual " .

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think it depends somewhat on the degree to which you think " splatbook " is synonymous with " Supplementary Volume of the Monster Manual " .

If you buy a new monster book, and put in a new monster, and it turns out to suck (overpowered, underpowered, just plain unfun), the DM can say they're sorry, they won't use that monster again, and move on.

When a player buys a new book (or even uses the CB) and uses some overpowered or underpowered or just plain unfun build, it's different. If they're underpowered, usually they just switch to something else. Unfun might be unfun for the rest of the group, creating conflict. And taking away something overpowered also sparks conflict between player and DM. I took away a player's Battlerager Vigor a session ago, and he dropped his fighter entirely and made a wizard instead. He always complains that his Battlerager wasn't that overpowered, wants to face an NPC version (which wouldn't work and would an unfun bag of hit points) and now somewhat loudly complains that another PC seems overpowered (even though they're not unkillable and have a rep for dropping every fight).

 

[Janx]

If the GM doesn't own the splatbook, how is he supposed to read it?

Borrowing books should not be assumed as a viable solution. The old adage, never loan a book, is there for a reason.

 

[Kaodi]

If you buy a new monster book, and put in a new monster, and it turns out to suck (overpowered, underpowered, just plain unfun), the DM can say they're sorry, they won't use that monster again, and move on.

When a player buys a new book (or even uses the CB) and uses some overpowered or underpowered or just plain unfun build, it's different. If they're underpowered, usually they just switch to something else. Unfun might be unfun for the rest of the group, creating conflict. And taking away something overpowered also sparks conflict between player and DM. I took away a player's Battlerager Vigor a session ago, and he dropped his fighter entirely and made a wizard instead. He always complains that his Battlerager wasn't that overpowered, wants to face an NPC version (which wouldn't work and would an unfun bag of hit points) and now somewhat loudly complains that another PC seems overpowered (even though they're not unkillable and have a rep for dropping every fight).

It occured to me after my post that I probably should have limited it to 3e/Pathfinder, as in 4e monsters are built differently. But now I am confused as to what you think I meant by my previous comment.

What I was trying to say in a succint way was that DMs should buy player splatbooks insofar as they can make use of the classes and feats in them for monsters. I suppose you could sort of apply this to 4e as well insofar as you think the conversion method from class to monsters works.

Maybe I have mistaken what this thread is about though. I thought the core question was whether the Dungeon Master ought to buy player oriented splatbooks for their own benefit, rather than that of the players...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I agree; there's no reason for the onus of buying player options to fall on the DM. That said, I've never met a DM who didn't also play, so they all had at least a few player books anyway.

Not to mention creating NPCs.

The sense I get from these DMs is "If I don't own it, you can't use it, and I'm not buying it." Which I think is a harshly perfunctory rule, but all DMs have flaws.

Or at least loan it to me long enough to become familiar with the contents.

In truth though, I own more books than any of my players, the odds are that I have either bought any given book or have flung it away from me, screaming 'No! No! A thousand times no!'

The Auld Grump, not a book to be put down lightly, but rather hurled with great force....

 

[TheYeti1775]

'Kay, I have to ask: Buying a lot of books and then not allowing them when you DM is almost like buying a car and not driving it. (I know, I know, some do. I don't get that either.)

Do other DMs let you use your splats when you play? Why are you more comfortable with core-only when you DM?

I've bought many cars without intentions of driving them. I strip them and use their parts. Bad analogy in theory but very good in my practice for me.

I will take some parts of splats and use them.

Some DM's let me use splats, some don't.

I'm more comfortable with as a DM with the Core and a few splats because I know those whole-heartedly and don't have to go digging for rulings on something really obscure.