D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

[GMforPowergamers]

What am I supposed to do? I'm not going to stop meeting my friends every Tuesday. You demanded I play a cleric, so I stopped arguing and I played a cleric. Now you're complaining that I'm not being enthused enough about how I play the cleric? It's not a "move"; it's the natural consequences of me acquiescing to the DM's demands made with the implied threat that I wouldn't get to see my friends regularly.

I play Tuesdays and Saterdays. On tuesday it is held at my home and on saterday on the other side of my state... but saterday i am how half the players get to the game . IF i sit out eaither the capaign ends. If something doesnt work for me then it is a big problem to eaither group.

It isnt blackmail, but my housse and my car. I also only see two friends on saterday, so I would loose said friends if I left game. SO votreing with my feet isnt an option.

 

[BryonD]

But, given the choice between a fully engaged player who is excited about the character he or she wants to play, and maintaining my campaign world, I'll go with the player's ideas every single time. A fully engaged player is far, far better than any campaign setting rules.

I don't buy the premise of this statement.
First of all, I think you are really selling short the value of "campaign setting rules" when taken in the context of this conversation. If you just grab some campaign guidance out of a WotC book, then yeah, I'd agree with you 100%. But if the DM is engaged and making rules to fit the campaign concepts (which the players may very well be better off not knowing) then it is an entirely different matter. And to play up the value of an engaged player makes sense. But to play that up with one breath while blowing off the value of a DM investing time and thought into the campaign is absurd. Invested players are great and they add to the game. If you have a highly invested DM and 4 "show up and honestly play" players (not "invested", but not dragging anything down either), 9 times out of 10 you will have a better game than if there are 4 "invested" players and a "show up and play" DM. Again, not downplaying the players, but context and relative contribution are important here.

I certainly would never say "no evil characters" without a reason. You gloss that over. If I'm saying that then no matter how good the sell, the answer is going to be "that is awesome, lets do that next time."

Lastly, I've never encountered a Boolean "fully engaged player". I've found players who are creative and "engaged". I've found good players who are much more passive. But the "fully engaged players" are just that. If one of them comes to me with an idea that doesn't fit (and this has, rarely, happened), they don't pout and go away, costing the game their invested value. They ask for feedback and come up with another idea that does fit and become fully invested in that. This construct of a fully invested player who will just abandon the game over a single character concept is a fiction designed to prop up an argument. (If you are personally seeing this problem then I'm rather certain that there is more to the story. And with the complaints you have offered in the past, that would not seem unlikely).

 

[KarinsDad]

Gnomes, originally, were "monsters" but not a PC race. Every expansion in PC race and class options has depended upon someone - typically a D&D designer, perhaps a contributor to Dragon - permitting a PC to be built using a novel race or class, or one which hitherto had found expression in the game only among NPCs/monsters.

I think this means that there can be no general objection to players playing PCs which, hitherto, would have figured only as NPCs.

At your table, you can decide upon the rules however you want.

Of course there can be an objection by the DM for a player to play a disallowed PC race/class. Duh!

Where the heck does this "I can play anything I want" type of entitlement come from?

If we are playing Star Wars, no, you do not get to play a D&D race at my table. You want to do this at your table? Great. Do so.

Any objection would have to be particular, on the merits of the particular case.

Yes, a DM should decide things on a case by case basis. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

Also, how do you stop players from being entitled to do whatever they want with their PCs? Veto their action declarations?

Just like you handle all PC decisions. Logically based on what they do and how events unfold. You do not prevent them from declaring any given action, they can attempt anything they want. They may or may not be successful.

And there can be in game consequences. A PC kills the town mayor? The sheriff hires NPC mercenaries to track down that PC.

 

[KarinsDad]

There is a split personality here the whole concept behind fifth edition is the ability to tailor the game yet some people seem to think it is wrong to actually tailor a game.

This.

I am skeptical of players who can't find a PC to play out of 400 choices and just have to play what the DM has banned otherwise their fun is compromised. Because they don't sound very creative to me and it makes me wonder if they are going to trust anything I do any ruling I make in my game.

I don't understand why a DM tailoring the game to fit the setting they are running equals being controlling and taking all the players freedom away.

Because those players do not realize that the ones being controlling and manipulative, are themselves, not the DM. They see a disallowed race and the first thing that comes to their minds is how THEY are being mistreated or restricted. They are not interested in all of the hard work that the DM put into this campaign. They are not interested in whether their PC idea is disruptive or causes other players to accommodate their eccentricities. They are only concerned with the fun that they will have being the odd man out and that they will have forcing the campaign world to bend to their will.

And they do not even see it. They place all of the DM's and other player's objections into the simple box of "the DM is so controlling" or "the DM is not being an advocate for the players".

The first thing out of their mouths is "If I am not having fun, why should I play this game?".

Not "If we are not having fun, why should we play this game?".


The concept is not one of the DM telling a player "you must play a Cleric". I've never done that in my life, in fact, I have run many campaigns where we roll PCs up individually in a bubble where the other players do not know what race/class/alignment the other PCs are until we play. This has the downside of not allowing players to share background stories, but it has the upside of each player getting to play exactly what they want (within the limits of any race/class/alignment houserule restrictions). No subtle coercion to play a certain role, just because the role does not yet exist in the PC party.


But the point of the game is for everyone to have fun, not just one entitled to change the houserules player.

 

[Sailor Moon]

This is why I said what I said to HardcoreD&DGirl about it being a scenario I really didn't want to get into. Again, these are corner cases and very rarely happen at actual tables. The whole entire reason DM's are given the final say so is when the two sides can't agree on something.

Anyway, I want to see more content because I do know how limit things and I do say no. I have always looked at D&D as a toolbox or even a box of legos. I use what I feel will achieve the type of game I want to run and I put out the call for people who want to join in on that game.

 

[KarinsDad]

Anyway, I want to see more content because I do know how limit things and I do say no. I have always looked at D&D as a toolbox or even a box of legos. I use what I feel will achieve the type of game I want to run and I put out the call for people who want to join in on that game.

I think that there gets to be a point of saturation though.

4E was bloated and went way beyond saturation (IMO, obviously not in everyone's opinion).

4E has 77 classes, 46 races, 817 backgrounds, 116 themes, 3271 feats, 9409 powers, 577 paragon paths, 815 epic destinies, and 3752 items.

Most or all of this is theoretically allowable by players in a wide open campaign.

There are also 5326 monsters, many of which the DM will have to slog through, just to determine if he wants them in his encounters or not. One can filter through the list online, but not so much in one of a dozen or more books / Dragon articles.


As a DM, I started to feel a little overwhelmed not just with the amount of material to read (and re-read later on), but with the pressure to stay up to speed with the current Dragon, Dungeon, and splat books. Granted, that pressure is self imposed, but I like to at least try to stay current. I try to head off at the pass any weird synergies or mechanics problems (like the entire NAD feat taxes) so that my players do not run into game mechanic issues (too strong, or too weak).

 

[Mr Fixit]

4E has 77 classes, 46 races, 817 backgrounds, 116 themes, 3271 feats, 9409 powers, 577 paragon paths, 815 epic destinies, and 3752 items.

As someone not that well-acquainted with 4E, I gather this isn't exaggerating? Jesus.

 

[KarinsDad]

As someone not that well-acquainted with 4E, I gather this isn't exaggerating? Jesus.

Nope. Straight out of the Compendium (although I lowered the races by pulling out the "race by feat" like Moon Elf or Sun Elf, both basically identical Eladrin except for the feat choice).

 

[Greg K]

A lot of my games have been with D&D groups, where it would be hard to walk out from a particular game without walking out from a group. In one of those groups, I recall an instance where the majority of the players were filling seats until the current DM got done with his campaign and a fun DM started running again. So, socially, it's very hard to for players to walk from these groups.

If that was the case, I have no sympathy for the players. They should get a life and find something else to do until the next campaign started or start a game they would enjoy.

On the other hand, I haven't run into many groups that had only one person who was willing to GM, which may impact my willingness to accept ultimatums.

I have never been in a group with only one person willing to run, but I have excused myself from a campaign on two or three occasions. One of those times led to a change, because the GM was not enjoying the game as he was catering to the powergaming hack n' slasher to prevent the guy from whining all of the time. When I spoke up, he was relieved and found out that the other players were going along just play (the game was not bad enough for them to quit, but it could have been a lot more fun if the GM was running the group's normal style before he brought in the one particular player).

I am skeptical of any game run by a DM who doesn't want to run the game unless it's exactly the list of restrictions given before the start of the game. If your world has to be just so, what are you going to do if we blow the hell out of it or walk off the edge?

I have had players, unintentionally, blow up the world and it is great. Then again, once the game begins I am about playing to find out happens and follow the lead of the players unless they are being evil (that is against the no evil character policy) or trying to do something outside the parameters established for the setting (e.g., trying to get to the Forgotten Realms, the Far Realms, etc. which do not exist in my campaign).

And who really wants to run a game for a player who doesn't really want to play that game?

Nobody. If nobody wants to play, they should be honest. Maybe, it means someone else needs to run. However, it is just one or two players not interested, maybe they should let everyone else play and they find something else to do for this campaign.

If one race out of many in the world matters that much to the DM, why can't the one race that the player is playing matter to a player?

It can matter to the player. That, however, means that player should be allowed to play it in the campaign.

I don't feel really sympathetic to a DM running in a stock D&D world who narrowly restricts what characters can be played.

And many DMs here don't feel sympathy for players that cannot accept that a given campaign is not for them and move on to find another group.

 

[doctorhook]

But how flexible? Surely not infinitely. And what happens when the player asks too much of even a flexible GM? Eventually, it comes down to the GM saying "I will go so far, but no further, and still run this game." What about the players who try to push past that?

Surely not infinitely flexible. The DM must be willing to be flexible about rules and campaign concept for the benefit of the game, but players must be just as flexible (if not somewhat moreso) about their character concepts. My point is that both sides have to be willing to give, and no one at the table should be forced to be a captive audience for others' fun.