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

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't like pathfinder, I don't like forgotten realms. It is for two very diffrent reasons, but at the end of the day I really dislike both. Now the reasons why don't make a lot of diffrence, becuse I have tried both many times with many cavets and compromises, almost nothing helps (Lfr 4e is the exception)

Tuesday night game is held at my house, and is the only place we really can play. If I am a PC or DM I have to be playing or there is no game.

Saterday night game has had a few major changes in the last two years (a game store closed then a friend got married and his wife won't let him play) so where we hold it now I drive half the players. So again me not playing ends the game real quick.

So it doesn't matter what anyone else (DM or not) thinks we are not playin pathfinder or the realms.

Right now we have 4 campaigns going. Tuesday we play myth and magic most days, but last week of the month we do 5e dnd. Saterday we do 2 weeks Mage end of days and the 2 weeks we do Victorian Mage. Both Mage games and the myth and magic game are winding down. We need to decide what to play next.

I have pitches for a werewolf game, a mutants and mastermind game, a 4e darksun game. 2 very diffrent 5e games, And a call of cuthulu short. Another player on Tuesday has a dnd game to pitch unsure weather to use 4e or 5e, and a rifts game to pitch. On saterday we have 2 other dms one pitching a vampire game, a savage lands game and a 5e game, and another who wants to run something new I've never heard of.

With all of that there are plenty of options... But 0 in FR and 0 with pathfinder.

 

[Grainger]

Just a question about this because I ran into this specific house rule once before in a 2e game. What's the justification for having chain mail but not plate? My old DM tried to pull the history card and claim that chain mail predates plate mail. When I pointed out that there is plate mail in the bronze age, she completely ignored history and refused to budge. How do you justify it? After all, chain mail is far, far more difficult to produce than plate.

I think we can rule out the bronze age, really. Most people don't envisage Bronze-Age armour when they play D&D. By default, D&D is set in a mish-mash of early medieval (what used to be called the Dark Ages) through High Medieval and into the Renaissance, and with some odd fantasy armour types thrown in. I've even seen 18th-century costume in TSR-era illustrations, but let's not go there. Culturally, it also has quite a lot in common with the American frontier era.

My justification? My campaign is based loosely on post Norman-conquest England (albeit with the ramifications of monsters, magic, etc., which I will spin out as the campaign goes on), and I want the culture and tech to reflect this, instead of the usual multi-period mashup. In late 10th-century/early 11th-century England, people wore chain. As time went on, plate was gradually introduced, until they had suit armour, by which time chain was obsolete; you didn't really have chain shirts and plate being used at the same tim (I'm not saying that no individuals had old chain shirts, but you wouldn't go and commission a chain hauberk in the age of suits of armour).

If I simply prohibited plate armour, Fighters and similar classes would be penalised, as they wouldn't have access to the better armour. So, I rule that armour is available with these stats, but it's heavier-weight chain, or in some cases chain made by a master craftsman. One could argue that this fits the D&D stats better than does the standard D&D array of armour: chain is much heavier than plate armour, but the latter wasn't particularly better at offering protection (except in as much as it's possible to have fewer "gaps") - weight is why plate superseded chain. It makes sense that heavier-grade chain would be heavier, but offer better protection, like plate in standard D&D.

To help convey the flavour, I provide pictures of Norman-era armour, equipment, towns, (wooden) castles, etc.

 

[transtemporal]

That depends on why he isn't having fun. I'm not in control of everything going on in his brain.

Or are you?

 

[pemerton]

that still doesn't mean that the players make campaign or rules decisions. They make decisions for their own PC. Not someone else's PC, not the NPCs, not how the world is set up.

This is a statement of playstyle. It's not anything like a statement of "default D&D".

Many D&D groups, like many other RPG groups, decide what campaign setting to play in (whether published or homegrown) collectively - often by means of GM pitch followed by player input. In the course of play, too, players can contribute to campaign backstory.

The way I learned about the structure of dwarven military service in my current 4e campaign is because a player wrote it up as part of his PC backstory. The way I learned that Corellon and the Raven Queen from time-to-time had been allies was because a player told me after reading it in a Dragon article. The way I learned that there was a drow secret society - the cult of the bat - that secretly worship Corellon and seeks to overthrow Lolth and undo the sundering of the elves was because the same player wrote it up as part of his PC backstory. The way I learned that this secret society also had members among surface elves was because, when the PCs met some surface elves for the first time, the drow PC made the secret sign of the bat to see if any of the NPC elves noticed it and anwered - one did, a crafter, who therefore agreed to work the tooth the PC had recovered from a defeated dragon into a wyrmsbane dagger.

As far as rules adjudication is concerned, I have a player whose PC has a feat that gives +2 to skill checks made as part of a ritual. Some things are obviously rituals - eg the rituals described in the 4e rulebooks. But what about eg an Arcana check made to close a portal as part of a skill challenge. Most of the time the player decides what counts as a ritual, and what doesn't, and hence when he gets the bonus. Occasionally he asks me for advice or a ruling. Once or twice I've unilaterally intervened with a ruling.

I don't think there is anything especially atypical about these ways of playing D&D.

The art of group playing is making decisions up front such that everyone is willing to stick around for the whole game.

Correct. In formal terms, it' a collective action problem.

One solution to collective action problems is to appoint a dictator (see eg Hobbes's Leviathan), but it's not the only one, especially in small groups with reliable channels of communication. A dictator is also not very effective when every one of the subjects has the freedom to leave the jurisdiction!

 

[KarinsDad]

That you said your players wanted to play D&D, implying that those who are picky about what they play don't want to play D&D. Since your DMs apparently are picky about what they play, they obviously don't "want to play D&D".

You sure do read a lot of nonsense into what other people post. Maybe you should try to take what people post at face value instead of trying to come up with hidden meanings.

This is what is called an inference. I did not imply that, you inferred it. Sorry dude.

 

[KarinsDad]

One solution to collective action problems is to appoint a dictator (see eg Hobbes's Leviathan), but it's not the only one, especially in small groups with reliable channels of communication. A dictator is also not very effective when every one of the subjects has the freedom to leave the jurisdiction!

The fact that you use the word dictator while in a discussion about DMs is very telling. It really sounds like some people have trust issues.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

This is a statement of playstyle. It's not anything like a statement of "default D&D".

Many D&D groups, like many other RPG groups, decide what campaign setting to play in (whether published or homegrown) collectively - often by means of GM pitch followed by player input. In the course of play, too, players can contribute to campaign backstory.

The way I learned about the structure of dwarven military service in my current 4e campaign is because a player wrote it up as part of his PC backstory. The way I learned that Corellon and the Raven Queen from time-to-time had been allies was because a player told me after reading it in a Dragon article. The way I learned that there was a drow secret society - the cult of the bat - that secretly worship Corellon and seeks to overthrow Lolth and undo the sundering of the elves was because the same player wrote it up as part of his PC backstory. The way I learned that this secret society also had members among surface elves was because, when the PCs met some surface elves for the first time, the drow PC made the secret sign of the bat to see if any of the NPC elves noticed it and anwered - one did, a crafter, who therefore agreed to work the tooth the PC had recovered from a defeated dragon into a wyrmsbane dagger.

As far as rules adjudication is concerned, I have a player whose PC has a feat that gives +2 to skill checks made as part of a ritual. Some things are obviously rituals - eg the rituals described in the 4e rulebooks. But what about eg an Arcana check made to close a portal as part of a skill challenge. Most of the time the player decides what counts as a ritual, and what doesn't, and hence when he gets the bonus. Occasionally he asks me for advice or a ruling. Once or twice I've unilaterally intervened with a ruling.

I don't think there is anything especially atypical about these ways of playing D&D.

that sounds much more like the D&D I play then anything [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] has said. In fact everything [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] says sounds more like something out of knights of the dinner table then any table I would play at.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

The fact that you use the word dictator while in a discussion about DMs is very telling. It really sounds like some people have trust issues.

I find it funny that you can read into something as if you know if we have trust issues or not...

 

[KarinsDad]

I find it funny that you can read into something as if you know if we have trust issues or not...

I'm not the one using words like dictator in a discussion about DMs, or saying that I have left a lot of games. If the shoe fits, ...

 

[KarinsDad]

that sounds much more like the D&D I play then anything [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] has said. In fact everything [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] says sounds more like something out of knights of the dinner table then any table I would play at.

Funny, I never once mentioned whether I would have fun with any of your DMs. I've also been in similar games to the one you quoted. The problem for your side of the fence in this conversation is that you assume that our DMs do not do all of the cool things that you claim your DMs do. The difference is that we do not quit a lot of games, nor do we object to DM campaign setting elements. We ask our DMs to add in a feature like the dwarven military one there and often the DM says yes and goes with it. If they say no, we do not get our panties in a bind over it like some people.