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

[Greg K]

yes, but if the players don't want to play it, they should either a back burner it till the do, or modfie it until they do... not force people to play something they don't want to

Please, you are not being forced to play anything as they don't have a gun to your head or say holding a loved one hostage and threatening to kill you or them if you don't play. Worse comes to worse, you always have a choice as to play or to not play, to seek out another game, start your own game, or find another activity. You may not like having to choose an option other than playing, but you are not being forced to play.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I just do not like the concept of Warforged - I as DM do not want to deal with Warforged, just like Hussar does not want to deal with Planescape.

Now Hussar's point would be that I as DM am unimaginative and that I have lost a fully engaged player (because whatever else he/she chooses, will result in that player not being fully engaged) - this is where he and I disagree.

@HardcoreDandDGirl let me know if there is still an issue you would like me to answer back on from your previous post.

no I agree, if one person's off limits is x campaign setting and another is Y race... as long as you can express that clearly there isn't a problem. The problem come when it is hidden.

 

[Grainger]

To DMs who do allow players to create parts of the world, can you enlighten me as to how this all works in practice? It sounds like it works for you, but I'd honestly like to know how. What happens if a player contradicts something already established in play? What if two PC backgrounds are mutually exclusive? You have to say "no" at some point, surely? Or is your world's reality in a constant state of flux according to the last person who spoke?

I once had a player mention (out of game) a back-story for her character that began with "she is the daughter of a King and...". She hadn't mentioned this to me while creating the character, or at any point in play. I could have just said "your character's culture doesn't have a King, so... no". However, I let it drop; the game-world didn't change as a result of what she'd said, and the issue never came up in all the years we played, so we never had to butt heads about it.

I love it when my players are creative with their characters, but they should at the very least run it past me first. In the example above, if she had discussed it with me while creating the character, I would have explained that her character's culture doesn't have a King or Queen, but I'm sure we could create the same emotional hook for her character in some other way. I try my best to accommodate, but I've never seen how it could work with everyone creating content. In some other game, sure, but not in D&D as I understand it. I'm fascinated to hear how people have got this to work.

 

[Hussar]

And that's cool.

You do seem to be anti-DM to DMs who do not share your "use anything from any source book in any campaign" POV. Some DMs like certain boundaries and do not want free for alls.

Naw, heck, I limit things all the time. I put on all sorts of restrictions in my campaign. The difference is, I'm pretty willing to drop any restriction given a decent enough reason. If my only argument against the player boils down to, "Well, I'm the DM, so my view wins" I view that as a failure on my part. If I cannot convince the player through a mature conversation that the reasons I don't have X in the game are valid, then, well, I'll let him or her have whatever they want.

See, the funny thing is KarinsDad, up until the past three years or so, I was pretty much 100% DM. So, it would be rather difficult for me to be anti-DM. OTOH, like many people here, I've been gaming for about thirty years, most of that as a DM, in many, many groups and numerous systems. Telling me that you know better than I do how to make sure that everyone at the table is having fun just because you happen to be wearing the big daddy pants this week is pretty insulting. I play in a group where, in actual fact, I'm one of the junior members of the group. That thirty plus years of gaming doesn't make me the most experienced at table.

It would be ludicrous for me to try to play the "Well, I'm the DM, so, I'm right" card. Good grief, collectively, there's about a century of DMing experience on the PLAYER'S side of the table. Me trying to claim any superior knowledge, again, just because I'm the DM? Yeah, not going to happen.

To DMs who do allow players to create parts of the world, can you enlighten me as to how this all works in practice? It sounds like it works for you, but I'd honestly like to know how. What happens if a player contradicts something already established in play? What if two PC backgrounds are mutually exclusive? You have to say "no" at some point, surely? Or is your world's reality in a constant state of flux according to the last person who spoke?

I once had a player mention (out of game) a back-story for her character that began with "she is the daughter of a King and...". She hadn't mentioned this to me while creating the character, or at any point in play. I could have just said "your character's culture doesn't have a King, so... no". However, I let it drop; the game-world didn't change as a result of what she'd said, and the issue never came up in all the years we played, so we never had to butt heads about it.

I love it when my players are creative with their characters, but they should at the very least run it past me first. In the example above, if she had discussed it with me while creating the character, I would have explained that her character's culture doesn't have a King or Queen, but I'm sure we could create the same emotional hook for her character in some other way. I try my best to accommodate, but I've never seen how it could work with everyone creating content. In some other game, sure, but not in D&D as I understand it. I'm fascinated to hear how people have got this to work.

To be honest, it so rarely comes up. Now, since your player didn't know that her culture didn't have a king, I assume that this was never established in game. So, how would it hurt the game to go with her idea? She adds a king to your culture, and you roll with it. Fantastic. The contradiction only exists in your head, because no one at the table knows (again, I'm assuming here.) Now, it's up to the player to not contradict any established campaign material, since that's bad form, obviously.

I mean, in the Dark Sun campaign I'm playing, I worked with the DM to add a quest for a magic item to my character (actually, I wanted to start with the item, but, it was a rare and the DM ruled that I couldn't start with it). So, fine, I had this quest and I eventually completed the quest and found the item. I then, out of the blue, added the idea that the item was part of a set, with another item linked to it and finding this first item brings connections to this second item. I didn't ask the DM beforehand, I just announced it at the table. Now, the DM could have ruled that I was mistaken, that the rumours I talked about were false, but, the DM rolled with it and now that second quest is a major element of the campaign. All because I have the confidence and the trust of the DM to add in things like that and we work together to build the campaign.

 

[Grainger]

To be honest, it so rarely comes up. Now, since your player didn't know that her culture didn't have a king, I assume that this was never established in game. So, how would it hurt the game to go with her idea? She adds a king to your culture, and you roll with it. Fantastic. The contradiction only exists in your head, because no one at the table knows (again, I'm assuming here.) Now, it's up to the player to not contradict any established campaign material, since that's bad form, obviously.

I mean, in the Dark Sun campaign I'm playing, I worked with the DM to add a quest for a magic item to my character (actually, I wanted to start with the item, but, it was a rare and the DM ruled that I couldn't start with it). So, fine, I had this quest and I eventually completed the quest and found the item. I then, out of the blue, added the idea that the item was part of a set, with another item linked to it and finding this first item brings connections to this second item. I didn't ask the DM beforehand, I just announced it at the table. Now, the DM could have ruled that I was mistaken, that the rumours I talked about were false, but, the DM rolled with it and now that second quest is a major element of the campaign. All because I have the confidence and the trust of the DM to add in things like that and we work together to build the campaign.

That sounds interesting. I'm not sure I want to DM like that, but I'll certainly think about it. However, what happens if a player declares stuff that clashes with something to do with a current plot thread? For example, what if a player ad-libs that they will get aid if they go to see a particular ruler, but the DM has planned that the ruler in question is opposed to their aims (this opposition is not secret - it's just they've just never met him), and wouldn't want to give the aid in question? Does the DM simply over-rule it (in which case, the players will be suspicious, if the DM usually allows these things), or does the ruler suddenly become (in the DM's mind) who he claims to be (the DM abandons that plot thread, which may impact upon events in the world)?

I tend to have quite intricate set-ups in the world, and changing one thing on the fly can render other things nonsensical (e.g. if the noble I just used in my example was undermining another noble, I can't really suddenly have him be a good guy because a PC declares it so; well, I could, but then the world starts to unravel; the PCs might already be exposed to the results of this set-up, and are trying to piece together what's happening). I'm trying to picture what a game looks like where DMs accept player input on this scale.

 

[KarinsDad]

Naw, heck, I limit things all the time. I put on all sorts of restrictions in my campaign. The difference is, I'm pretty willing to drop any restriction given a decent enough reason. If my only argument against the player boils down to, "Well, I'm the DM, so my view wins" I view that as a failure on my part. If I cannot convince the player through a mature conversation that the reasons I don't have X in the game are valid, then, well, I'll let him or her have whatever they want.

See, the funny thing is KarinsDad, up until the past three years or so, I was pretty much 100% DM. So, it would be rather difficult for me to be anti-DM. OTOH, like many people here, I've been gaming for about thirty years, most of that as a DM, in many, many groups and numerous systems. Telling me that you know better than I do how to make sure that everyone at the table is having fun just because you happen to be wearing the big daddy pants this week is pretty insulting.

Yeah, it sounds like many of us here really are 90% similar, just a little bit different (which is where the arguments come in).

Part of that 10% is my "I respect the DM" versus your "DM is wearing the big daddy pants" ideas. I've never focused on that. Maybe I've been lucky in that I've only had one jerk DM and one extreme style difference DM. A few bad apples do not change my opinion of DMs in general.

 

[DM Howard]

That sounds interesting. I'm not sure I want to DM like that, but I'll certainly think about it. However, what happens if a player declares stuff that clashes with something to do with a current plot thread? For example, what if a player ad-libs that they will get aid if they go to see a particular ruler, but the DM has planned that the ruler in question is opposed to their aims (this opposition is not secret - it's just they've just never met him), and wouldn't want to give the aid in question? Does the DM simply over-rule it (in which case, the players will be suspicious, if the DM usually allows these things), or does the ruler suddenly become (in the DM's mind) who he claims to be (the DM abandons that plot thread, which may impact upon events in the world)?

I tend to have quite intricate set-ups in the world, and changing one thing on the fly can render other things nonsensical (e.g. if the noble I just used in my example was undermining another noble, I can't really suddenly have him be a good guy because a PC declares it so; well, I could, but then the world starts to unravel; the PCs might already be exposed to the results of this set-up, and are trying to piece together what's happening). I'm trying to picture what a game looks like where DMs accept player input on this scale.

The easiest way to get past a lot of the contradictions that might occur between what the DM has already established, even if not presented yet in the game, and a player's ideas is to simply bring up your idea to the DM out of the game first and go with it from there. I can see the merit of just "going with it" in game as Hussar has suggested and done, but I could see that causing unneeded grief to the DM sometimes if they have something really good cooking. Not to say that way is wrong, just that there are different ways to go about that style.

 

[Grainger]

The easiest way to get past a lot of the contradictions that might occur between what the DM has already established, even if not presented yet in the game, and a player's ideas is to simply bring up your idea to the DM out of the game first and go with it from there. I can see the merit of just "going with it" in game as Hussar has suggested and done, but I could see that causing unneeded grief to the DM sometimes if they have something really good cooking. Not to say that way is wrong, just that there are different ways to go about that style.

I've never had a player come up to me and suggest that something in the game world is done a certain way. However, I'd certainly consider it. Maybe because I always start campaigns with a list of exceptions to the rules "no plate armour, no this, no that" (just to be clear up front), they think I won't be flexible. Anyway, I'm always up for improving my DMing skills, so this is all nourishing food for thought.

 

[Mistwell]

If the GM is very good, I will play under whatever restrictions they present. We're all playing Kenku? Fine. Awakened bunny rabbits? Cool. Halfling Musketeers? Bring it on.

This has come up many times at a convention. If I know the GM is very good, I will play whatever game they are running, under whatever setting restrictions they present.

And if you ever get the opportunity to play a game with a great GM like, say, [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] , you should jump at that chance. If he tells you the only pregen left for his WW2 super heroe's game is an adolescent sidekick with bouncing powers who tells lots of puns, oh and your character will be captured by the villain at some point and you're to go along with it, you say will do! Because you know the game will be awesome, even if you're not a fan of super hero games to begin with.

 

[Piratecat]

If he tells you the only pregen left for his WW2 super heroe's game is an adolescent sidekick with bouncing powers who tells lots of puns, oh and your character will be captured by the villain at some point and you're to go along with it, you say will do! Because you know the game will be awesome, even if you're not a fan of super hero games to begin with.

Ah, the Blowfish Kid, bitten by a rogue mutant blowfish in the same seafaring incident that killed his parents. Truly, all of Liberty City owes him a debt of awesomeness.