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

[SkidAce]

There is a significant difference. The GM must be willing to deal with every option the PCs incorporate at the table. And usually on an ongoing basis. If tieflings annoy the bejeezus out of him, a player bringing a tiefling to the table means the GM has to put up with that annoyance every game. Or psionics. Or incarnum magic. Or wire-fu. Or maybe the tiefling PC's presence requires the GM to abandon what he wanted to be a central theme of the campaign setting. Maybe it even makes the campaign, as envisioned and pitched, pointless. After all, having a secret conspiracy of dwarven wizards (something everyone believes the Gods have decreed impossible) making magic items deep under the Lortmil Mountains and discoverable by PCs kinds of loses its impact if one player insists on playing a dwarven wizard.

Are you tapping into my campaign files again?

There's no such things as dwarven wizards, and if there ever had been, the dwarves would not discuss it or "the incident".

 

[billd91]

Are you tapping into my campaign files again?

There's no such things as dwarven wizards, and if there ever had been, the dwarves would not discuss it or "the incident".

Heh. I was just trying to come up for a reason for the dwarves and gnomes to engage in the Hateful Wars against the humanoids of the Lortmils in my Greyhawk campaign back in 2001 and the idea seemed to be a good one. Plus the magical forges in the deep mines...

 

[KarinsDad]

So, if it's petty for a player to complain about not having that 51st option, what does that say about a DM who can't accept adding something to his game?

It says that the DM is invested in his game enough to set up initial boundaries.

See, this is where i get such a bad rap for being down on DM's. To me, any DM who is that dogmatic about their setting isn't going to stop at character generation. That same dogmatism is going to permeate the entire game. I don't see how it can't. If it's too much to expect that the DM will take thirty seconds to change his game world, when the rubber meets the road and the players start actually interacting with this setting, I have trouble believing that this same DM will blithely accept widespread changes to the setting as the PC's do their thing and start building their own kingdoms, founding religions, toppling governments, rewriting reality, generally all the things that higher level PC's do in any setting. I just don't see it happening.

Typical logical fallacy. One does not necessarily flow from the other.

I could use the same logical fallacy to say "If a player is unwilling to follow the initial campaign boundaries, I have trouble believing that this same player won't be disruptive in many other ways.".

That's how some types of fallacies work. One makes a conclusion which is not necessarily based on the starting premise.

 

[prosfilaes]

If tieflings annoy the bejeezus out of him, a player bringing a tiefling to the table means the GM has to put up with that annoyance every game.

Then he should never be a player, because then he may be forced to put up with that annoyance every game. That's a huge limitation if you're going to be playing D&D, to be unable to even tolerate the existence of a single tiefling PC.

Or maybe the tiefling PC's presence requires the GM to abandon what he wanted to be a central theme of the campaign setting. Maybe it even makes the campaign, as envisioned and pitched, pointless.

I don't think anyone really objects to the DM putting his feet down there, until the whole point of the campaign limits the players down to a few options. Then you need to get better buy-in.

 

[Hussar]

There is a significant difference. The GM must be willing to deal with every option the PCs incorporate at the table. And usually on an ongoing basis. If tieflings annoy the bejeezus out of him, a player bringing a tiefling to the table means the GM has to put up with that annoyance every game. Or psionics. Or incarnum magic. Or wire-fu.

I dunno, I guess I've never really been THAT fixated on a game element. I loathe psionics and certainly would never play a psionic character, yet, I've allowed more than a few in my games over the years. And, a player is expected to accept all those elements or vote with his feet. And, as mentioned in this thread, voting with your feet isn't acceptable sometimes. So, why not hold the DM to the same level? After all, isn't it about getting together with friends and whatnot? Just because your friend likes something that you don't, you can't even sit at the same table?

Or maybe the tiefling PC's presence requires the GM to abandon what he wanted to be a central theme of the campaign setting. Maybe it even makes the campaign, as envisioned and pitched, pointless. After all, having a secret conspiracy of dwarven wizards (something everyone believes the Gods have decreed impossible) making magic items deep under the Lortmil Mountains and discoverable by PCs kinds of loses its impact if one player insists on playing a dwarven wizard.

Why did you ignore the part where I wrote that if the player's idea causes the DM to have to rewrite the campaign, the player is wrong? Of course I agree with this. A player is obligated to at least try to fit the character within that campaign. IOW, don't bring a priest of a rain god to my Dark Sun campaign.

 

[pemerton]

I believe this could be a reply to nearly 90% of your posts.

Including the ones in this very thread arguing in mutiple recent threads that a good DMG would frankly acknowledge the variety of techniquest available and the different sorts of play experiences that they will support?

I don't understand why so many posters think that good game advice means dictating one particular way to play.

 

[pemerton]

having a secret conspiracy of dwarven wizards (something everyone believes the Gods have decreed impossible) making magic items deep under the Lortmil Mountains and discoverable by PCs kinds of loses its impact if one player insists on playing a dwarven wizard.

I think this is another instance of assuming as a premise something that is not universally shared.

I suspect that, for many or most of those who prefer a greater degree of player input over permissible story elements in a campaign, it's not part of their expectations for a campaign that the GM will dream up big reveals indendently of the players' choices of PC.

 

[aramis erak]

There are huge differences being conflated here...

A) The options available for character creation
B) The options available to a player during play (given an allowed character, what can they have the PC attempt)
C) The setting constraints for a campaign (hatred, disdain, rarity, etc)
D) Player Agency (well, other aspects of it)

Just because a DM restricts A severely doesn't in any way axiomatically mean they're going to restrict B...

And B is often restricted by

And C is the majority of what a setting is supposed to do: Create a viably small range of choices to create a particular feel and create story hooks. Combined with A, it makes the majority of a game setting. If the only choices are to play Humans or Elves, and the setting constraints are that all humans and all elves are slaves of the Githyanki, that's very different from allowing only humans or elves, but the elves own the humans. The two will play out very differently, even tho' the PC options are similar.

And D is a nasty term - because its meaning is widely variable. That said, I've seen Agency denied by DM's/GM's who have allowed anything in print, and allowed any action... by making certain that the plot runs on rails no matter what the characters succeed or fail at. The worst offender I've seen simply had the bigbad resurrected after each time the PC's killed him. So, no matter what the PC's did, Mr. Badguy came back the next week as the boss in a new dungeon. And that campaign always started each dungeon "in media res"... dropped into the first fight. Sure, you could try anything you wanted - but it made no difference in the campaign.

But Player Agency also includes elements of B - options in play - If you can't try X, that's a limitation to your agency...

— Sometimes, that limitation is for social contract and group comfort. EG: no detailed sexual narration, no forcible rape by PCs.
— Sometimes, that limitation is for common-sense. EG: No attempting to pull off cartoon physics to run across a 50' wide chasm
— Sometimes, that limitation is to enforce aspects of your character. EG: Your Int 3 Wis 3 Battlemaster isn't going to be making any successful subterfuge plans in my group...
— Sometimes, that limitation is story driven. EG: No, you can't hide because the Dragon already knows where you are.
— Sometimes, that limitation is rules driven. EG: No, you can't keep concentrating on Conjure Fey and still cast Conjure Elemental.
— And sometimes, that limitation is GM being a jerk... EG: No, you can't run away because there's an earthquake which collapses the tunnel in front of you, so turn around and fight the dragon.

You can't have a meaningful story without constraining agency, either voluntarily or mechanically. Without constraints on agency, it's just storytelling, and even good storytelling has agency constraints.

 

[Mistwell]

Including the ones in this very thread arguing in mutiple recent threads that a good DMG would frankly acknowledge the variety of techniquest available and the different sorts of play experiences that they will support?

I don't understand why so many posters think that good game advice means dictating one particular way to play.

And I don't understand why you felt the need for a passive-aggressive strawman like that. Where did I say, or imply, dictation of one particular way to play? Where did I say anything other than "This is my experience?"

 

[Hussar]

We're talking about people going home if they cannot play the character concept they had in mind. So no, it's not like the music in general.



If everyone is having a great time and wants to go there every friggen week it's so good for them? And the company is awesome despite the music? Yes, quite inappropriate. Lots of people really do not care about the music at Karaoke, it's generally not about that. It's about hanging out with your friends and goofing around.



Like I said, for us at least, our DMs are so good this is not going to come up, ever.

Umm, Mistwell, that bolded part there is one example where you have claimed that it is inappropriate for a player to bow out of a campaign he isn't interested in. How is this not pretty one true wayism? You are making a connection here that gaming is about hanging out with your friends and goofing around. For those of whom this isn't necessarily true (say someone who plays with people that are "gaming friends" like people you've met at an FLGS, or, in my case, a purely online game) then that criteria doesn't really follow. I only hang out with these people during game time. If I'm not really enthusiastic about the game, why should I stay and not move on to a game that suits me better?