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

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

And where do guns come from? and the ammo? are there better guns? why is there only one gunslinger in this campaign setting?....It is not just about allowing one class, the DM now has to now modify campaign setting to suit the need of the gunslinger.

um it is an adventure path in the pathfinder world (begins with g!?!?) all of that is answered for him.. but even if not.

And where do guns come from?

where do cross bows and swords come from... it doesn't matter.

and the ammo? are there better guns?

you mean what? magic guns... same as magic swords

why is ther0e only one gunslinger in this campaign setting?....

If the adventure path has them, then they have them...

It is not just about allowing one class

it can be... unless you want to look for a reason to say no

We will probably agree to disagree.

most likely...

I just want to mention to you something interesting that recently happened with my group. I asked them all to write a short background for their 5e characters and distribute it amongst each other. We waited close to a month for one player to write his, and I was adamant I was not going to set a play date until they had all done it, so he was getting pressure from the others to hurry up.
When he does distribute his background, one of the other players recognises his write-up as a passage from the 2e Elves Handbook. It came out this player has a certain phobia/mental block about writing essays/compositions.
Just a little about him, he is well versed in English, has read quite a bit, brilliant roleplayer and in his early 40's. It makes no sense to me and at least one of the other players why he has such a mental handicap but he does.
I see the allowance of a gunslinger class as a much bigger leap for a newbie DM than this background I requested of him.

ok I see it as the same thing... I would even go so far as to say that if a DM new someone didn't like something "like say writing backgrounds" then making someone do it before setting a date for a game is already a problem... but proof reading it to look for plagerisme is crazy... I mean hell I've had players copy and paste superhero comics into there D&D background...

As said, we should probably agree to disagree on this one.

I guess so, as long as we can both actually agree to that...

I seem to think @Elf Witch is female. I remember there were two identified female posters in that extended boob thread, one was you and the other I'm thinking was Elf Witch, unless my memory is completely failing me, which happens a lot.

if so I'm sorry I didn't realize... it happens to me all the time so I hope she doesn't take offense.

Who said that person was having fun? Or not having fun?

me... I guessed he didn't have fun and was told I was "reading into it too much"

But if one is not having fun, does it justify bad behavior? You seem to imply that it's ok if the reason for it is good enough. Err, no.

it depends on what the behavior is...

This is kind of like "the criminal is the victim" mentality. No, the criminal is the criminal.

um depends on the crime... stealing a loaf of bread so your sisters children don't die... beating the man to death who raped your 8 year old daughter... robbing the bank because that is where the money is... the WHY matters ALOT....

I'm not particularly interested in why he was a pain in the butt, I'm siding with those who say that the bad behavior is not justified.

and I'm explaining that from his point of view it may not have been bad behavior just how he acted when board or un interested...

stories are like movies... they all have plot holes when you enjoy the movie you over look the plot holes. If person A is not enjoying the film and says "Hey X doesn't make sense because of Y" he doesn't think he is being a pain in the butt... but if person B is loving the film then to them Person A is just being a know it all jerk... Both are just trying to have fun.

Brand new DM vs. unhappy gamer. I support the one without the bad behavior. DM, player, it doesn't matter. Both are people. If the DM was a pain in the butt to the point that it torpedoed the game, I would be saying that his behavior was not justified.

DO you think the player in question feels he torpedoed the game, or do you think he belives he was going along with his friend who was a pain in the butt running a sib standard game.




a group of 5 people sit at a table and play for 5 hours every week for 2 months, 3 of them come to enworld, and post...

one is the DM who says "I put all this work into this game and it is only So so, I have players that complain, and ones that are not paying attention at all. I don't know what to do. No one is enjoying it, I try to fast track the boreing parts byt they still aren't happy."

another player says "I'm in the greatest game, we only have one problem, the DM has a stick up his but and doesn't let us just go. I want more dungeons, and he focuses way too much on his railroad story."

a third person posts "I have the worst game ever, the DM is over controlling and the other players don't like any of my ideas or characters, rather then complain I play my part and wait for the next campaign, but sometimes it feels like the DM just keeps skiping the only interesting parts of his game to get to the boreing monster fights"

They all think they are doing the best they can. They all blame someone else... what they need is to talk like adults and find a middle ground to make themselves happy...

 

[Sadras]

I would even go so far as to say that if a DM new someone didn't like something "like say writing backgrounds" then making someone do it before setting a date for a game is already a problem

Agree fully, but just to be clear no one knew of our player's issue with it until it was too late.

... but proof reading it to look for plagerisme is crazy... I mean hell I've had players copy and paste superhero comics into there D&D background...

LOL. The player who recognised it wasn't looking for plagiarism, just that he immediately remembered the story from the 2e handbook. In fact when I read it, it did resonate as something familiar - but I didn't go investigate. It didn't bother me, I let it fly, as long he had something I was happy. Reason being is that I'm tired of fleshing out PC backgrounds and I cant remember everything months or even years in and I prefer having something written to refer to when I want bring the PC's backstory into the current story.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Agree fully, but just to be clear no one new of our player's issue with it until it was too late.



LOL. The player who recognised it wasn't looking for plagiarism, just that he immediately remembered the story from the 2e handbook. In fact when I read it, it did resonate as something familiar - but I didn't go investigate. It didn't bother me, I let it fly, as long he had something I was happy. Reason being is that I'm tired of fleshing out PC backgrounds and I cant remember everything months or even years in and I prefer having something written to refer to when I want bring the PC's backstory into the current story.

ok I totally misread that then... I mean we all have hangups...

 

[Elf Witch]

I have three problems with this.

1, you call it tyranny of the minority. However you also describe the player as "dragging his feet" could that not also be interpreted as he was trying to find something else he wanted to play... and could not. you then say he was a pain for the two sessions, if he is playing a cleric when he didn't want to, and it was apparent, can you blame him, after all you guys convinced him to play something he didn't want to.

2, There where 5 players, so the DM had to learn and adapt to 5 classes, I don't see the difference between learning and adapting to gunslinger, witch, psion, Summoner, and Magus or learning and adapting to Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, and Sorcerer. The reason given "I just want to learn the system" feels very shallow to me, when he has to learn to run anyway... Pathfinder adventure paths and worlds take place with classes in mind, so if the AP had gunslingers and witches, then there is 0 he has to do different to have them or a ranger and druid in the party.

3, you say "That is the kind of player BS I am talking about when I say entitled. And I think he was unreasonable and selfish" but do you really think your friends acted this way on purpose, or if you looked from his point of view do you think he was trying to make the best of a bad situation, and he feels he was wronged?

I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. As I have said Many times over the years for our groups 3.5 was broken out of the box (PHB only) and only worked well when you used later supplements.

I agree, but one who had played before could just as easily choose to learn the 3-7 classes the players want to play, or restrict them to just the PHB and then still need to learn the 3-7 classes from that list.



so do I, but again in the example given I don't think it is any easier to learn to run for a Ranger, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Fighter then it is to learn to run for a Gunslinger, Witch, Cleric, Rogue, Fighter...

if he was going to play core only homebrew, maybe... but running a pathfinder AP is pretty easy, they go out of there way to make it so the DM only needs the basics and the AP... the players can totally make it easy with any race/class that AP supports. In some cases using the class/race that fits the AP is better and easier then Core only...

the problem is in the example NOTHING shows the player was hindering or helping, just wanting to play a character.

I also only know what was written here, and addressed this in my post already, there are two sides to every story, and even this side can easly be read the guy was just not having fun...

Perhaps.

I was taking EW's word on what happened and not trying to read into it. If I am at a table and somebody is giving the new DM a hard time, I admit that I will probably jump to the conclusion that the person is being a pain and not that he is just not having fun. This could very well be an inaccurate conclusion.

the problem is why... why did he drag his feet... why did he act like a pain in the ass...

it matters because it is the difference between being a jerk, and just not having fun...



just take the first part. Why would someone drag there feet when making a character... maybe they can't find something they want to play... it isn't that hard to look into that.

That's because both sides are wrong, but the player was more wrong. Both DMs and players should, to quote Dan Savage, be GGG (Good, Giving, and Game). If the player bring a supplement to your attention, let them try it out! Trust them (and yourself) to make it work. Likewise, as a player, if a DM says there's something they can't allow, and there's a good reason for it, TRUST them. Find something else that makes you excited to play. If you really can't get excited about playing because that concept get nixed, you need to a) bow out and b) figure out what your hangup is. I've never met a roleplaying game where I can't find 10 concepts I want to try.

That's why I feel the bigger screwup in that story is on the player. He/she didn't trust the DM, and allowed his/her play to become lackadaisical as a result. Not cool. Even if you're playing your third-string concept, you owe it to the table to bring your "A" game.

I think it matters, because of the time I was accused of it.

My friend ross wanted to run a Mutants and Masterminds game. I jumped at the chance and designed a superman like character that was immune to most damage, but those powers didn't work on magic, and turned off under a red sunlight... he also had flight and a super strong punch that could kill almost anything, but an alt power to that one where he could 'hold back'. He said that was way too powerful (and I could see that). So I designed a magic based character with magic fire based on a mix of Allen scott green lantern and the darknees. He said it too was too powerful (I could not see that). So I designed wally west flash, I was a speedster with the ability to lend and steal momentum. He said he didn't want speedsters. So I designed a spiderman like character with tactile telkinisss for his wallcrawl and strength, and his webbing was tk controlled, he also had a cool suit with computer hook ups. He said he felt it was too many powers (by this point I was annoyed). SO I pitched a basic coustumed adventurer like batman or blue bettele. His answer was "No Batman". So I said I was out of idea's...

I finally asked him what I should play, and he designed a telepathic character that I customized with some alien Tech. Game 1 I meet the other players and we started. I had no fun at all in the game. not one bit. the story was weird, I always wanted to be playing something else. when asked why I was honest "Because every superhero I wanted to play was said no to." It was a crappy way to start a campaign.\



easier said then done. I don't like being forced to play things I don't want to play. If the DM is saying "Don't play what you want" then yea, it may become a lackadaisical play as a result.

To go on with my example, I was told I wasn't really trying when we fought a giant monster, but I had no offensive powers, so I just mink linked the group to help coordinate. It was all I really had... and the mystry part of the game had everyone immune to telepathy so I couldn't 'win the game' but the immunity to telepathy wasn't a clue... it was just random so I couldn't 'win the game' so I really felt my character was out of place.

Yup! I say it is the DM's call at chargen, especially once consensus of the proposed campaign (theme, genre...etc) has been agreed upon by all.

And for heaven's sake all you DM-bashers, we are speaking of reasonable DMs.

As for the newbie DM example: I can understand how a newbie DM could feel intimidated about supplements, especially if they are not familiar with them. Perhaps the DM did not want to learn classes as well as prepare for adventures. The player was definitely at fault in my opinion. I'm surprised by some of your reactions here since we all take extra care when growing new players into the hobby, yet here you guys are chastising a newbie DM and not affording him/her the same treatment.

Sorry to say this, but I feel it has to be said, it sounds like many of you have DM-issues to work over cause your scars seem deep.

I am a female but I don't take offense if I am called he on a forum.

In Pathfinder gunpowder is an optional rule. As it should be. Not everyone want gunpowder in their fantasy settings because it changes so much. The reason plate armor disappeared was once gunpowder and bullets were invented it did provide protection and it was better to have more mobility. I have used gunpowder in some of my games but it fit the theme one was three musketeers style game and one was a 7 Seas pirate game.

The adventure path was an older one before they created the class of gunslinger there was no gunpowder in it at all. This DM had only ever run one game before and it turned into a disaster because she made a lot of bad calls when allowing things into the game. It was K who convinced her that it would not be broken to allow the warlock to use two weapon fighting to cast four eldritch blast around and allow all these extra thing for his character from different prestige classes and feats from third party that basically at 6 level gave him an AC of 35, allowed him the ability to shadowwalk which he used as part of rogue to do sneak attacks. By the time we hit 10 level those two players dominated the game to the point that the rest of us could not keep up. The DM was going crazy trying to balance the game so that you could challenge everyone and everyone got a chance to sometimes shine in combat. But she couldn't if it was challenging enough for those two the rest of us either came close to dying or died. I died several times in the game but those guys hardly ever got reduced to 0 HP If she aimed the challenge to our level they cake walked over it and and the challenge often ended in two rounds. A more experienced DM would have known that it is a mistake to allow magic users to get a lot of extra spells around also an experienced DM would have had more skills in balancing a party of such different power levels. Like I said you learn by doing and by starting with the basics.

The game was only really fun for those two players the rest of us including the DM were not having that much fun. To try and fix this she tried talking to the players and asking if they would be willing to work with her to scale back the power of their PCs. The warlock grudgingly agreed but made it plain that he was not happy the other player K said no he would rather just bring a new PC in the game. Which he did a character he didn't like so he made sure we all knew that he was unhappy a few weeks later the DM again made an excuse and ended the game.


That was the end of 2012 it took her a year to get the courage up again to run. Since Pathfinder was new to her she wanted to keep things simple core only no prestige classes no third party books. She felt that she needed to understand how a game works so she could judge if something was broken. This is how you learn something starting with the basics.

No one forced K to play a cleric no one forced him to play in this game there was no social pressure that if he didn't play he was a bad person. People in our group sometimes sit out games for a variety of reasons. No one is ever perfectt we all have negative things about us things that our family and friends accept. K is a wonderful human being. If I was in trouble he would be on the top of my list to go to. He can be very supportive and kind. He is a great Shadowrun DM but after playing with him since 1996 I don't enjoy playing with him at the table in a DnD game. He can be sulky if he doesn't get his way. He feels he has the right to hassle other players on their role playing choices. He hates any party conflict unless he is the one doing it. He is very set in his way on how the game should be played.

Further story about that game I didn't play the paladin because of K he felt that regardless of the official stance on paladins dealing with demons and devils not being evil in this world. K would not accept it he argued that it made me evil hence my alignment would be evil and he would not willing adventure with an evil PC. The DM sent him oodles of literature from the Pazio forums and from the game designers on this subject explaining how it works in this world. That this was for this game and this world only. But he wouldn't budge and once he made the decision to play a cleric he made it clear that if I brought the paladin in he would not treat me if I became injured and he would eventually take my PC out. He didn't see this as being a jerk he saw it as playing the game properly. The DM told me I didn't have to change my idea but I chose to because I wanted to make this game go smoothly for her.

You are right HardcoreDandDGirl he was not having fun he was angry over the gunslinger, I think he felt a little bad about me not playing the character I wanted too, he was still carrying a grudge over the last game, he was having issues at work, issues at home. He was not in a good head space. So he was angry, surly and he was sharp with the DM and with the rest of us. He even managed to piss off his best friend and they had a nasty argument that ended a session. We all private talks about what to do. None of us wanted to kick him out we knew he would take it bad with everything else that was going on. We came up with ways to deal with his moods. Because at the end of the day he was more important than the game. But for the DM it grew to be to much.

This newbie DM has told me she does not think she is suited to be a DM and will not run again because she was unable to make a game where every one had a good time. The other day I noticed her throwing out all her notes and things she had in mind if she ever ran a homebrew. I think it is sad that the game has lot a DM there are not as many of DM as there are players. And she had the potential to be a great DM if given a chance to learn the game at the pace she needed to learn it.

I think you are overly critical HardcoreDandDGirl with your judgement that she was in the wrong because she didn't feel ready to run a full Pathfinder game with all the extra bells and whistles. It is no different than making a new player play a wizard instead of a fighter when they don't feel ready to handle the complexities of the magic system.

Twosix I totally disagree with the statement that you have to 100% of the time let a player play a supplement. There a lot of reasons why saying no can be a valid choice. Take the player K once you let him play something and it does not work out he resents bitterly being asked to redo his character. I have allowed things in I was not sure of because I knew the player and knew if it turned out to not work they would be okay with listening and helping make it work or redoing their characters.

There is no hard fast rule for this and so much depends on the DM and the players and the setting they agreed to play.

GMforpowergamers just because you had a different but similar situation does not make it that there is only one right answer. From what I read your DM was in the wrong with what he did with your character. But it is not the same because while she banned anything but core she didn't tell them how to build their characters as long they used the rules in the core book.

 

[Elf Witch]

There is something I have been thinking about when it comes to this and the DMs need to be willing to say yes there is a flip side players need to be the type that makes it easy for the DM to say yes.

I find it much easier to say yes to players who I know are not trying to deliberately find every loophole so they can make a PC that has no weakness at all and is good at everything. A cool concept is just that an it is more about having an interesting PC than the most powerful one at the table.

I am more likely to say yes to a player who I know is willing to work with me and will understand if it turns out that we need modify or even redo something I originally said yes about.

If a player wants to bring something into my world I did not originally want or plan for again I am more likely to say yes if I know that the player is the type to care about the world and show an interest and actually care about it and not only care about his PC but the other PCs and me as well. The goal being making the world better not just having that ability to play a kewl class or race that does not really fit.

One of the reasons some DMs get so rigid about things is because they have played with players who were not willing to work with them and who didn't seem to care that they were making it hard on the DM.

Reasonable adults behave that way. They recognize that they have a responsibility to make the game fun for everyone not just them. If they are not having fun then they need to speak up and not behave in a passive aggressive way ruining everyone else fun.

This is a group game and sometimes that means not having everything your way and be gracious about it when you don't get your way.

 

[Hussar]

Let them try it out? Sorry, no. Agree to look it over (if I am not familiar) and decide based upon mechanics, theme, etc. or if the concept is currently, being handled by something I prefer, yes!

And this is why I talk about lack of trust in the players. Because it's pretty clear here you have little trust in the players.

 

[Hussar]

So [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION], you bring up an example of a player being a problem. But then admit that the problem had pretty much nothing to do with the game but because of a host of real life issues.

So how does that help your point that players should respect their DM? The issues you were having have pretty much nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[KarinsDad]

Elf Witch, you bring up an example of a player being a problem. But then admit that the problem had pretty much nothing to do with the game but because of a host of real life issues.

Could you point out what you are talking about? I read a boatload of examples of the player just being a jerk.

So how does that help your point that players should respect their DM? The issues you were having have pretty much nothing to do with this conversation.

So, it's your opinion that players should not respect their DM?

 

[Hussar]

Could you point out what you are talking about? I read a boatload of examples of the player just being a jerk.



So, it's your opinion that players should not respect their DM?

Exactly. The example is of a bad player. What does that prove other than, don't play with jerks? He wasn't a jerk because he asked to play a Gun character. He was a jerk AND he asked to play a Gun character. Had he gotten to play the Gun character, he'd still be a jerk. Or do you think he would magically become a great player and a joy to be around had the DM given him what he wanted?

This is a group game and sometimes that means not having everything your way and be gracious about it when you don't get your way.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...se-but-complain-about-it/page35#ixzz3FkHshNS3

Does this apply to everyone at the table, or only players?

 

[Piratecat]

And this is why I talk about lack of trust in the players. Because it's pretty clear here you have little trust in the players.

Again: allowing new mechanics, or not allowing them, can have nothing to do with trust in the players. Nothing. And I put the word in italics and everything, so you know I must be serious.

My watchword when dealing with player requests: is it fair? Is it fun?

An easy example: I love plenty of games with guns in them, but I detest gunpowder in D&D. I don't want to mix my D&D and my firearms because I don't like the feel. Such games aren't fun for me. If Sagiro, one of my best friends and a superb DM in his own right, asked to play a gunslinger I'd say no. It has nothing to do with trust or character balance—I trust him implicitly in all aspects of gaming and real life—but gunpowder doesn't doesn't fit in my world, so the answer is no.

Hussar, you keep conflating the two, implying that a DM using good sense is somehow betraying her players' right to unlimited choice. That right doesn't and (in my opinion) shouldn't exist.

Interestingly, in my above example, I might work with the player to reskin the gunslinger as a magical wand-wielder, assuming it was the mechanics and not the flavor they liked. I'd find that fun. But I reserve the right to reject rules based on mechanics as well, especially if those rules aren't fair to me or the other players. Designers in Renton don't know what works wonderfully in my game as well as my players and I do. I remember way back in 2nd edition when a player tried to talk me into letting his race be "polymorphed young silver dragon." That'd probably be fun, but it wouldn't have been fair to the other players. I declined, and he happily picked a human.

My take? If you don't like a DM's gaming style or campaign, it's fine if you choose not to play with them. Same thing for a DM choosing not to include a player who's a bad match. But a single player doesn't get to unilaterally force feed their wishes on the rest of the group. That's neither fair or fun.