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

[Greg K]

Weirdly, I don't really like dragonborn but I LOVE lizardfolk. If someone wanted to make a lizardfolk PC who could spit poison, I'd be all over that... and then just use the dragonborn stats.

See, I would have loved having lizard men PC races. The campaign previous to my last one had them. I don't want breath weapons or spit poison, but I would have loved a lizardman race with variants like swamp lizardmen, desert lizardmen, etc. similar to the old Mayfair supplement, Lizardmen.

 

[Hussar]

And I say as a player, your our participation is based on accepting the setting I am running and the limits I set. If when all is said and done, you don't like the terms, do the both of us and anyone else onboard with the terms a favor and leave to find another table more to your liking. I don't want to spend dozens or hundreds of hours with your character anymore than you want to spend the same amount of time playing with limits you don't like.
.

And that is totally fair and something I've been behind all the way along.

I do honestly believe it would improve your game to be more flexible, but, that's just me. Obviously you've got your style that works for you. Fair enough.

 

[Hussar]

As others have said over and over at this point that compromise should be the goal. What you are seeming to have trouble grasping is this if the compromise is something the DM can't or does not want to do, like say adding gunpowder to a setting, then yes the player not the DM is the one who has to compromise. And I get you don't think that is fair but I disagree.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...se-but-complain-about-it/page46#ixzz3GMDhyBGC

Just to be clear, this is what I'm saying:

In a case where the DM cannot make a case for disallowing something beyond a simple, "Well, I don't like it" then I do think that the DM should allow it. That's certainly how I DM. Obviously others see it differently. OTOH, there may be all sorts of perfectly reasonable reasons for disallowing something - it breaks the game badly, it doesn't fit with the game, it violates genre, it would cause me to have to do a bunch of work (I am, in fact, very lazy ). Any of these reasons would be perfectly acceptable. Let me illustrate:

1. Player comes to a Forgotten Realms game with his Jedi. Player is wrong. Player needs to get with the program.

2. Player comes to a Dark Sun game with a priest of a water god and can create food and water virtually at will. Player is wrong. Player needs to get with the program.

3. Player comes to a fairly stock fantasy setting with an off the menu race that fits with genre and is balanced in the game. Unless there's a campaign specific reason not to allow this, the DM should allow it. It's simply far too easy to adjust a setting to allow for this.

4. Player comes to the game with a new source book with a new class he wants to try out. The class is balanced and isn't a mechanical problem and fits with genre. DM needs to relax and trust the player to bring something interesting to the game.

That's how it works for me This is how I believe that the DM should act. Now, again, obviously, other DM's will disagree. I think they do so to the detriment of the game and I'm very reticent about playing in any group where the DM is that inflexible. And, there is room for considerable nuance with numbers 3 and 4. You'll notice that I agreed with [MENTION=16528]Pirate[/MENTION] Cat's compromise examples for the different races. I believe that a reasonable player probably wouldn't have a major issue with the proposed compromises.

But, at the end of the day, compromise is a two way street. It's not that the DM compromises when he feels like it. The DM should compromise unless there are better reasons than, "Well, I just don't like your character".

 

[Kaychsea]

My best example of this is a player who decided, after a particularly stupid incident in a temple, that his next character would be a Kender. This was after blitzing through the first two Dragonlance books.
I told him this wouldn't work as the race didn't exist in this world and that he could have a halfling if he wanted, but in the face of such DM intrasigency he left and started his Kender with a different group. for two weeks. It was a while after I found out that the reason he left the other party was that they dropped his character down a well after he was found with half the party's gold and several magic items.
I neither liked the character nor trusted him with it.

 

[Hussar]

Now, would you characterize this player as a good player that you would like to stay at your table?

 

[pemerton]

Many players have been known to cheat on a dice roll

I've never played with an adult player who cheated on a roll.

I've played 100s of hours of friendy card games, too, and I've never played with an adult player who palmed the joker!

 

[Sadras]

Because it is a proven fact that unmoderated or under moderated forums are toxic.

Fair enough.

And note, the TOS for en world is already a compromise. It's not like I'm not allowed to ever talk about a particular edition. I don't go to forums where that is true. I vote with my feet.

Sure, but you will likely have your thread moved if it should rather belong in storyhour or 1E or houserules should you start same in the 5e thread. Just like different settings have their various races/options and although you could mix them it goes against the desired setting/theme of the DM. It doesn't stop that DM from running another campaign where one is able to play that "forbidden" option.

Recently I relaxed a hard limit and allowed a player to play a monk for the first time in one of my campaigns (long story). Personally I detest the class, for a number of reasons, and the other players have known this. Funny enough after witnessing the monk's class features and whatnot during play, I sensed the other players in the group now felt as I have always done, which I'm delighted about. In fact one made this comment

Monk has and always will be a wank for the manga fan-boys. Trying to give it a western flavour is the same as pouring Tabasco on Chicken Chow-Mein and calling it Spaghetti Arrabiata.

We have redubbed the game to Dungeons, Dragons and Shaolin Monks. As a DM I did feel a little meh after my first experience with a monk PC and I felt less interested with the campaign as a whole. That was alarming for me. And I know you spoke of having engaged players, but that has never been a problem in our group - players can always play new characters if they lose interest/enthusiasm with the ones they currently playing for whatever reason, not that they do. It is a little harder for a DM to just up and say - "I've had enough of this campaign"
An engaged DM is more likely to convert an apathetic player than the reverse, IMO, so for me I'd rather let the DM dictate settings at chargen as a half-baked DM is horrid. We are having our second session tomorrow, and I will probably get over this mental block, but it is something that could have been avoided had I not compromised on a personal dislike.

 

[Kaychsea]

Now, would you characterize this player as a good player that you would like to stay at your table?

Most of the time he was fine, he had one of the best Champions characters I've seen. It was a bit like playing with Toad from Wind in the Willows. You had to temper his enthousiasms or it would lead to a train wreck that could finish a campaign.

 

[Kaychsea]

I've never played with an adult player who cheated on a roll.

I've never played with a DM that didn't. Knowing when to fudge is an important part of the role.

 

[Hussar]

I've never played with a DM that didn't. Knowing when to fudge is an important part of the role.

I know exactly when to fudge as a DM. Never.

I know exactly when I want the DM to fudge. Never.

Knowing when to fudge is a not an integral part of everyone's D&D experience.

(Note, I play 100% in the open - all die rolls are in plain view and, when there are hidden die rolls, they are still recorded in the chat log and viewable later. I do not fudge dice.)