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

[Sailor Moon]

Because you can't say no is not a good enough reason to keep the supplements low.

 

[BryonD]

I just want to focus real quick on the whole concept of compromise. You can't just solve an argument by declaring compromise. If I don't get what I want but you do then that is not compromise. Now the DM has the advantage here because the other players could be all set to play the DM's proposal while you may not. If I write a specific campaign and I'm only going to allow specific things then I don't budge. I would rather just not run the game.

Sometimes there is no compromise and I see that some here just can't accept that.

I realize that you are not speaking at me, there are several people commenting here. For sake of response, I'll pretend you were.

As I pointed out, finding agreement can be a great thing. But for BOTH the players and the DM, simply recognizing that one or the other should walk away is the best option. "Compromise" is not magic bullet. If compromise will make Player A a little more happy and make the other four people at the table a little less happy, then screw Player A. Go Away. Thanks

And, again, Player A should be HAPPY to avoid the frustration. If Player A can't find another game, it isn't the fault of anyone else.
It is easy to accept that sometimes there is no compromise. Some people also need to accept that sometime a lack of compromise is for the best.
If a player's best and final offer is not acceptable. That player is just as much to blame as anyone else and everyone is better off going their separate ways.

If the whole group doesn't think the DM is putting on a game that justifies the table requirements, then the table goes away. It works both ways.

 

[BryonD]

Because you can't say no is not a good enough reason to keep the supplements low.

I'm with you on this one.

An offshoot of my reasoning is this: If you can't say no to your players, then you are not a "good enough" DM.
Run a kick ass game and they will beg you to let them be the kobold rogue.

 

[Greg K]

If the whole group doesn't think the DM is putting on a game that justifies the table requirements, then the table goes away. It works both ways.

Agreed. Personally, as a DM, I am all for the above. Nobody should play in a game that they are not going to enjoy. Then again, I would rather run a game for one or two people that are on board and whom will enjoy what I am running or not run at all if it came down to either. However, it has never been the case that i have ever had less than a full table unless either running for out of town guests or on say a camping trip with one or two friends.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I just want to focus real quick on the whole concept of compromise. You can't just solve an argument by declaring compromise. If I don't get what I want but you do then that is not compromise. Now the DM has the advantage here because the other players could be all set to play the DM's proposal while you may not. If I write a specific campaign and I'm only going to allow specific things then I don't budge. I would rather just not run the game.

Sometimes there is no compromise and I see that some here just can't accept that.

your right in that you can't solve an argument by declaring compromise, you have to work toward a compromise.

your also right that if one person gets what they want and the other gets nothing that isn't compromise...

but again, that means if the DM gets what he wants and the players don't that isn't compromise either...


and as much as SOMETIMES there is no compromise, these threads always make it sound like there is not compromise...

 

[billd91]

Enjoyment has to be the ultimately purpose of D&D, because if you're not enjoying it, why bother playing?

That may be the case, but one of those people is the DM. And with the extra concerns of mastering the rules, understanding what the PCs can do, planning encounters, and everything esle mastering a game requires, I'm going to usually come down on the side of the DM. You simply can't expect to make the DM run something he doesn't want to run or with conditions under which he doesn't want to run. That's a recipe for a bad game.

 

[Greg K]

but again, that means if the DM gets what he wants and the players don't that isn't compromise either...

Yes. And I don't, necessarily, see that as a problem. It is nice when a compromise can be reached, but I am going to back the DM's decision as to if an when it is or is not appropriate to do so.

and as much as SOMETIMES there is no compromise, these threads always make it sound like there is not compromise...

The only reason it is some of the time in my case is that the need rarely comes up. The players that I recruit are on board with what I am running and decisions that I have made, but I set out to find those with compatible tastes and weed out those that are not. The result has been long time groups that only change when someone moves away.
An example of a compromise made was when I changed the appearance of one group of elves at the start of my campaign, because the player wanted to play a drow and my world had no drow. I was willing to make a cosmetic change in physical appearance to the elves, because it changed nothing else about them. They would otherwise still be normal elves with the change to favored class (or in this case classes), I had established and still be distrusted as an island of demon worshiping pirates. This is the types of little changes I am willing to make. If they had insisted on being a drow, the answer would have been no.

If a player asks to be an infernal/abyssal or starlock type warlock, the answer would be no on both accounts. There are no great old ones or starlocks in the campaign. Infernal and Abyssal pact Warlocks are evil as they are expected to fulfill their patron's goals. Failure to do so results in the destruction of the warlock (My view on Warlocks is influenced by both Kolchak: The Night Stalker and 70's occult movies). So non-evil warlocks do not exists and, in my campaign, there are no evil PC characters.

There is also no compromise on clerics and paladins. Each deity and his or her domains, tenets, granted spell lists, cleric variant abilities, etc. are determined by me prior to the campaign. Players have no say in these things.

Similarly, cultures and nations are established prior to the start of the campaign and players are, generally, expected to adhere to cultural details (e.g., naming conventions, dress, favored or forbidden starting classes, starting weapons (in some instances) etc.). There is room for some deviation (growing up in another culture, being bi-cultural, or other cultural reasons), but the player will need to discuss it with me as it will most likely have other repercussions on a character's starting abilities.

 

[was]

As a player and a DM, I like all the additional information and options. More options is usually a good thing. It doesn't mean, however, that I have to accept everything into my campaign. I'm pretty generous in what I will allow, but there are some limitations. My biggest pet peeve is when a new player tells me that I have to accept it all because it's all 'official' DnD content. That's an argument that doesn't work with me.

 

[BryonD]

these threads always make it sound like there is not compromise...

In fairness, the conflict arising from lack of compromise seems to be the premise of the conversation.
It may be that it only happens 2% of the time. But the conversation is assuming it is part of that 2%.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Yes. And I don't, necessarily, see that as a problem. It is nice when a compromise can be reached, but I am going to back the DM's decision as to if an when it is or is not appropriate to do so.[

I disagree it is a group discion that the group needs to come to....

The players that I recruit are on board with what I a am running and decisions that I have made, but I set out to find those with compatible tastes and weed out those that are not. The result has been long time groups that only change when someone moves away.

ok... so you and your friends have a set of things you agree on (like mine do) but when you play with others you just expect them to fall in line and bring nothing to the game???

An example of a compromise made was when I changed the appearance of one group of elves in my campaign, because the player wanted to play a drow and my world had not drow. I was willing to make a cosmetic change in physical appearance to the elves, because it changed nothing else about them. They would otherwise still be normal elves with the change to favored class (or in this case classes), I had established and still be distrusted as an island of demon worshiping pirates. This is the types of little changes I am willing to make. If they had insisted on being a drow, the answer would have been no.

hey that almost makes sense... like you worked with someone...

If a player asks to be an infernal/abyssal or starlock type warlock, the answer would be no on both accounts. There are no great old ones or starlocks in the campaign. Infernal and Abyssal pact Warlocks are evil as they are expected to fulfill their patron's goals. Failure to do so results in the destruction of the warlock (My view on Warlocks is influenced by both Kolchak: The Night Stalker and 70's occult movies). So non-evil warlocks do not exists and, in my campaign, there are no evil PC characters.

I have walked out of many games over the years because DMs said things like that...

I once took a whole group of 5 PCs with me, because when I asked if I could be a paladin (2e if it matters) the answer I was given was "I read this novel once where Palidens where complete saints, and no one can be a saint, so all Paliden's are NPCs" Then when I said I would play a duil classed Fighter/Cleric and just say I was a holy knight he through a small fit "I said no palidens don't try to rules lawyer me" When I walked so did all but his best friend...

There is also no compromise on clerics and paladins. Each deity and his or her domains, tenets, granted spell lists, cleric variant abilities, etc. are determined by me prior to the campaign. Players have no say in these things.

So when a Player says "Hey I've got a cool idea to add to the world" your answer is no, no matter what if it involves something like this... something as simple as a variant clergy?!?!? I will never understand that thought process. At least hear them out...

Similarly, cultures and nations are established prior to the campaign and players are, generally, expected to adhere to cultural details (e.g., naming conventions, dress, favored or forbidden starting classes, starting weapons (in some instances) etc.). There is room for some deviation (growing up in another culture, being bi-cultural, or other cultural reasons), but the player will need to discuss it with me as it will most likely have other repercussions on a character's starting abilities.

WOW... just wow I can't believe anyone could be so set in there ways they can't imagine at least one or two people in a city would be different on naming, dress, class, or weapons...let alone a whole culture or nation...
so (and I am honestly asking for clarification here) you have a nation that all use long swords and long bows, so what no one there ever uses an AXE or a scimitar?