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

[Hussar]

There is another side of this as well though. While no player needs to be obligated to the DM the reverse is true too the DM is to put it rather bluntly not the players bitch. I have seen players do this, a DM comes and says I want to run a so and so campaign and these are my ideas. The players go sounds fantastic I want to play. So say that DM is upfront that he wants only good aligned characters and here comes a player who has said yes I want to play in your game about heroes and my character is a drow assassin cleric of Vecna. Then when the DM says no the player whines about how unfair it is and goes and whines on forums about the mean DM who think he is god and how players matter too. Then the old saw gets trotted out about how a DM is nothing without his players. Well you know a player is nothing without a DM.

Players fun matters but so does the DM deserves to have a good time too. The players are under no obligation to play in a DM campaign if they don't think it sounds fun but they really should be upfront about it instead of trying to get to have things the way they prefer it.

I play mostly 3.5 and Pathfinder and I have never seen a DM dictate what armor, spells or weapons a PC can choose when building his character. I have seen spells banned and other things banned but I saw that back in classic DnD too.

I played hundred of hours in 1 and 2E and I rarely saw us as being the first of a kind. And yet we were not schmoes once we got a few levels under our belts.

Heh, I find it rather revealing the different examples given.
[MENTION=6777224]Hard[/MENTION]coreD&Dgirl gave the example of playing a straight out of the Bo9S Swordsage. No BAUS races and a no special rules for the class. Sure, it's from a supplement, but, we're not talking about something that requires any extra work from the DM, other than knowing what the class does.

OTOH, [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s example is a player who is trying to force the DM to allow him/her to play a character that blatantly violates every single (perfectly reasonable) requirement that the DM has laid down. And then adds in characterisation of the player of "whining" and completely immature.

No real conclusions here, but, it's funny to me to see the difference in examples. The automatic presumptions of player=whiney, immature git vs the poor, downtrodden, under appreciated DM who's just trying to do his/her job.

It would be nice in these kinds of conversations if people could at least try to assume good faith on all sides of the table.

Then again, threads like this just make me very happy for the group I have. No one tries to "break" anyone else's game, while, at the same time, the DM is perfectly willing to trust that the player will do his/her best to make sure that whatever character gets played will fit within the campaign being played. So our Shardmind works in Darksun and the Minotaur Bard works in Dragonlance and the Kobold bard works in the World's Largest Dungeon.

It's a table situation that I've really come to treasure when everyone at the table just trusts everyone else.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Not in any group I've ever played in. The group adds input, but the DM decides. If the DM makes decisions that are so horrible that multiple players do not like it, then the game might disintegrate. But, it's still the DM making the decisions.

As a DM, I wouldn't let some entitled person dictate to me what happens in my campaign. One cannot force compromise on anyone, but especially the DM. He's the one doing most of the work and setting up the campaign.

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

Then you would walk out of my game. I do not include Dragonborn, Tieflings, the Assassins subclass, and two of the Warlock patrons. I like running heroic fantasy, not entitled to do whatever I want evil/monstrous PC fantasy.

I do not allow something like 15% of the races/subraces and 10% of the subclasses and if that is too restrictive for a certain person, I do not want that whiny self important/entitled person in my game.

People who are not willing to even try a game, join in and then soon complain or walk out of the game are people I'm not particularly interested in gaming with.

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...

I'll hear them out too. But I might not allow it anyway. If someone gets offended that the DM did not allow something, then again, that's a person I'm not particularly interested in gaming with.

 

[Greg K]

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...

Guess what, that would fall under what I said about unusual backgrounds. However, for much of our history it was not that uncommon unless you have a large cosmopolitan area, invasion or migration. Cultures have traditions for naming and dress. For a long time, most people never traveled more than 10 miles from their home. And if you are or a different race or ethnicity living among other people, then you will have a background that reflects some changes from the standard of your race or ethnicity in most cases factoring in things like assimilation by the dominant culture, whether groups are isolationist staying in their own enclaves, etc, etc..

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?

Yes, there are cultures that do not use scimitars (in fact there is only one that does which means druids do not get it as a class weapon). There is even one that is remote and does not use bows let alone crossbows, but atlatls and throwing sticks (and guess what there is at least one culture in our own world that never adopted the bow despite having knowledge of it).The list of universal cross-cultural weapons is not very large, clubs, hand axe, knife, and spear with the bow being nearly universal.

 

[Greg K]

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


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???

Pretty much when it comes to the world details. However, for the type of adventures, I draw upon goals and backstories of the characters (provided it is plausible in the world and the characters are not evil). If the players want to be cooks/bakers travelling for rare herbs and exotic recipes or simply run a shop, but have adventures related to it, I will run something like that (provided it would be fun for me to do so and in this case it would). If the goal was to raise the Old Ones or travel to alternate worlds, the answer would be no, because Old Ones do not exist and, even if they did, it would be evil in the case of the former. In the case of the the latter, it would be no, unless they were trying to get to "heaven", "hell", the fey realm or the spirit world as those are the only 4 alternate dimensions that exist in my setting.

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

and I would be "See you!" (provided you got through the "interview" process)

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...

Depends on the cool idea. The dark elf appearance was cool. I also let a player create a town, because he was willing to stay within the guidelines. Variant clergy? no. The are no variant clergy, because if you are not following the tenets the deity laid out, you don't get the abilities from abilities they provide. You might get mocked or the deity might destroy its members for having the gall to claim to speak for the deity.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Yes, there are cultures that do not use scimitars (in fact there is only one that does which means druids do not get it as a class weapon). There is even one that is remote and does not use bows let alone crossbows, but atlatls and throwing sticks (and guess what there is at least one culture in our own world that never adopted the bow despite having knowledge of it).The list of universal cross-cultural weapons is not very large, clubs, hand axe, knife, and spear with the bow being nearly universal.

right (and again I am really trying to understand what your saying, and not trying to argue with you or prove a point) I understand that there are places that as a socoity didn't use something... I just can't understand any large population including PC classes and not one of them ever picked up X weapon...

Not in any group I've ever played in. The group adds input, but the DM decides. If the DM makes decisions that are so horrible that multiple players do not like it, then the game might disintegrate. But, it's still the DM making the decisions.

I try not to ever play in groups like that... I much prefer groups of friends that can talk and all add to the world...

As a DM, I wouldn't let some entitled person dictate to me what happens in my campaign. One cannot force compromise on anyone, but especially the DM. He's the one doing most of the work and setting up the campaign.

what makes a person wanting to play a game for fun entitled? that word gets thrown around like it is an insult like calling the person out for doing something wrong... when remember the high crime that person commeted was wanting to have fun playing D&D...

Then you would walk out of my game. I do not include Dragonborn, Tieflings, the Assassins subclass, and two of the Warlock patrons. I like running heroic fantasy, not entitled to do whatever I want evil/monstrous PC fantasy.

every game has the same exact rules... that doesn't sound to me like you have much varriaty... I also never said anything about alignment, and almost always play heroic fantasy myself... so I don't see why a Dragonborn isn't heroic fantasy...

I do not allow something like 15% of the races/subraces and 10% of the subclasses and if that is too restrictive for a certain person, I do not want that whiny self important/entitled person in my game.

just to make sure we are clear... this "Whiny self important/entitled person" is someone who wants to play a Dragonborn... I just don't understand how you can hate a fellow player that could be a fun new friend based on such a litte

People who are not willing to even try a game, join in and then soon complain or walk out of the game are people I'm not particularly interested in gaming with.

yet you have no trouble grouping large swath of people who play the same game as you for the same reason as "Whiny self important/entitled person" just because they want to try to play something you don't like

I'll hear them out too. But I might not allow it anyway. If someone gets offended that the DM did not allow something, then again, that's a person I'm not particularly interested in gaming with.

it sounds like you are the one getting offended that someone likes something you do not, and you are not interested in gaming with a lot of gamers... I don't get it...


Why does this community (D&D not just enworld) seem to be getting so much harder to come togather... it isn't even just edition wars now, but something bigger. If I walked up to a table at my FLGS and said "Hey can I play" and the DM said sure... then told me every idea I have wont fit his world I may or may not play it... or might try to make minor adjustments to fit it... if they ever said I was "Whiny self important/entitled person" just because I wanted to play a basic character I would be insulted... and I'm pretty sick of how fractured we all are.

In this thread things that make DMs mad are (not all inclusive) picking the wrong name... picking the wrong sub class... picking the wrong class... picking the wrong weapon/armor that your approved race/class can use... and if you try to say something as simple as "Hey I think it would be cool if" you get labeled "Whiny self important/entitled person"

 

[Greg K]

right (and again I am really trying to understand what your saying, and not trying to argue with you or prove a point) I understand that there are places that as a socoity didn't use something... I just can't understand any large population including PC classes and not one of them ever picked up X weapon...

They would not pick it up, because the weapon is not available in their country. There is cultural diffusion, but there are a number of reasons that a weapon may not be known. Cultures are too far away for diffusion or trade is more limited to specific area so it never reached there. To pick it up, the player would need to gain access to the weapon in their travels. That all assumes that a given weapon even exists in the campaign (e.g, spiked chains, urgosh, elven thinblades etc. do not even exist. Nor do katanas and some other weapons). Even if an item gets to a foreign culture, cultural beliefs about other weapons or views on practicality might not lead to the weapon being adopted by the culture .

 

[prosfilaes]

But the real problem comes for me as a player. I use Roll20, since I live in a small town. For the last several months, pretty much every group I've found on Roll20 has the party looking like something from the Cantina scene in Star Wars. I hate seeing yet another group of tieflings, aasimars, catfolk and kitsune. My latest group is an Ifrit sorcerer, a catfolk ninja, a weird space-man using a secretive 3rd-party psionics class/package and my dwarven Inquisitor (a musketeer-type follower of Cayden Cailean). If you stick to a core race, you end up feeling lame as the Aasimar's many perks come in to play in pretty much every encounter.

A dwarf is more powerful then the ifrit and the catfolk.as per the race point system in the ARG. You're conflating "I don't like it" with "overpowered". Your Dwarven +2 to all saves versus spells should come in about as often as the Aasimar's resistances. There are overpowered races, but catfolk and ifrit aren't generally considered them.

If you want to play a different game from your fellow players, I sympathize. But that seems to go beyond problems with expansion books and to a very specific view to what you want out of your fantasy games.

(I'll note that my DM would not let anything as alien to his fantasy as your muskets into his game. Kitsune, yes, gunpowder, no.)

(Dragonborn and Tieflings in the core rules already push my personal Cheese Meter).

Again, it seems you're conflating "I don't like it" with "overpowered".

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Again, it seems you're conflating "I don't like it" with "overpowered".

that is one of my big pet peeves. "X is over powered so I don't let people play them." "You do realize you let other more powerful things in" "Sorry I'm not listening anymore..."

I will again draw the Bo9S out from 3.5... I have seen people claim they wont let a warblade in because it is broken... then let a cleric start at 1st level human with a domain that lets them get extend spell for free, and a second domain that gives them extra turning for free, then take level 1 feat persistent spell, and human bonus feat as divine meta magic... yes not an exaggeration... starting a level 2 game I could not play a Bo9S class and my boyfriend at the time built codzilla...

People don't like the book, I get it. But they hide it. They say "Doesn't fit the flavor of my world" but then let a pailden and monk and fighter in... and those three Bo9S classes are almost identical flavor to those core classes, just more variations...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

They would not pick it up, because the weapon is not available in their country. There is cultural diffusion, but there are a number of reasons that a weapon may not be known. Cultures are too far away for diffusion or trade is more limited to specific area so it never reached there. To pick it up, the player would need to gain access to the weapon in their travels. That all assumes that a given weapon even exists in the campaign (e.g, spiked chains, urgosh, elven thinblades etc. do not even exist. Nor do katanas and some other weapons). Even if an item gets to a foreign culture, cultural beliefs about other weapons or views on practicality might not lead to the weapon being adopted by the culture .

I really can't understand where you are coming from with any of this (Please don't take offense since you have been very helpful with explaining what you think I don't want to insult you) I can't imagine a D&D world like that. It seems to me to lack all of the high fantasy elements I am used to, and almost like a medieval simulation, but with less variations. On a personal level I could see myself only playing in such a world once, not campaign after campaign. I would defiantly not have fun under those requirements...

 

[Greg K]

I can't imagine a D&D world like that. It seems to me to lack all of the high fantasy elements I am used to, and almost like a medieval simulation, but with less variations. On a personal level I could see myself only playing in such a world once, not campaign after campaign. I would defiantly not have fun under those requirements...

That is fair. I am not trying to a stereotypical D&D world where cultures (especially differing human cultures) do not matter or humans and other races are, essentially their own monolithic culture. I want cultures to matter. They should affect outlook on the world and shape starting choices on things like class (or class variants) and equipment.