Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ShadowDenizen" data-source="post: 2971209" data-attributes="member: 16485">I'll add my voice to those who agree with Melan.I won't quote his whole post, but one sentence that struck me in particular?Q.F.T.The amount of books I buy has been rapidly decreasing of late, and most of the books I do buy are setting-specific (Midnight, some Eberron), or fluff-centric, as that's what I tend to need in my campaign.And, as time passes, I find myself become more controlling as a DM in terms of the books and supplements I allow in my games. The prevailing attitude that I see more and more is &quot;Everything but the Kitchen Sink&quot;, where, due to the sheer volume of material out there, players have access to umpteen books and supplements to choose from, and they expect to be allowed to play them, even if it's antithetical to the DM's view of the game.&nbsp; And that's all part of the new D+D&nbsp; &quot;Options, not restrictions&quot;.&nbsp; What relief is there for the DM, and where does the DM draw the line?&nbsp; (Why should I feel guilty if I don't want a player playing a Kobold Ninja in my low-fantasy urban campaign?)I work very hard to craft a good, engaging session, and not everything fits into my view of the game.&nbsp; At this point, I'm allowing stuff from the Core Books and the &quot;Complete&quot; books, with other requests looked at on a case-by-case basis.Personally, I enjoy a balanced mix of combat, NPC interaction, puzzles, etc.&nbsp; (In short, a little bit of everything).&nbsp; And, since we're talking about design philosophy, I'll comment that I've never gibed with the idea that XP is primarily gained by defeating monsters, though I have little hope of that changing in the future.In my current campaign, I'm fairly liberal with the XP actually, offering rewards for playing alignment well, using class abilities, coming up with a clever (or sometimes just funny) plan, avoiding an enemy when needed, and a HOST of other things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ShadowDenizen, post: 2971209, member: 16485"] I'll add my voice to those who agree with [b]Melan[/b]. I won't quote his whole post, but one sentence that struck me in particular? Q.F.T. The amount of books I buy has been rapidly decreasing of late, and most of the books I [i]do[/i] buy are setting-specific (Midnight, some Eberron), or fluff-centric, as that's what I tend to need in my campaign. And, as time passes, I find myself become more controlling as a DM in terms of the books and supplements I allow in my games. The prevailing attitude that I see more and more is "Everything but the Kitchen Sink", where, due to the sheer volume of material out there, players have access to umpteen books and supplements to choose from, and they expect to be allowed to play them, even if it's antithetical to the DM's view of the game. And that's all part of the new D+D "Options, not restrictions". What relief is there for the DM, and where does the DM draw the line? (Why should I feel guilty if I don't want a player playing a Kobold Ninja in my low-fantasy urban campaign?) I work very hard to craft a good, engaging session, and not everything fits into my view of the game. At this point, I'm allowing stuff from the Core Books and the "Complete" books, with other requests looked at on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I enjoy a balanced mix of combat, NPC interaction, puzzles, etc. (In short, a little bit of everything). And, since we're talking about design philosophy, I'll comment that I've never gibed with the idea that XP is primarily gained by defeating monsters, though I have little hope of that changing in the future. In my current campaign, I'm fairly liberal with the XP actually, offering rewards for playing alignment well, using class abilities, coming up with a clever (or sometimes just funny) plan, avoiding an enemy when needed, and a HOST of other things. [/QUOTE]

Verification