The Player's Problem with 3rd Party Products

[Creamsteak]

Which is a real shame, because many of the nice products out there are for players. Not even counting the glut of feats and PrCs, but alternate classes, or alternate casting systems. Take Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook, or Witch's handbook. PC classes, with nice mechanics and such. But unless your DM owns the product and likes it, I doubt you'd get to play it.

Am I alone in this feeling?

You're not alone. However, I've also known people that have the opposite perspective. One gaming group I "inherited" included guys who bought every Mongoose splat book, and in their previous game they were all legitimate. The assumption they had was that "if it was in print, it was legit."

The truth of it is that a DM is more likely to actually get to use content from a book he buys. I burn through dozens of monsters, feats, classes, and stories in a given campaign. My players all together use about 1/2 of the total content I do. So as a general rule, DMs are going to get a lot out of a book more easily.

On the other hand though, if a Player walks up to me wanting to play something I'm not familiar with, he's going to need to make me familiar with it. To use a simple example, if someone wants to play a Crusader from Bo9S, show me how it works. A warlock? Show me. Something from another 3rd party supplement? Show me.

I, personally, prohibit various classes/feats/races/etc. based on the specifics of the campaign. In some campaigns, I don't allow Wizards but allow Sorcerers. In another, it's the opposite. I have my reasons, and most of the time it's an element of setting design. In one game, Bo9S is fine. In another, Psionics are fine. In yet another, a Samurai or Kensai base-class is fine. So if a player comes to me with something that might not work in my current game, I'm not necessarily prohibiting it from all of my games.

 

[Arnwyn]

Let's turn it around. Why are we DMs wary?

Here is why our particular group has the "DM doesn't own, it's not in" policy. This is a wonderful post that really explains my feelings well:

but being a good DM you are NOT interested in turning your ongoing campaign into a secondary prooving ground for potentially disastrous additions. In fact, you're not likely to want to be constantly disrupting your campaign with changes and additions - good OR bad. You want consistency in your campaign. And then when you start a new campaign, again, like the good DM you are, you don't just throw in the kitchen sink. You've heard the horror stories and at least know that not EVERYTHING that's published is right for your next game. Naturally, then, YOUR willingness to experiment with new stuff is much lower than your PLAYERS willingness to experiment with new characters.

Exactly that. It's all about time and effort - specifically, the DM's time and effort. As noted above, I'm not interested at all in disrupting my campaign with it being a "secondary proving ground for potentially disastrous additions". No thanks. We have a great balancing act in place with our current policy, that helps minimize the DM's time and effort while still providing an adequate number of campaign-fitting choices for the players. 15+ years with our group has proven us unquestionably right in this regard.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Why? What's wrong with their stuff?

I personally can't put a significant finger on it. It is kind of a combination of things. As a prior poster pointed out, WotC occasionally lifts from them (or mimics it functionaly). So sometimes when I read their stuff I feel like I already have a mechanic in place for the stuff I like - or can approximate it rather well already. This also ties in with the content of the next paragraph.

I tend to be more interested in purchasing products from 3rd party publishers that take the game in different directions than WotC. Hence, my statement in favor for Dreamscarred Press in my earlier post. In my opinion, WotC put out an excellent book in the XPH but hasn't followed it up with any product that interested me. So, I look for good psionic supplements. I'm not as interested in 3rd party publishers who parallel WotC nearly as much as I am in ones that take an aspect and run with it tangentially. Again, though, that is just my personal opinion and flavor.

I'm also a DM who prefers to allow a book/supplement/pdf in its entirety or disallow it inits entirety. A few exceptions exist (such as loving psionics but not the races in the XPH), but not many other exceptions exist in my case. For me it is just easier to mentally say that "X, Y, and Z is allowed" rather than say "X is allowed but not all parts, Y is only allowed for certain pages, etc." I've found that when I read Green Ronin's stuff that it contains too much content within each supplement that I wouldn't allow/want based on mechanics. So, I'll freely confess that because of my preference for allowing/disallowing whole supplements I miss out on some good stuff.

Of course, history has some things to do with itas well, as my post above indicated. Usually if I pick up two or three supplements and I like them in total, then I like almost everything the publisher puts out, even if it is borderline for my games. But if I have a bad experience with the first two or three, then I am less likely to like the rest of a publisher's work in general. I'll admit that the first two or three Green Ronin stuff I heard about and looked up were not interesting to me based on mechanics and potential brokenness. So, that has flavored my opinion. Again, though, that has more to do with me and my experience than anything else.

Hope that helps explain my statement earlier. I'm not trying to say that my opinion should be anyone else's, just explaining my stance for those two poster's who asked.

EDIT: However, if there are any ardent fans of GR stuff that they know is generally accepted among everyone who reads them and doesn't contain much "questionable content" as assessed by their own experience and those around them ... I'll be happy to revise my opinion. I am not above change!

 

[Aus_Snow]

I tend to be more interested in purchasing products from 3rd party publishers that take the game in different directions than WotC. Hence, my statement in favor for Dreamscarred Press in my earlier post. In my opinion, WotC put out an excellent book in the XPH but hasn't followed it up with any product that interested me. So, I look for good psionic supplements. I'm not as interested in 3rd party publishers who parallel WotC nearly as much as I am in ones that take an aspect and run with it tangentially. Again, though, that is just my personal opinion and flavor.

Same here, incidentally. Actually, this sums up some of what I like most (and dislike most) in 3rd-party material.

(. . .) [T]here's also a feeling that non-WotC books are more wonky with respect to the rules.

Yeah. That's often true, unfortunately. You certainly have to pick and choose carefully, if you're going to bother in the first place. I'm a big fan of (some) 3rd-party stuff, but wow, there are some crazy mechanics in places. :\

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

When I run games I’ll usually go with a policy of “You can use whatever from a WotC book. If it’s a 3rd party publisher let me look at it first. Don’t make me regret this.” A while ago I figured that if I couldn’t trust my players not to make the game an arms race then there was no point running the game. It’s only let me down once, but that person had other issues and is no longer welcome at my table.

 

[megamania]

I don't think you're alone at all.

But for our particular group, it's not just 3rd party products. Our strict rule is: If the DM doesn't own it, it's not in the game. "3rd party" has nothing to do with it.

Exactly my main rule which then was altered further since players loved to mix - match prestige players to broken PCs.

 

[Ulrick]

My only complain in this regard as a player is when the DM does not come out and state that he'll only allow such-and-such books.

During the 3.0 years, a joined a newly formed group. Everybody was excited for the new campaign. The DM stated what was expected from each player. He didn't make clear what books he wouldn't allow, though I got the feeling that we probably wouldn't like 3rd party products.

At the second session it turned out that a few players bought a class book pertaining to their character, like "Tome and Blood," etc. All of the books were WotC. It is then the DM stated that he would only allow stuff from the core books. That annoyed some players to no end.

I just think that DMs need to be upfront about what they will allow to avoid situations like that one. A lot of players aren't "hardcore" for D&D and don't like spending money on stuff their DMs won't let them use.

 

[WayneLigon]

But unless your DM owns the product and likes it, I doubt you'd get to play it. Am I alone in this feeling?

No, you're not alone. I will allow third party stuff but I greatly prefer to own the product so I have a reference for it in case there are questions or problems. Anything past the first core books (and even then, some of the core PrC's are not appropriate for some of my campaigns I've run) has to get a piece-by-piece approval from me anyway, so I don't have an inate prejudice against 3rd party stuff. In fact if you bring me Malhavoc or Green Ronin class or race, I'll be most likely to approve it even if I don't have the book, if it fits into my campaign vision.

 

[Arnwyn]

I just think that DMs need to be upfront about what they will allow to avoid situations like that one. A lot of players aren't "hardcore" for D&D and don't like spending money on stuff their DMs won't let them use.

Actually, it would be wise if players asked their DMs specifically before they buy. Why the heck would they assume, and not 'ask before they buy'? Weird.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Actually, it would be wise if players asked their DMs specifically before they buy. Why the heck would they assume, and not 'ask before they buy'? Weird.

I think some of that has to do with gaming experience. I could completely see a novice or even a casual gamer looking though a product and saying "That looks like fun" and just buying it becasethey aren't experienced to know how badly some rules can break the game.

But an experienced player should know how games fall apart when a rule breaks the game. They should know to ask before assuming.

And, as a DM, I have much more forgiveness to the casual or novice gamer. I have occasionally had pity on a novice gamer who buys out of enthusiasm and I let them play their character using the supplement after telling the experienced players what I am doing. Then, once the game is over, I build a broken PC and show the player how it could have been broken and why I wouldn't allow it for an experienced player. They usually learn the lesson, am grateful that I let them use the resource, and ask the next time.

In a way, I guess an appropriate analogy is that in my games novice players can occasionally benefit by me giving them a few cheat codes that I don't hand out to experienced gamers!