D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Corwin]

There was at least one edition where everything was considered to be core. You may not remember it.

Please point out the section of that edition's rules stating that a DM is required to let his or her players introduce material (core or not) even if the DM is disinclined. Because that is the contention being challenged here. Thanks in advance.

 

[Shasarak]

Please point out the section of that edition's rules stating that a DM is required to let his or her players introduce material (core or not) even if the DM is disinclined. Because that is the contention being challenged here. Thanks in advance.

If you dont remember then why do you need me to point it out?

Do you not see people commenting about returning power to the DM or do you just assume that is a random comment that does not mean anything?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Please point out the section of that edition's rules stating that a DM is required to let his or her players introduce material (core or not) even if the DM is disinclined.

Nothing of the kind, of course. The prior edition, though, had a common 'Core Only' convention adopted by many DMs to defend against overwhelming bloat and the broken combos it engendered, that created a perception that supplements weren't worth buying. So 'core' got slapped onto most (not all, setting books weren't core, for instance) books to say 'yes, it's OK to buy this.' And, actually, it was OK to buy books beyond the PH1 because DMs mostly did let you use the stuff from them, because, for a wonder, it was actually vaguely balanced.

Not of any great relevance to the conversation, I suppose, but for historical perspective.

 

[Corwin]

If you dont remember then why do you need me to point it out?

Do you not see people commenting about returning power to the DM or do you just assume that is a random comment that does not mean anything?

Are you having a different conversation? Here's *exactly* what you said:

"Is that not the whole point of putting the power back in the DMs hands? So that the players can not force the Dm to use material that they do not want to use by having everything classified as "core"?"

This quote from you makes the claim that something labeled as "core" is somehow mandated for use by players, even if the DM does not wish to include it in the game. If you still agree with this, I need a reference to support it. And I believe we all know there is no such thing. Which is strange given that you chose to double down in a subsequent post:

"There was at least one edition where everything was considered to be core. You may not remember it."

It sounds an awful lot like you are continuing to attest that "core" somehow means the DM has no ability to exclude something from their game if they so choose.


Note: I want to make it clear that I am not making a value judgement on whether DMs *should* unilaterally make such decisions. Only that the rules have NEVER given players any kind of authority to "force" anything into a game the DM is not comfortable including.

 

[MoonSong]

The true irony, of course, is that the conglomerate example character you described is as equally irrelevant as my Helkboyrine. It is, in its own way, just as "awesomely monstrous."


Exactly correct. And all I've ever been saying. You didn't say "awesomely inhuman" or "cool monster" as your two previous posts claimed you did. If you say you said something, I expect accuracy. For someone who professes to put a lot of wait on words and meanings, I think we can agree "awesomely monstrous" has a different connotation than the two variants you tried to push off as having been said.

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the subtle differences between the three, like for real. I sure can keep a meaningful discussion and at times I get to be a little poetic but I'm still not privy to all the subtleties of the English language -it is not that visible but I'm not a native speaker-. In my head all three were basically the same. I was trying to say it was a monster of sorts but that at the same time it was cool in a good way.

 

[Corwin]

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the subtle differences between the three, like for real. I sure can keep a meaningful discussion and at times I get to be a little poetic but I'm still not privy to all the subtleties of the English language -it is not that visible but I'm not a native speaker-. In my head all three were basically the same. I was trying to say it was a monster of sorts but that at the same time it was cool in a good way.

Ah. Now I totally get it. Okay. I had no idea you were not a native english speaker. You are very good at using our words!

 

[Maxperson]

What metrics did you use to come to those conclusions?

The approximate baseline of balance for the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Now I know the problem, you are stuck in 2005. Why do you keep bringing up 3E?

Maybe it is time to join us in 2016 and look at the work being done by the large 3P publishers. Go and check out Kobold Press, Green Ronin, Frog God Games, Sasquatch, etc.

Judging any industry on your opinion of them from 10 years ago is a mistake.

Hey. Possibly. I've already acknowledged that things may have changed from back then. I didn't look at 4e, and I don't have time to examine 5e third party releases with the fine tooth comb required, even if I could. I haven't seen any third party releases at the stores I frequent.

 

[Corwin]

The approximate baseline of balance for the game.

What metric did you use to establish an approximate baseline?

 

[Corwin]

I haven't seen any third party releases at the stores I frequent.

I admit I may be confusing you with others, but aren't you one of the posters around here who frequently admonishes people if they do not include PDFs and online product in the "math of popularity"? But here you are holding 3PP to having to put physical books on shelves before you acknowledge them? What about all the 3PP PDF products? I know you are aware of them. Because people have pointed you to them all over these threads.