Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 4838092" data-attributes="member: 1165">IMO, it's all about the DMs.Some DMs want to limit options to make the game easier for them to run. I know I'm one of them. I'm loath to allow in 1st-party splatbooks because they make the game more complicated. I just don't have the time to learn a 300 page book because someone wants to play a character using material from it. (If a player wants me to let something in, they're better off asking about a spell or feat than a race, better off with a "basic" race (eg genasi) than a prestige class, and ... well, I hate PrCs, so I'd probably be more likely to allow a base class, if it's not too different mechanically from the 11 core classes of 3.x.)Some DMs would limit themselves to WotC only. They often get criticized here for that ("WotC isn't guaranteed to be superior, you're shutting out good-quality 3pp", etc) but that's missing the point. The DM wants to keep the amount of material and their rules research time down, and this is a shortcut to do so.* (It also makes research easier. I found out about terrible products and elements of products from WotC's splatbooks here very quickly, but getting the same info on 3pp is a lot harder, in part because hardly anyone buys them. Even some of the more popular 3pp publishers, like Malhavoc, hardly ever get their products mentioned here.)*Sometimes. And sometimes it only takes a few bad 3pp to make the DM cautious of buying/allowing anything from them ever again.Yes. Due to the difficulty/time of doing research, a lot of DMs bought (or their players bought) terrible products. Note I said bought, as in paid money for, and sometimes tried to use the stuff.It's not like WotC didn't have stinkers, but they do put out (IMO anyway) good core rulebooks. Even if someone swears never to buy a WotC splatbook again, they could still be using and enjoying the core rules.Sine I rarely buy 1pp splatbooks, I avoided buying 3pp stuff as well. Of course I did read a lot of negative buzz about a few publishers. Frequently I was exposed to 3pp because I was a player in someone else's campaign.I had a bad experience with a Steampunk Fantasy setting. While the setting was cool, it limited options.One example: my character was a 1st-level cleric, and in that setting clerics really sucked... I used Call Fear (or whatever that 1st-level fear spell is; it was one of the few good options) a lot until using that much necromancy forced me to prep Inflict Light Wounds once per day. Yes, that's in the the rules.Another example: the "Pain of Healing" nerfed healing into the ground; while that didn't affect my cleric much, it was messing with a massive part of 3.0's balance without much in the way of compensation... I saw lots of 3pps do that, it's like watching a DM try to run a low-magic campaign and insist that they "understand" the issues.Third example: one character played an "ogrun", an overpowered race. I'm not 100% sure if the DM was following the rules properly, but it seems the race had an LA and ECL of +0, when it clearly shouldn't have.Even after the bloat died, I saw some much hyped products come out that, IMO, were pretty bad, making me think there just wasn't enough time for playtesting. I've done playtesting for a few products (after the bloat; one 1pp non-core and a few 3pp), and there usually isn't enough time, and only one round of playtesting. (By "round" I mean you get the playtest document, you play with them, you write a report, and that's it. You don't see a second draft of rules that you can playtest.) If (in the bloat period) products were coming off the shelves fast and furiously, I doubt they're going through the multiple rounds of playtesting required to reasonably balance a product.</blockquote>

Verification