Where D&D goes bad

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I think a DM who unilaterally forbids anything not in the Core rulebooks is, well, a pretty close-minded individual. And that carries over to creativity.

It's not the DM's game; it's everyone's game! If a player comes up with a new option, why not take a look at it and see if it will work in the campaign rather than just saying "No, no good, I don't like it, Core rules only." Bleh. I'd find myself a new DM.

What if that player invested in buying a new book? Just b/c it's not core it's unilaterally prohibited? I'm not saying player's should be ENTITLED to use whatever option they please, but at least be fair and take a look at it.

Options are just that, options. They expand the game and serve as innovative ideas. I just don't understand why someone would want to stifle creativity...

My 2 cents.

 

[buzz]

What do you consider a suitable argument for disallowing? You probably won't be able to think of one. Just as I can't think of a compelling reason to allow a lot of optional material.

How about:

"That PrC doesn't really fit the tone of the campaign."

or

"I think [such-and-such rule] looks a little unbalanced. It will cause [some detrimental effect], and I don't think that will be good for the game."

or even

"Well, we all agreed that we didn't want to use the paragon classes from UA when we started the campaign. I don't see a reason to go back on that now."

As for a compelling reason to allow optional material, how about: "That looks like fun!"

I feel that it is up to the DM, and soley the DM to choose what is suitable for his game and not up to the players.

Well, this is a not-uncommon personal preference, which is cool. My preference is that there's a give-and-take on both sides of the screen designed to maximized everyone's fun. If that give-and-take brings about an agreement that the DM's word is law, then that's cool, too. I still think there's more fun to be had if everyone is at least open to new ideas, whether or not they get used.

 

[Look_a_Unicorn]

<rant mode>

I like playing and running D&D. However, I like D&D the most in its "pure" form - the three Core Rule books,

...

So, does anyone else here feel the same way about these optional rule books, prestige classes, and so on?

Me personally? I am more than happy to stick to the core rule books.

If a player reads something in another book that they'd like to incorporate into their character- be it prestige class, spell or ability (or even better, if they just THINK about what they'd like their character to be like without having to "rip-off" ideas from published material) then I'll happily discuss it & find a way to incorporate said ability into their character. In game.

<rant>
Maybe I'm a control nazi, but I think my world has enough detail & makes some kind of sense as it is, without having to CRAM more into it every time a published work comes out.
Of course, the world will evolve over time, allowing the inclusion of new races/PrC/magicks... but I don't want to continually have to change the fabric of MY world because a player gets enthused about an PrC (and corresponding organisation)/ God (and corresponding religion)/ Magic style (and corresponding group of adherents/school/race/source).

And if a PC wants to do some funky combat move that is currently listed as requiring a feat to achieve... Bah! Give me a description of what your character's doing, and you've got a chance to pull it off. You may have to make a skill or stat check as well as an attack roll.... but you don't need a feat.
</rant>

But don't get the impression I'm against all these great ideas that are becoming available. That's what mini-campaigns & one offs are for. But in my experience once a player has had a chance to use said race/class/spell/feat/whatever a few times in a one-off, then the enthusiasm for including it in a campaign wears off & they jump over to the next cool thing they've read.
And if a rule-set is produced that makes more sense then the existing rules, or simplifies the game mechanics & allows for greater roll-play as a result? You can bet I'll snatch it up & whack it in.
But I've yet to see anything that fits that description except parts of Monty's Unearthed.

 

[DragonLancer]

How about:

"That PrC doesn't really fit the tone of the campaign."

I use this one all the time. I run Dragonlance as my dominant setting, and if it don't fit in my mind then I refuse it. I don't like generic PrC's such as Assassin (for example). I like a PrC to represent a specific order or has a reason for exisiting in a given setting. Theres too many generic classes and too many specilist ones. Time we went back to how they were meant to be ala 3.0 DMG.

Well, this is a not-uncommon personal preference, which is cool. My preference is that there's a give-and-take on both sides of the screen designed to maximized everyone's fun. If that give-and-take brings about an agreement that the DM's word is law, then that's cool, too. I still think there's more fun to be had if everyone is at least open to new ideas, whether or not they get used.

True. However, as DM (and I'm sure there are players out there with the same opinion) I don't want to run a game where I am not happy or comfortable.
Too much is handed to the players that everything must be good by them. It seems that the DM gets ignored in favour of the players a lot of the time.

-

 

[buzz]

Too much is handed to the players that everything must be good by them. It seems that the DM gets ignored in favour of the players a lot of the time.

I guess my experience is the opposite.

Ultimately, I think everything needs to be good by everybody, at least ideally.

 

[Impeesa]

I'm not a big fan of player options. Its just more rules and details that the DM needs to keep control of.

I think games should be kept to a minimum of optional extas.... few PrC's, standard PC races, only the base core classes...etc. A few new feats or spells appropriate to your setting and your done.

The only extras as DM I use, are new monster books.

I'm not a big fan of DM options. Just more potential opposition that I need to be aware of and prepared for.

Really, the game should be kept to a minimum of optional extras... one or two monstrous humanoids, one iconic ooze, the chromatic dragons, you get the idea. Maybe a template or two to suit your setting, and that's it.

As a player, the only supplements I really use are splatbooks with new feats and PrCs.




Yes, that was sarcastic, but I felt my usual stance has been fairly well represented already. Variety is the lifeblood of a good game on both sides of the table.

--Impeesa--

 

[Darklone]

For me, after 25+ years of D&D, the half-elven bard doesn't scream cool to me any more. Nor the half-orc barbarian, the dwarven fighter, the elven wizard, etc, etc, etc. Yeah, you can play with just the core rulebooks for many years. Well, I've done that for many years and need more now. And while I too find the cantina party a little annoying, so too do I find the 3 elves and 3 dwarves party a bit annoying.

I do agree somehow. After more than 20 years RPGs, I'm pretty sick of all these uberpower drowplayers, vampire lovas, half-dragon superfighters, troll street samurai and vulcan logic dudes.

I want the simple dwarven fighter back who's bashing at my elven wizard and the halfling rogue while the human cleric begs for peace.

To be more exact: I'm looking for interesting stories and fun in realistic feeling fantasy worlds instead of more fun because of different character powers and abilities.

Yes, I've seen hundreds of dwarven fighters, clerics and fighter/clerics. The more I enjoy to meet one that's different.

Edit: Same for the BBEGs. I love campaigns where the BBEG does not have to be a 666HD supa monsta. It was the clever shop owner next door and his devious intrigues. Which may have easily included all kinds of devils and demons.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

But it's okay for you and Jurgen to try and convince people to not do likewise? I thought the topic was up for discussion.

Oh, I wasn't trying to convince other people that my views were more valid than theirs (and I apologize if I gave that impression). I was trying to understand people with different views on the topic...

 

[Plane Sailing]

In my experience, the more "stuff" (rules, feats, PrC's, etc) that gets into the game, the less creativity there is.

That seems exactly backwards to me. The more options you allow in the game, the more variety and creativity you allow.

That seems exactly backwards to me. The more options you allow in the game, the more variety and creativity you allow.

I can think of at least one area where my experience gels with GlassJaws though.

Just thinking back to OD&D - when a party was searching for secret doors the players would tell me where they were looking, what they were doing, using their own intellect to suss things out. Now that there are rules for that it just comes down to rolling a search check.

When there were less rules my experience is that there was more roleplaying of non-combat situations. Now PCs and DMs alike are more likely to just roll the dice because it is a nice standard mechanism which rewards those who invest skill points in yada yada etc. Good in a mechanistic sense but it makes for less creative too and fro between PCs and DM.

Just sharing something from my own experience.

Cheers

 

[jmucchiello]

Just thinking back to OD&D - when a party was searching for secret doors the players would tell me where they were looking, what they were doing, using their own intellect to suss things out. Now that there are rules for that it just comes down to rolling a search check.

You can still do that. Only use the search check when they get stuck.

Or, as we did in our games, sometime around 1988 we create a new ability score: Perception. Perception checks were used at the begining of combat to see who was surprised. They were used to see who noticed stuff like secret doors, etc. They were used to see who found the gem hidden in a bag of flour. In other words, they were Spot, Search and Listen all rolled into an ability score. (An ability so that all wizards or all clerics weren't observant by default.) Yes, older additions always fell down when it came to perception. I know of several different groups who had similar house rules for observing stuff. It's too bad now there's a unified mechanic for it. (Whoa, I'll ease off the snarky pedal now.)

This reminds me of one of my pet peeves that I've seen from many a "bad" DM. Critter dropping down from above because "you didn't say you were looking up." Or
"How high's the ceiling?"
"at least 40 feet"
"And we didn't notice this from the acoustics alone?"
"You didn't look up."

Which of course leads to great exchanges like:
DM: The door opens onto a large room with a marble fountain of sat....
P1: I look up
DM: Let me describe the fountain.
P1: I'm not looking at the fountain. I want to know about the phase spider monkeys hiding in the ceiling that'll get a drop on us as you read the inch-high inscription carved into a fountain 30 feet away.