Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 1784256" data-attributes="member: 1288">Wow. Strong feelings, much? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Okay, from my own perspective:1) I like playing D&D. If I wanted to play a different game, I would. If I want to play D&D, I'm playing D&D. With whatever options are appropriate.2) Maybe I've just been lucky with my players, but I find it astonishing that people seem to assume that the presence of a book in the group either requires the book be allowed entirely, or disallowed entirely. That's not the case; this isn't a binary decision. In just about every game I run, I give the players character-creation guidelines. Sometimes they're as simple as "Play anything in the core rules or the Eberron campaign setting." Sometimes it's "Every character needs to be a humanoid with an ECL of +6 or less." Sometimes it's "All characters must be human, and they should all fit into a very traditional middle ages small village where the only arcane caster is the local village witch and her apprentices."Now, here's the important part: In all cases, I also tell my players "If you have a class/prestige class/race/feat/whatever from a source other than the core rules (and the other books I've specified) that you want to play, check with me and we'll discuss it."What that means is, I'm potentially allowing material from outside sources, but I reserve the right to decide if it's campaign-appropriate, and the fact that I allow X from The Complete Book of Noodles doesn't mean I'm allowing Y from that same book.I think, in most cases, it's foolish for a DM just to say "You can play anything from any source." I don't think most pro-option people are advocating that. At the same time, what's wrong with saying "If you have something you want to try, let me look at it, and if it's appropriate, I'll allow it"? That leaves the final decision in the DM's hands, but lets the players at least lobby for something they like.Incidentally, I also have another rule I make clear to all my players, if we're bringing in a PrC/feat/whatever from an outside source that I don't know very well. I tell them "I'll let you try it. But if we discover down the road that there's a problem with it, or it's unbalanced, we're going to have to recreate/retcon the character to get rid of it." And every player I've had is okay with that; they understand that you can't always judge balance until you see something in action.I might even go so far as to suggest I wouldn't allow someone who couldn't accept the above rules/caveats into my games.</blockquote>

Verification