[3.5] Note to Self [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Mantarni

2011-12-11, 11:54 PM

A hypothesis from the 2 posts he's done and some pessimistic conjecture: the issue may be that the DM did that for control reasons.

My reasoning: they only have a very limited number of options they can take with their characters, meaning that the DM can predict and limit what they can do with them. Add to that, they're up vs an entire city and the OP seemed less than amused about their situation, meaning that unless someone did something incredibly derailing and stupid the DM is controlling the reactions of the NPCs to the players with his plot goals in mind.

I've learned to avoid 'core only' campaigns for personal reasons. While I don't like things going broken, it's also a lot less fun when you have a ton of stuff completely locked away without a second thought. And from what I've seen (may be a degree of bad luck though) it seems to represent a degree of inflexibility with the DMs mindset, which tends to gnaw at the players after a while. Just my opinion though.

Novawurmson

2011-12-11, 11:56 PM

...the DM did that for control reasons...

I've learned to avoid 'core only' campaigns for personal reasons. While I don't like things going broken, it's also a lot less fun when you have a ton of stuff completely locked away without a second thought. And from what I've seen (may be a degree of bad luck though) it seems to represent a degree of inflexibility with the DMs mindset, which tends to gnaw at the players after a while. Just my opinion though.

ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

Alabenson

2011-12-11, 11:58 PM

I've heard it said on these boards that keeping a game "core only" to avoid balance issues is like staying in the wilderness to avoid bears.

Gavinfoxx

2011-12-12, 12:20 AM

Kerrin

2011-12-12, 12:43 AM

Now, if the DM says 'Core only for simplicity sake' or 'Core only because those are the only books I have' or 'Core only because I don't want to learn a bunch of new rules', those are much much better reasons...
These sorts of reasons are why when I run a game I usually allow "core plus some books" instead of "all material". I just don't have the time or inclination to figure out what a character with 5 racial traits, 6 classes/PRCs, 4 ACFs, 2 traits, and a slew of gear in a pear tree would be capable of doing.

Mantarni

2011-12-12, 12:45 AM

Now, if the DM says... 'Core only because those are the only books I have'...

In the age of the internet, google and quick reasonable bandwidth, that is still not a very valid excuse. At the very least they can find a quick copy until the physical book they ordered comes in (or until you have enough money aside to afford it).

Even if you are banning the more broken stuff depending on the game's power scale (like ToB or whatever), which is reasonable enough, given how many good, solid, balanced(ish) non-core books there are that offer tons of fun options I can see no real reason to DM a game and not have some form of access to them, if for nothing else than the players.

Limiting it to just a tiny selection of what there is despite the above seems... geh, I don't want to say self-centered or controlling but thats all I can really think of at the moment. I'm not in the most positive mood right now though, so meh.

Gavinfoxx

2011-12-12, 12:46 AM

@Mantarni: Maybe the DM is both poor and doesn't want to pirate!

Mantarni

2011-12-12, 01:12 AM

Amphetryon

2011-12-12, 08:29 AM

If they have both those conditions and are eager to DM and can make the game fun or are actively trying at getting better I will willingly make retractions/allowances to what I said.

But the majority of these that I've seen are just because of what the OP or Gavinfoxx said, which is more of a lack of effort on their part. If they don't have the time or energy for it, I can't help but wonder why are they doing it instead of just playing in one? I can see them wanting to help others find games and the joy of it(?), but if they can't put enough effort into it their games seem to fall apart eventually because of the other stuff... :smallfrown:

Then again, I'm not as much DM material because I overthink everything. And just to be safe, I'm not talking about limiting some stuff, I'm talking about when they restrict everything but the bare minimum.
You're aware of how much time and effort goes into effectively running a campaign, particularly one where the PCs aren't stuck on rails? Now add to that the effort involved in learning all the 3.0 and 3.5 books out there well enough to know what the PCs are doing with them and what loopholes and accidentally broken bits they might have stumbled onto, particularly when you combine that feat from Book A with that class feature from Book B and that spell from Book C.

Add in the apparent notion that, "in the age of the internet, google, and reasonable bandwidth" you shouldn't restrict books regardless of physical access, or even publisher (as far as I can tell from your post), and you're expecting a whole heck of a lot out of a DM who is doing this presumably for free and in his/her spare time.

I mean, I personally have access to over 108 source-books for 3.X, and I know that represents a minority of the materials published for the game. Is it really your contention that my choice not to allow the entirety of materials into my game is due to lack of effort on my part?

Weezer

2011-12-12, 09:19 AM

I have to second Gavinfoxx and Amphetyron, as a player expecting everything to automatically be allowed and if it's not allowed baming the DM for lack of effort is just as unreasonable as someone restricting to core for 'balance', it is just at the other extreme.

Also your lumping ToB in with ''broken'' things worthy of banning is rather quaint.

Psyren

2011-12-12, 09:39 AM

Games that ban core (at least the base classes) are often more balanced, and definitely more interesting, than the ones that stick to it.

For instance, you can get an all T3-4 party by swapping Cleric out for Binder/Incarnate, Wizard for Beguiler/DN/WM, Fighter/Monk/Paladin for ToB, Rogue for Factotum, and Druid for Totemist/Mystic-Wildshape Ranger. (Bard and normal Ranger are fine though.)

I do agree with Weezer though.

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-12, 09:47 AM

I almost like playing "Core-Only" so that I can fully display the fact that 'Core-Only' has three classes: Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. Just build a CoDZilla or something.

As far as restricting books, I generally agree that if someone is going to DM, they should put in the effort to allow anything that is reasonable. To DM, I don't have to learn every book my players are using beforehand. I just have to tell my players to give me reference pages for everything on their character sheet. If you want a feat, give me a reference page, I'll look it up, read that feat, and allow or disallow it based on that reading. Same goes for any other part of the game.

I don't mind specific things being restricted, that can be reasonable - I strongly dislike specific books being restricted, because it's highly unlikely the DM read the entire book and determined that every single thing in that book was unsuitable for his campaign. He simply didn't want to take the few minutes it would require to look up the one or two things I'm using out of that book and see if it would be a problem.

candycorn

2011-12-12, 10:03 AM

I don't mind specific things being restricted, that can be reasonable - I strongly dislike specific books being restricted, because it's highly unlikely the DM read the entire book and determined that every single thing in that book was unsuitable for his campaign. He simply didn't want to take the few minutes it would require to look up the one or two things I'm using out of that book and see if it would be a problem.

Do you really feel this is a reasonable expectation of a burden to put on someone who is doing you the favor of running a game? While I can appreciate your technique is rather freedom-granting, it has a danger of overlooked interactions.

I've outright banned certain books, based on many reasons. Sometimes the book doesn't fit with the campaign theme. Sometimes I just don't want the options in it available to players. When I first started DMing, I did it because I wasn't familiar with the material, and didn't want to be overwhelmed. Sometimes, I look at 5 things in the book, and they're all broken beyond belief (I'm looking at you, MM2), so I conclude playtesting on the book was insufficient, and disallow it.

There are many reasons to do it, and none are BS or lazy reasons. Hell, I even did it once so that level 15 sheet checks would take 20 minutes, instead of 2 hours.

Psyren

2011-12-12, 10:10 AM

JadePhoenix

2011-12-12, 11:41 AM

Maybe it's more important to make sure your gaming style fits the game you're trying to join. Not everyone likes optimization, nor everyone likes mechanics.
And that's fine.

Dusk Eclipse

2011-12-12, 11:50 AM

candycorn

2011-12-12, 11:55 AM

Also, there's more than one way to interpret "Core only, to keep things balanced".

Most everyone here is of the opinion that it means "core rules are at least somewhat inherently balanced, and imbalance results from importing non-core options".

What I see is, "The entire game is imbalanced, and the DM must amend and alter options here and there, as well as restrict some options, to balance it. Core has a lot of options, and balancing them all is like walking a tightrope. Adding in 37 extra sourcebooks and web supplements, along with Joe's Monk fix and Wilma's four custom spells? That makes it like riding a flaming tightrope on a rocket unicycle while not disturbing the three pit vipers sleeping in your trousers."

Metahuman1

2011-12-12, 11:59 AM

Piggy Knowles

2011-12-12, 12:02 PM

Sitting at the table right now. Choices are fight through a city or sacrifice a party member. I'm thinking about sacrificing myself so the party can go through and quitting the campaign.

Note to Self:

If I'm ever DMing a campaign, and a player is so bored that he is sitting at the table using his phone to post on GitP rather than actually being involved in the campaign, then either I am doing a terrible job at keeping the player engaged, or the player is sort of a jerk.

I think that's the bigger issue - a DM's primary job is to keep the players engaged. I don't really care what books are allowed, if the DM can successfully do that. I've played in a very good Core-only campaign (granted, this was fairly early in 3.5's career, so there weren't a ton of great non-setting specific splatbooks regardless), and I've played in some absolutely terrible games that were a free-for-all as far as material was concerned.

Weezer

2011-12-12, 12:02 PM

Personally I find it weird than people who don't like mechanics want to play a game that is extremely heavy on the rules and mechanics side such as D&D 3.5, I mean I am sure there are a lot of rules light systems that can work extremely well for the high fantasy feel of D&D.

Now that doesn't mean they shouldn't play 3.5; but it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

I think the reasoning behind this is twofold, D&D is almost certainly the first pnpRPG anyone is introduced to. It's pervaded both geek and popular culture to such an extent that if you look for and RPG to play it would be hard for D&D to not be the first one that comes up. Because of this people get used to playing it, even if they don't ascribe to the rules/crunch heavy philosophy they will tend to stick to it and resist changing to something more rules light. Also learning an entirely new system that you don't even know you'll like is a lot of work/effort and probably involves some monetary investment, further incentivizing people to stick with what they are familiar with.

Maybe it's more important to make sure your gaming style fits the game you're trying to join. Not everyone likes optimization, nor everyone likes mechanics.
And that's fine.

That is the most important thing. As long as the group works and you all have the same goals and similar ideas to how you want to get there, it doesn't matter if you ban monks for being over powered or all play tier 1 characters that rip apart the fabric of reality before level 7. Fun is all that matters.

Greenish

2011-12-12, 12:02 PM

ToB isn't Tricky.At least if you put it side to side with MoI. Then again, MoI makes the whole rest of the system look easy and intuitive.

I love MoI.

erikun

2011-12-12, 12:02 PM

I've heard it said on these boards that keeping a game "core only" to avoid balance issues is like staying in the wilderness to avoid bears.
To be fair, there is a lot of wilderness that doesn't have bears in it...
Although that may have been your point, too. :smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2011-12-12, 12:04 PM

@Psyren: ToB isn't Tricky..

It might be easy for you - but if everyone else grasped it intuitively, would there be a need for "Tome of Battle for Dummies?" And recall that several fundamental rules of the game are altered by that book, such as how multiclassing works.

It's a great system but there is an undeniable learning curve.

At least if you put it side to side with MoI. Then again, MoI makes the whole rest of the system look easy and intuitive.

I love MoI.

Oddly enough, I "get" MoI way better than I get ToB, yet the general consensus seems to be that MoI is harder.

Granted, it took me awhile though.

Viktyr Gehrig

2011-12-12, 12:07 PM

CTrees

2011-12-12, 12:08 PM

I'm of the opinion that setting-specific and geographic ("Scape") material should be allowed only on a case-by-case basis; generic splats however, like Completes, "Races of" and Tomes should be available in all 3.5 games.

I can perfectly understand banning trickier systems like ToB and Incarnum though. I can also understand banning psionics, for all that it makes me grind my teeth when I see it.

This... is almost exactly my opinion. Though I also tend to lean heavily towards banning Dragon Magazine material, just because so much of it is so broken, one way or the other.

One further rule my group has used in past was that unless it's on the SRD or someone in the group owns the physical book*, it's banned. If you wanted something out of a different book, buy it before and get it in before it would be used in play. Nowadays my group plays Pathfinder, and with that SRD, it's essentially a non-issue, but it kept people more honest (none of the, "it was on one of these two-hundred PDFs on my laptop I pirated somehow found").

web enhancements and errata to books one of us owned, and similar, were of course allowed

Viktyr Gehrig

2011-12-12, 12:12 PM

Psyren

2011-12-12, 12:13 PM

I've never understood people who say "core only" or "only these books allowed". I don't care where a rule comes from-- it's either something I can work with or something I can't. I don't have any more problem straight out banning something from the Core than I do allowing any kind of third-party or homebrew.

For DMs who are unable to frequent or unaware of message boards, I can see it being helpful; since they don't seek advice online, they oftentimes are unaware of which particular rules or additions are troublesome and therefore save time by banning entire books.

For DMs who do go online, or for those who are able to but choose not to, there is no excuse. Forums such as this one have sussed out the troublesome interactions at length, doing much of the legwork for them at no cost (in time or money.)

CTrees

2011-12-12, 12:16 PM

I've never had a problem with keeping players honest. I'm either okay with what they say the rule does, or I tell them how I'm going to allow the rule to work. So if they're trying to lie to me, they aren't so much cheating as they are homebrewing.

I meant honest as in "not stealing intellectual property." Google will pull up a reference for pretty much any obscure feat, spell, item, whatever I might not be familiar with, so fact checking isn't tough.

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-12, 12:18 PM

Do you really feel this is a reasonable expectation of a burden to put on someone who is doing you the favor of running a game? While I can appreciate your technique is rather freedom-granting, it has a danger of overlooked interactions.

I've outright banned certain books, based on many reasons. Sometimes the book doesn't fit with the campaign theme. Sometimes I just don't want the options in it available to players. When I first started DMing, I did it because I wasn't familiar with the material, and didn't want to be overwhelmed. Sometimes, I look at 5 things in the book, and they're all broken beyond belief (I'm looking at you, MM2), so I conclude playtesting on the book was insufficient, and disallow it.

There are many reasons to do it, and none are BS or lazy reasons. Hell, I even did it once so that level 15 sheet checks would take 20 minutes, instead of 2 hours.Well, I don't really see the DM running the game as them doing me a favor. If they do not actually want to DM, I don't feel they should. And if they do want to DM, they should do their best to excel, not make a half-effort.

An entire book rarely 'doesn't fit with a campaign theme' if you really think about it. It will often have feats that consist of nothing but a purely mechanical bonus, spells that aren't necessarily out of place, and so on. Example: Heroes of Horror. It has feats like Bane Magic, Font of Life, and Unnatural Will, that are non-thematic mechanical benefits that can be fluffed any way you want. If the feat isn't overpowered, there's no reason to disallow it just because the book it came from is titled "Heroes of Horror" and you're not in a Horror campaign. Many of the spells have a place in any campaign - Summon Undead spells are appropriate in any campaign where there are undead, for instance.

Even classes are merely a collection of abilities, and therefore can be described in a completely different way than what the book says. Some particular classes still don't fit, and that's fine, but it often has nothing to do with the name of the book. I wouldn't argue that a Dread Necromancer fits in a campaign where lots of necromancy and using undead is inappropriate for players, but consider a different example in this case. Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells. The Hellbreaker class can just as easily be reworked to be specialized in fighting pretty much any variety of monster that has telepathy and makes use of spell-like or supernatural abilities. Most of the abilities fit quite well, even if the campaign is set in a cosmology that has no Nine Hells and no baatezu or fiends of any kind.

Generally speaking, it will take only a few minutes to check whatever feat, spell, or item a player is intending to use from a particular book.

I'm of the opinion that setting-specific and geographic ("Scape") material should be allowed only on a case-by-case basis; generic splats however, like Completes, "Races of" and Tomes should be available in all 3.5 games.

I can perfectly understand banning trickier systems like ToB and Incarnum though. I can also understand banning psionics, for all that it makes me grind my teeth when I see it.The issue of entirely different systems is a much more reasonable one, though. I wouldn't be particularly incensed at a DM who disallowed Incarnum material, simply because to fully understand it requires thoroughly reading the entire book, or at least large sections of it, and internalizing an entirely new system of functionality. Granted, it's not really that complicated, but it took me a while to understand even after reading it a few times. Even in these cases, I strongly urge the DM to read the material.

Some systems are easier than others, others are more vital. For instance, banning Tome of Battle is verging on unacceptable right on the face of it - it's basically telling non-casters 'screw you'. Banning psionics is only marginally more reasonable, since psionics is exactly like normal spellcasting, only with power points - any DM that accepts a Sorcerer should have no problems with a Psion. I can accept it, barely, but I find it very hard to swallow and I feel it shows nothing more than a personal bias against the system for no mechanical reason from the DM.

Greenish

2011-12-12, 12:21 PM

Oddly enough, I "get" MoI way better than I get ToB, yet the general consensus seems to be that MoI is harder.Well, yeah, MoI isn't that complex, the book is just atrociously written (when it comes to trying to gain the understanding of the rules in the first place, or trying to find some specific rule).

I'd still say ToB is simpler, but given how familiar I am with both, maybe I've lost perspective.

rexreg

2011-12-12, 12:45 PM

Weezer

2011-12-12, 12:49 PM

as a player I expect to be able to use 99% of what is out there, Dragon Mag. included...
as a DM, all of those same rules are available to me...*insert evil chuckle here*
basically, if players find a way to break the rules, you as DM can break them even more

The problem with this outlook is it fosters a players vs DM attitude which in my experience makes for some ****ty games.

Kerrin

2011-12-12, 12:53 PM

These sorts of reasons are why when I run a game I usually allow "core plus some books" instead of "all material". I just don't have the time or inclination to figure out what a character with 5 racial traits, 6 classes/PRCs, 4 ACFs, 2 traits, and a slew of gear in a pear tree would be capable of doing.
To clarify the reason behind my previous reply in this topic...

I haven't GMed open games for just anyone who walks-in since college when I played and ran AD&D (as well as other systems) and knew all the systems inside and out in my sleep.

These days I only GM games for family and/or friends where none of us has the time or desire to build characters of the sorts often discussed on these and other forums (example noted in the quote above). Our characters each tends to have 1 race, 1-2 classes, and 1-3 options (from a small set of books as measured vs. the entire set of material published).

Would I be adverse to some other material a player brought me? No. I'd defintrely be okay with reading it over, but if it's an entire book it'd probably take me a bit to get through it all. Would I immediately grasp the interactions of the new material with everything else? No. I could very easily miss something so that it turns out to be "broken" or "over-optimized" for our group because I don't know D&D 3.5 as well as I used to know older games in college. When such a circumstance comes up we'd have to discuss how to play it.

Metahuman1

2011-12-12, 01:11 PM

I'm in the camp that thinks Incarnum is MUCH harder to figure out and get the hang of then ToB.

Though admittedly ToB took me quite a while to get a solid grasp on, and I'm someone who doesn't really play much with Psionics and is not 100% on my own understanding of the system. I THINK I could build a Psion or Psiwarrior ext, but I'm not convinced of my rules mastery.

But Incarnum or a Binder? I've pretty much 0 confidence in my ability to use either properly let alone effectively. I'd be willing to try again to learn them if someone offered to do some walk through stuff since that's usually how I learn best.

And regarding the learning curve argument. Everything in the system, even core, has a meaningful learning curve. That's just flat a part of the system.

candycorn

2011-12-12, 01:25 PM

Well, I don't really see the DM running the game as them doing me a favor. If they do not actually want to DM, I don't feel they should. And if they do want to DM, they should do their best to excel, not make a half-effort.
Oddly, I do see it as that. The task of DMing requires much more work than that of a player. When one person does that, they are assuming an uneven balance of responsibility, and an uneven mantle of power. Part of that mantle involves describing the setting, and determining what sources are allowed. When the player attempts to usurp that, they are trying to assume part of the benefits of DMing, without the responsibility.

A DM invites you inside his imagination, inside his mind. He creates an entire world, in many cases for you to play in. Questioning the means with which he provides it, and insinuating that he's lazy, incompetent, or both, after that work? Is frankly a slap in the face. There's a saying, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." It originated because of how horses are checked for health. One of the primary ways is examining the inside of a horse's mouth. The saying is basically saying, "when someone does something for you, and does it free, it's not civil to question the quality of the gift."

If you really don't prefer that game style, then you are welcome to not play in such a game. But being critical of a DM who DOES prefer that playstyle? Not a great way to make friends.

Bear in mind, the RAW actually recommends DMs tightly limit things such as prestige classes. This runs counter to the idea of, "oh, there are no wizards of thay in eberron? Let's just call them a sect in the Demon Wastes, cause I really want my circle magic."

If you disagree with these limitations that some DM's have, that's fine. If you prefer a more inclusive game, that's also fine. But when you imply that DMs that don't are lazy, or not committed to doing a good job? That is not fine.

Greyfeld85

2011-12-12, 01:52 PM

What I like to do when I come across a DM who limits a game to core, "for balance purposes," is to roll up a Wizard/Loremaster/Archmage and break the game anyway :P

Amphetryon

2011-12-12, 01:58 PM

Well, I don't really see the DM running the game as them doing me a favor. If they do not actually want to DM, I don't feel they should. And if they do want to DM, they should do their best to excel, not make a half-effort.Please explain, in detail, what qualifies as "do their best to excel, not make a half-effort." So far as I can tell from context, it's largely tied to how permissive the DM is with sources. That's counter-intuitive to me, which makes me think there's more to your definitions than you've thus far given.

JadePhoenix

2011-12-12, 02:01 PM

What I like to do when I come across a DM who limits a game to core, "for balance purposes," is to roll up a Wizard/Loremaster/Archmage and break the game anyway :P

So when someone doesn't understand the rules as well as you do, you ruin their game?

SpaceBadger

2011-12-12, 02:14 PM

Well, I don't really see the DM running the game as them doing me a favor. If they do not actually want to DM, I don't feel they should. And if they do want to DM, they should do their best to excel, not make a half-effort.

Have you ever been a DM?

Seriously, the DM puts more time and effort into the game than any player. Yeah, he/she is probably doing it because he/she enjoys DMing, not just as a "favor" to you, but if you don't like the way the DM does his/her job, you should go find another game to play in. Or even [gasp!] try DMing yourself.

imneuromancer

2011-12-12, 03:31 PM

When I am a player:
Unless otherwise stated, anything CORE is OK and items non-core (i.e. feats and special class abilities) are approved by the GM by photocopying the page from the book, noting the book and page number, circled/highlighted, and especially contentious sections noted.

I make sure the DM knows the implications of how I plan to use my abilities (i.e. conjurors with the ability to teleport 10' as an IMMEDIATE action is good to discuss with the GM before used in combat cause it can be confusing), and what future my character has so that it can either be denied or built into the world.

I expressly give the GM the right to modify or ban anything that I have taken, with the gentleman's agreement that it is done outside of game time and I have the ability to maybe take something else if I don't like the change.

That way there are no surprises, everyone is happy, and it all works out in the end.

Why can't we all just get along?

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-12, 04:43 PM

Bear in mind, the RAW actually recommends DMs tightly limit things such as prestige classes. This runs counter to the idea of, "oh, there are no wizards of thay in eberron? Let's just call them a sect in the Demon Wastes, cause I really want my circle magic."
Yes, but it also recommends making prestige classes of your own for all sorts of organizations and such. And while that may be a neat suggestion and a good idea, that does involve a great deal of DM work, in that the DM then has to invent his own prestige classes for the entire campaign setting if he's disallowing many of the standard ones. The difference is that the mechanical work is done already in the case of a pre-published class, and you only need to fit it to an organization in your campaign setting.

Please explain, in detail, what qualifies as "do their best to excel, not make a half-effort." So far as I can tell from context, it's largely tied to how permissive the DM is with sources. That's counter-intuitive to me, which makes me think there's more to your definitions than you've thus far given.
It's not so much about permissiveness, but for them to at least consider the class/feat/spell that the player is wanting to use. I may dislike it if a DM reads the feat or spell I'm wanting to learn and decides not to approve its use, but in that case I feel they've put in their full effort and made a decision. I don't feel the same way if they simply declare that because it's in a specific book (or not in a specific book), they aren't going to bother reading it and simply decline it outright.

This also applies to candycorn's above comment as well - while I may not like it if they disallow a particular prestige class that I would really like to play, as long as they have read it, listened and given due consideration to whether it should be included or not, then I have no problem with the effort they have put in. All I want is for the DM to actually read what I'm asking to use and consider it on its own merits, not simply based on what book the source happens to be in.

So when someone doesn't understand the rules as well as you do, you ruin their game?
Personally, I have much the same reaction as Greyfeld, although I would definitely note that prior to doing so, I would attempt to explain to the DM that things outside of core are not unbalanced simply due to their source. Now if they don't listen and continue to insist that they're banning non-core for balance reasons? Yes. I wish to demonstrate exactly why blanket-banning non-core is silly, because core can be just as unbalanced, and to do that, I'll create the most powerful core character I can think of.

Have you ever been a DM?

Seriously, the DM puts more time and effort into the game than any player. Yeah, he/she is probably doing it because he/she enjoys DMing, not just as a "favor" to you, but if you don't like the way the DM does his/her job, you should go find another game to play in. Or even [gasp!] try DMing yourself.
Yes, I have. In fact, I've been a DM more often than a player, and all that I say in this regard is primarily from my experience as a DM, not just a player. I am willing to consider just about anything a player asks for, and consider it purely on its own merits, rather than determining it by its source. I only insist that players properly reference every single thing they have on their characters (really, my custom-designed character sheet includes a 'reference page' entry for pretty much everything - equipment, feats, spells, etc) so that I can properly look it up.

In the end, I do reserve the right to alter my decision even on something I've allowed, if it turns out to be different than I expected. I try to avoid that if at all possible, but sometimes it's necessary. And in all such cases, the player is allowed to immediately change their character in any way they want to due to the change in rules. If you expected the rules to work one way and I change them so they work differently, then I cannot in good conscience prohibit you from fully rebuilding your character, or even building an entirely new character, because you will not be able to do what you had hoped to do with your current one.

Mantarni

2011-12-12, 05:33 PM

I find it amusing that much of this is revolving around the idea that a DM doing this is a complete angel doing it for everyone elses sake, and not a control freak or anything like that which was the premise of my much earlier argument. Admit it, almost everyone here has run into that at least once.

@Amphetryon - Like I said, I don't think any players who are decent people have a problem with a good DM limiting stuff for valid reasons, which everyone has already discussed. It's when almost all of the books are limited just to keep things the exact way they want it is where issues will crop up in one form or another. Players do have a responsibility to respect their DMs campaign, but I would also say a DM has a responsibility to respect their players options.

Really, most of this thread's hypothetical scenarios could be resolved by a mature discussion between the DM and players. And unless the player is really stretching it (and should be kicked out if so), it wouldn't involve the DM reading 108 bloody splatbooks front to back (or even 1/10th of that). That was an extreme example and you know it.

@Mnemnosyne - it's not very mature to purposefully try to break game balance just to prove a point.

Big Fau

2011-12-12, 05:50 PM

Have you ever been a DM?

Seriously, the DM puts more time and effort into the game than any player.

This is true. Even with premade modules, where the information is right there, you still have a lot of work to do modifying everything to fit your party's capabilities and size, never mind actually running the thing.

Players generally only need to reference one or two books at a time (there are a few that have to reference more than that, but most of those builds can actually fit the relevant information on their own character sheet or an index card). The DM needs to reference the MM, DMG, and PHB rules in a single encounter if the enemy is capable of using spells. If the Rules Compendium is at the table, that cuts out huge chunks of the DMG and PHB, but it still requires referencing those two books for certain abilities.

And then you have to double-check something for the players every so often.

I can perfectly understand banning trickier systems like ToB and Incarnum though. I can also understand banning psionics, for all that it makes me grind my teeth when I see it.

Do you ban magic item creation too? If not, the Artificer puts the B09S and MoI combine to shame in complexity. Hell, I find it more complex to play a Cleric than it is for me to play a Warblade.

Incarnum's a pain in the neck to use in actual play, but I do understand how to use it.

Amphetryon

2011-12-12, 06:30 PM

Really, most of this thread's hypothetical scenarios could be resolved by a mature discussion between the DM and players. And unless the player is really stretching it (and should be kicked out if so), it wouldn't involve the DM reading 108 bloody splatbooks front to back (or even 1/10th of that). That was an extreme example and you know it.If you find my example extreme, I'm confused. My point is simple. If I own all of those sources - and I do - and a player is going to complain because I'm not allowing some additional sourcebooks beyond that list - which has happened to me - I'll tend to believe the player has entitlement issues, unless I know otherwise ahead of time. Additionally, without knowing the full build concept, it becomes more likely that interactions between sourcebook rules will produce results I didn't necessarily anticipate when I allowed a given book, if the player were to then ask for an additional book at the next feat level.

Mantarni

2011-12-12, 07:36 PM

^^ Which is a valid possibility, and why I said a mature discussion on it would settle things pretty easily. I think at this point we're straying into semantics, where the player/DMs personalities are the focus for these issues rather than the original topic (as I interpreted it) of the motives for the reasons for book limitations.

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-12, 08:10 PM

One thing I will say is that, as imneuromancer said, I often recommend players hand me their full planned-out build right from the start, and it's something I'm prepared to do for any DM that asks, since I plan out my builds from level 1-20 right from the start - to do otherwise given the way the rules with prerequisites and all work seems foolish.

In this way, I can look over everything they have and try to figure out if there's anything that's unacceptable to me, so they don't get blindsided by my disallowing a particular feat or spell later on. I also encourage the player to tell me if there's any 'tricks' or synergies between their abilities that they're planning to make particular use of. This allows me to prepare to deal with them if I want to, or disallow them from the beginning so that they don't become disappointed when I do it later.

If the player isn't trying to sneak one past the DM, then everything goes a lot smoother, and the DM can stop being afraid of allowing sources they can't recite by memory.

@Mnemnosyne - it's not very mature to purposefully try to break game balance just to prove a point.
I don't really agree. If a DM doesn't understand that core-only has no positive effect on balance (and quite honestly, has a strong negative effect on balance, since it disallows classes like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, which are fun fullcasters that aren't as strong as Wizard, while at the same time disallowing many of the options that at least allow non-casters to be moderately competitive) then they must learn that core-only does not help balance. If they are unwilling or unable to learn through being told, then they need a demonstration.

There have on occasion been times when I am incorrectly stuck with an idea that is wrong, but have stubbornly refused to accept it until it has been clearly and obviously proven to me. I hope I have learned from that and will not be so stubborn in the future, but it also shows me that sometimes, people need to see something happen before they can accept it. And sometimes that means that a DM who adamantly believes core-only is inherently balanced while other things are not needs CoDzilla to rampage through his campaign.

Amphetryon

2011-12-12, 08:18 PM

candycorn

2011-12-12, 08:44 PM

It's not so much about permissiveness, but for them to at least consider the class/feat/spell that the player is wanting to use. I may dislike it if a DM reads the feat or spell I'm wanting to learn and decides not to approve its use, but in that case I feel they've put in their full effort and made a decision. I don't feel the same way if they simply declare that because it's in a specific book (or not in a specific book), they aren't going to bother reading it and simply decline it outright.

This also applies to candycorn's above comment as well - while I may not like it if they disallow a particular prestige class that I would really like to play, as long as they have read it, listened and given due consideration to whether it should be included or not, then I have no problem with the effort they have put in. All I want is for the DM to actually read what I'm asking to use and consider it on its own merits, not simply based on what book the source happens to be in.
Boundaries may not be fair, in your opinion, but they can still exist for a reason.

For example, I start a PbP game, and begin recruiting. I post a big 16, and 25 people express interest, and begin asking if 150 different bits of ruletext is allowed.

It's simply not efficient for a DM who is not very familiar with most of that to read and consider each and every point, consider the rules impact, and rule on it. In other words, the boundaries exist so that 5 players can't add 10 hours to the DM's work. They may not be perfect, and some good material may be banned. But they are something more important. They are functional. They work.

Yes, everyone wants to be heard. But some people work for a living. Some have families. Some are in college, with strenuous courseloads. Not everyone has the time to treat DMing as a full time, or even a part time job.

So limits may be set to preserve the DM's sanity. This isn't laziness. This is recognizing limitations. And criticizing that is no bueno.

Kerrin

2011-12-12, 09:00 PM

As a GM I don't have a problem ret-conning something in a character's build from a previous level that isn't working out so well, or that has an unexpected interaction with something new the player wants to take for their character, or the player didn't realize was a trap choice (heck I still make such bad decisions myself from time to time).

Heck, 3.5 even has retraining rules to make it easy!

Though I did once play with a GM who didn't allow retraining. Their opinion was, "You took it, you're stuck with it." Not friendly, not optimal, but can certainly be worked around.

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-13, 12:04 AM

For example, I start a PbP game, and begin recruiting. I post a big 16, and 25 people express interest, and begin asking if 150 different bits of ruletext is allowed.In a PbP setting where one is likely to get a dozen or more applicants, I can't fault a DM for allowing or disallowing by source. The amount of questions to answer were he to individually consider each question would become pretty high, and it could potentially require several hours per applicant, of which there could be one or two dozen, just to read each feat, spell, etc. My primary point of view when making my earlier comments was that of a group where the players were already decided, the characters just needed to be built, the way most face to face groups operate.

This may be the core of where our disagreement comes from - with a typical group of 3-5 players, it is unlikely that each player will have more than a few things from sources the DM is unfamiliar with at character creation. That'll require that the DM put in one or two hours as a one-time investment at character creation, checking those sources and approving/disapproving them on their own merits, and then potentially require that he spend a few additional minutes every couple weeks when the characters hit a feat level (if they deviate from their plan, or did not present a plan at creation) or want to learn some new spells. That's the sort of time investment I was thinking of, and one I don't feel it's unreasonable to expect and consider simply part of being a good DM.

Though I did once play with a GM who didn't allow retraining. Their opinion was, "You took it, you're stuck with it." Not friendly, not optimal, but can certainly be worked around.Anytime a DM, mid-campaign, makes a houserule or deviates from RAW in any way that was not laid out at the start of the campaign, if that rule has a significant effect on one or more characters, it is only fair that the players get a chance to change any affected portions of their character, instantaneously and retroactively, and with no additional cost to the character. That's something I insist on as a player - you can change the rules, but I reserve the right to alter my character to match the new rules. Thus far I've not had to make a big deal of such a thing, but I don't think I would be willing to continue playing if a DM changed the rules mid-campaign but didn't allow me to alter affected portions of my character.

On the other hand, not allowing retraining/rebuilding when there has not been a rule change is something I can understand, although I don't really agree with it anymore. I mean, logically I understand and agree with the idea that 'you learned X, you can't just unlearn it and retrain to something else', but mechanically, the way the D&D system is set up, very often you have a choice: be sub-par at low levels and be awesome at high levels, or be awesome at low levels and sub-par at high levels. Because the feats that are good at low are often worthless at high levels. Or a tactic requires a multiple-feat buildup and so on. However, since we are never guaranteed to actually run a campaign that stretches from low to high, 'paying' for that high level ability by being suboptimal at low levels simply means the possibility that we will never reach the 'payoff.' So while it makes sense from an in-character viewpoint for the character to be stronger in the long-run if they focus on a long-term strategy and delay immediate benefits, players and DM's must recognize that we want to have fun now, not potentially have fun later, if we get that far.

DigoDragon

2011-12-13, 09:18 AM

@Mantarni: Maybe the DM is both poor and doesn't want to pirate!

I can totally understand the disinterest to pirate. I mean, you need a 10,000GP ship to qualify for the PrC and the abilities are only so-so in my opinion...

But I think (this thought coming from my experience as a DM) that it's okay to limit game material as long as you give the players something in return to show you're not totally an inflexible elemental earth monolith.
My longest standing rule is "You can only use material from the books I own". And while it is a decent collection, there is always something from a book outside that grouping that a player wants to use. In my last campaign, two players wanted to use Oriental Adventures for their builds. The book wasn't in my collection and so they couldn't use it, but my compromise was allowing all the players to get a few extra feats at certain odd levels so that they could emulate what they wanted from OA using what books I did sanction.

It was fairly Win-Win and the players did have fun with the campaign anyway. So I don't think it was a bad thing to compromise as I did. :smallsmile:

Piggy Knowles

2011-12-13, 10:37 AM

As a player, I am always as straightforward with my DM as possible. I let him know right off the bat where I intend to go with my character, and what I will be capable of if I go in that direction. This isn't player versus DM - I'm not doing anyone any favors if the DM is surprised by one of my abilities, or didn't realize how certain features would interact.

As a DM, I ask that my players submit to me where they would like to see their build go, what they would like their characters to be able to do, etc. I don't expect that every character plans out their build from level 1 through level 20 like I do, and I don't punish them if they change their mind, but this level of communication is important.

I've always asked that if a player wants to use a source that is unfamiliar to me, they take it upon themselves to teach me the mechanic behind it. Don't get me wrong, I still look up the source material and try to learn myself. But having them do that helps me learn, and it lets me know what the player expects of their character, which I think can give everyone a better playing experience. It also gives me ample warning if a player is attempting to use something that they don't quite understand yet - a problem that I've run into with surprising frequency.

Anyhow, communication. It needs to be there, and it needs to be two-way. If the players and the DM are not open and communicating, you'll be limiting yourself no matter WHAT sources are allowed. As I've said before, I played in a Core-only campaign that was excellent and engaging, and I've played in multiple "all sources allowed" games that were just terrible. If it's an honest DM who can tell a good story, keep the game flowing smoothly, and communicates openly with the players, then I would urge you to keep playing, regardless of how restrictive the source list is.

If the DM isn't open or communicative, then sure, that's another problem entirely. But in that case, it's got very little to do with source lists, and more to do with someone who just isn't that great at being a DM. Hey, not everyone is. Maybe you should encourage him to switch to playing for a little while.

Zherog

2011-12-13, 10:50 AM

Morph Bark

2011-12-13, 10:58 AM

For instance, you can get an all T3-4 party by swapping Cleric out for Binder/Incarnate, Wizard for Beguiler/DN/WM, Fighter/Monk/Paladin for ToB, Rogue for Factotum, and Druid for Totemist/Mystic-Wildshape Ranger. (Bard and normal Ranger are fine though.)

Since when is Rogue not Tier 3-4? To my knowledge, it is solidly placed in Tier 4, just like the Barbarian. :smallconfused:

Psyren

2011-12-13, 11:05 AM

Since when is Rogue not Tier 3-4? To my knowledge, it is solidly placed in Tier 4, just like the Barbarian. :smallconfused:

It is, but I unconsciously replaced it with Factotum for more general utility. (Apologies to the rogue fans.)

rexreg

2011-12-13, 12:44 PM

The problem with this outlook is it fosters a players vs DM attitude which in my experience makes for some ****ty games.

player vs. dm?
indeed, no
i would not play in nor dm such a game
a dm's job is to make sure the player's are entertained & the players' job is to keep the DM entertained...killing off players is not conducive to a pleasurable outing
i'm only saying that if a player can use semi-broken trip rules, so can the DM

candycorn

2011-12-13, 12:54 PM

I don't really agree. If a DM doesn't understand that core-only has no positive effect on balance (and quite honestly, has a strong negative effect on balance, since it disallows classes like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, which are fun fullcasters that aren't as strong as Wizard, while at the same time disallowing many of the options that at least allow non-casters to be moderately competitive) then they must learn that core-only does not help balance. If they are unwilling or unable to learn through being told, then they need a demonstration.I disagree. I say that if players and DMs are having fun, then then the only thing they must do is play. When you say people "need" a demonstration, it sounds like you feel the need to prove it, not they have the need to know it.

There have on occasion been times when I am incorrectly stuck with an idea that is wrong, but have stubbornly refused to accept it until it has been clearly and obviously proven to me. I hope I have learned from that and will not be so stubborn in the future, but it also shows me that sometimes, people need to see something happen before they can accept it. And sometimes that means that a DM who adamantly believes core-only is inherently balanced while other things are not needs CoDzilla to rampage through his campaign.I would posit that people play D&D primarily to enjoy themselves, rather than primarily to understand the interaction between the rules better.

If that is the case, then understanding the rules should come as a byproduct of having fun. Not through the act of intentionally destroying it. All that does is foster bad feelings.

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 01:39 PM

So when someone doesn't understand the rules as well as you do, you ruin their game?

I think I probably should have mentioned first that I always take the time to try to explain why Core-only isn't "more balanced" in any way, shape, or form.

90% of the time, the DM is completely resistant to any form of logic in this regard. Thus, I break their game to prove a point.

candycorn

2011-12-13, 01:52 PM

I think I probably should have mentioned first that I always take the time to try to explain why Core-only isn't "more balanced" in any way, shape, or form.

90% of the time, the DM is completely resistant to any form of logic in this regard. Thus, I break their game to prove a point.

Destroying a game that is played for fun to prove a point is like breaking the car everyone's riding in because the driver only gets super-premium gas, and regular unleaded will work.

Yeah, you may be right, but you're missing the real point.

Games, like cars, aren't there to prove points. At least, that's not the primary function.
Games are played for fun primarily, and destroying them for a point is killing the point of the game to make an ancillary point.

In short, you're breaking everyone's fun car, with the only goal being that the DM submits to your point of view.

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 01:56 PM

I disagree. I say that if players and DMs are having fun, then then the only thing they must do is play. When you say people "need" a demonstration, it sounds like you feel the need to prove it, not they have the need to know it.
I would posit that people play D&D primarily to enjoy themselves, rather than primarily to understand the interaction between the rules better.

In a perfect world, this would be true. But some people (such as myself) find understanding better the interaction between the rules as part of the fun of playing the game. Afterall, if you'd rather just plug your ears and pretend the mechanics don't exist, you may as well play freeform.

Nothing good comes from holding onto an opinion that is blatantly false. Opening up your game to other source books increases the mechanical variability of each and every character, allows for builds that would never be possible in core, and introduces new tiers of gameplay to balance your campaign around.

candycorn

2011-12-13, 02:04 PM

In a perfect world, this would be true. But some people (such as myself) find understanding better the interaction between the rules as part of the fun of playing the game. Afterall, if you'd rather just plug your ears and pretend the mechanics don't exist, you may as well play freeform.In any world, it is true. There is a distinct difference between misunderstanding some rules and "may as well play freeform". You're taking something to extremes. Some people enjoy exploring the mechanics of the game. Some people prefer other aspects. But when you decide that someone else needs to appreciate the mechanics better, and you break their game, you are making that choice for them. And that is not cool. It's no better than them handcuffing you to a chair and making you play their preferred game.

Nothing good comes from holding onto an opinion that is blatantly false.If they're having fun? I would disagree. Heck even in the real world, we've gotten many advances from ideas provided by beliefs that were ultimately false.

Opening up your game to other source books increases the mechanical variability of each and every character, allows for builds that would never be possible in core, and introduces new tiers of gameplay to balance your campaign around.Which only matters if that is wanted. And if it's not, then rampaging through someone's game to "convince" them that your way is better?

It's not mature to decide what other people need to know, and then ensuring that they do, without consulting them.

In other words, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. No matter how hard you try.

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 02:04 PM

Destroying a game that is played for fun to prove a point is like breaking the car everyone's riding in because the driver only gets super-premium gas, and regular unleaded will work.

Yeah, no, it's not anything like that. The scope of your metaphor is way too hyperbolic.

Games, like cars, aren't there to prove points. At least, that's not the primary function.
Games are played for fun primarily, and destroying them for a point is killing the point of the game to make an ancillary point.

I agree. Games are played for fun. But controlling GMs ruin the fun, and they have to be broken of that habit ASAP for the sake of their players. There's nothing wrong with opening somebody's mind to other possibilities, and some people refuse to see the light without a bit of a nudge.

Mantarni

2011-12-13, 02:08 PM

I agree. Games are played for fun. But controlling GMs ruin the fun, and they have to be broken of that habit ASAP for the sake of their players. There's nothing wrong with opening somebody's mind to other possibilities, and some people refuse to see the light without a bit of a nudge.

And I suppose you are the keeper of the key to the light. :smallconfused:

candycorn

2011-12-13, 02:08 PM

Yeah, no, it's not anything like that. The scope of your metaphor is way too hyperbolic.Destroying the game is exactly like that.

I agree. Games are played for fun. But controlling GMs ruin the fun, and they have to be broken of that habit ASAP for the sake of their players. There's nothing wrong with opening somebody's mind to other possibilities, and some people refuse to see the light without a bit of a nudge.
But you're not fixing the issue of a controlling GM! You're attacking one view, "core is balanced". That has squat to do with whether a GM is controlling.

You're trying to justify hitting the hood of the car with a hammer by saying, "but the car needs gas". Perhaps, but what you're doing isn't helping the situation. Moreover, it's done without the consent of others involved. You're doing it, without their permission, and "for their own good".

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have a friend that thought the best course was to deny me my own choices and treat me like a child. Because that's being a controlling player. You're really not seeing the double standard here?

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 02:11 PM

In any world, it is true. There is a distinct difference between misunderstanding some rules and "may as well play freeform". You're taking something to extremes. Some people enjoy exploring the mechanics of the game. Some people prefer other aspects. But when you decide that someone else needs to appreciate the mechanics better, and you break their game, you are making that choice for them. And that is not cool.

What you've essentially just said is that I, as a player, should intentionally retard my character's strength, so that I don't force the GM to actually learn anything new.

It's not my fault that WotC created a game that can be so easily broken. However, since that is the case, any GM worth his salt should be aware of this possibility, and aware that Core is no more balanced than any other splatbook out there.

Willful ignorance isn't fun for anybody.

Which only matters if that is wanted. And if it's not, then rampaging through someone's game to "convince" them that your way is better?

It's not mature to decide what other people need to know, and then ensuring that they do, without consulting them.

In other words, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. No matter how hard you try.

If a GM decides to limit his options for simplicity or whatever, that's totally his call. But limiting his options because he refuses to believe the truth is another matter entirely.

If he understood how things really worked, maybe he would be willing to use splatbooks. Maybe he wouldn't. But he should be given the opportunity to make that decision based on knowledge and logical reasoning, instead of biased knee-jerk reactions.

candycorn

2011-12-13, 02:17 PM

What you've essentially just said is that I, as a player, should intentionally retard my character's strength, so that I don't force the GM to actually learn anything new.No, I'm saying you discuss what is wanted by the group, come to a decision as a group, and then abide by it. If you choose not to, then don't be a part of that group.

You see, in this way, everyone is involved in the decision.

It's not my fault that WotC created a game that can be so easily broken. However, since that is the case, any GM worth his salt should be aware of this possibility, and aware that Core is no more balanced than any other splatbook out there.in your opinion.

In my opinion, as long as everyone's having fun, then everything else is secondary. Even if some opinions are wrong.

And if everyone's not, then that's something that the group needs to discuss with the player, and, if a point needs to be proven, then the consent of the DM should be had before it begins. If not, you are the one being controlling.

Willful ignorance isn't fun for anybody.You know what they say, ignorance is bliss.

If a GM decides to limit his options for simplicity or whatever, that's totally his call. But limiting his options because he refuses to believe the truth is another matter entirely.And as long as people have fun, who cares if not everything is right?

If he understood how things really worked, maybe he would be willing to use splatbooks. Maybe he wouldn't. But he should be given the opportunity to make that decision based on knowledge and logical reasoning, instead of biased knee-jerk reactions.But making the personal decision to alter how someone else sees the game they love, without their permission, that is wrong.

There's nothing wrong with educating others. There is something wrong, however, with forcing your views on others. And that's what you speak of doing.

And as you said, being controlling isn't fun for anyone... right?

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 02:21 PM

Destroying the game is exactly like that.

No, it's not. Breaking a pen-and-paper roleplaying game campaign that is a form of entertainment and can freely and instantly be reset/replayed is nothing like forcing somebody to pay thousands of dollars and spend dozens of hours to repair a vehicle that is likely the person's only form of transportation.

Hyperbole doesn't look good on you, stop using it.

But you're not fixing the issue of a controlling GM! You're attacking one view, "core is balanced". That has squat to do with whether a GM is controlling.

I agree, limiting to Core is a symptom, not the actual problem. But you have to start somewhere, and opening a person's mind to possibilities they've never considered before is far more likely to see results than screaming in their face, "STOP CONTROLLING EVERYTHING!!!"

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have a friend that thought the best course was to deny me my own choices and treat me like a child. Because that's being a controlling player. You're really not seeing the double standard here?

I wasn't aware that trying to teach somebody something was akin to treating them like a child. I'm sure that whenever a friend of yours has been hard-headed about something, you've just let them do whatever they wanted, even if it directly effected you, right? You would never try to do something as horrible as changing somebody's opinion, especially when you know he's wrong!!

lol yeah.

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 02:22 PM

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. I don't feel like beating my head against this brick wall anymore, it's starting to leave a mark. Somebody else can take my position if they'd like.

Aegis013

2011-12-13, 02:27 PM

Greyfeld85, your method is passive aggressive.
Passive aggressive actions rarely lead to anything good.
I think that's what others are trying to say.

A direct talk between you and the DM is much more likely to get something positive accomplished.

candycorn

2011-12-13, 02:28 PM

No, it's not. Breaking a pen-and-paper roleplaying game campaign that is a form of entertainment and can freely and instantly be reset/replayed is nothing like forcing somebody to pay thousands of dollars and spend dozens of hours to repair a vehicle that is likely the person's only form of transportation.

Hyperbole doesn't look good on you, stop using it.So the effort that people have spent developing their characters, and the investment they've put into it, only to have you poop on it? That's meaningless, then?

I agree, limiting to Core is a symptom, not the actual problem. But you have to start somewhere, and opening a person's mind to possibilities they've never considered before is far more likely to see results than screaming in their face, "STOP CONTROLLING EVERYTHING!!!"Actually, both are likely to get you kicked from a table. But there is a third option. Sitting down with DM Dan, and saying, "Dan, you know we enjoy coming over and hanging out. But a few of us at the table have been kinda feeling like we don't have a voice at the table. Remember when we joined the caravan last week, and got assaulted by the bears? Well, only one of us suggested the caravan, and none of us agreed to it. We'd really like you to let us feel like we're important to the story too."

I wasn't aware that trying to teach somebody something was akin to treating them like a child. I'm sure that whenever a friend of yours has been hard-headed about something, you've just let them do whatever they wanted, even if it directly effected you, right? You would never try to do something as horrible as changing somebody's opinion, especially when you know he's wrong!!Sarcasm doesn't look good on you. But there's a solution. You tell someone it's not balanced, and they say it is. Now, here you take it upon yourself to build the caster of doom. What would be mature is first saying, "listen, I can show you. Tell you what, next week, let's run a one-off adventure, and I'll build a core cleric." See, if you get someone's permission to educate them, then you're being mature. If you take it upon yourself to force them to see things your way, you're not.

See? The issue isn't with you teaching someone. It's with you teaching someone, whether they want your advice or not, darn it. Because that session should be used to teach the DM a lesson, regardless of how DM Dan, Player Paul, Player Peter, and Player Patricia want to use that time.

kardar233

2011-12-13, 03:39 PM

The only time you should break a DM's game (with Hi Welcome, CoDZilla, Batman, God or similar) is when there are balance problems that are ruining the game already and the DM refuses to go outside Core to fix them.

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-13, 04:03 PM

No, I'm saying you discuss what is wanted by the group, come to a decision as a group, and then abide by it. If you choose not to, then don't be a part of that group.

You see, in this way, everyone is involved in the decision.
That's fine, if the group is capable of making an informed decision. If they lack key information that is necessary in order to make that decision, the information must be presented before the decision can be adequately discussed.

If a DM believes core to be inherently balanced and will not listen to explanations to the contrary, then it is impossible to have a discussion with him on the topic because the discussion would be based on lies. Once it has been proven that core isn't inherently balanced, then a rational discussion can be had by all as to what to do about it and how to play, but until that point, there's no decision being made, because discussion is impossible. If, at that point, the group makes an informed decision and decides they still want to play core-only, but the stronger classes should hold back to benefit the weaker ones, then that's an actual choice the group has made. But without the information that choice is based on, they lack the opportunity to make the choice.

As for "destroying" the campaign, that's nonsense. Once the players understand the point, characters can be retrained or rebuilt based on the decision that was made. If I build CoDzilla and go on a rampage, then everyone sees what a core cleric/druid can do, all I have to do next week if we make an informed decision to limit ourselves is use different abilities and the campaign goes on. Nothing has been lost or destroyed in such a scenario.

mykelyk

2011-12-13, 04:23 PM

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 04:36 PM

That's fine, if the group is capable of making an informed decision. If they lack key information that is necessary in order to make that decision, the information must be presented before the decision can be adequately discussed.

If a DM believes core to be inherently balanced and will not listen to explanations to the contrary, then it is impossible to have a discussion with him on the topic because the discussion would be based on lies. Once it has been proven that core isn't inherently balanced, then a rational discussion can be had by all as to what to do about it and how to play, but until that point, there's no decision being made, because discussion is impossible. If, at that point, the group makes an informed decision and decides they still want to play core-only, but the stronger classes should hold back to benefit the weaker ones, then that's an actual choice the group has made. But without the information that choice is based on, they lack the opportunity to make the choice.

As for "destroying" the campaign, that's nonsense. Once the players understand the point, characters can be retrained or rebuilt based on the decision that was made. If I build CoDzilla and go on a rampage, then everyone sees what a core cleric/druid can do, all I have to do next week if we make an informed decision to limit ourselves is use different abilities and the campaign goes on. Nothing has been lost or destroyed in such a scenario.

You said it better than I could.

I think it's important to note that us "break the game" people aren't talking about just going out and being a jerk for kicks. We're talking about last-resort actions when the DM just blatantly won't listen or allow for an open dialogue.

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 04:39 PM

I am (as a DM) extremely controlling, I ban lot's of stuff (like tier 1 caster, summon spells, lot's of divination, leap attack and many others things), but I don't ban the books, I ban things I don't like.

For me core, splat, 3rd party, homebrew and scribbled-up-yesterday things are the same for me and I allow/ban/change things if I think they are too strong.

Would you play with a DM that act like me?

*Shrugs* depends on what's banned/allowed, and your reasoning for it, honestly.

I've played in games with restricted resources, and games where the GM allowed everything under the sun. I've enjoyed both and hated both, but that usually comes down to how the GM handles the whole process.

It should be noted that I primarily play PbP games, so a lot of my opinions are colored by the fact that I don't always play with the same people on a regular basis.

Amphetryon

2011-12-13, 04:51 PM

That's fine, if the group is capable of making an informed decision. If they lack key information that is necessary in order to make that decision, the information must be presented before the decision can be adequately discussed.

If a DM believes core to be inherently balanced and will not listen to explanations to the contrary, then it is impossible to have a discussion with him on the topic because the discussion would be based on lies. Once it has been proven that core isn't inherently balanced, then a rational discussion can be had by all as to what to do about it and how to play, but until that point, there's no decision being made, because discussion is impossible. If, at that point, the group makes an informed decision and decides they still want to play core-only, but the stronger classes should hold back to benefit the weaker ones, then that's an actual choice the group has made. But without the information that choice is based on, they lack the opportunity to make the choice.

As for "destroying" the campaign, that's nonsense. Once the players understand the point, characters can be retrained or rebuilt based on the decision that was made. If I build CoDzilla and go on a rampage, then everyone sees what a core cleric/druid can do, all I have to do next week if we make an informed decision to limit ourselves is use different abilities and the campaign goes on. Nothing has been lost or destroyed in such a scenario.

For some DMs - perhaps especially for inexperienced DMs without tons of innate self-confidence - what's been lost/destroyed in the above scenario is trust. Trust that the players invited to play a game won't break the game simply because they can. Trust that the people the DM thought would be fun to hang out with and play would continue to behave in a way that was fun for everyone. In a social game theoretically based around collaborative storytelling and working together, that can take some time to repair.

Zherog

2011-12-13, 05:06 PM

That's fine, if the group is capable of making an informed decision. If they lack key information that is necessary in order to make that decision, the information must be presented before the decision can be adequately discussed.

If a DM believes core to be inherently balanced and will not listen to explanations to the contrary, then it is impossible to have a discussion with him on the topic because the discussion would be based on lies. Once it has been proven that core isn't inherently balanced, then a rational discussion can be had by all as to what to do about it and how to play, but until that point, there's no decision being made, because discussion is impossible. If, at that point, the group makes an informed decision and decides they still want to play core-only, but the stronger classes should hold back to benefit the weaker ones, then that's an actual choice the group has made. But without the information that choice is based on, they lack the opportunity to make the choice.

So... if a group plays core only and doesn't have any problems with the way their game plays, we still need to come in and completely blow up their game -- change the way they play -- so that they can play the One True Way?

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 05:25 PM

So... if a group plays core only and doesn't have any problems with the way their game plays, we still need to come in and completely blow up their game -- change the way they play -- so that they can play the One True Way?

I say this purely because I believe you missed the point: I think you should take some time and re-read his post.

Zherog

2011-12-13, 05:33 PM

No, I don't think I do need to re-read his post.

If a DM believes core to be inherently balanced and will not listen to explanations to the contrary, then it is impossible to have a discussion with him on the topic because the discussion would be based on lies.

This statement -- among so many others in this thread -- is based not on fact or lie, but on play style. There are plenty of groups out there that think fireball is a potent spell, that never consider chain-gating, and so on. If those groups are having fun, why do you care that they don't play the same style as you? If core-only is balanced within their play style why do you need to go in with a wrecking ball (aka CoDzilla) and trash their fun?

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-13, 05:39 PM

For some DMs - perhaps especially for inexperienced DMs without tons of innate self-confidence - what's been lost/destroyed in the above scenario is trust. Trust that the players invited to play a game won't break the game simply because they can. Trust that the people the DM thought would be fun to hang out with and play would continue to behave in a way that was fun for everyone. In a social game theoretically based around collaborative storytelling and working together, that can take some time to repair.As opposed to the DM refusing to listen when he's told outright that core is not balanced, therefore forcing it to be proven? Or simply trusting the player to build a character that includes non-core material that is still balanced? I think the 'trust' boat sailed when the DM banned core material based on 'balance' and didn't trust the player to construct a reasonable character when given access to other sources. The DM never trusted the player in this scenario, therefore no trust has been lost, since there was never any in the first place.
So... if a group plays core only and doesn't have any problems with the way their game plays, we still need to come in and completely blow up their game -- change the way they play -- so that they can play the One True Way?Except the scenario itself posits that there is a problem with the way the game plays, because one of the players is doing this in order to prove that core only is not inherently balanced. If there was no player that saw this as an issue, then the situation would never come up, because nobody would be trying to prove the point in the first place.

We're not talking about some nonsensical scenario where we barge into random people's games, sit down to play, and thereby prove to them that core is imbalanced.

Zherog

2011-12-13, 05:56 PM

As opposed to the DM refusing to listen when he's told outright that core is not balanced, therefore forcing it to be proven?

Again, though, "core is balanced" is less a fact/fiction dichotomy and more a play-style range.

We're not talking about some nonsensical scenario where we barge into random people's games, sit down to play, and thereby prove to them that core is imbalanced.

Are the other players having fun in the game as-is? Is the DM having fun? Then what's the point of potentially being viewed as a jerk by making a CoDzilla and stomping all over that fun like it's your own little Tokyo? Just say, "Thanks, but the game style doesn't work for me" and walk away.

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-13, 06:25 PM

Again, though, "core is balanced" is less a fact/fiction dichotomy and more a play-style range.

Are the other players having fun in the game as-is? Is the DM having fun? Then what's the point of potentially being viewed as a jerk by making a CoDzilla and stomping all over that fun like it's your own little Tokyo? Just say, "Thanks, but the game style doesn't work for me" and walk away.
Balance in many (although not all) cases is a mathematically provable fact, and in this case, it is mathematically provable that core is not inherently balanced. As I said, if the group, knowing this, makes an informed decision to hold back when playing stronger classes, then that's all fine and good, but they must be informed in order to be capable of making that decision.

And since they are not informed, how do you know that they won't have fun in any other 'game style' as you put it? Walking away wouldn't be beneficial to anyone - I would lose the ability to play at all, and they may never be introduced to the the many fun and interesting possibilities available in non-core materials. For all anyone knows, they may enjoy this as much, or more, than the way they are playing due to ignorance. Indeed, it is likely that they will enjoy it more when non-core options are allowed, because it means they're more likely to be able to make characters that match all their fun ideas. Or they may prefer playing the way they have been, core-only - it's a possibility. But lacking knowledge, they're denied the choice at all, since they don't understand the decision.

If the same people explained to me that they are aware that core is not inherently balanced, but they want to play that way regardless, then there would be no need for me to do such a thing. I could then walk away, or choose to play the way they have decided to. I would, at that point, be wholly wrong to try to sneakily build a character of significantly different power than theirs, because that would be an attempt to force my playstyle on them even though they have knowingly chosen not to play that way.

Additionally, the initial discussion involved DM and player, it didn't automatically suggest that others in the group specifically wanted core-only either, so making the assumption that the entire group is having fun is a leap which was unwarranted in the initial assumption - this was about a DM who restricts to core only for 'balance' reasons. There is no reason to assume that I am the only player who would like to see the situation re-examined with actual facts.

candycorn

2011-12-13, 07:26 PM

That's fine, if the group is capable of making an informed decision. If they lack key information that is necessary in order to make that decision, the information must be presented before the decision can be adequately discussed.You're absolutely right. The only problem is that you consider the decision of "is core balanced" to be key to "what books should we use". It's not.

If a DM believes core to be inherently balanced and will not listen to explanations to the contrary, then it is impossible to have a discussion with him on the topic because the discussion would be based on lies.The problem is, that's not the topic. The topic is, "What books should be allowed."

Once it has been proven that core isn't inherently balanced, then a rational discussion can be had by all as to what to do about it and how to play, but until that point, there's no decision being made, because discussion is impossible.Incorrect. Rational discussion can take place, even with incorrect information. I can tell you, for a fact, that the abuses that can take place outside of core are just as bad as the ones in it, if not moreso. The difference is, there are many, many more.

None of this, however, has any bearing on the issue of breaking someone's game by ambush. It's passive aggressive, it assumes that you know what the group should be doing (proving your personal point to the DM), so don't need to consult them on the issue before railroading them down that path. It's being a poor player, and a poor friend. On a side note, someone that felt it necessary to prove this kind of point in a game I was playing would get, "Congratulations, you're right. Happy? Good, now grab your things and leave. You may return when you respect the time of everyone here."

If, at that point, the group makes an informed decision and decides they still want to play core-only, but the stronger classes should hold back to benefit the weaker ones, then that's an actual choice the group has made. But without the information that choice is based on, they lack the opportunity to make the choice.Incorrect, again. That decision can be made regardless of your opinion of the power structure of D&D.

As for "destroying" the campaign, that's nonsense. Once the players understand the point, characters can be retrained or rebuilt based on the decision that was made. If I build CoDzilla and go on a rampage, then everyone sees what a core cleric/druid can do, all I have to do next week if we make an informed decision to limit ourselves is use different abilities and the campaign goes on. Nothing has been lost or destroyed in such a scenario.What has been lost? In a 4 player game with a DM? The choice of 4 people at the table for what to do has been lost, along with hours of their time. All because you needed to prove a point that was so important to you, that you felt justified in wasting everyone's time, without consulting them, so that you could grind your personal axe.

At that point, it doesn't even matter whether or not your point is correct. At that point.... You are wrong, for not respecting people that should be your friends. Such behavior doesn't fly at my table. This is a team game, and making decisions without the team is one of the most destructive things you can do. I've seen games end because of stuff like this. It's not a mature way to behave.

Big Fau

2011-12-13, 08:02 PM

Again, though, "core is balanced" is less a fact/fiction dichotomy and more a play-style range.

Corollary: As the degree of system mastery shifts, so to does the perceived balance of the Core rules. On the higher end of the optimization spectrum, Core is not balanced. Towards the lower end, it will appear more balanced.

Sudden spikes in system mastery can upset this paradigm.

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-13, 08:21 PM

You're absolutely right. The only problem is that you consider the decision of "is core balanced" to be key to "what books should we use". It's not.

The problem is, that's not the topic. The topic is, "What books should be allowed."
The question of whether core is balanced is part of the topic - indeed, it is the primary point - if the reasoning for restricting books to core is because of a false belief that core is inherently balanced. As I have said numerous times: if that decision is made based on something other than a false belief, then I have no point to be making.

Again, let me attempt to make it completely clear: bringing a disproportionately powerful core-only character into a game is only appropriate if the core-only restriction is being made based on a false belief that core-only is inherently balanced, and attempts at explaining otherwise in a straightforward way have been disbelieved by the DM or otherwise not taken as fact.

Incorrect. Rational discussion can take place, even with incorrect information. I can tell you, for a fact, that the abuses that can take place outside of core are just as bad as the ones in it, if not moreso. The difference is, there are many, many more.
And I have never claimed that things outside of core are inherently balanced either. My point has simply been that core is not inherently balanced, and therefore any decision to restrict to core-only based on that false concept should be shot down by whatever means necessary. Decisions to restrict to core-only based on other reasons can be argued in other ways, but that's not what I'm discussing in this case. I may feel that such a decision is wrong, but at that point it's a valid choice because it is a choice, and attempting to subvert it would indeed be wrong and disrespectful.

As for comments on respect, I do not view it as a sign of respect to intentionally allow someone to remain ignorant when they are clinging to a false belief. If I am making decisions based on information my friend knows to be false, and he does not show me I am wrong, I don't think he's being a very good friend. Granted, perhaps I am so stubborn that it's not worth the effort for him to show me, but if he does show me, I should not be angry.

And I would say that real decisions simply cannot be made without accurate information. If I am at a crossroads, and I do not know where the roads lead to, I cannot choose my destination. I can make a decision of which road to follow based on some other factor, such as which road looks prettier, which road appears to have had more traffic, or any other factor I can think of and have valid information on - these are real choices. But I am incapable of making a decision based on a destination, since I do not know the destinations of the paths before me. If I incorrectly believed I knew the destination, I would still be making a decision of course, but the decision would be inherently flawed since it was made based on false information, and therefore I did not actually choose to go to the place I wound up at.

Mantarni

2011-12-13, 08:24 PM

As for comments on respect, I do not view it as a sign of respect to intentionally allow someone to remain ignorant when they are clinging to a false belief. If I am making decisions based on information my friend knows to be false, and he does not show me I am wrong, I don't think he's being a very good friend. Granted, perhaps I am so stubborn that it's not worth the effort for him to show me, but if he does show me, I should not be angry.

You have no friends who are deeply religious for a religion different than yours. Or born-again. Or evangelical. If you did, this would either not be a belief you carry or you would just have no friends anymore (for other reasons).

Zherog

2011-12-13, 08:26 PM

Corollary: As the degree of system mastery shifts, so to does the perceived balance of the Core rules. On the higher end of the optimization spectrum, Core is not balanced. Towards the lower end, it will appear more balanced.

Sudden spikes in system mastery can upset this paradigm.

Yes, I agree with this statement. Thank you for wording it better than I was.

candycorn

2011-12-13, 08:47 PM

The question of whether core is balanced is part of the topic - indeed, it is the primary point - if the reasoning for restricting books to core is because of a false belief that core is inherently balanced. As I have said numerous times: if that decision is made based on something other than a false belief, then I have no point to be making."For balance reasons" does not mean that core is balanced. Only that the DM is familiar with how to deal with the imbalances. And even if the DM feels core IS balanced, that does not excuse going ambush commando game wrecker on him.

Again, let me attempt to make it completely clear: bringing a disproportionately powerful core-only character into a game is only appropriate if the core-only restriction is being made based on a false belief that core-only is inherently balanced, and attempts at explaining otherwise in a straightforward way have been disbelieved by the DM or otherwise not taken as fact.Again, let me attempt to make it completely clear: There is never, under any circumstances, a condition that makes it appropriate to treat people you consider friends in this fashion. Even if they're wrong. Even if they don't believe you. That is because when you do this, you're disrespecting the table you play at, and the people you play with.

If the DM agrees to a demonstration, that is one thing. But, without such an agreement? It is completely inappropriate. No matter how correct you are. No matter how much the person disagrees. Entering an agreement to play with people is generally based on the good faith ideal that everyone is going to try to have fun, and to try to help each other have fun. When you enter into that agreement under false pretenses, you are deceiving your fellow players. That is not acceptable. At least, it would not be, at my table.

And I have never claimed that things outside of core are inherently balanced either. My point has simply been that core is not inherently balanced, and therefore any decision to restrict to core-only based on that false concept should be shot down by whatever means necessary.And I am saying that "by whatever means necessary" is what generally leads to hurt feelings and lost friendships. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't sacrifice a friendship because the DM didn't agree with your view.

Decisions to restrict to core-only based on other reasons can be argued in other ways, but that's not what I'm discussing in this case. I may feel that such a decision is wrong, but at that point it's a valid choice because it is a choice, and attempting to subvert it would indeed be wrong and disrespectful.Attempting to subvert any choice, for whatever reason, in the way you are doing, is wrong and disrespectful.

As for comments on respect, I do not view it as a sign of respect to intentionally allow someone to remain ignorant when they are clinging to a false belief. If I am making decisions based on information my friend knows to be false, and he does not show me I am wrong, I don't think he's being a very good friend. Granted, perhaps I am so stubborn that it's not worth the effort for him to show me, but if he does show me, I should not be angry.It's not the attempt to show your friend that is wrong. It is the method you use to do so.

Feeding your family is a noble gesture. Smearing their faces in their plates is not. There is an appropriate way to do things, and one that is not. You are attempting to educate a friend (good) by deceiving them, distorting their intent, and possibly wasting their time (not good).

"Any means necessary" is rarely the proper way to treat friends.

And I would say that real decisions simply cannot be made without accurate information. If I am at a crossroads, and I do not know where the roads lead to, I cannot choose my destination. I can make a decision of which road to follow based on some other factor, such as which road looks prettier, which road appears to have had more traffic, or any other factor I can think of and have valid information on - these are real choices. But I am incapable of making a decision based on a destination, since I do not know the destinations of the paths before me. If I incorrectly believed I knew the destination, I would still be making a decision of course, but the decision would be inherently flawed since it was made based on false information, and therefore I did not actually choose to go to the place I wound up at.That's happened before, you know. It's how the Americas were discovered. Good things CAN come from decisions that are "inherently flawed".

If the above example were true, then you would be the "friend" leading your group into quicksand to illustrate that you're lost. Because you're getting your group to accept that... by any means necessary.

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 09:39 PM

You have no friends who are deeply religious for a religion different than yours. Or born-again. Or evangelical. If you did, this would either not be a belief you carry or you would just have no friends anymore (for other reasons).

Let's not bring religion into this discussion. Aside from the fact that you're trying to compare a discussion that's purely subjective (religion) with one that's purely objective (mathematical and mechanical balance), bringing up a hot button topic like religion is a sure-fire way to derail the discussion and get the thread locked.

Elric VIII

2011-12-13, 09:57 PM

candycorn

2011-12-13, 10:09 PM

Just a quick question to those advocates of the DM's core-only (and similar) decisions:

Why do you seem to imply that the DM's right to fun trumps the right of the player that wants something non-core (or banned)?

Why is it wrong to play something that has the potential to ruin the DM's game when he is free to ruin your game via bans and disallowing characters?

First: I am not "pro-core". I am "pro-abide-by-group-decision". I am also "pro-if-you-don't-like-the-DM's-game-then-don't-play-it".

That said, I have stated that the group should discuss what is wanted, and reach a consensus, and that all parties who play should abide by that consensus.

Once that point is reached, if the consensus does not go the way you wanted, or people voiced opinions that you don't agree with, you don't have the right to stomp on everyone's game.

And even if there was no discussion, you still don't. If you don't wanna play that campaign, don't play it. Nobody's forcing you to. But playing it, intentionally, in a confrontational and ambush manner? Not cool.

Greyfeld85

2011-12-13, 10:18 PM

Of course, that assumes that things are always so clear-cut and simple.

Amphetryon

2011-12-13, 10:22 PM

Just a quick question to those advocates of the DM's core-only (and similar) decisions:

Why do you seem to imply that the DM's right to fun trumps the right of the player that wants something non-core (or banned)?

Why is it wrong to play something that has the potential to ruin the DM's game when he is free to ruin your game via bans and disallowing characters?

For me, it's wrong to play something with the intent and foreknowledge that your character choice is made to "teach a lesson" or "wreck the DM's campaign," in the same way that it's wrong for the DM to allow a particular concept and then make it so that every thing that concept is built to do cannot work in his/her campaign world. I find it irritating, immature, and indicative of a lack of the mutual respect I'd otherwise expect from people I'd want to call friends.

Mantarni

2011-12-13, 10:26 PM

sonofzeal

2011-12-13, 10:29 PM

Elric VIII

2011-12-13, 11:35 PM

First: I am not "pro-core". I am "pro-abide-by-group-decision". I am also "pro-if-you-don't-like-the-DM's-game-then-don't-play-it".

Well, as my parenthetical qualifier of "and similar," was meant to point out, I am not attributing this notion to you, it is simply the stance from which you chose to defend your point.

That said, I have stated that the group should discuss what is wanted, and reach a consensus, and that all parties who play should abide by that consensus.

Once that point is reached, if the consensus does not go the way you wanted, or people voiced opinions that you don't agree with, you don't have the right to stomp on everyone's game.

And even if there was no discussion, you still don't. If you don't wanna play that campaign, don't play it. Nobody's forcing you to. But playing it, intentionally, in a confrontational and ambush manner? Not cool.

You advocate discussion, but you also come across as a detractor of open communication. How does one have a discussion without challenging someone else's viewpoints as potentially incorrerct? Without some form of conflicting opinions it's not really a discussion, therefore someone must consider someone else incorrect in some fashion. You seem to come out as against voicing opinions that a friend is wrong/incorrect.

For me, it's wrong to play something with the intent and foreknowledge that your character choice is made to "teach a lesson" or "wreck the DM's campaign," in the same way that it's wrong for the DM to allow a particular concept and then make it so that every thing that concept is built to do cannot work in his/her campaign world. I find it irritating, immature, and indicative of a lack of the mutual respect I'd otherwise expect from people I'd want to call friends.

I suppose I misread your posts as saying that the player must cow to the DM's whims without the DM giving any ground, simply due to the fact that he's in the DM chair. I don't advocate doing this maliciously, but as a form of protest (when discussion has failed) it may be the only alternative to just leaving; which may end up meaning that you do not get to play at all, due to lack of groups.

Novawurmson

2011-12-13, 11:43 PM

It's been really interesting to see the discussion this has spawned, so I've just been creeping on my own thread, but I would like to say that what I meant by my original post is that people who restrict the game to core only are usually doing so because they don't have the system mastery to feel comfortable running anything else or evaluating additional content. In my opinion (and experience), a person who believes core is balanced has an even deeper deficit of system mastery than even they believe.

To say it another way, when someone tells me "I'm running a core-only game," I now hear "I don't even know the core rules so I'm scared of anything else," with a little bit of "if you use anything beyond the core rules I can't control you the game as well."

I do feel there are times to restrict the game to core-only (such as if you're stuck without your books at a friend's house and all you have is the srd, you just want to make some quick characters for a one-shot, etc.), but for a long-term campaign, "core-only" is a giant flashing neon warning sign to me.

gkathellar

2011-12-13, 11:51 PM

It's been really interesting to see the discussion this has spawned, so I've just been creeping on my own thread, but I would like to say that what I meant by my original post is that people who restrict the game to core only are usually doing so because they don't have the system mastery to feel comfortable running anything else or evaluating additional content. In my opinion (and experience), a person who believes core is balanced has an even deeper deficit of system mastery than even they believe.

This seems to be a fair assumption, in most cases. Not all, but most.

I will give a counterexample, though I don't mean to disagree with you in doing so. My most recent RL campaign, the DM started us out core only and then slowly phased in other books. He was used to running games allowing every book, and just wanted a break from having to learn a million different combinations so he could ease into it more gradually. It worked out pretty well (though not from a balance perspective, mind you).

I think the principle difference between this and the approach of most core-only DMs is that he was making an active decision to go core-only for a while, with a full understanding of what that meant.

-snip-

There's no reason to be rude. Greyfeld was just cautioning you about raising a subject which is prone to getting threads locked.

candycorn

2011-12-14, 01:19 AM

Here's my stance....

1) Core is inarguably the most broken part of the game; a game that bans Core will be more balanced than one that limits to Core-Only.

2) Characters that can draw from a large number of sources are more varied and individualized, and have a richer base to draw from, than characters limited to a small number of sources.

3) DMs who believe in Core-Only despite the resources to expand that and players who want more are unfairly limiting the game and should be talked to.

...but...

4) Anyone who brings a character in with the deliberate goal of breaking the game is a jerk who doesn't deserve to sit at that table. If you need to prove a point, do it separately. Don't derail the game for everyone else just because you have a bone to pick, even if it's a good one.THIS. EXACTLY THIS.

You advocate discussion, but you also come across as a detractor of open communication. How does one have a discussion without challenging someone else's viewpoints as potentially incorrerct? Without some form of conflicting opinions it's not really a discussion, therefore someone must consider someone else incorrect in some fashion. You seem to come out as against voicing opinions that a friend is wrong/incorrect.That is not my intent at all. I am attempting to come across as being against disrespecting friends, or breaking their games in an ambush style.

Earlier, when someone posted their alternative to breaking a DM's game, which was screaming at them to not control everything, my response was:Actually, both are likely to get you kicked from a table. But there is a third option. Sitting down with DM Dan, and saying, "Dan, you know we enjoy coming over and hanging out. But a few of us at the table have been kinda feeling like we don't have a voice at the table. Remember when we joined the caravan last week, and got assaulted by the bears? Well, only one of us suggested the caravan, and none of us agreed to it. We'd really like you to let us feel like we're important to the story too."Does this sound like detracting from open communication?

I suppose I misread your posts as saying that the player must cow to the DM's whims without the DM giving any ground, simply due to the fact that he's in the DM chair. I don't advocate doing this maliciously, but as a form of protest (when discussion has failed) it may be the only alternative to just leaving; which may end up meaning that you do not get to play at all, due to lack of groups.And doing this to the DM that is the only game in town? Will likely get you asked to leave the game anyway. Which may end up meaning that you do not get to play at all.

When there's limited playgroups, existing players may find themselves having to compromise a little more than players in a robust group area. That's unfortunate, but it's the facts of life. Staging protests at the gaming table, wherein you ruin the gaming experience for everyone? Not likely to endear you to the playgroup, and not a good example of that compromise.

Talking in private to the DM, and offering to demonstrate the imbalance? Much more likely to work out well, since the DM's authority isn't being questioned, it's less confrontational, and it only involves the person whose view you're trying to change. In addition, the person isn't having the example blindside them.