DM only sourcebooks (?? good/bad idea ??)

[ngilop]

Hey everybody. Ive been using DM only source books for years now when Ive been DMing, for the following reasons

1) to throw something at the player's they won't automatically know the ins and outs of

2)To introduce weird abilities/powrs/spells/whatever that help 'identify and unique-ify' various NPCs.

Now, I tell my players that I do this and give my reasons for 'banning' the book outside of use by myself.

and untill recently it never been an issue, but now I have found a player who was very vocal about how that was not fair and several other things ( at some point she lost me with her argument as to me it stopped making a lot of sense)

Just wondering what the overall opinion is on having a book or three ( for this particular case its the Creature Collection and Relics & Rituals Both from Sword and Sorcery) that is only used by the DM.

[Katana_Geldar]

As long as that is temporary, go ahead I say.

But then again, I also run Paranoia. :smallbiggrin:

[Voyager_I]

I wouldn't have a problem with this, so long as the power was used responsibly. Letting a BBEG use DMM:Persist when it's strictly verboten for the party? That's the kind of ace I'd expect any respectable villain to have up his sleeve.

...having him go Tippyverse on us...I would be less accepting of. That doesn't sound like what you're suggesting, though.

[Fyermind]

Generally I like the idea that a DM follows the same rules as a player. It sounds like this is what your player feels too. It simply feels unfair when the DM has access to more toys than the players because they made the rules unfair. I'd suggest using homebrew (your homebrew preferably) things instead of banned books.

You will have more options that way, and will be able to make things relevant to your campaign (less reading and more time preparing useful things makes for a less stressed DM). Your players will feel like you are putting more effort into the campaign, and will be drawn in by it. They will also feel like you are using the same rules they are, so they won't feel like they are fighting a loosing battle.

Generally I think what you are talking about with DM only sourcebooks encourages a DM vs. Players gaming style, which is ultimately fun for no one.

[Randomguy]

It seems fine to me. Using monsters that the player's don't know about counteracts the fact that many players have memorized the monster manuals, while their characters wouldn't have. As long as you allow knowledge checks to identify monsters and stuff (and their abilities, in general), that is.

It's also great for items: What's the fun in using something from tome of artifacts if the players already know exactly what it does and how to get rid of it?

[Shadowknight12]

It is entirely within your prerogative as a DM to do this, and nobody can tell you it's wrong in the slightest.

Having said that, I would never play with someone who did this.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Everyone in the party has access to every book that I have, and I actually encourage book diving for whatever character options they can find (but most of the group I DM for are too impatient or don't have the methodology down, so often I help them find options, since I love book diving). This tends to have the double benefit of them getting all of the character options that they want or need to fulfill a concept, cherry-picked from the right sources, while satisfying them such that they don't *need* to book-dive, and all the privileged knowledge remains at my hands unless someone's curiosity is somehow piqued about something.

At the table, however, the PCs are not allowed to reference any Monster Manual or the Field Folios, or the monster sections of any book, since that gives them direct access to metagame knowledge about any creature that they're fighting that they shouldn't have, like, say, the entire statblock (but I use creatures from varied sources, and they don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of where every creature can be found, ever--Hell, even I don't--so I can shake them at the table if they were to ever try this).

[Urpriest]

First of all, sufficiently competent players will likely be DMs someday. As such, restricting what content players can read is silly and implausible, because the player is a DM too.

As for content that the DM has access to for building monsters/NPCs and the players don't, that's more reasonable, but it would be best to do it from a rules perspective. Rather than a houserule "X content is banned", make a houserule "taking X feat gives your character LA --". That way your houserule fits in with the other rules of the game and has more sensible interactions with the rest of the rules(for example, if a player Dominates one of your monsters, you should probably let them look at its stats).

[ExtravagantEvil]

I do something similar to this, with only one major qualifier as to whether I'll invoke this.

What is the experience, in terms of the players?

Are we dealing with noobs? Are these noobs fast learners, and adaptive, or are they relatively unsure of what to do?

If so, then I say "Core only, except if there is something simple I tell you about that'll give you what you want".

For instance: One of the groups I'm DMing, a group of all new players, I started with Core Only, then I started tossing some of the players knowledge of skill tricks, outside feats, Bear Warrior, etc.



Now: I, when building NPC's and Villains, use outside material to give shock and awe to the players, and allow myself to build interesting encounters, just like any DM could exchange the feats on a monster, or template something into obscurity. I use this to surprise them, keep them interested and unsure of what will come without having to homebrew monsters.


But, I play in a group of High/Mid-Op Laissez-Faire type of players with a High Op DM, we know all the books, we know all the material (generally) so reducing books would be infantile and lead to rebellion.




In Short: It all depends on how experienced players your group has, and how good you are at controlling encounters.

[ngilop]

I am very much against teh whole DM vs Player attitude, as that was (barring the first) earliest memeories as a player that I have. so sometimes i do find myself perhaps being too lenient on my players.

everybody in my group has been RPing for at least 15 years or so, except for the player complaining. SHe is relatively new to RPGs, she said she started her freshman year in college so.. like 2003 or 2004.

I have no idea why a player would want to have a monster manual with them at the table, and am suprised that well no I take that back.. well sort of. Im surpised that there are players who would refuse to play a game where the DM told them up front' Im going to use this book for this and this reason' but at the same time im not surpised as a particualr person is teh antithesis of me in terms of playstyle.

Relics and Rituals I could probabtl evetually be talked inot letting the player's use as the ritual magic. But then using a 3rd party book why would it be much different for me to use the Penumbral Lord as opposed to 'homebrewing' a replica of said PrC for use as a bad guy, such as the DMG on page 197 under the DESIGNING PRESTIGE CLASSES paragraph lines 4-7.

, so what is wrong about me using a book and a Prc ou of it and saying 'im using this for PrCs and a couple new spells as opposed to making a new PrC and spell and saying the same thing

in all, it seems as though this is a very decisive issue. with some seeing no harm in it at all, and others who refuse to even play.

I guess it boilds down to what ive found to be very common with people who satrted with 3rd ed and the whole "why is the DM telling me no, thats not allowed' mindset.

my other 6 players are upset that she ruined a game session for us and 2 of them have specifically aksed she not be re-invited to the rest of our game session.

SO im sorry but To me just becuase 1 person who feels that they should never be told No on anything is getting upset, im not going to trounce on my other 6 players. I am going to try to have a talk with her and see if we can come to an aggrement. but in the ned some of my D&D guys are real life friends and like i siad been gaming with them longer that she has been gaming period. just becuase one player throws a tantrum over some imagined 'slight'

[Verte]

Well, I don't really see a problem with using a sourcebook for different monsters or magic items and not disclosing it to the players. However, I wouldn't restrict them from reading the books between games - I wouldn't be able to, anyway. I wouldn't want them reading through monster manuals in the middle of a session, though. I also think it's fine to restrict players from playing certain creatures and using certain templates, while using them for NPCs - I mean, I would use an Erinyes or a Half-Fiend as an NPC, but I doubt I would allow them as PCs. Of course, they're both from the Monster Manual, so it's not quite the same.

Obviously, I wouldn't want the players to read an adventure I'm in the middle of running.

[Shadowknight12]

I think you should calm down and realise that you and her have different gaming styles. There's nothing wrong with that, so you should really stop feeling any sort of emotion towards her (anger, frustration, etc) because she's not really in the wrong, but neither are you.

Just tell her that that's how you prefer to play, and that you understand that she's not being unreasonable or illogical, but that you simply have different preferences. It's like you all like pepperoni on the pizza, but she likes anchovies. Would you get mad at her for that? Of course not! It's simply a matter of different tastes.

Now I'd recommend you to recommend to her to find herself another group so that she can have more fun (provided you are not willing to change your ways for her, which is also something entirely reasonable), and you guys can be the way you've always been. Remember to do this calmly and rational and emphasise the absence of hard feelings between her and everyone else.

[ngilop]

Shadowknight12, I was not the one cursing and slaming fists at the gaming table over not being allowed to have the relics & Rituals book, and the Creature Collection book. ( which I should say, allowed at the table, not allowed period as this might have come across to some people, how in the world can I as a human being, prevent soembody going out and buying a random book they want to purchase?

Im not upset, it sjust ive never expeirnced this before in real life. ( ive seen contless thread on GiTP about the whole " DM said no! tell me reason why he/she is wrong') let alone somebody who was so passionate about it they got visibly angry and on the brink of actual violence I think. ( idk nomrally fist slamming is teh lead in to some kind of physical altercation)

I know that my way of playing is dieing out, i have no qualsm about that, the new generation comes and goes. its the way of the world; the old fades out and the new fades in.

I knew that coming to GiTP was going to be leaning more towards her side of the story as the majority of GiTPers are of that sort of playstyle.

Me not allowing the PCs to be created with relic and ritual rules and using them msyelf is no different that me saying 'no LA+3 or higher races' then creating a a LA+3 NPC that is a LBEG (little big evil guy), or as you put it the whole pizza anology.

[Shadowknight12]

Me not allowing the PCs to be created with relic and ritual rules and using them msyelf is no different that me saying 'no LA+3 or higher races' then creating a a LA+3 NPC that is a LBEG (little big evil guy), or as you put it the whole pizza anology.

Yes, I know, I've been telling you that your playstyle is not wrong and that you do not have any obligation to conform to what she's saying or making any changes for her. What I am telling you is that you should encourage her to find another group, one that's closer to what she wants.

[ngilop]

what I ma saying is, sicne that is not different. would you refuse to play a game where (when) you found out the DM said that to the players?


to be more specific the MD says 'Nothing higher than LA+1 for your characters'

then you go on to find the bodygaurd is an Ogre Barbarian?

[Namfuak]

Shadowknight12, I was not the one cursing and slaming fists at the gaming table over not being allowed to have the relics & Rituals book, and the Creature Collection book. ( which I should say, allowed at the table, not allowed period as this might have come across to some people, how in the world can I as a human being, prevent soembody going out and buying a random book they want to purchase?

Im not upset, it sjust ive never expeirnced this before in real life. ( ive seen contless thread on GiTP about the whole " DM said no! tell me reason why he/she is wrong') let alone somebody who was so passionate about it they got visibly angry and on the brink of actual violence I think. ( idk nomrally fist slamming is teh lead in to some kind of physical altercation)

I know that my way of playing is dieing out, i have no qualsm about that, the new generation comes and goes. its the way of the world; the old fades out and the new fades in.

I knew that coming to GiTP was going to be leaning more towards her side of the story as the majority of GiTPers are of that sort of playstyle.

Me not allowing the PCs to be created with relic and ritual rules and using them msyelf is no different that me saying 'no LA+3 or higher races' then creating a a LA+3 NPC that is a LBEG (little big evil guy), or as you put it the whole pizza anology.

It seems a little silly to me to allow the monster manual at the table, but keep in mind that I am the same guy who keeps the adjusted statblocks of all the monsters I summon on my computer (though that's more for expediency than cheating, I make a point of not looking up monsters we fight until after we are done fighting them). It just seems to me like it would be sort of boring if the entire game was "Trolls have an AC of 20, I rolled a 20, I hit for 20 damage, next attack," rather than "I roll a 20," "Your axe strikes true, roll for damage," "20," "The troll cries out in pain as you follow through for your next attack." But, that's not to say that the player is wrong for wanting it this way (if a bit over-dramatic in her pursuit of rule changes).

[Shadowknight12]

what I ma saying is, sicne that is not different. would you refuse to play a game where (when) you found out the DM said that to the players?


to be more specific the MD says 'Nothing higher than LA+1 for your characters'

then you go on to find the bodygaurd is an Ogre Barbarian?

Yes, of course. I personally believe in fairness and equality in all things. Yes, all of them.

If the DM is using something they do not let me have access to, that's fine. I get to choose a book they are not allowed to use either. Dibs on Spell Compendium, I'm playing a caster headed for Triple 9s. Fair is fair, after all.

But that's my personal preference and I'm utterly irrelevant to you and your group.

[Lonely Tylenol]

to be more specific the MD says 'Nothing higher than LA+1 for your characters'

then you go on to find the bodygaurd is an Ogre Barbarian?

That depends. If the bodyguard something that they are fighting, or interacting with on a party/non-party basis, or the bodyguard is a lesser NPC whose interactions with the group are of marginal importance? No. It's the DM's role and responsibility to add life to the world, and sometimes that means creating characters of all types in the world that don't follow the LA rules that the party can interact with (it may be an all LA +0/+1 campaign, but it does not necessarily follow that everything the PCs interact with is an LA +0/+1 creature).

If the bodyguard is a DMPC? Worse yet, if the Ogre Barbarian doesn't obey RHD and LA rules, and has as many class levels as the Dwarf Barbarian? I don't think I'd refuse outright in the case of the former, but I'd be thinking about it in the latter. Suddenly, the DM is creating a PC, and that PC doesn't obey the rules that the PCs were asked to follow, so basically the DM just "gets" a character that is, by default, stronger than the other players (by default, the DM's race is stronger than any other player's race, and RHD is being ignored "just 'cause"), which means that the players, by default, need to have made better build choices just to keep up. This is symptomatic of a number of much bigger issues: Suddenly, entire concepts by the PCs are rendered obsolete by the fact that the DM can do the same thing better, and the game quickly devolves into "The Adventures of the DM's Mary Sue/Gary Stu and His/Her Intrepid Band of Spectators". Overleveled, templated, and high-RHD/LA (but also high class level) DMPCs are functionally equivalent to telling your PCs to roll 3d6 six times in order, and then deciding that your "just for story" Paladin hand-holder has max STR, CON and CHA, and enough WIS to cast all his spells, and yeah, I'd quit that game.

There's a difference between using content exclusive to the DM to build an immersive game world/environment, or an interesting challenge, and using that same exclusive content to cheat the players or just "be" better than them, which is that the latter is blatantly unfair to the players.

[dspeyer]

Players should have access to enough information to judge their actions well. A player with a druid should at least have access to the animal section of the monster manual. Turning into a lion because that's obviously better than a tiger and learning differently at negative hp isn't fun for anyone.

It's generally better to give book access than answer questions. I recall a game where the DM had secret rules about magic item costs and availability. Shopping took forever. And was one player at a time, so the rest of us sat there.

[eggynack]

To me it would really depend on the situation. If the DM is pulling out something that I wouldn't be able to do anyway from a book that I don't have access to, I suppose that would be fine. For example, if you find a neat monster from a source book with broken prc's, then it might be logical to restrict that aspect of the book. I think that anything that's available should be universally so though, so if a player wanted to use a polymorph effect to become that monster, then that player should be able to. I'd personally rather take refuge in obscurity then in an outright banning. Thus, if I wanted to create a weird monster, I'd just have one from a semi-obscure source book appear and not name it without a knowledge roll. You can put together something that the player doesn't expect without bannings.

[Verte]

what I ma saying is, sicne that is not different. would you refuse to play a game where (when) you found out the DM said that to the players?


to be more specific the MD says 'Nothing higher than LA+1 for your characters'

then you go on to find the bodygaurd is an Ogre Barbarian?

I'd still play in that game, and I don't have any problems with that. I mean, I assume he isn't an atrocious DMPC and the game wouldn't turn into "The Adventures of Krogg the Ogre Barbarian, with the PCs", so I don't see why not.


Yes, of course. I personally believe in fairness and equality in all things. Yes, all of them.

If the DM is using something they do not let me have access to, that's fine. I get to choose a book they are not allowed to use either. Dibs on Spell Compendium, I'm playing a caster headed for Triple 9s. Fair is fair, after all.

My main issue with this is that I don't think the DM's role is really similar to the players' roles. I mean, the DM gets to decide what the whole campaign setting looks like, but is it unfair that the players don't? If the DM decides that Asmodeus does indeed rule over the Nine Hells in his setting and could possibly be destroyed at the end of the campaign, is it unfair that the PCs don't get to play archdevils from day one? Is it unfair that the DM decides that there is an Asmodeus in his setting - what if the players want to decide that?

However, I do agree that if no one else in the OP's party has a problem with the way he runs the game, then the one player who does would probably be happiest finding a different group. I also agree that it's best to encourage her to do so in a calm fashion, especially if she wasn't so calm herself.

[Voyager_I]

Yes, of course. I personally believe in fairness and equality in all things. Yes, all of them.

If the DM is using something they do not let me have access to, that's fine. I get to choose a book they are not allowed to use either. Dibs on Spell Compendium, I'm playing a caster headed for Triple 9s. Fair is fair, after all.

But that's my personal preference and I'm utterly irrelevant to you and your group.

I know that this is merely the way you choose to play the game and you are not by any means attempting to impose your preferences on other people, but I disagree so strongly with the attitude displayed here that it seemed to warrant comment.

Equality and fairness are of paramount importance in competitions...but D&D is about telling a story, not winning. Victory, yes, but not over an evenly matched opponent in an impartial test of skill.

There has never been any assumption that players and NPCs will have access to the same resources. Many classic opponents are completely inappropriate for PC access and were never meant to be used on the far side of the DM screen, even if they come out of a source book that everyone has access too (like, say...the Core set). Since it's already practically a given that the players and the NPCs will not have access to the same material regardless of what book it lives in, I don't see why that is necessarily a huge distinction. Certainly, the DM shouldn't use this advantage to create unfair situations to kill their players (it's not an adversarial relationship), but a DM doesn't need to go splatbook diving to kill their party.


I will agree that all rules should be stated clearly to players before they join the game and everyone should have free access to all relevant information, even if that just means being informed that the DM may use material that originates outside the approved source books.

Was your problem player aware of the situation before she joined the table?

[eggynack]

I mean, the DM gets to decide what the whole campaign setting looks like, but is it unfair that the players don't?

I don't think this is a fair comparison. The DM has complete and total control of the setting and npc's. Within limits, the players have control of their character builds. The degree to which players have that control is up to the DM's discretion, but I prefer games where that degree is a large one insofar as it doesn't interfere with game balance. When a DM puts something in a campaign, he's implicitly stating that the thing exists, and it seems somewhat unfair for the players not to gain access to it in most cases.

[wadledo]

I sort of do something like that.

I allow everyone to use the SRD, the Completes, and the Races of books (assuming D&D 3.5), and then every player can choose one other book published by WotC (as long as it doesn't have an overwhelming abundance of things that don't work in the setting I'm planing, like saying No Outsiders and asking to use The Book of Exalted Deeds).
I am allowed to use any book, though I keep to my own rules unless there is a particular reason not to.

[Fyermind]

The level adjustment ruling I understand. I make it as a DM all the time.

"Hey guys we're starting at level X, so no races with ECL above Y" It makes sense. I also say "I have a collection of a lot of books, I've memorized most of them, and you can bet any monster that comes directly out of a common source, I expect you to know about, but most of my monsters have major alterations, usually in the form of different base ability scores, feats, rolled HD, class levels, flaws, templates, or whatever else I deem interesting."

I like it when my players come up with interesting ideas to improve the synergy of the team, so I let them look everywhere they want for it. As for books at the table, I have a open rulebook policy, but I use my own stats notes printed out before sessions for monsters so even I don't have books out unless someone asks a question I can't answer from memory.

Ultimately nobody's opinions matter on this topic but your players. It sounds like most of your players are happy. You have something to work out with this individual player. If you don't think it can be worked out, you have the unfortunate duty of asking them to leave. I doubt any of us here on the forum can work this conflict out for you.

[Shadowknight12]

My main issue with this is that I don't think the DM's role is really similar to the players' roles. I mean, the DM gets to decide what the whole campaign setting looks like, but is it unfair that the players don't?

Yes. I run cooperative campaign setting creation with my players, unless we agree to play in a premade setting like Eberron or Faerun. I find that players get REALLY into it, and keeps them invested in the game and the plot.


If the DM decides that Asmodeus does indeed rule over the Nine Hells in his setting and could possibly be destroyed at the end of the campaign, is it unfair that the PCs don't get to play archdevils from day one?

I don't know if that's unfair, as I don't really understand the question. I presume the DM and the players already pre-arrange what they'll be playing, so that question is irrelevant unless the players want to play archdevils. And if they want to play archdevils and the DM is fine with it, I fail to see how that's a bad campaign idea.


Is it unfair that the DM decides that there is an Asmodeus in his setting - what if the players want to decide that?

See above for what I usually do. I never subscribed to the "the campaign setting belongs to the DM" mentality. I think the campaign setting belongs to everyone at the table, and everyone involved should get a say in the place they'll be playing in.


However, I do agree that if no one else in the OP's party has a problem with the way he runs the game, then the one player who does would probably be happiest finding a different group. I also agree that it's best to encourage her to do so in a calm fashion, especially if she wasn't so calm herself.

Indeed.


I know that this is merely the way you choose to play the game and you are not by any means attempting to impose your preferences on other people, but I disagree so strongly with the attitude displayed here that it seemed to warrant comment.

Equality and fairness are of paramount importance in competitions...but D&D is about telling a story, not winning. Victory, yes, but not over an evenly matched opponent in an impartial test of skill.

I said "in all things." Equality is the most important thing to me in all human relations. It's not a practical matter, there isn't a reason or a goal with equality (as there is when it comes to competitions). It's a matter of principle to me, a deeply held belief that permeates all. I think we should all strive to stand as equals at all times. There might be times where it's impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Especially when it comes to a tabletop game, where there is no formal authority and nothing stands in the way of such an equality.


There has never been any assumption that players and NPCs will have access to the same resources. Many classic opponents are completely inappropriate for PC access and were never meant to be used on the far side of the DM screen, even if they come out of a source book that everyone has access too (like, say...the Core set). Since it's already practically a given that the players and the NPCs will not have access to the same material regardless of what book it lives in, I don't see why that is necessarily a huge distinction. Certainly, the DM shouldn't use this advantage to create unfair situations to kill their players (it's not an adversarial relationship), but a DM doesn't need to go splatbook diving to kill their party.

And I protest all of that. I protest everything that is one-sided and unequal. I always hated D&D's "this over here belongs to the players, this over there belongs to the DM" mentality and design philosophy. I also think that's why I like 3.5e the best, because it seems that's the edition where the lines are most blurred between both (fan fixes helped, though). Everything should be fair game for everyone. That's how I run my games, and that's the only thing I ask of DMs who want me to play with them. Equality and fairness.

[Verte]

I don't know if that's unfair, as I don't really understand the question. I presume the DM and the players already pre-arrange what they'll be playing, so that question is irrelevant unless the players want to play archdevils. And if they want to play archdevils and the DM is fine with it, I fail to see how that's a bad campaign idea.

Ok, to rephrase my question, what if the players are playing mortals and find out midway through the campaign that Asmodeus is a real force in the campaign setting when that had been previously unknown? Then, what if one player thinks it's unfair and wants to ditch his old human character in favor of an archdevil? I mean, I don't have anything against the idea of people playing archdevils, what I don't like is the idea that all of the creatures in the campaign setting should be equal in power to the PCs or else the DM is a tyrant.


See above for what I usually do. I never subscribed to the "the campaign setting belongs to the DM" mentality. I think the campaign setting belongs to everyone at the table, and everyone involved should get a say in the place they'll be playing in.

Personally, my concern with this system is there would be a certain lack of mystery - I usually like it better when the DM knows mysteries about the campaign setting that I don't. That way I can have character discover them and I'm also extra-motivated as a player. I mean, I also like hearing a new description of a place when my character arrives there and being able to find out about that place. Yes, I can roleplay those things anyway - and I would in a published setting - but one of the things I like about homebrew adventures and settings is that I can feel that sense of discovey and curiousity as a player, too.

Anyway, sorry for going off topic. And I understand that it works perfectly well for you.

[deuxhero]

...having him go Tippyverse on us...I would be less accepting of. That doesn't sound like what you're suggesting, though.

Tippyverse at its most basic only requires core stuff, it's where create food and water, traps, teleportation circles and Permanency are from.

[Shadowknight12]

Ok, to rephrase my question, what if the players are playing mortals and find out midway through the campaign that Asmodeus is a real force in the campaign setting when that had been previously unknown? Then, what if one player thinks it's unfair and wants to ditch his old human character in favor of an archdevil? I mean, I don't have anything against the idea of people playing archdevils, what I don't like is the idea that all of the creatures in the campaign setting should be equal in power to the PCs or else the DM is a tyrant.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. If I was the DM, I'd definitely work out a way for the PC to be able to play what he wants to play while still remaining equal to the rest of the party, because I'm the kind of DM to whom his first priority is that the players have fun. If something I introduced to the campaign just ruined a player's fun, I'd be very much inclined to fix that somehow and help them play what they really want to play. Having said that, I do understand where you're coming from, so I'll have to chuck it to "different playstyles."


Personally, my concern with this system is there would be a certain lack of mystery - I usually like it better when the DM knows mysteries about the campaign setting that I don't. That way I can have character discover them and I'm also extra-motivated as a player. I mean, I also like hearing a new description of a place when my character arrives there and being able to find out about that place. Yes, I can roleplay those things anyway - and I would in a published setting - but one of the things I like about homebrew adventures and settings is that I can feel that sense of discovey and curiousity as a player, too.

Anyway, sorry for going off topic. And I understand that it works perfectly well for you.

And to me, it's the opposite. I am a naturally suspicious and distrustful person, so I dislike surprises and mysteries. If I come across a mystery, I feel compelled to unravel it, or else I find myself on edge. I hate unknowns. They're treacherous and untrustworthy. How can I trust a DM if they're hiding things from me? How can I expect players to trust me if I'm hiding things from them?

Having said that, I'm DMing a game for a player who is exactly like you, and so we've worked out a deal where he helped with the creation of the campaign setting's geography, mythology and the like, but nothing on a more minute scale, so everything that's happening in the campaign is new to him, and since I'm aware of his love of discovering secrets and solving mysteries, I have piles upon piles of hidden things for him to find out. But that's because that's what he asked me, that's what's fun for him. Just because it's not what I'd like in a game doesn't mean I force my own tastes upon my players.

[LordBlades]

I personally like even playing fields. If there's a given ability in the world, PCs shouldn't be restricted from having access to it merely because they're PCs.

In-game restrictions, like 'this ability is exclusively taught by order X. If you want it, you either need to join order X, or somehow convince one of their members to teach you' are perfectly fine, but 'abilities from these books are NPC only, you can't have them because you're a PC' are not in my book.

[eggynack]

Ok, to rephrase my question, what if the players are playing mortals and find out midway through the campaign that Asmodeus is a real force in the campaign setting when that had been previously unknown? Then, what if one player thinks it's unfair and wants to ditch his old human character in favor of an archdevil? I mean, I don't have anything against the idea of people playing archdevils, what I don't like is the idea that all of the creatures in the campaign setting should be equal in power to the PCs or else the DM is a tyrant.



Personally, my concern with this system is there would be a certain lack of mystery - I usually like it better when the DM knows mysteries about the campaign setting that I don't. That way I can have character discover them and I'm also extra-motivated as a player. I mean, I also like hearing a new description of a place when my character arrives there and being able to find out about that place. Yes, I can roleplay those things anyway - and I would in a published setting - but one of the things I like about homebrew adventures and settings is that I can feel that sense of discovey and curiousity as a player, too.

Anyway, sorry for going off topic. And I understand that it works perfectly well for you.

I think the problem here is that you're conflating in game issues with meta-game issues. The dm isn't denying the player access to archdevils because they don't fit the setting the dm is trying to create, he's denying them class abilities because he wants certain abilities to be surprising, and wants them under his purview. I think that the first thing is acceptable, while the second would annoy me in a manner proportional to how much I wanted to use the books in question. Certain aspects of the game are up to the DM to decide, and certain aspects are up to the players. I think that if an npc in a game has levels in an obscure prestige class, that means that the class should be open to everyone.

[molten_dragon]

Shadowknight12, I was not the one cursing and slaming fists at the gaming table over not being allowed to have the relics & Rituals book, and the Creature Collection book. ( which I should say, allowed at the table, not allowed period as this might have come across to some people, how in the world can I as a human being, prevent soembody going out and buying a random book they want to purchase?

Im not upset, it sjust ive never expeirnced this before in real life. ( ive seen contless thread on GiTP about the whole " DM said no! tell me reason why he/she is wrong') let alone somebody who was so passionate about it they got visibly angry and on the brink of actual violence I think. ( idk nomrally fist slamming is teh lead in to some kind of physical altercation)

It certainly sounds like she's overreacting. I personally think not allowing your players to use all of the same books you use is unfair, and I'd be a bit upset at a DM that did things that way, but I'm not even sure I'd leave the game over it, let alone throw a temper tantrum. I would simply tell her that those are the rules you and the rest of the group are comfortable with, and if she can't handle that, it's probably best for all involved that she simply find another group, because it doesn't sound like you (or she) will enjoy playing in yours. It's not the end of the world. I've had it happen to me as both a player and a DM.