DM Says Core + Splats Make “A Different Game” [Archive]

Trunamer

2013-03-10, 01:36 PM

I and half my group are super steamed after this Friday’s game. When the campaign started back in June, **** our DM wanted it to be core-only because...well, I forget. He said something about the scout’s skirmish ability being unrealistic by way of explanation. But we talked him out of it because jeez, it was 2012 already and I’ve played core to death! So about half of us make core PCs, and the other half use splat classes. Yay!

Fast forward to this past Friday...

The party is fighting a small horde of undead, including two wraiths, beside a subterranean river of lava. The psion gets cornered at the river’s edge, and then killed. Bummer, second death of the campaign! Bob the psion’s player cracks a joke about toppling backward into the lava so the wraith can’t respawn him, and **** seems to like the idea so it happens. No res, no problem, Bob says. He’s been wanting to try a crusader concept. To which **** replies “Core only from now on.”

For a moment, we all could have heard a pin drop...and then the shouting began. Apparently **** has decided that splats make 3.5 into “a different game,” whatever that means. He suggested that Bob play a paladin instead, which got a “I don’t want to play Dudley Dumbass Do-Right-or-Fall!” shout in response. Pretty soon we were all arguing and yelling, backing up **** or Bob.

Dick’s new rule is this: those of us with non-core characters are grandfathered in...at least until we die. If and when that happens, our new characters have to be core. In response I...said some things I probably shouldn’t have. But really, how is it that **** can pull monsters out of any monster manual or out of his butt (which he’s done several times) and everything’s D&D as usual -- but God and Gygax forbid we get to play anything new and interesting!

Anyway, the night ended prematurely with Bob threatening to start and run a new campaign the right way. And me? I’m considering leaving the whole gaming scene. I don’t have time to DM, I don’t think Bob has the attention span for despite his good intentions, and every DM I meet has some half-baked reason to disallow this or that, or is all nazi about multiclassing, or has crazy house ruled death-from-massive-damage and critical fumble rules. Or something bogus and unfun. Oh, and virtual gaming just doesn’t do it for me.

The Short Version: My DM has decided that supplemental stuff makes 3.5 “a different game,” and now our group is split down the middle because half of us are sick of core. I don’t have other viable game options.

So, I dunno...thanks for reading along, and what would you do?

Edit: Wow, the language filter doesn't like the shorthand of Richard. Guess it kinda mirrors my feelings at the moment though.

ericgrau

2013-03-10, 01:39 PM

I'm always in favor of core + case by case acceptance of splats. Most splats provide wonderful new options that keep the game interesting, which is what you are fighting for. A few options trump the others and make them not worth taking. I'd suggest that he simply disallow those, and let you have the rest.

If power creep becomes a pain he could start increasing popular spells by 1 spell level and maybe increase the price/pre-reqs of magic items and feats by a little too. But even if he allowed 95% of things as-is without any cost bump and disallowed 5% of splat material, it would alleviate both his concerns and yours.

Basically anything you see on optimization boards 10,000 times is out. While the other 80-90% that sounds really neat & fun but no TO ever uses because it's sub-optimal is in. If unsure, use core as the baseline for comparison.

This takes some DM work, but if he's experienced it should be fine. If he doesn't have that much experience with splats I'd suggest throwing him a bone and letting him do core only for a little while then expand later. So he can get his bearings.

Daftendirekt

2013-03-10, 01:45 PM

{Scrubbed}

ericgrau

2013-03-10, 01:48 PM

Well "broken core" managed to stay unmentioned for about 2 posts. Presumably anyone who is such a stickler wouldn't allow the craziest things from core either. Heck half of those are infinite loops or such that no sane DM would allow regardless. Power creep that doesn't shatter the universe, as is more often found in splats, has a far better chance of sneaking in.

That's why I say "case by case", since there's a lot of common sense required and way way too many things to make a ruling on ahead of time. I'm being intentionally fuzzy on the solution, and a lot of that applies to adjudicating core too. But while he can't be expected to declare full rules ahead of time, he should at least resolve all build issues after your characters are made yet before they are set in stone. Surprise nerfs in the middle of battle are Not Fun.

Answerer

2013-03-10, 01:49 PM

I think it's atrocious DMing and indicative that he does not understand the system well enough to be DMing it. Not sure how that helps you though.

Gerrtt

2013-03-10, 01:50 PM

Eh...you have to remember that while it's ultimately your group's game the DM does get the final say on the matter. Unfortunate, because core only is rife with its own problems, but it is your DM's call.

That said, you mention in your post that you don't have time to DM. I take that to mean you recognize that even crummy DMing does take some time, effort, and planning, especially when compared to simply playing in the game. I mean, really, take what you spend creating your awesome character build and gear wishlist and multiply that by...well, a lot. The DM has enough on their plate without having to manage the 30 splatbooks the 5 players at the table want to utilize, but many still do allow a lot.

I hear see that you're frustrated and that you and your friends want to play a certain way. Nothing wrong with that.

I also see that your DM is frustrated and wants to play a certain way. Nothing inherently wrong with that either.

If you don't want to play the way your DM wants then you either need to a) play the way the DM wants (especially if nobody else will DM) while trying to reach a compromise point or b) run your own game the way you want. You said half the group wants one way and half wants the other, so why not just have two groups? Or your main group playing the way the DM wants and a subgroup where you play the way you want, and maybe you run pre-generated modules or something so you don't have to invest as much time into DMing.

Answerer

2013-03-10, 01:52 PM

Eh...you have to remember that while it's ultimately your group's game the DM does get the final say on the matter. Unfortunate, because core only is rife with its own problems, but it is your DM's call.
Actually, it was the group's call. But changing the rules in the middle of the game is just incredibly poor form. And stuff like "what kind of game should we play?" is a matter of consensus, not DM fiat.

Ultimately, if he refuses to play other than Core only, and the players refuse to play Core only, there's no game. But neither of them is "wrong" and neither of them is "entitled" to any kind of "extra" say. Everyone should be in agreement about the style of game.

Gerrtt

2013-03-10, 01:57 PM

No argument there; changing the rules in mid-game without discussion is bad form.

I do maintain that it's the DM's choice to play run the rules the way they want. It's incredibly jerky to not consider your players, but the players have just as much right to not be players as the DM does in making choices about the rules.

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-10, 02:12 PM

Me? I'd leave and form another group from scratch. Yes, it takes time, but it can be done.

On the one hand I'm very pro-DM, and if the DM has reasons for disallowing some stuff, so be it. He is putting in 10x the work that the players are (I am the DM for my group; a large chunk of my free time is spent fiddling around with D&D stuff and spawning ideas).

That said, I think DM's that go Core Only are pretty much crap. Find some middle ground. Core + Completes is a decent compromise that doesn't fundamentally alter the game with new subsystems, but gives the players a chance to try something they haven't played five times already.

I'm currently running a homebrew viking world, and things like psionics, incarnum, and tome of battle just didn't fit conceptually with the world I'm creating, so I set the rule of "no subsystems," and left it at that. Pretty much everything else is in, with the exception of a few broken things. I've had several players tell me it's the most fun they've had with D&D ever.

That said, if I were running any other setting than this one (FR, Eberron, generic D&D adventure path world), I'd have no problem allowing the things I bar in my viking game.

TL;DR: I think the DM should have some greater control over what is allowed, but I think Core Only is crap, especially changing it mid-game. I'd leave and form a new group.

Answerer

2013-03-10, 02:18 PM

Tome of Battle fits Vikings extremely well, in my opinion. I really strongly disagree with not allowing subsystems; subsystems are what make 3.5 interesting, and Tome of Battle's, in particular, is important for giving a subsystem to those who did not have one before.

Gnome Alone

2013-03-10, 02:38 PM

Tome of Battle fits Vikings extremely well, in my opinion.
Oh, definitely. With like a few minutes worth of refluffing.
And probably w/o the more magical swordsage stuff.
Now I wanna roll a viking warblade.

Rejusu

2013-03-10, 02:39 PM

While I support that the DM gets the final say, being DM is not a license to be a tyrannical dictator. A good DM discusses things with his or her players. And when it comes to changing a game in progress, that's absolutely not acceptable without prior player consent. It's fine to say you want to run a core only game, or an Eberron game, or whatever before you start. Because it's up to your players whether that's the kind of game they want to play in. Change it part way through and suddenly none of them are playing the game they signed up to.

DMs do put more work in (at least most do), and as players we should be grateful for that. But at the end of the day everyone is putting their time and effort in to have fun. Which means as a DM you should be considerate of that fact. You have control of the game, but there are boundaries and it's your players game as much as it is your own. A DM needs players, and players need a DM. Both should be respectful of the other.

As usual Uncle Ben sums things up perfectly:
"With great power, comes great responsibility"

My advice is calm down, and have a one to one with your DM with no raised voices. Let him know your feelings on the matter and try to come to a compromise. Failing that, leave. It's only a game and if it's boring you or stressing you out it's not worth it. Take a break, and hope you can find a better DM in future.

My own personal thoughts:

I've read a lot of these stories and I really have no idea where you find these DMs. Maybe I'm just really lucky, all my DMs have been fairly relaxed. I also think that Core-only for whatever reason is incredibly stupid. People that restrict it to core for "balance" purposes have no grasp of the concept, since the PHB is about 50/50 3.5s most overpowered and most underpowered. I mean Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are still ridiculous without their splatbooks and all the rest suffer horribly without them.

As for restricting it for any other reason? I'm just really not sure why you would. The attraction of 3.5 for me is in the wealth of material available for it. Creating a new character is like diving into a fabulous mound of treasure with hidden gems just waiting to be discovered. I've still probably barely scratched the surface of the official material. Take that away and you may as well just go play another system.

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-10, 02:45 PM

Tome of Battle fits Vikings extremely well, in my opinion.

We can agree to disagree. Healing strikes, swords shooting fire, and perfected sword forms are the antithesis of what I was going for.

That said, my campaign is a gestalt world, so it's not like my players don't have enough options.

Answerer

2013-03-10, 02:51 PM

We can agree to disagree. Healing strikes, swords shooting fire, and perfected sword forms are the antithesis of what I was going for.

That said, my campaign is a gestalt world, so it's not like my players don't have enough options.
You just described two out of nine disciplines. Iron Heart is all super-aggressive, don't-back-down, don't-let-him-rest, and Tiger Claw is literally about trying to imitate a tiger with the crazy whirlwind of death. Most of Devoted Spirit, and all of White Raven, are about being a champion on the battlefield, a commanding presence that rallies your troops and demoralizing your opponents. And Stone Dragon is just about standing your ground and crushing your enemies.

The single greatest apparent source of inspiration for these disciplines seems to be Conan the Barbarian. Not a Viking, per se, but quite similar.

Desert Wind and Shadow Hand don't fit, and Setting Sun probably doesn't, but those are all from the Swordsage, one of the three classes. And if, say, Monk fits, then Swordsage does; it's just that Monk is unlikely for Vikings though.

JusticeZero

2013-03-10, 03:03 PM

I partly agree with your GM, while completely sympathizing with both you and him. On the fundamental "Splats change the game" I am in full agreement. Everything you add to the game has effects on the rest of the world. Unlimited extra material can make a world absolutely insane with potential complexity and issues, and it can be a really frustrating thing to track. Every variation will need its own support system in the world and the layered supports and effects get chaotic.

However, I also agree with you that core gets really boring after awhile.

I propose a different idea. Wind down your current campaign. Do a bit of group consensus worldbuilding. Build a world with limited classes and enemies and such. But the classes and material you will be using will be mostly non-core. For example, you might try a world using the Psionic rules. But don't just schlep a psion in here and there. BAN ARCANE AND DIVINE SPELLCASTING ALTOGETHER. Fighter, rogue, psion, vitalist, psychic warrior, etc. are going to be your core classes for this. You'll have a totally different game, and everything will be fresh and new, without having to cede the world to the chaos of an unlimited variety of classes and campaign elements.

You can do the same thing with different books. Maybe everything is Incarnam or some such oddness. The point is to agree to keep the world to a tight thematic set of rules, but to change up what character mixes are available away from the traditional core.

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-10, 03:05 PM

And if, say, Monk fits, then Swordsage does; it's just that Monk is unlikely for Vikings though.

I did fail to mention I don't allow monks either. Nor any eastern-culture classes. There simply are no cultures that would produce them.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. If I were running an OA game, I'd be recommending ToB to my players. If I were running the basic adventure path leading to the Bastion of Broken Souls, I'd allow pretty much anything.

When ToB came out, I wrestled with the idea of allowing it for this world, or not. I ultimately decided it didn't fit.

They still have access to 90% of all of generic 3.5, and a good chunk of FR material, though race choices a quite limited. (It is a humanocentric world, with cosmology matching that of Norse myth).

My players knew this when they signed on, and several of them have repeatedly told me they are having a great time. Sure doesn't seem like a problem, does it?

Answerer

2013-03-10, 03:07 PM

I did fail to mention I don't allow monks either. Nor any eastern-culture classes. There simply are no cultures that would product them.
Yes, I acknowledged that they probably don't fit.

There's not really a problem, but I would have objected quite strongly were I one of your players. It sounds like an interesting campaign, but without Tome of Battle you really shaft warriors. Which seems to defeat the purpose of a Viking theme in the first place.

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-10, 03:14 PM

... but without Tome of Battle you really shaft warriors. Which seems to defeat the purpose of a Viking theme in the first place.

Gestalt game. The Barb//Mage doesn't seem to be complaining. Nor is the Rogue//Fighter/Swashbuckler with double hit and Robilar's Gambit.

Besides, none of my players even owned Tome of Battle when they joined my game.

Greenish

2013-03-10, 03:19 PM

Oh, oh, I know a subsystem that really doesn't fit into a viking world: vancian casting.

JusticeZero

2013-03-10, 03:33 PM

Heh. So what system (not (s) ) would work better to replace it with, would you say? If you were to rip out the entire spellcaster core out as "omg please don't make me have to do this yet again" and drop another of the developed systems in in its place? It wouldn't surprise me to discover that there are more than one.

This is a thing that has always gotten me. All these splats and extra books are there to create more options for worldbuilding. The core was designed around a very specific world design. It's a good world design, but we've all done it to death. So people have come up with a whole bunch of alternatives.. and people try to insert them all in on top of each other instead of exploring them fully. I find that inserting a touch of minimalism actually makes things a lot better in a lot of ways, something that people can appreciate once they see it in action.
It's like GURPS. Just because Magic, Time travel, and Space splats are on the bookshelf doesn't mean it's appropriate for your gritty detective campaign to have blasters and spells. but that cuts both ways. Firearm rules are core, and you don't give them to your wizards in a bronze age game.

dascarletm

2013-03-10, 03:35 PM

ZamielVanWeber

2013-03-10, 03:40 PM

Banning core tends to solve far more problems that it creates, the biggest one being power discrepancy. If you remove psionics as well (easily done) then you end up with far less power discrepancy between classes (and thus more fun overall for everyone).

Story

2013-03-10, 03:44 PM

it's just that Monk is unlikely for Vikings though.

They did have a tendency to raid monasteries though. Perhaps they realized how underpowered Monks are. :smallbiggrin:

Greenish

2013-03-10, 03:48 PM

Thebar99

2013-03-10, 03:55 PM

Your DM is right. Non core is an entirely different game... a better one, in which you can potentially field something that isn't a full spellcaster without wasting everyone's time. If your DM isn't interested in that, you shouldn't be interested in him, and if you cannot find a better alternative (and make no mistake, there's almost nowhere to go but up as the only way he could possibly be any worse is if he likes Pathfinder) no D&D is better than bad D&D.

Or you can try your friend. Even if he doesn't have the attention span to make it last you could at least get something out of it?

But really, finding good D&D players is like winning the lotto. Good luck. You'll need it.

JusticeZero

2013-03-10, 04:00 PM

Just add a couple of powers to fix the relevant status effects and whatever, modeled after the relevant spells. You can practically do it ad hoc; if you encounter a hole that needs fixing, assume that someone has figured how to fix it, create the power to fix it, and drop it on the list. If psionically powered mummies are corrupting people and giving them horrid diseases, and psi is the only powerset, obviously there will be some psions who research counters; the same goes for any of the other systems in use.

Plus, you don't really need to be throwing the entire MM around randomly. Just a few well-chosen monsters placed appropriately can keep everybody busy well into epic levels. If your first problem is a gnoll empire being manipulated by evil outsiders, then really what are you going to be fighting? Gnolls, then gnolls with class levels, then devils or demons. You'll be so busy dealing with standardized classed gnoll warriors, warlocks, and assassins for quite awhile that you'll never really notice that you haven't run across any shambling mounds, mind flayers, or whatever. They are not only irrelevant, they might not even be present - and they aren't going to be missed, because the players are busy fighting the legions of the BBE.

Gnome Alone

2013-03-10, 04:03 PM

a subsystem that really doesn't fit into a viking world: vancian casting.

Ha... Vancian casting is pretty weird, really. Where does it fit besides "Generic D&D Land"? Tis a strange way for magic to behave.

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-10, 04:08 PM

But really, finding good D&D players is like winning the lotto. Good luck. You'll need it.

Amen to that! Two years ago I had three players; one good, two bad. The two bad ones flaked out. Over the next four weeks the remaining player and I recruited three FANTASTIC players, and I wouldn't trade them for the world.

My advice, don't be afraid to be discriminating. A bad player can ruin the fun for everyone. Getting a full group of good players is hard, but SOOOOO worth it.

Elricaltovilla

2013-03-10, 04:10 PM

(and make no mistake, there's almost nowhere to go but up as the only way he could possibly be any worse is if he likes Pathfinder)

That's a pretty harsh opinion. I'm very fond of pathfinder, I think it's done a lot to improve some of the classes from 3.5 (less for others, but that's a debate I don't really care for).

Anyway, to help OP out: There are places on the internet you can go to look for people in your area that play D&D. Off the top of my head there's r/lookingforgroup, I think.

Heck you could probably just google "D&D 3.5 games in (insert city here)"

Darrin

2013-03-10, 04:10 PM

Greenish

2013-03-10, 04:18 PM

Ha... Vancian casting is pretty weird, really. Where does it fit besides "Generic D&D Land"? Tis a strange way for magic to behave.The Dying Earth?

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-10, 04:27 PM

Plus, you don't really need to be throwing the entire MM around randomly. Just a few well-chosen monsters placed appropriately can keep everybody busy well into epic levels. If your first problem is a gnoll empire being manipulated by evil outsiders, then really what are you going to be fighting? Gnolls, then gnolls with class levels, then devils or demons. You'll be so busy dealing with standardized classed gnoll warriors, warlocks, and assassins for quite awhile that you'll never really notice that you haven't run across any shambling mounds, mind flayers, or whatever. They are not only irrelevant, they might not even be present - and they aren't going to be missed, because the players are busy fighting the legions of the BBE.

Really good point here. I don't ever use randomized random encounters. I use planned "random" encounters. One-third of all the encounters my players face are somehow related to trolls (some variety of troll, or something made with the Half-troll template). That's just what fits best. Most other encounters are fey, humans, or the occasional fiend.

For a long while they were fighting a Tanarukk army (tanarukk reflavored as demon-trolls, not demon-orcs). With the exception of a few encounters while traversing the world, almost all their encounters were tanarukk, fiendish and half-fiend trolls, and two fiends. That plot arch took them from 6th level to 12th.

Now we are moving to a few new plot archs, but they've not felt unfulfilled that they haven't killed any Mindflayers and other odd things that have no basis in scandinavian folklore.

Kasbark

2013-03-10, 04:28 PM

JusticeZero

2013-03-10, 04:37 PM

I rarely ever get an impression that "power creep" is the problem with non-core stuff, except for when people find ways to go crazy with synergy effects of some sort and start having long lists of PRC levels from widely varying sources. For me, the problem has always been that every element that players add on their characters increases my workload as a GM. Core only is a manageable but still very hefty amount of variation. It's well explored, because it's core. If I start chunking in a bunch of splats, I have a heavy research load to prep every session. I can totally sympathize with a GM saying "Core only, it will cut down on MY prep time."

But i'm sick of "core only" too. The absolute boringness of yet another bite of "Core Only" is why I stopped playing DnD a long time ago for years.

Quite some time back, I tried running some games where I restricted the class selection; I did so because characters were descended from people on one boat and I just simply did not have ROOM for the support structures for a whole bunch of classes on that one island. Likewise, there were only a few monsters. I just didn't have ROOM for the whole MM on one island the size of Kaua'i.

Lo and behold, the players had a great time, and my prep got a LOT EASIER. But people moved away and next two games were "Whole core.." and the difference was big. And burnout from "Oh no, yet another vancian wizard, and another cleric, and.." slammed me HARD and I quit playing DnD entirely.

So one day i'm looking through a splat or two in a bookstore and I realize "Wow, you could run a whole campaign out of the stuff in this. Fleshing out the holes would be easier than patching the overflow from trying to explain four different kinds of power rules in one group."

So, I am only returning because of the promise of building my games to run around a limited selection of NON-CORE stuff. And lo and behold, there actually is a WHOLE LOT of fleshed out game mechanics that I can use as an alternative. Presumably others feel the same. I can make the whole world feel different by slashing out huge parts of the standard rules that we're all sick of, and refilling the holes with the sort've rules that players have been wanting to play to get away from playing "Cleric #192". AND, by restricting and focusing what exists, I can make the game feel fresh and new while making my GMing duties much easier and less frustrating at the same time.

ScrambledBrains

2013-03-10, 04:47 PM

I would not mind it at all.

But i guess thats because i don't really care what class i play. If the GM spends all the time and effort it takes to run a good game, he should be allowed to decide which material it's OK to use.

Not to be rude, but the DM deciding on the material used isn't the issue at hand here.

The issue is that he changed what material is allowed half-way through the campaign, which is generally frowned upon, in a severe way.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-03-10, 05:15 PM

The party is fighting a small horde of undead, including two wraiths, beside a subterranean river of lava. The psion gets cornered at the river’s edge, and then killed. Bummer, second death of the campaign! Bob the psion’s player cracks a joke about toppling backward into the lava so the wraith can’t respawn him, and **** seems to like the idea so it happens. No res, no problem, Bob says. He’s been wanting to try a crusader concept. To which **** replies “Core only from now on.”The DM should have told you guys that he wanted to play core from now on before a player death led to the moment of needing to draw up a new character. Especially if the cause of death was partially motivated by wanting to play a non-core class.

But really, how is it that **** can pull monsters out of any monster manual or out of his butt (which he’s done several times) and everything’s D&D as usual -- but God and Gygax forbid we get to play anything new and interesting!Because he's the DM.

The Short Version: My DM has decided that supplemental stuff makes 3.5 “a different game,” It does. If books didn't add new material, they hopefully wouldn't be published and profitable.

prufock

2013-03-10, 05:24 PM

So the DM imposed some arbitrary rules halfway through the game without consulting the group. Group has an outburst of emotional overreaction.

Solution: Everybody apologizes for being a Richard, and move on. If Bob wants to run his own game, he should do that and you can join his game. Give him a chance, at least, it might work. You can do what my group does and rotate GMs each week if your current DM still wants to game.

JusticeZero

2013-03-10, 05:27 PM

Right, have you talked to him to discern exactly what about it being "a different game" is the issue? Because there's different-good, and different-bad, and same-good and same-bad, and you want to help work toward having all *-good for everyone.

If the GM isn't having fun, you have no game. For me, having to deal with too much material at once is not fun.. and dealing with "core only" isn't fun either.

But your GM might be yearning to make the setting FEEL a certain way, instead of being overwhelmed, or some other reason. Maybe they feel like they do not understand some of the things people are doing or some other reason.

You'll never know unless you ask, genuinely ask and draw out more detail and actually listen to the answer, instead of arguing. Don't argue, don't try to convince them of anything, just focus on trying to understand what exactly they are feeling when they say "a different game".

In return, they might not understand why you are objecting.. which sounds like the same as with me, "burned out on the same-old core again".

Gnome Alone

2013-03-10, 05:50 PM

JusticeZero, you're consistently making so much sense that I'm not sure you're allowed to be on the Internet.

Threadnaught

2013-03-10, 05:52 PM

On the one hand Core only shouldn't get old before a long time if the DM knows how to keep their players interested. The depth of the game increases dramatically with splats, so much so that yes, it is different, but only as different as the DM allows it to be.
Your DM doesn't seem to understand this and his decision seems unfair.

However if he doesn't own any "scary" splats, do remember that they are very expensive and that while he may be responsible for the game, he's not responsible for buying every splat everyone else wants to use.

Thebar99

2013-03-10, 05:56 PM

{Scrubbed}

Story

2013-03-10, 06:22 PM

However if he doesn't own any "scary" splats, do remember that they are very expensive and that while he may be responsible for the game, he's not responsible for buying every splat everyone else wants to use.

At the very least, that should allow the SRD/OGL material (like Psions) and WOTC's web articles.

Deathra13

2013-03-10, 06:57 PM

Ok so here are my thoughts on this, yes its absolutely bad form to just ban without any discussion, and going core only is just absolutely insane, Ive dmed a decent amount and Ive always run on a case by case basis, but that does create a lot more work for dms and I understand why many dont do it.

As for the claim it becomes a different game, in some cases I agree with him, tome of battle shifts things closer to 4e with its, per eno****er and meditate for 1 round to regain functions. Much of 3rd party are major game changers, "Feats" gives a wizard a feat that gives them access to literally every spell list.

Reserve Feats also change things when you go into the completes. However this also makes the casters feel a little more functional in the early game without as much optimization.

As for advice, here are the possibilities as I see them.

1. Get everyone together away from the game table in somewhere more neutral and discuss sime form of compromise, if niether side will budge then move onto the next one.

2. Try and get together a different group or if the group really wants to stay together talk Richard into giving up the screen for a while and get one of the others to run it.

3. (warning this is incredibly petty). Ask the dm how it is a different game, agree to play core only and either create something that causeshis exact problem with noncore, or just build something as broken as possible, making sure the dm having restricted you to core at least agrees not to ban or limit Anything in it.

Xerxus

2013-03-10, 07:03 PM

Maybe he doesn't want any ToB maneuvers, essentia shenanigans or overwhelming amounts of PrCs. I can relate to that. But stating it immediately after a PC death is not the right way. He should have said it earlier.

Rejusu

2013-03-10, 07:21 PM

I would not mind it at all.

But i guess thats because i don't really care what class i play. If the GM spends all the time and effort it takes to run a good game, he should be allowed to decide which material it's OK to use.

That's a bad attitude to take, you might not care what class you play. But that doesn't mean the other players in your group don't care. Secondly D&D groups are collectives, not dictatorships. While the DM is the leader, and you should listen to him, it doesn't translate to absolute power. If he's actively not making the game fun for some players then that's not okay.

Also as others have mentioned the problem is less that he's deciding the material that's okay to use, he's changing it mid-game. That was a decision the DM and his players came to and he's just overturned it without even consulting them. Absolutely not cool. It's called bait and switch, and it's frowned on wherever you go.

I rarely ever get an impression that "power creep" is the problem with non-core stuff, except for when people find ways to go crazy with synergy effects of some sort and start having long lists of PRC levels from widely varying sources. For me, the problem has always been that every element that players add on their characters increases my workload as a GM. Core only is a manageable but still very hefty amount of variation. It's well explored, because it's core. If I start chunking in a bunch of splats, I have a heavy research load to prep every session. I can totally sympathize with a GM saying "Core only, it will cut down on MY prep time."

This is why when I want to play a character I sit down with the DM and go through it. What mechanics it uses and what it will be doing. I do the research and just give them my notes. Of course you have to trust that your players won't intentionally mislead you, but otherwise it works for the most part.

As for the support systems... I agree to an extent. However I think that it can generally be bodged in a satisfactory fashion. Refluff things so they fit, use transparency so you don't have awkward moments when the Psion can't detect anything, and for the most part sort it out in advance. If you want to build a world to your specifications, yes you're going to have issues when people come to the table with stuff that doesn't fit.

However that doesn't preclude you from making it fit. If you get this information at character creation time you won't have extra workload when it comes to prepping a session, because you'll have ironed out the details already.

Really it just comes down to communication with your players.

Ronnoc

2013-03-10, 07:35 PM

Speaking as a DM who is fond of worldbuilding I can sympathize with banning splats, it's a headache to make everything fit. That said if he allowed splats at the start of the campaign he shouldn't change it mid-way through. I always have found that using non-core material, whether splat books or homebrew works best on a case by case basis.

Gnome Alone

2013-03-10, 07:47 PM

The Dying Earth?

That's Jack Vance, right? I hear-tell that D&D's "Vancian casting" does not work quite that way even in the writings of Vance himself, but never having read any, I don't know. But I done hear-tell it.

Dsurion

2013-03-10, 07:57 PM

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Play a different system.

Get everyone on board to play something you've never played before so no one has to argue or complain about 3.x Core-Only.

Or if it's bad enough that your gaming group can't compromise over a game that's supposed to be for your enjoyment, then take a break. It won't kill you.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-03-10, 08:06 PM

This is why when I want to play a character I sit down with the DM and go through it. What mechanics it uses and what it will be doing. I do the research and just give them my notes. Of course you have to trust that your players won't intentionally mislead you, but otherwise it works for the most part.
Seriously, this. I admit that it requires you to (gasp!) trust your players (No! We can't! The dirty little cheaters, they hurts us!) but that shouldn't be a problem. It requires a little more time at set-up, but you (as DM) don't need to know every psionic power if a player wants to be a psion; you just need to have an idea what the player can do.

ZamielVanWeber

2013-03-10, 08:57 PM

Answerer

2013-03-10, 09:01 PM

Rejusu

2013-03-10, 09:01 PM

On the flip side that can badly increase the time it takes for the DM to get started; even a non-optimizer cannot resist a dip to get the 1-2 class features they wanted. Do they 1-2 times and things can rapidly get painful, especially when spell casting is involved. It is a trade off. The easiest solution is to make sure you have a few knowledgeable, trust-worthy people in your group.

Also why I make reference sheets for my characters and give the DM a copy. Can hardly complain about not knowing my capabilities when he has a complete breakdown of my character in front of him.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-03-10, 09:06 PM

Also why I make reference sheets for my characters and give the DM a copy. Can hardly complain about not knowing my capabilities when he has a complete breakdown of my character in front of him.

Heck, it's a good thing to have just for your own benefit. If you have pdfs, print the relevant pages and stick 'em in a binder. If you have hardcopies, go to the library and make copies. Then you can have a nice binder with progressively more detailed summaries (your sheet, a brief reference page, and the actual text, so RAW is available without having to go bookdiving). I'm doing that for my character in my current game and it's saved me a lot of effort so far.

ZamielVanWeber

2013-03-10, 09:07 PM

Also why I make reference sheets for my characters and give the DM a copy. Can hardly complain about not knowing my capabilities when he has a complete breakdown of my character in front of him.

I also tend to have a assistant I trust implicitly to help out and make my players keep a copy of their sheet at all times. Still a pain with new or sneaky people.

danzibr

2013-03-10, 09:07 PM

What, is he afraid the splat books make an imbalance in power or something? Read the comment on tiers in my sig.

Yahzi

2013-03-10, 09:27 PM

That said, I think DM's that go Core Only are pretty much crap....

I'm currently running a homebrew viking world, and things like psionics, incarnum, and tome of battle just didn't fit conceptually with the world I'm creating
So even while you run your own campaign with a ruthless restriction to source material for conceptual reasons, you still feel the need to say that anyone else who does so is "pretty much crap." That seems a little... confusing.

I like old-school style games, but I'm not much of a fan of the old rules. So for me Core only results in a 2ED game that requires less DM fiat. Does that make me crap?

Elricaltovilla

2013-03-10, 09:51 PM

Harsh yet true. You can assess someone's judgment by their interests. There are things, such as liking inherently flawed systems that are classic noob tells. That, much like core only is a warning sign you should avoid.

Trolls have regeneration that's overcome by fire and acid right? Because i think there's one loose in the playground.

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-10, 09:53 PM

So even while you run your own campaign with a ruthless restriction to source material for conceptual reasons, you still feel the need to say that anyone else who does so is "pretty much crap." That seems a little... confusing.

I like old-school style games, but I'm not much of a fan of the old rules. So for me Core only results in a 2ED game that requires less DM fiat. Does that make me crap?Not too much, so long as your players know it when signing on.

No subsystems is "ruthless restriction?" They still have 90% of non-setting D&D sources, plus 90% of FR stuff. Plus being gestalt.

Conceptual reasons for building a world a certain way are fine with me, when the argument makes sense. The problem with your argument is that there is no conceptual difference between rogue and scout, so far as game balance is concerned. Flat out banning the Complete series doesn't meet the benchmark.

It's all a matter of opinion, and what people are comfortable playing with. So long as everyone is made aware at the start and signs on for it, more power to them. However, in my opinion, most of the reasons for banning absolutely everything outside of Core are crap stemming from a lack of understanding game balance, and not as a conceptual reason for the sake of world building.

Rejusu

2013-03-10, 09:57 PM

Heck, it's a good thing to have just for your own benefit. If you have pdfs, print the relevant pages and stick 'em in a binder. If you have hardcopies, go to the library and make copies. Then you can have a nice binder with progressively more detailed summaries (your sheet, a brief reference page, and the actual text, so RAW is available without having to go bookdiving). I'm doing that for my character in my current game and it's saved me a lot of effort so far.

Indeed, I generally do it so I have all my power/spell descriptions on hand for when I want to use them. But it's also handy for the DM to have. Since my current DM is still relatively new to the game as well and his system knowledge isn't as in depth as mine it'll be more helpful for him too.

I also tend to have a assistant I trust implicitly to help out and make my players keep a copy of their sheet at all times. Still a pain with new or sneaky people.

Frankly if I was DMing I'd just require players to provide reference sheets for everything their character does. Spell descriptions, feats, classes. Not necessarily full entries, but the key rules. That way no one has to go diving into a book whenever they cast an obscure spell, and encounters can be designed around a parties capabilities. D&D is a collaborative game, there's absolutely no reason why the DM is required to do ALL the legwork.

And it'll also trip up sneaky people if you make them add sources (with page numbers) for everything too. That way if something sounds fishy you can always check it out.

Besides you're not even really asking your players to do anything extra. They've already combed through these books looking for these character options and know exactly where to find them. Compiling the information into a centralised format isn't exactly an arduous task.

So even while you run your own campaign with a ruthless restriction to source material for conceptual reasons, you still feel the need to say that anyone else who does so is "pretty much crap." That seems a little... confusing.

I like old-school style games, but I'm not much of a fan of the old rules. So for me Core only results in a 2ED game that requires less DM fiat. Does that make me crap?

He's saying that putting restrictions in place isn't inherently crap, but that a "core only" restriction is. Plus we're also discussing someone who didn't simply put a core-only restriction in place, but did so partway through a campaign. And bait-and-switch is always crap.

However, in my opinion, most of the reasons for banning absolutely everything outside of Core are crap stemming from a lack of understanding game balance, and not as a conceptual reason for the sake of world building.

Lack of understanding of game balance sums up a lot of 3.5 players. Too many base their understanding off anecdotal experiences and poor system knowledge. I still can't believe some people think that Monk is powerful, when most of their high level class features can be done (and done better) by a much lower level caster.

JusticeZero

2013-03-10, 11:10 PM

What, is he afraid the splat books make an imbalance in power or something?
There's a lot of things that it *could* be. Power is only one. In my opinion, prep time bloat is more likely. Unless the GM posts here, or until the players talk to him and let him talk, we don't know.

Ivellius

2013-03-10, 11:40 PM

To answer the question "What would you do?" first, assuming I'm in a situation like you are but still possess my personal proclivities:

I'd be extremely grateful to have someone that runs D&D sessions for my enjoyment.

And I mean it. I started playing Dungeons & Dragons a bit more than 7 years ago. Barring two good semesters in which I had a DM who'd run things, I've been a DM/GM the rest of the time. From the sound of your story, your DM didn't really want to allow non-core characters. You know what? That's actually fine. You can create most concepts using core classes.* A paladin is a lot like a crusader, and he's within his rights to permit whatever material he wants at the table. Maybe instead getting angry and defensive, a better tactic for the player would have been to wait and have a discussion about the DM's expectations for a paladin's code of conduct. A DM can even--heaven forbid!--change permitted material whenever he wants, and that shouldn't be a problem. It's not significantly different than making adjustments by working with a player whose character was too strong or too weak, and you have the concession that already existing characters are grandfathered in.

It sounds like things got out of hand at the last session. If you still want to play D&D, you'll have to mend fences. You should have a discussion with your group and get the offending players (and yourself) to apologize. Explain that you appreciate the time your DM spends for the group, and explain why you'd prefer to play non-core classes in a calm and reasonable manner. However, be willing to make these concepts using core classes if you need to. If you can't work something out, then move to a different kind of game or quit, but you should still apologize to your DM and not leave on such a bad note.

* I have no special love for core classes, honestly. My current campaign takes a completely different approach in that I've banned all core, and only core, classes. They're sort of restricted to what I can access, though, but I've got incarnum, psionics, sword magic, and a few other sources. It's worked so well I'll probably consider doing it from now on.

Draz74

2013-03-11, 12:25 AM

Hmmm, Ivellius's wise comments above are a tough act to follow. But to add my two sense cents on a few questions ...

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Play a different system.

Get everyone on board to play something you've never played before so no one has to argue or complain about 3.x Core-Only.

Or if it's bad enough that your gaming group can't compromise over a game that's supposed to be for your enjoyment, then take a break. It won't kill you.
This is also good advice. I would guess that a small part of Richard's antipathy to Splats comes from feeling resentment for the fact that some of his players know the game better than him. If you play a brand-new system, everyone will be on more equal ground.

And there are just so many free RPGs available these days. Granted, few (if any) that feel just like D&D (although I like OldSchoolHack for replicating low-level D&D, or low-level Legend for replicating mid-level D&D).

Heh. So what system (not (s) ) would work better to replace it with, would you say? If you were to rip out the entire spellcaster core out as "omg please don't make me have to do this yet again" and drop another of the developed systems in in its place? It wouldn't surprise me to discover that there are more than one.

Hooo boy. So many options, even assuming we want to still keep playing a 3.5e game.

Perhaps the best option overall (for being quite awesome, but requiring little work) is what Greenish referred to here:

There was also a variant that replaced vancian casting with psionics style spellpoints somewhere.

... Yes, that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194002) would be Ernir's Magic System (http://www3.hi.is/~eth31/ConversionProject/VancianToPsionicsBeta110c.pdf). Uses the excellent psionics-based framework, but has taken care of the task of making it all arcane/divine in flavor, rather than crystals and ectoplasm.

Alternatively,

Incarnum-only (refluffed) could make for an interesting low-magic D&D setting.
Binder, Shadowcaster, and Truenamer only could make for an interesting medium-magic D&D setting. (Use the Shadowcaster author's fix for the Shadowcaster, and Kyeudo's fix or similar for the Truenamer.)
Warlock and Dragonfire Adept (refluffed) only could work as well.
There are plenty of other homebrew options, such as conversions of all spellcasting classes to invocation-users (a la Warlock/DFA), or the d20r Druid (based on the Binder), or Kellus's Magitech (hmmm ... never mind, that one wouldn't fit in a Viking setting at all).

Threadnaught

2013-03-11, 07:57 AM

At the very least, that should allow the SRD/OGL material (like Psions) and WOTC's web articles.

Wel considering the fact that the character whose death sparked this whole dispute and sent tensions boiling (which up to now would have been simmering) was a Psion, I'm assuming that when people talk about Core, they mean the SRD.
It's what I use, though now I get to read a few books while using it. Sandstorm and Frostburn ftw. :smallcool:

Some people mean different things when they talk about Core, some are rightfully referring to the three rulebooks (Player Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual 1) while others who use the SRD may think of that as Core. There's nothing wrong with either viewpoint, but without clarification it can be a little confusing.

I've actually got one of my players scribing the spells from Sandstorm Frostburn and that 3.0 planes book, to save the three of us on being confused about where a spell comes from and to help with spell selection. Also I don't fancy messing around with Wild Shape so he has to look through the Dire Animals of Frostburn, Sandstorm and everything with the Animal type on the SRD, then sort everything out himself. I would've done the spells myself, but I'm having problems, since he's already been tasked with sorting out his forms, he'll be helping me out with the spells. It'll give him the chance to prepare for when we finally resume our sessions. I should get my players to help me out more often.

It seems the best option is to start a whole new game where everyone knows which splats are allowed. At least one or two should be allowed without changing the game too much for Richie to be able to control while giving his detractors plenty of new toys to play with. Sandstorm and Frostburn are probably the best options since they mostly change the world from a single giant forest with some caves, to something a little more believable.

I have to applaud Ivelius here. That's literature sir. :smallbiggrin:

Andreaz

2013-03-11, 08:02 AM

Thebar99

2013-03-11, 08:16 AM

Trolls have regeneration that's overcome by fire and acid right? Because i think there's one loose in the playground.

I agree. Trying to make out as if someone calling a bad system bad, and that liking a bad system is a tell for poor judgment is unreasonable? Sounds like a troll to me.

And I mean it. I started playing Dungeons & Dragons a bit more than 7 years ago. Barring two good semesters in which I had a DM who'd run things, I've been a DM/GM the rest of the time. From the sound of your story, your DM didn't really want to allow non-core characters. You know what? That's actually fine. You can create most concepts using core classes.*

As long as those concepts are "primary caster" or "corpse". Anything else? Forget it.

Ardantis

2013-03-11, 08:41 AM

I currently have a friend urging me to do a "Core-only" game, following a less-than-satisfactory experience he had playing an E6 game I DMed.

I am listening to him. I do not agree, and I have a lot of reasons to prefer the use of books, but I am listening. He did not like my use of playmats, my pre-made dungeon, my strict adherence to mechanics, my simplistic encounters, but I was trying a lot of those hats on for the first time. He's blaming it on E6, and I can understand why.

I have learned this:

~ Make all books/mechanics allowed known and available to all players in advance.

~ Do not use out-of-the-box characters with veteran players (unless it's a con) because character building is half the fun.

~ Work with the weaker/newer players to make the play experience function on-time (this may include making their characters for them)

BUT most importantly- allow your players to do well, allow your players to do poorly, and give them investment.

I'm glad he's upset with me, because that's how I know he cares.

Answerer

2013-03-11, 08:47 AM

He's complaining about unrealism when a core-only barbarian can outrun Usain Bolt
Whoa now, let's be fair.

The Barbarian can outright Usain Bolt...

's best sprint, for over a minute and a half, while wearing a twenty-five pound chain shirt, at level 1, as a matter of course (i.e. average rolls).

Regal Kain

2013-03-11, 08:56 AM

This is a pretty interesting topic of conversation I must say, having read it all, alot of people have made excellent points.

Firstly
By Dsurion

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Play a different system.

Get everyone on board to play something you've never played before so no one has to argue or complain about 3.x Core-Only.

Or if it's bad enough that your gaming group can't compromise over a game that's supposed to be for your enjoyment, then take a break. It won't kill you.

I'd like to suggest BESM, it's rather simple, and is generally hyper-powered gameplay. (It is meant to make you an anime character after all) and you can do an incredibly amount with a single book. "Big Eyes Small Mouth Revised Second Edition" It's a good system, has options to make almost anything you want as a concept, and DMing it is pretty damn easy, seeing as the DM makes monsters like players make their own characters etc, it can be fun look into it if D&D is causing you and your group that much stress and anger, P&P is afterall, a way to escape the harshness of day to day life and reality, and a way to relax isn't it?

I've grown a fair bit over the past 3 years or so as a DM I'd like to think, one of my fellow gamers and roommates recently agreed that we should try to do a D&D 3.5 Epic Level Campaign, start at level 16, so that our newer players have a chance to catchup to high-level play, and they can learn things. That said?

I told them it'd be about a month at the very least to get this running, and that's taking a world I built three years ago to re-use it for the sake of deities/towns NPC relations, warring factions, at least 30 different "plot hooks" and "quests" the PCs can take. I realize this might seem like overkill to alot of people but, when I DM, I make sure I can prepare for anything a player might throw at me, and players who join mid-session I sit down with them for a day or two, and we usually "run" a 1 on 1 session to get them caught up to current affairs, get their player situated in the world etc.

Tell your friend who is the DM to do this, you guys are obviously in the middle of the campaign, so that stops some prepartion he should have done before-hand as a DM, however, ask him to allow splatbooks, before he goes all crazy on you, explain to him your character concept, what it does. A day or two before your next session, get in contact with him (This is easy for us as we all live in the same house anyway.) Give him your character sheet, make sure this is finished as if the character was in-game, sit down with him, explain what your character can do, anything he has questions about? Have a reference of the exact page a description can be found on for his ease.

DMs have it really rough, players who have never DMed often don't realize that, DMing a game can be an incredible amount of work, especially if the players are optimizers, or power-gamers, and everything is allowed. But if he's a reasonable person (And everyone has calmed down, that'd help I'd imagine.) talk to him.

Personally, as a DM, if I'm starting up a fresh campaign (Assuming I have a world built.) once all my players have their characters finished and are ready to run, I take one more week of prep time, what do I do with this time? Research their spell-lists, their gear, their races/feats etc. I do the math to make a note of how much each character can do damage wise in optimal settings etc. Or I ask my players to do that exact same thing. (I did that with my friend who wants to play a WArforged Artificer in our ECL), I have a Cheatsheet next to me with every player's Saves, their skill totals, their ACs, etc. A DM should be able to say "Bob roll me a d20" and then based on the number he gives, describe to his players how Bob just did a triple-backflip off a wall to get away from the flame trap he just made his reflex save for. Suprise your players. Don't ask "Bob roll me a reflex save, Bob roll me a listen check." Even the best players, know then that something is coming, it takes the suprise out of the sails when you throw something at them.

Sorry for the extended rant! I tend to ramble off alot, TL;DR, talk like grownups, suggest to him, and your gaming group, that you all take a break from D&D and play something else. (Play RIFTS Earth, I promise your group will come running back to D&D 3.5 saying just how damn simple it is, even with all the splat books included.)

Agincourt

2013-03-11, 09:20 AM

He's complaining about unrealism when a core-only barbarian can outrun Usain Bolt...

Core only? A monk of at least 6th level could, but no, a barbarian cannot outrun Usain Bolt. A human barbarian with the run feat (and who takes that feat?) could run 200 feet in 6 seconds, or 333.3 feet in 10 seconds. 333 feet is 101.5 meters. Since Usain Bolt's 100 meter record is 9.58 seconds, running another 1.5 meters in .42 seconds is trivial.

The unrealism comes from the length of time the barbarian could keep running. He can keep this breakneck pace without making checks for a number of rounds equaling his Constitution score. Assuming a Constitution of 15 (to keep the math simple), the barbarian can keep this pace for a minute and a half. If he makes two Constitution checks (DC 10 for the first, DC 11 for the second) to keep this pace for another 12 seconds, he's run 1,000 meters in 1 minute, 42 seconds and shattered the 1,000 meter record of 2 minutes, 11 seconds. (17 rounds, travelling in a straight line 200 feet each round = 3,400 feet; 3,400 feet equals 1,036 meters.)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some catgirls to murder.

Answerer

2013-03-11, 09:28 AM

Core only? A monk of at least 6th level could, but no, a barbarian cannot outrun Usain Bolt. A human barbarian with the run feat (and who takes that feat?) could run 200 feet in 6 seconds, or 333.3 feet in 10 seconds. 333 feet is 101.5 meters. Since Usain Bolt's 100 meter record is 9.58 seconds, running another 1.5 meters in .42 seconds is trivial.
"Core" frequently includes all SRD material, so one could argue that Quick (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#quick) is Core. That puts the Barbarian over Usain Bolt's best speed.

Agincourt

2013-03-11, 09:32 AM

"Core" frequently includes all SRD material, so one could argue that Quick (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#quick) is Core. That puts the Barbarian over Usain Bolt's best speed.

Traits have always been considered to be optional, as all materials originating from the Unearthed Arcana are. I suppose it's possible that the OP's DM is including them in Core, but without him explicitly saying so, that is by no means a given.

Answerer

2013-03-11, 09:36 AM

I'm aware of that, I was just pointing it out. For that matter, Traits are explicitly weaker than Feats, and a Human Barbarian who takes Run has another feat available to him.

andromax

2013-03-11, 10:45 AM

I'm aware of that, I was just pointing it out. For that matter, Traits are explicitly weaker than Feats, and a Human Barbarian who takes Run has another feat available to him.

So you're saying Dash is better than Quick?

Alienist

2013-03-11, 11:08 AM

That's Jack Vance, right? I hear-tell that D&D's "Vancian casting" does not work quite that way even in the writings of Vance himself, but never having read any, I don't know. But I done hear-tell it.

TRUE Vancian Casting would be like 4th Ed's dailies (no encounter or at-wills) plus early AD&Ds spend hours memorising thing.

D&D fails because you can cast fireball multiple times in a day. D&D has something more like 'exponential vancian'. As you gain levels you get more spells, the spells you already have do more, the new spells you get are better than anything you had before.

So the gain in power is more like the cube of your level than linearly related to your level. Which doesn't sound true at all to the spirit of Vance's work?

Answerer

2013-03-11, 11:13 AM

So you're saying Dash is better than Quick?
I'm saying that Unearthed Arcana references the idea that Traits are like feats, but with drawbacks.

Also, generally speaking, I would not trade 1 HP/HD for 5 ft of movement speed, so yes, Dash is better than Quick.

Trebloc

2013-03-11, 11:23 AM

@ the OP: You said half the group was core classes and half weren't. What classes are we talking about here? I mean, there's a difference between someone playing a Duskblade 20 to someone playing an totally broken PC they dug up on the internet that involves 15 different classes/feats spread throughout 10 different books -- that could be a reason why the DM wants to do core only.

Half the party apparently backed up the DM and wanted to play core only. There's nothing wrong with that and shouldn't be something for you to get upset with. If you have a gaming option that suits your style, then take it. Or bust out the DM hat. Or sit down and politely talk with your DM and group together and work something out.

The only real problem I see is the DM is changing to core-only mid campaign without talking it over with everyone. It would be nice to get his reasoning for this.

A possible solution might be that one of the "pro" players that wants to let all the material in runs a module or two. This way, the time planning for DMing is less. However, everyone should be strongly encouraged to pick some stuff outside of core, and lets the DM also get some experience outside of core. At the same time, it is probably a good idea to limit the material available across the board to a group-agreed on selection. Bonus points if those with experience outside of core help those who wanted core only generate PCs.

I know in my group, we limit to SRD+PH2+ToB+MIC. Yes, we leave alot of stuff out, but if a player finds a class or feat from a different book, we usually let it in. However, we minimize to this so that players aren't sifting through tons of stuff and to help the DMs with their planning, and this is ignoring the $$ factor.

Gnome Alone

2013-03-11, 11:28 AM

@andromax: Idk if that's what (s)he means, but traits aren't a replacement for feats; I think they're awesome since the benefits come with a built-in, logical drawback, unlike flaws: "I can barely aim! It helps me summon monsters better for some reason!"

Answerer

2013-03-11, 11:49 AM

killem2

2013-03-11, 11:54 AM

This is a lot of shouting over something that really shouldn't be. :smallfrown:

I can understand a NEW DM wanting to go core only. But if this guy knows what he is doing, he should at least be a bit more accomodating.

There is really nothing this forum can do for you. This seems to be a very hostile enviroment where one cannot even talk to the DM with reason.

JusticeZero

2013-03-11, 12:08 PM

I'm not sure how much actual talking WITH happened. I'd guess it was a lot of 'we tell him why he's wrong' and little if any talking WITH, which requires listening.

Hikarizu

2013-03-11, 12:21 PM

I'm saying that Unearthed Arcana references the idea that Traits are like feats, but with drawbacks.

Also, generally speaking, I would not trade 1 HP/HD for 5 ft of movement speed, so yes, Dash is better than Quick.
But Dash works only in light or no armor and uses up a feat. If you have high CON, but think you'll need the extra speed, Quick is a valid choice. And if I am not mistaken they stack, so you can have 45ft speed human or 35ft speed halfling.(add +10 for Barbarian and +whatever for Monk)

Philistine

2013-03-11, 12:48 PM

There's a lot of things that it *could* be. Power is only one. In my opinion, prep time bloat is more likely. Unless the GM posts here, or until the players talk to him and let him talk, we don't know.

How did you come to that conclusion? All we've heard of Richard's reasoning is that splats make it "a different game," and something about the DM thinking Skirmish doesn't make sense. This really only leaves two possibilities: One, the DM believes that adding splats changes the balance of the game (true, though the effects are almost entirely beneficial), or Two, the DM believes that adding splats changes the flavor of the game (only really true if you insist on dogmatic adherence to WotC's (terribad) default fluff for the classes, and claiming that, say, a Crusader is something other than a Paladin actually designed from the ground up for 3.X rather than one that was simply ported over blindly from AD&D).

And while it's a truism that there's no game without the DM, there's also no game without players. In a "target-rich" environment like a PbP forum, a DM can put up any kind of ad s/he wants and hope to attract players who are okay with, even intrigued by, what s/he proposes. In a F2F scenario with a more limited playerbase, you have to be willing to acknowledge your players' preferences as well.

I'm not sure how much actual talking WITH happened. I'd guess it was a lot of 'we tell him why he's wrong' and little if any talking WITH, which requires listening.
You mean like the "talking WITH" that Richard engaged in before he in mid-game unilaterally overturned the group's consensus on what kind of game they wanted to play? Forget that noise. Richard has earned no sympathy if the OP's account even broadly resembles the truth.

CIDE

2013-03-11, 01:32 PM

Everything that I could've hoped to have said has already been said. Really it comes down to communicating with the DM and find out exactly what's going on. how it's a different game and how it's a bad thing to him. Possibly leave and take a break, etc.

On that note; he is a huge @#%!@!@#@!$#@ **** for what he did and should be kicked in the shins regardless. You don't do that.

JusticeZero

2013-03-11, 01:35 PM

i never said anything about 'forgiveness' for that communication lapse. I seriously doubt anyone was listening to anyone at that point. I doubt he even got to finish a sentence before everyone started yelling at each other. 'Forgiveness' or 'Unforgivability' are irrelevant.

Selein

2013-03-11, 03:24 PM

My group plays a couple different ways.

The DM says beforehand if they want to run a stylised setting then they determine what's disallowed. This works well because no matter what concept you have for your charactor it can be fit into any flavoured setting. Ex: Psionic Setting: Melee = Psychic Warrior, Wizard = Psion, etc. if all else fails work with your DM

Lately when I've started DMing I create a randomised list (http://www.random.org/lists/) of all WotC base classes and ask players if they want NPC classes (cuz some REALLY like challenges) if they'd be ok with Psionic/Incarnum/Eastern Flavoured Classes then i fill in a few "choose"s and "reroll"s for funzies and have them Roll a D100 with each class appearing twice on the list. It forces the players to play something they may never have played before but not entirely step outside their comfort zone. One variant is give them multiple rolls but give people who roll once a small bonus.

Ivellius

2013-03-11, 03:33 PM

JusticeZero, if we had some sort of forum reputation button I'd be all over it for your posts here.

I'm not sure how much actual talking WITH happened. I'd guess it was a lot of 'we tell him why he's wrong' and little if any talking WITH, which requires listening.

You mean like the "talking WITH" that Richard engaged in before he in mid-game unilaterally overturned the group's consensus on what kind of game they wanted to play? Forget that noise. Richard has earned no sympathy if the OP's account even broadly resembles the truth.

From the sound of the original story, this DM really didn't want to accommodate the players' demands at the beginning of the campaign, for whatever reason. Prep time and access are my two main reasons for not wanting to include other rulebooks, and it seems reasonable enough to give him benefit of the doubt without resorting to "He must be a bad DM." He's within his rights to make whatever restrictions he wants. Granted, the converse is somewhat true, that players can choose to play or not based on those restrictions, but a key point of D&D is the DM's authority. If you don't like it, you run your own campaigns.

The guy has all of my sympathy. It sounds like his players whined until they got what they wanted in regard to character selection, and he's reasserting his right to manage the material he has to keep up with. Could there have been a better time to tell the players? Perhaps, but he may not have even decided it until recently. The lack of sympathy people have to think this guy needs to put even more work into his hobby than he already is astounds me. It's a game; it's supposed to be fun. Dungeon Masters included.

Talderas

2013-03-11, 03:40 PM

Some people mean different things when they talk about Core, some are rightfully referring to the three rulebooks (Player Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual 1) while others who use the SRD may think of that as Core. There's nothing wrong with either viewpoint, but without clarification it can be a little confusing.

The SRD is OGL'd d20 content. Core, in the context of Dungeons and Dragon, means the PHB/DMG/MM and their errata. The distinction is a legal one and is defined. A person may use the term incorrectly but seeing as this is a subforum dedicated to 3.0/3.5/pathfinder Dungeons and Dragons defaulting to PHB/DMG/MM when the term "core" is uttered is perfectly appropriate.

otakumick

2013-03-11, 06:30 PM

Just to pick a nit, Quick adds 10' to base move in exchange for 1hp per hd... not 5'.

Philistine

2013-03-11, 06:51 PM

From the sound of the original story, this DM really didn't want to accommodate the players' demands at the beginning of the campaign, for whatever reason. Prep time and access are my two main reasons for not wanting to include other rulebooks, and it seems reasonable enough to give him benefit of the doubt without resorting to "He must be a bad DM." He's within his rights to make whatever restrictions he wants. Granted, the converse is somewhat true, that players can choose to play or not based on those restrictions, but a key point of D&D is the DM's authority. If you don't like it, you run your own campaigns.

The guy has all of my sympathy. It sounds like his players whined until they got what they wanted in regard to character selection, and he's reasserting his right to manage the material he has to keep up with. Could there have been a better time to tell the players? Perhaps, but he may not have even decided it until recently. The lack of sympathy people have to think this guy needs to put even more work into his hobby than he already is astounds me. It's a game; it's supposed to be fun. Dungeon Masters included.

What a load of nonsense. As I said before, the old canard that "There's no game without the DM" is balanced by "There's no game without players." (More than balanced, in fact, given the existence of DM-less RPGs like Fiasco.) This means that, in a RL group, it is imperative to come to a consensus about what kind of game you're going to be playing - the DM is only free to dictate whatsoever conditions he pleases without regard for player preference if he doesn't mind spending his evenings sitting home alone playing with himself. You can whinge on about "accommodating" the players' "demands" all you want - but at the end of the day, guess what? If your players aren't interested in the game you're pitching, you don't get to play either.

Furthermore, in the specific case described by the OP, there is absolutely no reason to believe that "prep time and access" had anything to do with Richard's decision to unilaterally abandon the existing group consensus. Richard's stated reason for doing so is that splatbooks make D&D "a different game;" and the only specific example of that we've been provided is Richard's inability to wrap his head around the idea of Skirmish. So, do you actually have any contradictory information? Or are you merely projecting your own personal issues onto the situation?

Trunamer

2013-03-11, 07:00 PM

I currently have a friend urging me to do a “Core-only” game, following a less-than-satisfactory experience he had playing an E6 game I DMed.

I am listening to him. I do not agree, and I have a lot of reasons to prefer the use of books, but I am listening. He did not like my use of playmats, my pre-made dungeon, my strict adherence to mechanics, my simplistic encounters, but I was trying a lot of those hats on for the first time. He’s blaming it on E6, and I can understand why.
E6 never appealed to me, but I’m not sure how a player goes from “I don’t like low level caps” to “I don’t like character variety.” Odd.

Trunamer

2013-03-11, 07:01 PM

Heck you could probably just google “D&D 3.5 games in (insert city here)”

Play a different system.
Thank you both, you may have just solved my problems! I found the Pen and Paper Games site, made an account and ended up finding a 4e group that seems great.

I talked to the DM today, and she says everything is core in 4e. Or, more importantly, the classes use the same basic system so new material doesn’t mean new stuff to learn. Apparently, banning books is all but unheard of in 4e. Learning a new edition is kind of intimidating, but frankly I’m fed up with the alternatives.

After a brief email conversation with Richard, what he meant by the “different game” comment is an over-busy setting, incongruous character types, and too many rules. Or something...he was pretty vague and poetic about it. I mostly don’t even care at this point, so whatever.

Callin

2013-03-11, 07:09 PM

Its amazing I look at this and not one person mentions how the DM is using monsters from any MM and out his butt (according to OP) but is against anything not "Core"

Nickname for Richard is a Nickname for Richard. I call BS.

kabreras

2013-03-11, 07:17 PM

If you cant play something that you want and feel like playing you shouldnt play.

rockdeworld

2013-03-11, 07:22 PM

I liked your rage-story Trun, and give it 4/5 stars. If you have more like it, please post them. Also, most of the people on The Gaming Den boards feel your pain, and you'll find a receptive audience there too :smallsmile:

Rejusu

2013-03-11, 07:22 PM

I'd be extremely grateful to have someone that runs D&D sessions for my enjoyment.

...

A paladin is a lot like a crusader, and he's within his rights to permit whatever material he wants at the table. Maybe instead getting angry and defensive, a better tactic for the player would have been to wait and have a discussion about the DM's expectations for a paladin's code of conduct. A DM can even--heaven forbid!--change permitted material whenever he wants, and that shouldn't be a problem.

Frankly I disagree, and I think this is a bad attitude to take when it comes to DMing. Would you be so grateful if your DM ran sessions purely for his or her own enjoyment? You talk a lot about what the DM wants, but don't once address what the players want. Except to dismiss them as unreasonable demands of course.

Look, from a player perspective I love DMs. And don't let anyone tell you I don't appreciate the extra work they put into making a campaign tick over. But, it's not all about them. Nor is it all about the players. D&D is a group game, and that inevitably means compromise. Yes it's accepted that the DM takes the helm because he or she puts in the most, but that doesn't mean the rest of the group should get no say in the matter.

Acting like it's perfectly okay for DMs to act as they please, even at the detriment of the rest of the group is a bad attitude from a DMing perspective. A game where the DM is the only one having fun is not a fun game. DM gets final say? Sure, at the end of the day they do put the work in and I accept this. However I don't accept not talking to your players and taking their input and what they want on board.

It's their game as much as it is yours, maybe you (and every other DM who takes this position) should remember that.

I talked to the DM today, and she says everything is core in 4e. Or, more importantly, the classes use the same basic system so new material doesn’t mean new stuff to learn. Apparently, banning books is all but unheard of in 4e. Learning a new edition is kind of intimidating, but frankly I’m fed up with the alternatives.

Not to derail this into edition wars, but the reason for this is because everything in 4th is essentially the same. There's no point banning anything because it's all a homogeneous uninteresting mush. Frankly if the main reason your'e leaving this game is because core only, switching to 4th won't help. It'll be interesting for a little while and then it'll just get old fast and you'll start to miss the options available in 3.5.

Answerer

2013-03-11, 07:29 PM

But Dash works only in light or no armor and uses up a feat. If you have high CON, but think you'll need the extra speed, Quick is a valid choice. And if I am not mistaken they stack, so you can have 45ft speed human or 35ft speed halfling.(add +10 for Barbarian and +whatever for Monk)
OK, so there are instances that I would prefer Quick over Dash if we're ignoring the opportunity cost. But I rarely bother with heavier armor, and movement speed is of very low value, particularly +5 vs. +10 (where +5 is sufficient to make you "faster than most other people" which is really all you care about).

Grod_The_Giant

2013-03-11, 09:45 PM

Not to derail this into edition wars, but the reason for this is because everything in 4th is essentially the same. There's no point banning anything because it's all a homogeneous uninteresting mush. Frankly if the main reason your'e leaving this game is because core only, switching to 4th won't help. It'll be interesting for a little while and then it'll just get old fast and you'll start to miss the options available in 3.5.
To be fair, a good group can go a long way towards making up for functional-but-bland mechanics. And your 4e characters are different enough from 3e that the first one or two will feel new.

Deathra13

2013-03-11, 10:28 PM

Alright, so on the whole its the dms game vs its the players game, it should be a concensus however the dm should have a higher say simply because he/she is the one who has to deal with any material brought in. This does not mean the players should have no say but it does mean that their should be discussion, as for the whole different game thing, the completes dont really do that with except for a couple bits. oriental adventures in particular comes to mind for mismatched flavor though.

On the whole random monsters thing that is absolutely bunk, The gm and player relationship is a social contract, one that upon sitting down at the table everyone agreed to, specifically to play within fair limits, this applies more heavily to the dm then the players. The players have to trust that their dm is playing fairly since he is the one running the behind the scenes work such as traps, big bad plans, politics, bluff rolls etc. Upon bringing in other material that was not allowed to the players this contract is immediately broken.

JusticeZero

2013-03-11, 10:32 PM

After a brief email conversation with Richard, what he meant by the “different game” comment is an over-busy setting, incongruous character types, and too many rules. Or something...he was pretty vague and poetic about it. I mostly don’t even care at this point, so whatever.
So basically.. exactly what I said? :smallbiggrin:

Its amazing I look at this and not one person mentions how the DM is using monsters from any MM and out his butt (according to OP) but is against anything not "Core"
I thought about it, but figured that he was either just using a few of his choice, or he was using lots and lots of craziness and bringing it on himself. If a GM is going to shoot himself in the foot, I can't really do anything about it. But it does help explain the inabiility to be very clear on his needs.

Anyways, good luck with the new group.

Keld Denar

2013-03-11, 11:07 PM

I propose a different idea. Wind down your current campaign. Do a bit of group consensus worldbuilding. Build a world with limited classes and enemies and such. But the classes and material you will be using will be mostly non-core. For example, you might try a world using the Psionic rules. But don't just schlep a psion in here and there. BAN ARCANE AND DIVINE SPELLCASTING ALTOGETHER. Fighter, rogue, psion, vitalist, psychic warrior, etc. are going to be your core classes for this. You'll have a totally different game, and everything will be fresh and new, without having to cede the world to the chaos of an unlimited variety of classes and campaign elements.

You can do the same thing with different books. Maybe everything is Incarnam or some such oddness. The point is to agree to keep the world to a tight thematic set of rules, but to change up what character mixes are available away from the traditional core.

I want to run a game that is ONLY ToB and MIC. No DMG, no MM, and the only things from the PHB are feats, skills, and races. Given that those 2 books are some of the last published, I think that game would be excellent and have a great focus on swift action economy.

Waker

2013-03-11, 11:24 PM

Keld Denar

2013-03-11, 11:31 PM

Naw, I was thinking of omitting anything "castery" for more of a noir feel.

Waker

2013-03-12, 12:42 AM

Naw, I was thinking of omitting anything "castery" for more of a noir feel.

Would you allow something like factotum to help fill in the skillmonky role and deal with traps? Running a game with only 5 choices (soulborn don't count) is bit limiting.

Greenish

2013-03-12, 12:57 AM

Would you allow something like factotum to help fill in the skillmonky role and deal with traps? Running a game with only 5 choices (soulborn don't count) is bit limiting.Trapfinding isn't that great a mechanic in the first place, so I'm not sure it'd be greatly missed if the campaign was built without it.

And MIC is Magic Item Compendium, so just three base classes.

icefractal

2013-03-12, 01:08 AM

I think there may be some items in the DMG that things get weird without, but I'd have to consider it more to be sure.

And of course, in any game without casters, certain monsters need to be omitted or treated as higher CR, because the methods to cure/prevent their special attacks are nonexistent.

That said, an all ToB campaign sounds interesting. Personally, I would include a couple of the various homebrew ranged-weapon disciplines people have made - there's not a lot of support for it in the book.

Draz74

2013-03-12, 01:40 AM

And of course, in any game without casters, certain monsters need to be omitted or treated as higher CR, because the methods to cure/prevent their special attacks are nonexistent.

Or to overcome their special defenses. (Yes, I'm still bitter about the one time where the CR9 Slaads TPK'd my level-appropriate party, because without a Cleric there was no way to overcome alignment-based DR ...)

Gnome Alone

2013-03-12, 02:32 AM

Rejusu

2013-03-12, 06:50 AM

To be fair, a good group can go a long way towards making up for functional-but-bland mechanics. And your 4e characters are different enough from 3e that the first one or two will feel new.

While true, they're still bland mechanics. And yes I acknowledged it'd be interesting for a while. But once that new game excitement goes away 4th gets stale faster than core only does. Give me the option between all of fourth and Core only 3.5 and I'll take the latter every time.

sonofzeal

2013-03-12, 07:11 AM

Know what might be fun? ToB and MIC the main books, with Binders and Warlocks - only players can't be them. Nope, the PCs are sword & sorcery heroes, usin' fancy techniques and looted magical junk to kill evil mages, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser style.
I've always wanted to run an anti-core game. No Core content allowed. No Races, Classes, PrCs, Spells, Items, or Feats from Core. Core Skills are allowed.

I think it'd be interesting, and have rather different balance. Casters would suffer more than non-casters, I'm pretty sure, since the loss of Core spells hits them pretty hard - no Mirror Image, Fly, Teleport, Wish, etc.

Greenish

2013-03-12, 07:24 AM

I've always wanted to run an anti-core game. No Core content allowed. No Races, Classes, PrCs, Spells, Items, or Feats from Core. Core Skills are allowed.

I think it'd be interesting, and have rather different balance. Casters would suffer more than non-casters, I'm pretty sure, since the loss of Core spells hits them pretty hard - no Mirror Image, Fly, Teleport, Wish, etc.No Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Imp. Trip, weapon Finesse, Mounted Combat, Point-blank Shot… Can't pick anything that'd require those, either, so I'm not sure casters would actually suffer more.

Andreaz

2013-03-12, 07:28 AM

sonofzeal

2013-03-12, 08:07 AM

No Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Imp. Trip, weapon Finesse, Mounted Combat, Point-blank Shot… Can't pick anything that'd require those, either, so I'm not sure casters would actually suffer more.
For Melee, you still have ToB which gets by fine without those guys. But the caster equivalents - Wu-Jen, Spirit Shaman, Shugenja, Favoured Soul - struggle a lot more with a major component of their expected arsenal gone. There's still plenty of powerful options, but major gaps in defence and utility. But ToB offers enough new replacements that the gaps there can be worked around seamlessly.

Ivellius

2013-03-12, 10:12 AM

Furthermore, in the specific case described by the OP, there is absolutely no reason to believe that "prep time and access" had anything to do with Richard's decision to unilaterally abandon the existing group consensus. Richard's stated reason for doing so is that splatbooks make D&D "a different game;" and the only specific example of that we've been provided is Richard's inability to wrap his head around the idea of Skirmish. So, do you actually have any contradictory information? Or are you merely projecting your own personal issues onto the situation?

I didn't have "contradictory information," but the original poster clarified that with more information from his DM, which confirms what I said. My feeling about the situation may not have been logically valid, but it was correct. See below:

After a brief email conversation with Richard, what he meant by the “different game” comment is an over-busy setting, incongruous character types, and too many rules. Or something...he was pretty vague and poetic about it. I mostly don’t even care at this point, so whatever.

This "players first" mentality troubles me. In some games, there's nothing wrong with that; if you don't need a GM, you don't need a GM. But D&D isn't that, and it feels like most of the people here automatically side with the players over DMs. That's wrong; it's about consensus and cooperation. Most DMs are honestly trying, and they invest a lot more into the game than their players. They should get to have fun, too.

Frankly I disagree, and I think this is a bad attitude to take when it comes to DMing. Would you be so grateful if your DM ran sessions purely for his or her own enjoyment? You talk a lot about what the DM wants, but don't once address what the players want. Except to dismiss them as unreasonable demands of course.
[snipped for length]

Look, when everyone else is siding with the players (okay, not you, JusticeZero), I don't think I need to say much about the players' side. Can you play D&D as a democracy? You can, although that's unfair to the DM and may interfere with campaign plans. The first group I played with had a guy who wanted to make a Jedi. After that was vetoed, he made a ninja, which...really didn't fit that well. I can consider what my players want all day, but at the end of the day it's my call. People in a D&D group should get input relative to the investment they put into the campaign, which basically means that players are subject to whatever restrictions exist. That's only fair. If they don't like, let them run campaigns and see the other side of it.

To put it another way, who gets to decide what is "reasonable"? Is it the players or the DM?

"When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. [...] Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics" (3.5 DMG 6).

Ultimately, your Dungeon Master gets to decide what will be considered reasonable for your game. That's more than fair; he or she is putting in the "work" part of the hobby, after all. It's okay for a player to ask for special accommodations, but you can't demand them. A good DM, obviously, will work with the players to help them have fun. Players will trust them. But at the end of the day he or she gets to make the decision. That's all I'm arguing for.

For what it's worth, I think my group has fun, if their feedback is any indication. One guy complains about crits against him, but I can't help that much. I make attack rolls in the open.

I said this earlier in the thread, sonofzeal, but I'm currently running "anti-core" when it comes to class selection. It's worked really well so far.

Trebloc

2013-03-12, 10:28 AM

You'd have a really hard time coming up with a build that involves 15 different classes that's better than Core-only Druid 20. Complaining about 3.5 supplements from a balance perspective makes no sense.

It could depend on what the other players are. If the core-only people are a fighter and a monk, then a psion and a warblade are going to seem super-duper powerful. And those are some of the tamer options out there -- what if the non-core people are busting out planar shepards, incantatrix...etc.

It also could be a matter of experience and perspective. Sure, Druid20 is amazing. But to someone inexperienced, a PC that utilizes 13 different books for different classes and feats will certainly look more amazing. I mean, could a Druid20 using only a single book really be better than that? ;)

Augmental

2013-03-12, 10:58 AM

People in a D&D group should get input relative to the investment they put into the campaign, which basically means that players are subject to whatever restrictions exist. That's only fair.

Players also have the right to leave a campaign if they feel the restrictions are too restrictive.

Ultimately, your Dungeon Master gets to decide what will be considered reasonable for your game.

But he shouldn't get to change what's considered reasonable for their game in the middle of the session, out of the blue, without discussing it with the players!

Talderas

2013-03-12, 11:00 AM

I want to run a game that is ONLY ToB and MIC. No DMG, no MM, and the only things from the PHB are feats, skills, and races. Given that those 2 books are some of the last published, I think that game would be excellent and have a great focus on swift action economy.

Designing all the enemies with the maneuvers, readied maneuver.... ugh.

--

Would you allow something like factotum to help fill in the skillmonky role and deal with traps? Running a game with only 5 choices (soulborn don't count) is bit limiting.

Unnecessary. Without the DMG there is no content regarding traps.

--

And of course, in any game without casters, certain monsters need to be omitted or treated as higher CR, because the methods to cure/prevent their special attacks are nonexistent.

No Monster Manual. No problem. Every foe is going to be a humanoid with ToB class levels.

Quorothorn

2013-03-12, 11:04 AM

It could depend on what the other players are. If the core-only people are a fighter and a monk, then a psion and a warblade are going to seem super-duper powerful. And those are some of the tamer options out there -- what if the non-core people are busting out planar shepards, incantatrix...etc.

It also could be a matter of experience and perspective. Sure, Druid20 is amazing. But to someone inexperienced, a PC that utilizes 13 different books for different classes and feats will certainly look more amazing. I mean, could a Druid20 using only a single book really be better than that? ;)

Well, it's certainly unlikely for a Druid 20 to be better than a Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10 because...well, you know.

Greenish

2013-03-12, 11:06 AM

No Monster Manual. No problem. Every foe is going to be a humanoid with ToB class levels.I seem to recall ToB having monsters in it, but I may be hallucinating.

Telonius

2013-03-12, 11:13 AM

I seem to recall ToB having monsters in it, but I may be hallucinating.

Just three: a new kind of rakshasa, a Valkyrie, and a Reth Dekala (infernal warrior).

Answerer

2013-03-12, 11:44 AM

It could depend on what the other players are. If the core-only people are a fighter and a monk, then a psion and a warblade are going to seem super-duper powerful.
This was my point: core vs. non-core is a red herring here. The difference is in optimization skill.

And those are some of the tamer options out there -- what if the non-core people are busting out planar shepards, incantatrix...etc.
Yes, but each of those requires one supplement apiece, not a 15-class monstrosity. Also, neither of those is super-powerful on its own, they're powerful because of how they dramatically improve already-godly classes (more true of Incantatrix than Planar Shepherd, I realize).

It also could be a matter of experience and perspective. Sure, Druid20 is amazing. But to someone inexperienced, a PC that utilizes 13 different books for different classes and feats will certainly look more amazing. I mean, could a Druid20 using only a single book really be better than that? ;)
Yes, that might be true, but that doesn't make it valid. The solution to that is education.

Well, it's certainly unlikely for a Druid 20 to be better than a Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10 because...well, you know.
Yes, I was referring explicitly to something with fifteen different classes.

Thebar99

2013-03-12, 11:54 AM

What I want to know is why so many people are so scared of a diverse array of options on any level. Is it simply because they can't handle thinking in their games (I suspect yes).

JusticeZero

2013-03-12, 12:00 PM

Ivellius

2013-03-12, 12:19 PM

Players also have the right to leave a campaign if they feel the restrictions are too restrictive.

But he shouldn't get to change what's considered reasonable for their game in the middle of the session, out of the blue, without discussing it with the players!

Of course players can leave. I don't particularly care for having ungrateful ones around, myself. I'm thankful to say that hasn't been the case, for the most part, and I've never played long-term with any.

But my first couple of adventures were played almost solely with core material. From what people are saying in this topic, it's a miracle we managed to have any fun.

Nothing "in-session" changed. It's not as if this guy said, "All of you who have non-core classes? Yeah, your characters are gone." They're grandfathered in. They still have all their capabilities. What actually was different for them on this ruling? Nothing, so far as I can see.

It's clear from the story that these players weren't going to accept any further discussion about this matter--the DM had already tried to get them to cooperate and use only core classes, and they refused to go along with it. The discussion had already happened. He pulled rank, sure, but it wouldn't have gone through without that.

Could it have been handled better on the DM's side? Probably. Was it a bad move? No, not at all.

Greenish

2013-03-12, 12:32 PM

The point is, changing the rules you've all agreed on in the middle of the game with no warning whatsoever is a richard move, and no matter how you try to twist it, it remains so.

JusticeZero

2013-03-12, 12:38 PM

Nobody is saying 'core is just bad'.

However, after the first decade of playing core classes, you get really really sick of playing them in basically the same setting derived from core classes every single game.

Deepbluediver

2013-03-12, 12:57 PM

I haven't read the entire thread, sorry, after 40 or so posts, it started to run in circles. So if I'm just repeating what some one else already said, I apologize.

I don't like double-standards and I REALLY don't like changing rules in the middle of a game. Whatever rules are put in place at the start of the game should be continued until the games conclusion, and then if people aren't happy EVERYONE should sit down together and work out something new.
Sometimes a DM find a way to wrap things up a little quicker than they planned, but nuking the entire setup represents failure on multiple levels.

Yes, the DM has the final say because he's running the game and putting in the most time and effort, but if he can't understand when a player isn't having fun or WHY they are bored/upset, then game is going to rapidly fall apart. I would take a break, maybe run something else for a week to give everyone a breather (PARANOIA can be a real hoot that gets people out of the "srs bzns" mindset) before discussing it at a time and place that ISN'T in the middle of a session.

Also, if you want to give DMing a try, but don't feel like you have the time or energy to build an entire game-world from scratch, it can be pretty easy to take an existing module and tweak it as much or as little as you want. (new backstory, a few new monsters, and some templates and 4 out of 5 players won't notice the difference :smallbiggrin:)

Story

2013-03-12, 01:36 PM

Be sure to change the names too, so that they don't accidentally find it through Google. (Happened in our current campaign, though it appears to be based only loosely on the module anyway)

Ivellius

2013-03-12, 02:53 PM

The point is, changing the rules you've all agreed on in the middle of the game with no warning whatsoever is a richard move, and no matter how you try to twist it, it remains so.

Okay. But that's not really what happened here. First, the DM was coerced into agreeing to it and never really supported this concession. Second, as far as I can tell it affected literally nothing in the session other than the players pitching a fit. Whining, complaining, and arguing in the middle of a session is surely just as disruptive and immature as any decisions about what material the DM will permit the players to use.

Nobody is saying 'core is just bad'.

However, after the first decade of playing core classes, you get really really sick of playing them in basically the same setting derived from core classes every single game.

I'd argue several people have been saying "core is just bad," but you've been reasonable throughout this discussion, so I won't protest too loudly. Regardless, I'll let you know in another three years--I have the feeling that I won't get to be a player enough that I'd be sick of playing any of them.

Thebar99

2013-03-12, 03:03 PM

It's because it's a royal pain to GM for, to keep track of all the rules for at once, and to explain all the support structures for each different power cluster. It's like cooking. If you dump the whole spice rack into your food, it will taste horrible.

Not really. A core only game requires keeping track of more things because while a martial adept or incarnum weaver or special magic weaver etc has a few distinct abilities, core classes (worth playing) have dozens of distinct abilities that can be changed at any time with little warning. And so there's more to keep track of and more to take into account in encounter design.

Now make no mistake, D&D is unplayable without magic - so many abilities are flat out uncounterable without it. But having a wide array of classes that are "good enough" is easier to DM for than the all Tier 1 party you'll get in a core only game. Not to mention being scared of options doesn't work so well if you just end up forcing everyone into what has the most options because there are no acceptable alternatives.

Merellis

2013-03-12, 03:11 PM

I and half my group are super steamed after this Friday’s game. When the campaign started back in June, **** our DM wanted it to be core-only because...well, I forget. He said something about the scout’s skirmish ability being unrealistic by way of explanation. But we talked him out of it because jeez, it was 2012 already and I’ve played core to death! So about half of us make core PCs, and the other half use splat classes. Yay!

Fast forward to this past Friday...

The party is fighting a small horde of undead, including two wraiths, beside a subterranean river of lava. The psion gets cornered at the river’s edge, and then killed. Bummer, second death of the campaign! Bob the psion’s player cracks a joke about toppling backward into the lava so the wraith can’t respawn him, and **** seems to like the idea so it happens. No res, no problem, Bob says. He’s been wanting to try a crusader concept. To which **** replies “Core only from now on.”

For a moment, we all could have heard a pin drop...and then the shouting began. Apparently **** has decided that splats make 3.5 into “a different game,” whatever that means. He suggested that Bob play a paladin instead, which got a “I don’t want to play Dudley Dumbass Do-Right-or-Fall!” shout in response. Pretty soon we were all arguing and yelling, backing up **** or Bob.

@Ivellus

If you read it, you'll note that it literally was during a current session just as one of them died. The player had made Psion, died to a Wraith and cracked a joke about falling backwards into the lava to not become a wraith himself. DM says okay to that, player then mentions making a Crusader to which the DM replies "Core only from now on."

The issue people are having is that the DM agreed to let in the splatbooks because at least half of his players were sick of PHB. The DM had some options that he decided not to take, given the story told, like just saying no and living with less players, or just getting someone else to DM so he didn't have to do that. Instead he said yes, then changed it the second one of them died.

That is pretty unfair given that they can only use non-core classes until that particular character dies, and given the DM has the power to bring in monsters from other books besides the MM and just makes them up as well. It's almost a given to drop back to Core Only classes because the DM can just make sure they die.

So the players who wanted to do non-core are in a no-win situation because eventually these characters are going to die and he's never going to budge again.

I suggest they get someone else in the group to DM for a change of pace or just try diplomancy one more time before deciding whether or not a DM that changes things that were agreed upon before the game started is one they want to follow still.

Greenish

2013-03-12, 03:15 PM

Okay. But that's not really what happened here.That is exactly what happened here. The DM had agreed to run the campaign with splats (why, if he really didn't want to?), then went and changed the rule from straight under the players not only in the middle of the session, but in the middle of a battle. That, for the record, is not when you bring up changing the basic assumptions of the kind of campaign you're playing.

Second, as far as I can tell it affected literally nothing in the session other than the players pitching a fit.You think the psion would have been so cool with losing the opportunity for resurrection for a joke if he knew his new character couldn't be anything he hasn't really tired of playing?

Gerrtt

2013-03-12, 03:40 PM

And in case anyone is wondering, the "appropriate" time would be when you are away from the table and rather than changing the basic assumptions you're actually having a conversation about it and coming to a consensus with your players.

Asteron

2013-03-12, 03:42 PM

I feel that both parties involved really screwed this up...

The players should not have blown up at the DM. Getting mad and yelling very rarely works. All I've ever seen it do is make the other individual angry as well. They should have waited until the end of the session to make their arguments, and then done so politely. D&D is a game and isn't worth the anger.

The DM... well, I've never rolled with the idea that the DM is "always right." Nobody is always right. A good DM will recognize that. Also, D&D is a cooperative game. It should be the DM and the players working together to make a great story. That doesn't work when the DM is being a Ricktator... This is coming from someone who had DMed several games (one lasting nearly 4 years before I turned it over to a player for a change...

Ivellius

2013-03-12, 04:20 PM

If you read it, you'll note that it literally was during a current session just as one of them died. The player had made Psion, died to a Wraith and cracked a joke about falling backwards into the lava to not become a wraith himself. DM says okay to that, player then mentions making a Crusader to which the DM replies "Core only from now on."

[snipped stuff]

So the players who wanted to do non-core are in a no-win situation because eventually these characters are going to die and he's never going to budge again.

I suggest they get someone else in the group to DM for a change of pace or just try diplomancy one more time before deciding whether or not a DM that changes things that were agreed upon before the game started is one they want to follow still.

Wow, that's a lot of assumptions about this DM. It still doesn't affect what actually happened during that session. Basically, you're arguing that because he decided to be nice and accommodate them at the beginning of the campaign, that makes him a bad guy when he decides it's too much for him to keep track of and requests that they simplify their future characters. And he's out to kill those offending characters, now? I didn't gather that from Trunamer's posts.

I do commend you for giving a reasonable "how to handle this" suggestion, though.

That is exactly what happened here. The DM had agreed to run the campaign with splats (why, if he really didn't want to?), then went and changed the rule from straight under the players not only in the middle of the session, but in the middle of a battle. That, for the record, is not when you bring up changing the basic assumptions of the kind of campaign you're playing.

You think the psion would have been so cool with losing the opportunity for resurrection for a joke if he knew his new character couldn't be anything he hasn't really tired of playing?

Changing the rules in the middle of a battle would be something more like "your characters are now Paladins, or Wizards" or something of that nature. This, so far as I can tell, didn't affect anything in the session.

So why did he allow this? You can tell from the story that he really didn't want to, but he was trying to be a nice guy. More than likely, his players bullied him into it. I'd be quite surprised if their temper tantrum in this session wasn't indicative of their previous behavior and personalities. I don't know at what point the DM decided that new characters would have to be core, but it wouldn't have gone over any better whenever he'd told them. Sure, it would've been nice to mention it before it came up, but the player forced him to say something right then by talking about his next character. I'll concede that a better option would've been to take the player aside after the session and explain things, but I'd be surprised if that helped. And what if the player was going to start planning his next character while the others finished the session?

Considering he was planning to play "not-a-psion" and didn't want his character coming back as a wraith, I don't know that knowing this ahead of time would've affected his "throw self into lava" plan. A Crusader is pretty far away from that as a character concept.

I'm not saying this guy was exactly right, but there's not enough evidence to say he's a bad DM. However, his tantrum-throwing players definitely need adjustment, and I wish him and whoever he has left all the luck in the world.

In all seriousness, though, what would be reasonable for someone to be tired of playing a particular core class? Assuming you play with the same DM for 10 years and have only those options for your gaming, you'd only be playing any single class for roughly a year. That's not counting the effect different races, stats, and alignments have on your characters, or prestige classes, or that each spellcaster can be really different depending on spell selections, domains, specializations, and what have you. If I'm tired of core by that point, I'm probably just tired of D&D altogether.

Merellis

2013-03-12, 04:37 PM

Here's the thing, I made those assumptions based on the fact that DM did allow it. If he had bowed out of DMing because he didn't want to deal with splatbooks as a DM then that would be fine. If he just said no and handled whatever players remained then that would have been fine. Instead the group got an agreement to allow splatbooks, and the second one of them died he removed that option.

In the middle of a session, right smack during a battle of all things.

It makes him the badguy because instead of talking after the game, or before the game he decided to change it right as they're playing. And yes it probably wouldn't have gone over well in the first place, and yes his players reacted poorly to it. But at the same time, he brought the headache on himself by allowing it in the first place. Whether or not his players nagged him into it, his response was to say yes and then turn it around during a battle of all things.

I think he would be out to kill them because the ruling itself is "if your character dies you go back to core" and what better way to do that then just killing them?

And I'm not making an assumption about his monster usage as it is mentioned in the thread that he uses out of core books and homebrew for monsters. It kind of seems hypocritical to allow himself that freedom while restricting the players that wish to have more options.

I dunno, I just think this could have been avoided if he had either bowed out in the beginning or just stood his ground instead of pulling a dumb move like that.

Changing the rules in the middle of a battle would be something more like "your characters are now Paladins, or Wizards" or something of that nature. This, so far as I can tell, didn't affect anything in the session.

I'd say it affected the session due to the fact that it suddenly changed what the player was allowed for creating a character so that he could continue playing. Again, not a player or DM of that group I just find that saying one thing and then doing the opposite creates a major breach in trusting the DM to run the game.

You can be a great DM but revoking decisions that were the basis of agreement for getting the game going just seems like a horrible sense of logic and definitely won't inspire players to trust you to handle the game well.

Edit: Lets not forget that this game had been going on since this last June, so multiple months of Splatbooks being allowed with no issue.

Wings of Peace

2013-03-12, 05:11 PM

Leave. Just walk into the next session to grab whatever sheets of yours the dm is holding for convenience if any and then walk out. Your situation is not going to improve, your dm is a bad man and your group sounds like it's on fire or soon going to set each other on fire. Escape now while everyone is at their current levels of unhappiness, buy yourself a coke and some swedish fish if your locale carries them and talk to a nice girl named Marigold before settling down and having a reasonable number of babies.

Ivellius

2013-03-12, 06:20 PM

[snipping]

Whether or not his players nagged him into it, his response was to say yes and then turn it around during a battle of all things.

I think he would be out to kill them because the ruling itself is "if your character dies you go back to core" and what better way to do that then just killing them?

[...]

I'd say it affected the session due to the fact that it suddenly changed what the player was allowed for creating a character so that he could continue playing. Again, not a player or DM of that group I just find that saying one thing and then doing the opposite creates a major breach in trusting the DM to run the game.

[...]

Edit: Lets not forget that this game had been going on since this last June, so multiple months of Splatbooks being allowed with no issue.

Again, this had nothing to do with the battle at hand, so far as I can tell. At least when I'm DMing and have a character die, I don't just go, "And suddenly, this other guy appears that you're now playing as!" You're also assuming that the session was going to last long enough that A) the player could make a new character and B) the DM would introduce the character within that session, two things that I don't think you can take for granted.

I'd be really surprised if he's out to kill them, especially if this game has been going on that long and he hasn't tried to yet. There's nothing in Trunamer's post that would lead me to believe that's an issue, although the players might fear that it will be the case.

I'm not sure how it matters at all where the DM is getting monsters, so long as the group has some way to handle them effectively. Looking up something in a Monster Manual is much easier than familiarizing yourself with the entire psionics system, for instance.

I'm still curious about my last question, and your post raises another: you think it's better for a DM to quit rather than try to cater to his players' demands and include something he's not enthused about? There's a sort of contract with gaming groups, I suppose, but I've always felt it should be heavily weighted toward the DM. If he or she isn't having fun, that's not a game--that's work. I doubt the players are paying him for their entertainment.

Kudaku

2013-03-12, 06:47 PM

It sounds to me that both parties are at fault here. The DM drops a bit of a bomb mid-game without much introduction, and the players by the OP's own admission pretty much started shouting immediately - giving him no real chance to explain why he's come to this decision. It also sounds like he was, quite frankly, pressed into using non-core material against his own will in the first place.

As a DM I have myself asked players not to use certain elements because I quite simply didn't have the time or the resources (ie access to said books) to properly read up on the rules. Psionics, Binding, or the Tome of Battle to mention a few examples are all huge amounts of text to read and require a fairly hefty amount of system understanding to boot. The typical DM is already putting in quite a lot of work as it is just preparing the game for his players to enjoy - I can see why even more prep time can be frustrating.

At the same time, as a DM I would try to be flexible in order to make my group happy. If my players absolutely need to play a crusader because that's exactly how he envisioned his character then I'd probably agree to it - and give crusader a thorough readover.

Finally, I think the players are being somewhat selfish here: You yourself say that you don't have time to DM and you go on for some time about how every DM you've ever played with has issues. Accept the fact that the guy who takes it upon himself to do that job for you has some limitations, either in-game or without, run your own game and show them all how wrong they are to disallow content, or drop out.

Trunamer

2013-03-12, 06:57 PM

Thanks to everyone who gave me constructive suggestions!

Not to derail this into edition wars, but the reason for this is because everything in 4th is essentially the same. There's no point banning anything because it's all a homogeneous uninteresting mush. Frankly if the main reason your'e leaving this game is because core only, switching to 4th won't help. It'll be interesting for a little while and then it'll just get old fast and you'll start to miss the options available in 3.5.
The P&PG add says the group has been playing 4e since 2008, and that some players have been D&Ding since before WotC, so you'll forgive me if I take your biased opinion with a boulder of salt.

Thanks for the edition potshot though.

Augmental

2013-03-12, 07:51 PM

I'm not sure how it matters at all where the DM is getting monsters, so long as the group has some way to handle them effectively. Looking up something in a Monster Manual is much easier than familiarizing yourself with the entire psionics system, for instance.

What if the DM uses content from a splatbook that adds no new subsystems, that the players aren't allowed to use?

There's a sort of contract with gaming groups, I suppose, but I've always felt it should be heavily weighted toward the DM.

No. The players and DM should get an equal "share", as it were, of the implicit contract.

Rukia

2013-03-12, 08:56 PM

There are some seriously selfish players in this thread, not to mention the OP remarks. I'm not going to bother to get too much into the original argument seeing as both sides made some mistakes in that whole ordeal. If you can't see that both sides are equally to blame then you aren't looking very hard. DM obviously prefers core, players push him into allowing more, eventually he decides to go back to core. He should have stood firm in the beginning, the players shouldn't have tried pushing so hard. As has been said countless times, if you don't like your DM's rules then it's probably best to find a new game than to coerce your DM into something he isn't really ok with because we see how that turned out here.

I'm sorry but it's not 50/50 DM and players. The DM has to have the final say, hands down, period. The game can't function otherwise. They should be open to their players concerns, wishes and thoughts but at the end of the day if they say no, then it means no. Whining, arguing and so on is immature and in poor taste. The thought of actual yelling at a table makes me laugh as it seems so ridiculously childish. I've had a few arguments as a DM and a player, but never to that ridiculous of an extreme. It is a game after all.

Ultimately the DM is investing far more time into the game than the players so it'd be somewhat insulting if one of my players demanded I let x and y in the game just because they wanted it. Imagine if sports games allowed the players to stand in and referee, umpire, etc.. Things would get ridiculous fast. The whole point of the DM is to referee the game and their say is final. As referee it's up to them to be in control of the rules, and in D&D that essentially means what books are allowed.

To see someone show such contempt for a DM, yet at the same time make excuses as to why they personally don't have the time to DM(but want the game to be how they want it to be) just boggles my mind. The proverbial "have my cake and eat it too" attitude. There are bad DM's no doubt and nothing you do will fix it so finding a new game or becoming DM is your best option. Guess what, percentage wise there are far more bad players out there.

Personally I'm pretty much ok with just about anything in my game, however I have the extra time to invest when needed. I can totally understand some DM's not having such time and not allowing material in a game. Yes core only can be boring and using "balance" as an excuse is poor considering core classes contain the big 3, but ultimately it's their decision. If you don't like it you find another game not start a shouting match like a bunch of elementary school kids.

JusticeZero

2013-03-12, 09:24 PM

In all seriousness, though, what would be reasonable for someone to be tired of playing a particular core class? Assuming you play with the same DM for 10 years and have only those options for your gaming, you'd only be playing any single class for roughly a year..
You're not playing your character in isolation.

You're also playing the party dynamics of the other members of the party. Shuffle the seats around and you're still playing the same game, but from different angles.

You're also playing the world itself. Core contains a lot of different social structures that have to be in place in that specific combination, to the extent that a lot of the conditions of the world write themselves. Be it called "Greyhawk" or "Forgotten Realms" or "Gluumworld" whatever else, in a lot of ways it's just a palette swap. Things are rearranged on the map and the titles change, but the world stays pretty stable.

If you add a whole class, you have to wedge in a whole new piece of infrastructure into the world. You have to figure out where all of these people are training, where they meet up, what influence they have.. you're adding to a very crowded world.
But the party dynamics shift some; it becomes a new, fresher game as the tactics and dynamics turn on their axis to accompany the new concept.

If you remove a whole class, you make room for other pieces to grow to fill the space. The absence can create new opportunities. If clerics are sliced away, suddenly vast new vistas open up for the worldbuilder. Many of these make the job of comprehending the world easier.
Also, your party dynamics change more. What was once redundancy becomes central strategy, and tactics adapt and evolve.

It takes an act of will to remove things from the table, though. It's easy to cut back on splats, because splats are expensive, and can seem shakier and less trustworthy. But cutting the splats throws you back into the palette swapped old game, and slices away the freshness.

That's why I advise taking the brave step and slashing back the core instead. That's really the only thing that I can play nowadays anyways.

Deepbluediver

2013-03-12, 09:28 PM

Ok, here's soemthing I'm not understanding: people keep saying "the DM doesn't have time to learn everything that players want to incorporate into the game" (I'm paraphrasing a little).

But you don't need to have every single line memorized in order to run a game. That's why it's said, right up front, that you should keep every book you are using on hand- so you can check them as needed. Do you know how many of the spells or classes in core alone I've perfectly memorized? Exactly zero. Do you know how many games it's prevented me from playing? Also zero.

The two most complicated things I've ever read in D&D where Incarnum and Shadowmagic. And the first was mostly because WotC's iron-clad adhearance to formula required them to describe all the classes before explaining any of the mechanics that where being referenced.
And neither one took me more than 20 minutes to understand a basic grasp of how they worked. Beyond that, if some one wanted to use one in a game, I'd require them to have the book on hand, and then I would trust them to know how their class functions. The same way I trust the DM to not throw really unbalanced encounters at us or suddenly double every monster's health because we staged a succesful ambush.

Here's the deal: if you claim that the DM should have complete and total control over the game, then they bear the brunt of responsibility for failures. If you want to share the blame, then you need to give everyone a say in how the game runs.

And anything that the DM wants to ban, they should have a good reason for doing so. "It makes D&D a different game" is a BS reason. It doesn't mean jack diddly. All the basic mechancis are still in play- HP, spells and attacks, saves, skill checks, etc. All splatbooks do is reflavor things a bit and shift some numbers around. If the DM has gotten to the point where he's homebrewing monsters, then its certainly a reasonable expectation for the players to want to expand beyond a single book.
Yes they could have handled it better, but the complaint is a legitimate one. Unless it is honest-to-goodness breaking the game in an unfixable way, changing rules in the middle of a session is NEVER justified.

Now, if Trunamer wants to show this thread to his DM, and let him tell his side of the story, then I'll certainly listen and give due consideration. Maybe with a little outside mediation we can get both parties to calm down and patch things up.
Or we'll simply make it worse, escalating a simple spat into an arcrimonious and friendship-ending brawl. Either way, it'll be entertaining :P

White_Drake

2013-03-12, 09:45 PM

The two most complicated things I've ever read in D&D where Incarnum and Shadowmagic. And the first was mostly because WotC's iron-clad adhearance to formula required them to describe all the classes before explaining any of the mechanics that where being referenced.
[/COLOR]

That is annoying. The first time I read ToB I couldn't make heads or tails out of the classes, because 9/10ths of their class features were completely unexplained (at that point in the book).

Acanous

2013-03-12, 09:57 PM

I hate it when this happens. The fastest way to kill a character concept is by restricting the player's build options.

It's happened to me THREE TIMES, by the way. The last two were changed to "Pathfinder only".

Anyhow, my personal advice here is start a new group, or take over DMing your current group. It'll be much more fun- the players who want splatts can use splats, and the player who wants core only can play core only.

Eslin

2013-03-12, 10:45 PM

Story

2013-03-12, 10:59 PM

Well the DM is supposed to know the rules too. But you can make players do most of the work. Have them print out notecards with their maneuver abilities, etc.

Komatik

2013-03-12, 11:03 PM

So why did he allow this? You can tell from the story that he really didn't want to, but he was trying to be a nice guy. More than likely, his players bullied him into it. I'd be quite surprised if their temper tantrum in this session wasn't indicative of their previous behavior and personalities. I don't know at what point the DM decided that new characters would have to be core, but it wouldn't have gone over any better whenever he'd told them. Sure, it would've been nice to mention it before it came up, but the player forced him to say something right then by talking about his next character. I'll concede that a better option would've been to take the player aside after the session and explain things, but I'd be surprised if that helped. And what if the player was going to start planning his next character while the others finished the session?

Considering he was planning to play "not-a-psion" and didn't want his character coming back as a wraith, I don't know that knowing this ahead of time would've affected his "throw self into lava" plan. A Crusader is pretty far away from that as a character concept.

In all seriousness, though, what would be reasonable for someone to be tired of playing a particular core class? Assuming you play with the same DM for 10 years and have only those options for your gaming, you'd only be playing any single class for roughly a year. That's not counting the effect different races, stats, and alignments have on your characters, or prestige classes, or that each spellcaster can be really different depending on spell selections, domains, specializations, and what have you. If I'm tired of core by that point, I'm probably just tired of D&D altogether.

It damn sure affects my decision. If I want to play a non-castery type, the Tome of Battle is the first and only place I start thinking about, mechanically. The Core melee stuff is atrocious on every level, just uninspiring, boring drek. Basically, rolling a new Crusader would be +lots of fun. Keeping the Psion, neutral. Rolling a Fighter or Stickupthearse-adin, -10 million fun points. So another caster it is. -some fun points. Might even be quite a bit given how much I like or dislike the default Vancian casting system.

Moreover, the player performs the deat-newchar-fun calculus with the old rules, then is informed new rules are in effect, by the way. Absolutely destroying the basis for doing that pretty grave decision.

So, yes, changing what books are allowed right after character death? Pulling the rug from under the Psion's feet with no regard for the player. If I'm bored to death of Core and the kinds of group dynamics that come from it, one of the cornerstones of my participation in the campaign is allowing the splats in the first place. What he pulled would amount to "play something boring or don't play". Of course it begets hostility.

I'm not saying this guy was exactly right, but there's not enough evidence to say he's a bad DM. However, his tantrum-throwing players definitely need adjustment, and I wish him and whoever he has left all the luck in the world.

Player reacts with outrage to being mentally gut punched, boo hiss, now obey your goddamn DM.

Eslin

2013-03-12, 11:04 PM

That's the thing - I know far more than my players so usually I know their characters better than they do, but if they want to play, say, a shadowcaster then all I really need to know is the effects of whichever ability they just used, same as I'd need to know what the spell the wizard just cast does. I don't see how that adds any extra work.

Coidzor

2013-03-12, 11:11 PM

it's about consensus and cooperation.

This sentiment contradicts this

People in a D&D group should get input relative to the investment they put into the campaign, which basically means that players are subject to whatever restrictions exist. That's only fair. If they don't like, let them run campaigns and see the other side of it.

So, which is it? Does the group have the ability to act like human beings and discuss things or are the players supposed to passively accept whatever the DM decrees or ragequit the group?

Komatik

2013-03-12, 11:15 PM

are the players supposed to passively accept whatever the DM decrees or ragequit the group?

Ragequitting sounds better than playing Fighter, tbh.

Rukia

2013-03-12, 11:18 PM

The thing I don't understand is why people keep defending the DM by saying it's extra work for him. It's not any extra work, the players are responsible for researching and playing their own characters - if they decide to use a different subsystem, how is that any skin off the DM's nose?

He still has to understand it and make judgement calls. What if the player interprets things incorrectly? Don't say it's that simple, read the first page of this forum at any given moment and you'll endless questions regarding some of the most mundane rules. A player bringing ToB to a table that's never read it before would be quite a big change. The DM can't simply rely on the player to get it right, at some point he has to become somewhat intimate with those rules. We'd all like to believe that all players are honest, but what if a player is bending the rules to their benefit? Without knowledge of the subsystem and specific rules how would the DM know this?

The DM hands down has the most time invested in any given campaign. If he doesn't then he probably shouldn't be DMing. Therefore, with the most time invested they should have the most control of the situation anyways. Just because player A "really wants to try" character x, doesn't mean the DM should just allow it. It depends on the power level of the group, the complexity of the class/system, whether or not that fits in with the campaign world or design, etc..

Every DM has to draw a line at some point, for each DM that line will be different. Just making blanket statements that all DM's should allow whatever the player brings to the table.. sounds like a selfish player's argument. I'd suggest in that case that the player has to run a game where the DM bring's a ridiculously optimized, but RAW, character to the table.

And yes it is extra work. Balancing encounters when a party is made up of mixed tier classes takes extra time. It's not easy or fun to balance encounters when you have an optimized tier 1 and a bunch of tier 3's and 4's. It takes more work to plan it out so they can all shine, whereas if they were balanced it'd be much simpler. I know I've had to do this. Also high levels of player also require more preparation for the DM. A level 3 session might take an hour or two to prepare for. A level 20 game will likely take quite a bit longer unless the DM is very, very experienced.

Pickford

2013-03-12, 11:20 PM

The point is, changing the rules you've all agreed on in the middle of the game with no warning whatsoever is a richard move, and no matter how you try to twist it, it remains so.

I'm surprised all the players didn't have to make a sanity check after that.

For the OP, the Psion should carefully explain the position that he's not agreeing to a rules change (and if there is no consensus to change the rules mid-campaign this campaign should finish as it started) and will be playing a Crusader. Next campaign, you can all rewrite the charter, but it's not the DMs place to make a change to those, non gameplay, rules at this time.

Answerer

2013-03-13, 12:32 AM

Rukia, you are talking about situations that don't apply. The DM doesn't have to learn ToB or any other new book, he's been DMing with them for months. There is no new extra work involved; we're not talking about new material. We're talking about his personal preferences vs. everyone else's. And no, the DM does not get to dictate everything about the game, because even if he is doing more work, I am still committing time to play. If a DM thinks that he has the right to tell me to play anything he likes and that I should accept any such decision unquestioningly, that DM is disrespecting my time. His opinions carry more weight than any other single player in the game, but they do not unilaterally trump everyone else's.

In short, no, the DM is not "always right and always gets to decide everything." DMing is not a matter of power, it's a matter of responsibility. And this DM has failed in his primary responsibility (making the game fun for everyone – that includes himself, but it also certainly includes the players), and therefore is not in the right here.

Whoever (I think someone did) referenced Spiderman about this is wrong. It's not "with great power, comes great responsibility," it's the opposite of that: "with great responsibility, comes great power." The DM controls the game because he is responsible for keeping it running. If he fails to keep is running, he no longer has control or deserves special treatment.

And I say this as someone who is currently DMing. I take my responsibilities within the game very seriously. Yes, it's a lot of work. Yes, I appreciate those who DM games I play in. But I don't expect my players to unquestioningly accept my every personal preference, and will not play under a DM who expects me to accept theirs.

Ultimately, this DM sounds as if he lacks the system mastery necessary to DM for the group of players he has. This is a pretty serious problem, and a difficult one to deal with. System mastery shouldn't be so necessary, but this is 3.x we're talking about here: the design is pretty awful, and you need system mastery to deal with that. If all his players have played the Core classes so frequently that they're bored of them, but the DM has not played enough that he knows how to handle other classes, there's a really serious disparity there.

Eslin

2013-03-13, 01:39 AM

He still has to understand it and make judgement calls. What if the player interprets things incorrectly? Don't say it's that simple, read the first page of this forum at any given moment and you'll endless questions regarding some of the most mundane rules. A player bringing ToB to a table that's never read it before would be quite a big change. The DM can't simply rely on the player to get it right, at some point he has to become somewhat intimate with those rules. We'd all like to believe that all players are honest, but what if a player is bending the rules to their benefit? Without knowledge of the subsystem and specific rules how would the DM know this?

The DM hands down has the most time invested in any given campaign. If he doesn't then he probably shouldn't be DMing. Therefore, with the most time invested they should have the most control of the situation anyways. Just because player A "really wants to try" character x, doesn't mean the DM should just allow it. It depends on the power level of the group, the complexity of the class/system, whether or not that fits in with the campaign world or design, etc..

Every DM has to draw a line at some point, for each DM that line will be different. Just making blanket statements that all DM's should allow whatever the player brings to the table.. sounds like a selfish player's argument. I'd suggest in that case that the player has to run a game where the DM bring's a ridiculously optimized, but RAW, character to the table.

And yes it is extra work. Balancing encounters when a party is made up of mixed tier classes takes extra time. It's not easy or fun to balance encounters when you have an optimized tier 1 and a bunch of tier 3's and 4's. It takes more work to plan it out so they can all shine, whereas if they were balanced it'd be much simpler. I know I've had to do this. Also high levels of player also require more preparation for the DM. A level 3 session might take an hour or two to prepare for. A level 20 game will likely take quite a bit longer unless the DM is very, very experienced.

I don't do any extra work if one player has an optimised tier 1 amongst 4s. I explain the tier system, if one person has deliberately decided to screw things up by being flat out better than the others then I'm kicking them out of the group.

If that player wants to play a tier 1 class but is willing to do so weakly (banning conjuration and transmutation), is a new player or does so in a way that everyone feels powerful (DMM cleric sharing the buffs around and playing support), I let them - but if they've decided they want to **** things up for everyone despite knowing better, I'm not letting them play until they mature.

And I do rely on my players to get it right - if they like a subsystem enough to want to play it, I expect them to do the work (since as DM, I already do more than the group combined). I'm happy to adjudicate if a problem appears, but that's not particularly common.

Pickford

2013-03-13, 01:48 AM

I don't do any extra work if one player has an optimised tier 1 amongst 4s. I explain the tier system, if one person has deliberately decided to screw things up by being flat out better than the others then I'm kicking them out of the group.

If that player wants to play a tier 1 class but is willing to do so weakly (banning conjuration and transmutation), is a new player or does so in a way that everyone feels powerful (DMM cleric sharing the buffs around and playing support), I let them - but if they've decided they want to **** things up for everyone despite knowing better, I'm not letting them play until they mature.

And I do rely on my players to get it right - if they like a subsystem enough to want to play it, I expect them to do the work (since as DM, I already do more than the group combined). I'm happy to adjudicate if a problem appears, but that's not particularly common.

The tier system is an opinion, there's no right or wrong involved, the utility of any class is entirely dependent on what the DM determines the challenges will be and what the rewards are.

If you throw golems at mages, mages die. Do the same thing to fighters...golems die. It's really not the class, it's the challenge.

Eslin

2013-03-13, 02:10 AM

No, if you throw golems at mages mages use one of their many, many tools to find a way around the situation. The tier system exists for a reason, wizards are better than fighter in almost every single possible respect.

eggynack

2013-03-13, 02:12 AM

The tier system is an opinion, there's no right or wrong involved, the utility of any class is entirely dependent on what the DM determines the challenges will be and what the rewards are.

If you throw golems at mages, mages die. Do the same thing to fighters...golems die. It's really not the class, it's the challenge.
Well, mages die in that situation with the implied caveat that they don't have any spells that deal with golems. The spell could be as crafted for that encounter as an orb of x, or just be a generic summoning spell that gives the wizard the ability to effect the golem without acting directly, or it could be a buff that lets the mage fight to some extent (either above or below that of the fighter depending on level, player skill, and the specific spell we're talking about), or he could just have a flight spell to fail to kill the golem, but succeed at the often more reachable goal of not dying. It's not really a stretch to assume a wizard would have at least one of those, and sometimes more.
On the other end of that tier stick, the fighter is able to possibly do better at killing golems than a wizard, but there aren't many other situations that specifically suited for the fighter's slew of abilities. I don't really see the tier list as an opinion at all, though people's tier preference is one. As applies to the thread though, I don't see the tiers of character the players bring to the table having much to do with book quantity. As has been noted, splat books increase the power level of non-casters more than they increase that of casters. It's a bit of a cliche by this point to say that non-core is more balanced than core, but it's true for the most part. There are three core classes in tier one, and three non-core classes, but there are far more non-core classes, so the percentages work in their favor. By contrast, a lot more of the non-core classes are in tier 3 I suspect. I haven't actually run numbers on it, but at the very least there's a tier 3 option for just about every archetype out there.

Eslin

2013-03-13, 02:18 AM

eggynack

2013-03-13, 02:22 AM

Well, there aren't any tier 3 archer types (geddit?) because ranged combat tends to be a ridiculously narrow focus - though a bow works as well for a factotum as anyone else, so that kind of counts?

Core wise the only tier 3 class is bard I think, and that's mostly just because of level 6 spellcasting - non-core gives the bard many more interesting options.
It's a bit of a sad thing. High op archery has always been a bit of a blank spot in my knowledge. I've heard good things about using a cleric with zen archery and stuff, but that's more of a tier 1 archer. There's also probably enough good things out there for rangers to bump them up to tier 3, without pushing them too far into craziness. Either way, it's definitely a more viable option than in just core.

Eslin

2013-03-13, 02:25 AM

eggynack

2013-03-13, 02:59 AM

Oh yeah, definitely. It's just archery optimization basically boils down to being a ranged ubercharger - massive hp damage, nothing else. At least for melee there are a bunch of ways to make it interesting and give the player options - poison/fear/trip builds, shapeshifting builds, tome of battle etc.

Ranged wise all you can do is attack over and over again, and ranged clerics etc tend to be good because you're a cleric and incidentally you use a bow.
So the conclusion here is that while in core you tend to be limited to the upper and lower tiers, out of core you can put all of the character types into tier three which is a good balancing point because it's around the low end for casters and the high end for mundanes. Unless you're an archer. If you're an archer, then you can be whatever tier you want, but the bow isn't going to effect your power level much one way or the other.

Talderas

2013-03-13, 06:46 AM

Rukia

2013-03-13, 07:54 AM

Rukia, you are talking about situations that don't apply. The DM doesn't have to learn ToB or any other new book, he's been DMing with them for months. There is no new extra work involved; we're not talking about new material. We're talking about his personal preferences vs. everyone else's. And no, the DM does not get to dictate everything about the game, because even if he is doing more work, I am still committing time to play. If a DM thinks that he has the right to tell me to play anything he likes and that I should accept any such decision unquestioningly, that DM is disrespecting my time. His opinions carry more weight than any other single player in the game, but they do not unilaterally trump everyone else's.

I wasn't talking about ToB in the situation being talked about, it was completely about the "Dm doesn't need to know the rules, it's up to the player" comment. The DM absolutely needs to understand any new system or set of rules that a player brings to the table or else he'll have no clue if any of what said player is doing is even legal.

If a DM who hasn't seen ToB allows a Warblade in his game, when all of his previous experience has been with Core melee classes, how long do you think it'd be before he starts asking question. "Hey DM, I took exotic weapon spiked chain, weapon focus spiked chain and weapon spec spiked chain. So now that I got this nifty new exotic weapon I'm going to spend an hour this morning training and now all those feats apply to my new weapon." No DM in his right mind would just take the player's word for it without picking up the book and double checking. That's just one of many possible instances with that book alone. Add in a dozen other books and now you have a DM who has no idea what's going on if he doesn't read up on the player's abilities.

Kudaku

2013-03-13, 08:07 AM

I wasn't talking about ToB in the situation being talked about, it was completely about the "Dm doesn't need to know the rules, it's up to the player" comment. The DM absolutely needs to understand any new system or set of rules that a player brings to the table or else he'll have no clue if any of what said player is doing is even legal.

If a DM who hasn't seen ToB allows a Warblade in his game, when all of his previous experience has been with Core melee classes, how long do you think it'd be before he starts asking question. "Hey DM, I took exotic weapon spiked chain, weapon focus spiked chain and weapon spec spiked chain. So now that I got this nifty new exotic weapon I'm going to spend an hour this morning training and now all those feats apply to my new weapon." No DM in his right mind would just take the player's word for it without picking up the book and double checking. That's just one of many possible instances with that book alone. Add in a dozen other books and now you have a DM who has no idea what's going on if he doesn't read up on the player's abilities.

I was about to write something pretty much just like this, but Rukia explained it perfectly. Suffice to say, +1.

Deepbluediver

2013-03-13, 08:48 AM

He still has to understand it and make judgement calls. What if the player interprets things incorrectly?

What if a DM interprets something incorrectly? DM's are just as capable as players of making mistakes. If there's a question about rules interpretation, my group usually deferred to the person at the table with the most experience with that particular situation. Often it's the DM, but sometimes its the player of that character, and sometimes its a different player. And no one ever acted like it was a personal vendetta if they got ruled against.

Don't say it's that simple, read the first page of this forum at any given moment and you'll endless questions regarding some of the most mundane rules. A player bringing ToB to a table that's never read it before would be quite a big change.

If the player has never read ToB before then they shouldn't be asking to play a class from it. Like I said, the DM needs to understand the basics of what is occuring, but no one involved in the game needs to have memorized and parsed out every bit of minutia. Judgement calls are for SMALL things. Not banning entire swaths of the game that where (and this is the important part) previously approved on a whim.

The DM can't simply rely on the player to get it right, at some point he has to become somewhat intimate with those rules. We'd all like to believe that all players are honest, but what if a player is bending the rules to their benefit? Without knowledge of the subsystem and specific rules how would the DM know this?

So DM's are inherently more honest than players? What if the DM starts bending rules to his benefit, don't the players have the right to question things as well? Where do you draw the line between a fun game and railroading/DM fiat?
(I'm not a fan of rule 0, can you tell?)

Again, the DM should have a general knowledge of how things work, the same as most players do. And if something sounds off or like a player is cheating, then the DM is perfectly within his rights to ask the player to show him the reference or explain it. But so long as the game is working well, and everyone is contributing more or less equally, then don't sweat the small stuff.

The DM hands down has the most time invested in any given campaign. If he doesn't then he probably shouldn't be DMing.

Most often, this is the case; I haven't seen anyone disagree with you on that point. But the players can invest a lot of time as well.
I've known plenty of people who spend hours, even days, poring over every book they can get their hands on for their build or potential classes they want to try. I myself once spent an entire night out-of-game breaking a code we had been given in-game because my characters was supposed to be the "smart one".

I really don't think this should be a contest over who puts in more total man-hours; other wise the player who spent 3 weeks making a playable monk should have authority over the guy who just rolled a druid a again, cause it was easy.

Therefore, with the most time invested they should have the most control of the situation anyways.

More of a say, yes; that why I defer to the DM on most matters, and work around any obstacles crop up. But that doesn't shouldn't mean his power is absolute. If the DM wants to make major changes to the game, he should at the very least alert his players out-of-session first, so there is a chance to discuss it and plan accordingly without interuptting the flow of the game.

Just because player A "really wants to try" character x, doesn't mean the DM should just allow it. It depends on the power level of the group, the complexity of the class/system, whether or not that fits in with the campaign world or design, etc..

And yet none of that was the justification given here. The reasoning was, apparently, "Splatbooks make D&D a different game". Want to explain that one to me?

Every DM has to draw a line at some point, for each DM that line will be different. Just making blanket statements that all DM's should allow whatever the player brings to the table.. sounds like a selfish player's argument. I'd suggest in that case that the player has to run a game where the DM bring's a ridiculously optimized, but RAW, character to the table.

But in this case the DM moved the line halfway through the race. If the DM had said "stick with the splatbooks I've already approved", then it might have been acceptable. But it went from "Core+some splatbooks" to "Core only". How is that justified?

And yes it is extra work. Balancing encounters when a party is made up of mixed tier classes takes extra time. It's not easy or fun to balance encounters when you have an optimized tier 1 and a bunch of tier 3's and 4's.

Generally speaking, a ToB class is a downgrade from a Psion, but still in the same general range. So IMO, balancing encounters probably would have gotten easier.
The issue about taking more time for the higher level is irrelevant; no one's level was suddenly jumping upwards if they roll a new character.

I wasn't talking about ToB in the situation being talked about, it was completely about the "Dm doesn't need to know the rules, it's up to the player" comment. The DM absolutely needs to understand any new system or set of rules that a player brings to the table or else he'll have no clue if any of what said player is doing is even legal.

I agreed that the DM should know the basics. You seem to think the DM needs to be more knowledgeable about every single aspect of the game than any player at the table. If that's your standard for DMing then I know a lot of people who have been doing it wrong for years.

If a DM who hasn't seen ToB allows a Warblade in his game, when all of his previous experience has been with Core melee classes, how long do you think it'd be before he starts asking question. "Hey DM, I took exotic weapon spiked chain, weapon focus spiked chain and weapon spec spiked chain. So now that I got this nifty new exotic weapon I'm going to spend an hour this morning training and now all those feats apply to my new weapon."

That wasn't a question. If the players asks the DM a question about his class, then the DM's first response should be "figure it out for yourself".

If there is something really not clear, then the DM and the player should sit down together, OUT OF SESSION, and review it until they reach an understanding.

No DM in his right mind would just take the player's word for it without picking up the book and double checking. That's just one of many possible instances with that book alone. Add in a dozen other books and now you have a DM who has no idea what's going on if he doesn't read up on the player's abilities.

If a player wants to do something that sounds off, then the DM can ask the player to show them the reference that allows this (I'm getting a feeling of deja-vu). It puts the responsibility on the player, and if the player can't prove their case, only then would you default to the DM or the core RAW.

I'm starting to wonder which one of us is the exception to the standard gaming group, since we seem to approach the game with such different perceptions. You seem to have this attitude that the game of D&D is "Players vs DM" instead of "Players vs Game-world". Why can't the players and the DM trust enough to not turn every session into a pissing contest?

Callin

2013-03-13, 09:22 AM

I have played under a DM who is against the players. No fun at all. Decent player and a good friend but OMG we cant stand his games lol.

Our normal DM is pretty cool. We can use any book we have access too but absolutly no Dragon Mag. and please keep the cheese down to a low roar. Other than that 3rd party stuff is fair game. Mostly...

But we are all adults, and have been friends for a long long time and I have been a part of the group for 12 years now. So we treat each other like adults. The DM does have final say in all matters but being over board or a Richard about it gets you in the friendly cauldron.

Thebar99

2013-03-13, 09:23 AM

Ultimately the DM is investing far more time into the game than the players so it'd be somewhat insulting if one of my players demanded I let x and y in the game just because they wanted it. Imagine if sports games allowed the players to stand in and referee, umpire, etc.. Things would get ridiculous fast. The whole point of the DM is to referee the game and their say is final. As referee it's up to them to be in control of the rules, and in D&D that essentially means what books are allowed.

More like the umpire bans fastballs and outfielders in the middle of a game.

And there's more bad DMs than bad players. It takes more effort to be a good DM, so naturally more fall short of the mark.

Ragequitting sounds better than playing Fighter, tbh.

No, if you throw golems at mages mages use one of their many, many tools to find a way around the situation. The tier system exists for a reason, wizards are better than fighter in almost every single possible respect.

+1. Golems are magic weak. The hell is he talking about?

And that's before considering the high level caster that made that golem that would assuredly be encountered with it.

And because I'm tired of multiquoting: You don't see any good archery builds because archery isn't any good. Too easily countered, and too low damage when damage is all it does. It's easier to make ranged melee attacks good than it is to make ranged ranged attacks good.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-03-13, 09:28 AM

I wasn't talking about ToB in the situation being talked about, it was completely about the "Dm doesn't need to know the rules, it's up to the player" comment. The DM absolutely needs to understand any new system or set of rules that a player brings to the table or else he'll have no clue if any of what said player is doing is even legal.
The DM needs to read the basics, sure. If someone wants to play a psion, he should at least skim the ~15 page chapter on "Psionics." ToB? The 10 page "Blade Magic" section. And if it's a class he's unfamiliar with, he should read over the class description, at least up to the levels the game is likely to reach soon. That's not hard. It doesn't take long, and you owe it to your players to give their character idea that much consideration. Beyond that? You don't need to know the full details of every one of a player's powers/spells/maneuvers/feats. Just enough to know what will be an easy or insurmountable obstacle for them.

No DM in his right mind would just take the player's word for it without picking up the book and double checking.
It's called trusting your players to be honest, and it's one of the fundamental assumptions of a group game.

Answerer

2013-03-13, 09:34 AM

Yeah, if you don't trust your players (or they do not trust you), you just don't have a game. Anything you pretend to do in those situations is just a dead man (game?) walking.

Mirakk

2013-03-13, 09:39 AM

Everything important has already been said. My advice for next session:

1) Inform the DM that the rest of the group has decided that he isn't experienced or capable enough to run a non-core game. Until he shows a better grasp of tactical acuity and system mastery, the group will inform him when he's allowed to graduate to more advanced forms of play. In the meantime:

2) You will all be playing druidzillas to show him exactly how broken Core is. Tell him he needs to brush up on his celestial ocelots and fiendish dire chilopodas, because you'll all be summoning about a half-dozen or so every round.

LOL YES. A while back I played in a game with a dictator of a DM that was super die-hard about core only. The same guy insisted on using the variant rules from the DMG for firearms which is just wierd and I've never seen implemented before. Also, no prestige classes, since those are only for DM NPCs since it's in the DMG. So yeah, I pulled Druidzilla, and the game collapsed in 2-3 sessions at which point I made my own campaign and the players couldn't be happier.

Trebloc

2013-03-13, 10:07 AM

This was my point: core vs. non-core is a red herring here. The difference is in optimization skill.

Optimization and player skill & experience could well be it, as well as the perception of more books = better PC, or simply the amount of time/money the other players have to gather/read the other material...etc, we just don't know at this time. However, more sources open up more spells and abilities that make it more work for a DM to consider and plan for.

I mean, if the DM plans a great encounter and it's easily overcome by an item/spell/feat/class feature from a non-core book, and that happens on a regular basis, that could certainly be frustrating. This is assuming the DM has little/no experience outside of core.

Same goes for if the non-core players are using their material correctly and are also dominating the game. This would more than likely be the non-core players also being more experienced, however I've seen on more than one occasion where someone wanted to get something from random book XYZ and was trying to use it the wrong way.

Yes, but each of those requires one supplement apiece, not a 15-class monstrosity. Also, neither of those is super-powerful on its own, they're powerful because of how they dramatically improve already-godly classes (more true of Incantatrix than Planar Shepherd, I realize).

The 15 sources is an exageration on my part. I'm trying to show the perception that more books=better PC.

Yes, that might be true, but that doesn't make it valid. The solution to that is education.

I agree that education would be helpful and I suggested as much. Limiting materials would also be helpful until the core-only DM/players are comfortable with their new surroundings. Adding 4-5 new books would probably be easier than adding in 55 new books.

Threadnaught

2013-03-13, 10:17 AM

While I agree that the DM is allowed to set whatever limits they want and that the players should play within whatever limits the DM agrees to, the DM shouldn't be allowed to decide on limitations that prevent the players from enjoying themselves.

My own limits for the current campaign are both simple and singular. Tier 1 only.
Sure it's a lot of bookkeeping, but we all manage to have fun (even "that ******* Druid") and there haven't been any serious arguments about who wants what from the game because the DM has been clear about what's allowed and has allowed the players some say in the rules.

The solution is far easier than anyone fully supporting Richard the richard claims. The game is 50/50 between DM and players, if players make it clear that the DM is doing something wrong, then someone probably is. If only that player has the problem, then they're the problem and are guilty of wrong bad fun (aka not having fun), if more players agree with the first one though and they make up the majority of the table then the DM is guilty of wrong bad fun (having fun at the expense of others). If it's closer to a 50/50 split, then those who are against the DM should leave and make their own group.
In this case a split to create a new group is the best option.

Trebloc

2013-03-13, 10:45 AM

Pickford

2013-03-13, 11:11 AM

+1. Golems are magic weak. The hell is he talking about?

If NPCs with spell immunity are magic weak what is magic strong? Yeah a conjuror won't necessarily have as tough a time, cherry picking the easiest example among spellcasters does not a point make.

And that's before considering the high level caster that made that golem that would assuredly be encountered with it.

Not if it's a trap.

And because I'm tired of multiquoting: You don't see any good archery builds because archery isn't any good. Too easily countered, and too low damage when damage is all it does. It's easier to make ranged melee attacks good than it is to make ranged ranged attacks good.

Bleh, sorry for multiquoting as well, but there are plenty of ranged options for tripping, disarming, sundering, pinning and so forth. If a player doesn't 'use' the wide variety of ranged attack feats to accomplish more than just damage, that is their narrow focus, it'd be like a wizard who went master specialist invoker and took nothing but pure damage spells.

Useful...to a degree, but far too narrow in scope for utility in most scenarios.

Edit: And it takes all of 2 minutes to browse the abilities of any given class. If the DM doesn't have the time (or books) available, just require the players to write down any ability they have and provide 'that' to the DM for the purposes of customizing encounters (this benefits a player, if the DM doesn't know nobody can cure poison, that next poison trap or asp is going to be a very unpleasant surprise).

I can understand the DM not wanting to feel like the abilities of some class suddenly trivialize encounters...but what is the Crusader really going to do that does that?

Answerer

2013-03-13, 11:20 AM

If NPCs with spell immunity are magic weak what is magic strong?
Nothing. The game is imbalanced. Spellcasters can, and do on a regular basis, handle pretty much anything. Only lack of player knowledge, or gentlemen's agreements to not act on that knowledge, prevent them from dominating any campaign.

Karnith

2013-03-13, 11:34 AM

If NPCs with spell immunity are magic weak what is magic strong?
Other spellcasters, generally.

Golems are still affected by anything that doesn't allow spell resistance, including the silly Orb of X spells, but also things like Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Sleet Storm, Forcecage, all of the Fog spells (especially Solid Fog), all of the Wall of X spells, Black Tentacles, and so on and so forth. Or, in other words, all of the best spells that wizards take anyway.

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-13, 11:42 AM

Adding 4-5 new books would probably be easier than adding in 55 new books.
That I could get behind as a player. Even if it's just Core + Completes, that gives plenty of material to make a character concept you've never played before, and would take a while before it got boring. The only new "subsytem" is the fact that PC's can have SLA's at will with the Warlock.

On the archery front: Archery was a WHOLE lot better in 3.0 than in 3.5. There were three archery PrC's in 3.0*, and all of them were good (OotBI, Deepwood Sniper, Peerless Archer). You typically took levels in two of the three, depending upon sources available, and character concept. And they worked.

Archers also had the advantage/detriment in 3.0 of having to have magical ARROWS to get through DR (a magic bow gave no benefit in overcoming DR), but at the same time, a +3 bow firing a +2 arrow gave you a total +5 to hit and damage (etc, up to +5/+5 = +10).

In 3.5 there are only three archer PrC's (OotBI [nerfed], Cragtop Archer, and Justice of the Weald and Woe). Order of the Bow Initiate's main thing runs counter to archery (which is generally being a volley archer), while Cragtop Archer is ultra-specialized in something that almost NEVER comes up in games (long encounter distances). Add to it the fact magic bows and arrows no longer stack, and the archer has no way to really increase his damage per attack (no power attack), and archers just aren't good if you are restricting yourself to 3.5 sources.

I generally allow 3.0 stuff, so it's not as much of a problem in my games, though no one has played an archer yet.

*I am completely ignoring Arcane Archer, because it sucks.

Answerer

2013-03-13, 11:58 AM

Magic arrows and magic bows do stack if they have different properties. You're burned on the mandatory +1, but there's a lot else you can stack on arrows cheaply.

Pickford

2013-03-13, 12:37 PM

Other spellcasters, generally.

Golems are still affected by anything that doesn't allow spell resistance, including the silly Orb of X spells, but also things like Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Sleet Storm, Forcecage, all of the Fog spells (especially Solid Fog), all of the Wall of X spells, Black Tentacles, and so on and so forth. Or, in other words, all of the best spells that wizards take anyway.

Maybe I'm just new here but...grease, web, fog, solid fog and the like do no damage to the golem and possibly make the situation worse for the caster (concealment for something you can barely hurt to begin with?!). Forcecage is great for a delay, but if you actually have to deal with the golem, it's just that, a delaying tactic, same with the wall spells.

Karnith

2013-03-13, 01:10 PM

Maybe I'm just new here but...grease, web, fog, solid fog and the like do no damage to the golem and possibly make the situation worse for the caster (concealment for something you can barely hurt to begin with?!). Forcecage is great for a delay, but if you actually have to deal with the golem, it's just that, a delaying tactic, same with the wall spells.
Well, unless the wizard has to deal with the golem by himself (unusual in an adventuring party), the spells provide excellent debuffs and/or battlefield control elements. Grease will make golems fall over, web entangles them, the fog spells ought to generally just deal with unintelligent creatures, solid fog and sleet storm slow them down by a lot, and the walls can either just end an encounter ("I'm walling them into that part of the room") or force them to move how you want.

If you were talking about a spellcaster not having a party and having to kill the golem himself, BFC followed by summons, metamagic'd (possibly Lesser) Orbs of X, Hails of Stone, Melf's Unicorn Arrows, Blasts of Flame, or even Melf's Acid Arrows (depending on the golem type) ought to be sufficient to deal with it.

Also, forcecage might as well be a permanent solution. It's a 7th-level spell, so by the time you get access to it, it lasts for 26 hours. In what situation are you going to be hanging around long enough for the duration to be relevant?

EDIT: Also, most illusions ought to deal with unintelligent creatures pretty handily, at least for long enough to sneak past them.

Thebar99

2013-03-13, 01:23 PM

If NPCs with spell immunity are magic weak what is magic strong? Yeah a conjuror won't necessarily have as tough a time, cherry picking the easiest example among spellcasters does not a point make.

Other spellcasters, generally.

Golems are still affected by anything that doesn't allow spell resistance, including the silly Orb of X spells, but also things like Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Sleet Storm, Forcecage, all of the Fog spells (especially Solid Fog), all of the Wall of X spells, Black Tentacles, and so on and so forth. Or, in other words, all of the best spells that wizards take anyway.

+1. Magic Immunity is like Protection from Arrows. It does nothing even remotely close to what its name would suggest. Do anything but cast SR: Yes spells directly on the golem and those spells will still work, and since golems have saves of nat 20 or fail vs just about everything, spells actually work very well against them.

Not if it's a trap.

Then you use standard trap techniques, aka zerging past them.

Bleh, sorry for multiquoting as well, but there are plenty of ranged options for tripping, disarming, sundering, pinning and so forth. If a player doesn't 'use' the wide variety of ranged attack feats to accomplish more than just damage, that is their narrow focus, it'd be like a wizard who went master specialist invoker and took nothing but pure damage spells.

Useful...to a degree, but far too narrow in scope for utility in most scenarios.

And then you remember that archers have to burn a ton of feats already, so using them to attempt things that already had a low chance of success, with a lower chance of success, then at a penalty on top of that is a waste of time.

Which is what you might expect when you attempt Str based moves on a character that has to go Str and Dex.

Not even getting into how facepalm worthy it is to only encounter poison if you can cure it.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-03-13, 01:26 PM

Komatik

2013-03-13, 01:35 PM

Grease knocks golems down and keeps 'em down while the melee types wail on it.

Where melee type: Giant goddamn mother****ing bear. Or perhaps some ToB dude calmly stabbing it because hey, he's not an ubercharger.

Rejusu

2013-03-13, 01:40 PM

Look, when everyone else is siding with the players (okay, not you, JusticeZero), I don't think I need to say much about the players' side. Can you play D&D as a democracy? You can, although that's unfair to the DM and may interfere with campaign plans. The first group I played with had a guy who wanted to make a Jedi. After that was vetoed, he made a ninja, which...really didn't fit that well. I can consider what my players want all day, but at the end of the day it's my call. People in a D&D group should get input relative to the investment they put into the campaign, which basically means that players are subject to whatever restrictions exist. That's only fair. If they don't like, let them run campaigns and see the other side of it.

To put it another way, who gets to decide what is "reasonable"? Is it the players or the DM?

"When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. [...] Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics" (3.5 DMG 6).

Ultimately, your Dungeon Master gets to decide what will be considered reasonable for your game. That's more than fair; he or she is putting in the "work" part of the hobby, after all. It's okay for a player to ask for special accommodations, but you can't demand them. A good DM, obviously, will work with the players to help them have fun. Players will trust them. But at the end of the day he or she gets to make the decision. That's all I'm arguing for.

I'm sorry, but I resent this implication that siding with the players in this instance is taking a "players first" attitude. And it's why I think that despite what you're saying you're taking a "DM first" attitude. Both of those attitudes are bad in regards to D&D. Why do I say you're taking a "DM first" attitude? Because there is no satisfactory explanation you could offer me that would excuse changing the parameters of a campaign part way through without any player input on the matter beforehand.

The last part is in bold because that's what's important here. You could make a case for him changing the game partway through, in fact you have in multiple posts. And you know, I can accept those arguments. You've made valid points. I can accept the DM going against the players wishes, I can accept they get the final say. But what I simply cannot accept is doing these kind of things without a discussion on the matter. And you haven't provided a single argument that could excuse that kind of behaviour, and I doubt you even could offer one.

That is why I think you're taking a "DM first" attitude, and frankly it's not conducive to good gaming. Maybe D&D shouldn't be a democracy, but it sure as hell shouldn't be a tyrannical dictatorship.

That's wrong; it's about consensus and cooperation.

Which this DM clearly didn't show, and yet you sided with him anyway.

EDIT: Also worth pointing out that your assumption that I'm siding with the players because I'm slating the DM is also false. They weren't without fault either. One party being wrong doesn't make the other right though, and frankly the DM made the first poor move.

Thanks to everyone who gave me constructive suggestions!

The P&PG add says the group has been playing 4e since 2008, and that some players have been D&Ding since before WotC, so you'll forgive me if I take your biased opinion with a boulder of salt.

Thanks for the edition potshot though.

Just because some people have no problem with bland doesn't make me biased. Well, I'm not going to deny that I'm a little biased. But it's generally with good reason. If what you like about 3.5 D&D is the wealth of options available you'll quickly grow tired of 4th.

Whoever (I think someone did) referenced Spiderman about this is wrong. It's not "with great power, comes great responsibility," it's the opposite of that: "with great responsibility, comes great power." The DM controls the game because he is responsible for keeping it running. If he fails to keep is running, he no longer has control or deserves special treatment.

I did, and I agree with every part of your post except this. On which I only agree partially. Frankly I think responsibility and power are a two way street. One brings the other, and both are necessary. So frankly I'd say we're both wrong, and both right.

Maybe I'm just new here but...grease, web, fog, solid fog and the like do no damage to the golem and possibly make the situation worse for the caster (concealment for something you can barely hurt to begin with?!). Forcecage is great for a delay, but if you actually have to deal with the golem, it's just that, a delaying tactic, same with the wall spells.

The reason why casters are so strong is simply because (provided they're being played competently, note this doesn't necessarily mean optimised) eight or nine times out of ten they'll have an answer to any given situation. That's what the whole tier system is based on, yes you can say it's opinion but it's largely backed up by evidence. Even if the casters answer to the situation is to run away, that's still an answer.

Quite simply if a caster is faced with an enemy they'll either have a way to kill it, disable it, or flat out remove it from the battlefield. And even failing that they'll have a way to get out alive, at which point they can just return later with something to deal with it.

Most non-casters on the other hand? There's just a lot they can't handle unless they're very specifically prepared for it. And a lot of them rely heavily on magic items to do what a wizard can do naturally. Take for example a flying enemy. Yes you can argue that the fighter can just buy a potion, or an amulet, or something. But the fact that he has to do that in the first place shows the power gap between them.

Options are power, most non-casters lack them.

ksbsnowowl

2013-03-13, 02:12 PM

Magic arrows and magic bows do stack if they have different properties. You're burned on the mandatory +1, but there's a lot else you can stack on arrows cheaply.

I was referring merely to enhancement bonuses.

Rukia

2013-03-13, 10:50 PM

Yeah, if you don't trust your players (or they do not trust you), you just don't have a game. Anything you pretend to do in those situations is just a dead man (game?) walking.

I do trust my own players, at least I trust their honesty. What I don't always trust is their ability to get everything right on their own. I just recently started a new campaign and gave them specific instructions on character building rules... and then still had to correct all of their sheets for not getting it right. Trust doesn't just mean "I believe they won't cheat", it's "I believe in their ability to get things right all the time" which is different. I don't even take their sheets with me at the end of each game, but occasionally I'll look them over just to be sure everything looks kosher.

My argument in this thread hasn't been about my own way of doing things, just the freedom of fellow DM's of having the final say. Personally I allow just about anything, I have generous house rules, I often offer alternatives when I see a player choose something weak, etc.. One player wanted to be a gnome beguiler so I pointed him to the Whisper Gnome. That should say enough.

Someone mentioned it before and it's the best way of putting it. A gaming group is not a democracy. If it's treated that way then the DM gets the short end of the stick. What fun is it to run a game where you can't play AND you're basically playing with the rules/setting the players want? That sounds incredibly selfish of players and boring for the DM. Here is the campaign WE WANT, now you DM it for us.

I agree both sides have to have some sort of compromise, but at the end of the day the DM absolutely has the final say. He has to. If the two sides can't agree then they should both look for another group. As a DM I don't often say no to things in my own group, but if I did I'd expect them to respect that. If they throw a tantrum's it surely isn't going to help the situation.. and considering we're all grown men frankly I'd be embarrassed if yelling occurred at our gaming table.

Lastly, as a player I respect a DM's decisions. If a DM lays out the rules and I don't like them, I find another game. If he changes them during play, then I deal with it or leave. To the OP to be fair, your recollection of the events lead me to believe that the DM never really wanted to allow things other than core but was sort of bullied/pressured into it. I'm not saying changing the rules mid-session was a good thing to do, but nonetheless pressuring a DM into something you already know he's really not ok with is going to lead to something like this. I know from experience in bringing a ToB character into a group that wasn't ready for it. DM finally agreed to my prodding, but ultimately used a DM fiat to kill him off once and for all. Singled me out from the group and sent in an NPC to take me down. In all honesty I would have won the fight but he allowed the NPC extra actions and anything else required to beat me but I didn't bother complaining. It was obvious he wanted that character dead so I said my peace about what I thought and moved on. He should have just held to his original thoughts and told me no, but he tried to appease and it ended up this way.

As a DM I listen to my players and work with them on a character that they want so they can have fun playing, but at the end of the day my say is still final. If I say no to something then I expect them to respect that, and they do.

navar100

2013-03-13, 11:16 PM

Of course players can leave. I don't particularly care for having ungrateful ones around, myself. I'm thankful to say that hasn't been the case, for the most part, and I've never played long-term with any.

There, that's your anti-player attitude. Not liking a potential DM's rules for a game and thus not playing it does not equal the player being "ungrateful". DMs don't get to force people to like and play their games.

I'm surprised all the players didn't have to make a sanity check after that.

For the OP, the Psion should carefully explain the position that he's not agreeing to a rules change (and if there is no consensus to change the rules mid-campaign this campaign should finish as it started) and will be playing a Crusader. Next campaign, you can all rewrite the charter, but it's not the DMs place to make a change to those, non gameplay, rules at this time.

To give an out for the DM, had he just said "no Tome of Battle" that would at least have a taste of justification because it does require learning a subsystem the DM might not want to do or just doesn't like regardless of how many people not in his game in this forum love it. Similar to Incarnum, Tome of Magic, etc. Unless of course another party member was already using it. However, all the Complete books and PHB II would/should still be fair game since they use the same mechanics as Core.

Rejusu

2013-03-14, 08:14 AM

Someone mentioned it before and it's the best way of putting it. A gaming group is not a democracy. If it's treated that way then the DM gets the short end of the stick. What fun is it to run a game where you can't play AND you're basically playing with the rules/setting the players want? That sounds incredibly selfish of players and boring for the DM. Here is the campaign WE WANT, now you DM it for us.

I agree both sides have to have some sort of compromise, but at the end of the day the DM absolutely has the final say. He has to. If the two sides can't agree then they should both look for another group. As a DM I don't often say no to things in my own group, but if I did I'd expect them to respect that. If they throw a tantrum's it surely isn't going to help the situation.. and considering we're all grown men frankly I'd be embarrassed if yelling occurred at our gaming table.

And I agree. As I've said it's not the decision that the DM made that really bothers me. I find it distasteful changing the campaign parameters part way through. But I can accept that. What bothers me is he made this decision without any discussion. Yes the DM gets the final say, no they don't have to go with what the players want. However if you cut out discussion then you lose all hope of reaching a compromise.

That to me is the problem here.

eggynack

2013-03-14, 08:02 PM

And I agree. As I've said it's not the decision that the DM made that really bothers me. I find it distasteful changing the campaign parameters part way through. But I can accept that. What bothers me is he made this decision without any discussion. Yes the DM gets the final say, no they don't have to go with what the players want. However if you cut out discussion then you lose all hope of reaching a compromise.

That to me is the problem here.
This pretty much matches my feelings where this is concerned. The way I see it, a DM gets the final say on something, but once he's had that final say, I expect that say to remain final. If he says we're playing a core game, that's what we're doing, but without good reason I expect it to remain that way. If he decides to open up other classes, I expect that to take place between sessions. This is even worse. Narrowing possibilities is a really annoying thing, and the DM gave his final say that splat books were open. He has the right to close those options off, but as a player I would be pretty irritated even had he done it after the session. The circumstances under which it happened make it much worse. I think there is some expectation of rules stability in D&D, otherwise what game are you playing? It seems easy for everything to just collapse into chaos, if everything can change mid-session.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-03-14, 08:09 PM

To be entirely fair, if the psion's player was going to start rolling up his new character right then and there, then he needed to be informed right then and there. Not saying that it makes the DM's call right, but...

Zack Reever

2013-03-15, 03:50 AM

eggynack

2013-03-15, 04:03 AM

Alright finger pointing at everyone, No person likes being bullied or coerced. I had to deal with it to a degree when I was a kid. This DM was bullied into changing his mind...Trunamer and the others of the half group were in the wrong to do that in the first place. The DM got no discussion option, just shouted down. So I'm gonna do what the rest of you taking the Players side has done, disregard your opinion at all and rightfully take the DM's side. And point of fact I have sat on both sides of the screen and have been petty and done the wrong thing...I will still stand up for what is right though - and protect any persons right to take back control of their life and decisions.

The DM didn't wait for this player to waste time coming up with a character that would get vetoed(I would rather this than actually wasting my time). If you players want DM's to do whats right that also extends to you. A cooperative game is just that, Trunamer and company weren't willing to compromise or even to walk away. They started a viscous circle of move/counter-move.

Only me, Ivellius, and some others are the only ones seeing whats really going on here. And everyone listen up...don't enter a room cyber or not, shout out that you bullied or coerced someone and expect my sympathy; wrong answer. Grow up and act like adults and you will be treated as such. The golden rule bit you this time - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
This whole line of argument is getting somewhat annoying. the OP said they "talked him into it". Anything else you read into that is extraneous. The DM wasn't being held at knife point to change his mind, and I'm pretty sure that when the DM posted his thoughts, they never included bullying. If we're coming up with ways to read random stuff into this, how about this: the players mentioned offhand to the DM their desire to play outside of core. The DM made an odd comment about scouts and the idea was dropped. A week later, they brought it up again, and he was more amenable to the idea, and more books were added to the game.

You can add whatever bias you want to the OP's actions. In the end, all we have to go on is exactly what he said. They had a talk about adding in non-core material, and despite his misgivings, the DM agreed. Later, mid-session, the DM removed all of that material to the irritation of a recently deceased player. Coming up with a story of what happened in your head, and being condescending on the basis of that story, just seems vaguely absurd.

Rejusu

2013-03-15, 07:40 PM

Alright finger pointing at everyone, No person likes being bullied or coerced. I had to deal with it to a degree when I was a kid. This DM was bullied into changing his mind...Trunamer and the others of the half group were in the wrong to do that in the first place. The DM got no discussion option, just shouted down. So I'm gonna do what the rest of you taking the Players side has done, disregard your opinion at all and rightfully take the DM's side. And point of fact I have sat on both sides of the screen and have been petty and done the wrong thing...I will still stand up for what is right though - and protect any persons right to take back control of their life and decisions.

The DM didn't wait for this player to waste time coming up with a character that would get vetoed(I would rather this than actually wasting my time). If you players want DM's to do whats right that also extends to you. A cooperative game is just that, Trunamer and company weren't willing to compromise or even to walk away. They started a viscous circle of move/counter-move.

Only me, Ivellius, and some others are the only ones seeing whats really going on here. And everyone listen up...don't enter a room cyber or not, shout out that you bullied or coerced someone and expect my sympathy; wrong answer. Grow up and act like adults and you will be treated as such. The golden rule bit you this time - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

No, you're just inserting your own interpretation of events. The OP says nothing more than they "talked him into it". Now when I read that I see the words "talked him into it", I do not see the words "coerced" or "bullied". And to say that he got "no discussion option" is just plain ludicrous as the word "talked" implies discussion.

Now hey, we don't know if he was coerced or bullied or shouted down. For all we know he could have been. But the point is we don't know. We can't go on anything more than the information the OP has provided, nor do we have any way to know whether his version of events is accurate or truthful.

But what you have not done is "seen what's really going on", all you've done is invented your own version of what happened out of a single sentence. And frankly that says to me you're taking the same attitude as the DM in this story, uncooperative and unwilling to compromise. The exact same criticisms you levelled at the players.

Now I'm not assuming he's telling the truth, but I'm not assuming he's lying either. I've provided my opinion based on the version of events as written. If events were more like how you described them then yes I might side with the DM. However your version of events are nothing more than an invention of your own imagination based on a fairly innocuous sentence.

Frankly automatically assuming the player is lying and leaping to side with the DM shows that like Ivellius you don't practice what you preach. You talk of compromise and being cooperative, yet your attitude betrays your true nature.

White_Drake

2013-03-16, 12:30 AM

You can add whatever bias you want to the OP's actions. In the end, all we have to go on is exactly what he said. They had a talk about adding in non-core material, and despite his misgivings, the DM agreed. Later, mid-session, the DM removed all of that material to the irritation of a recently deceased player. Coming up with a story of what happened in your head, and being condescending on the basis of that story, just seems vaguely absurd.

How can we know he was irritated if he is dead?

Waker

2013-03-16, 01:14 AM

How can we know he was irritated if he is dead?

The death mask they make out of the lava clearly showed that his grimace was of annoyance rather than pain.

MukkTB

2013-03-16, 01:35 AM

Most books out there are player oriented. If a player buys them and is banned they're going to be annoyed. It does leave the players feeling entitled and annoyed if its taken away from them. Its not a subject that should be touched on lightly. The thing is, core only is a really dumb set of restrictions. Core is not anymore balanced than most other things. It would make more sense to have any of these options.

#1 Character choices need to be run by the DM to prevent cheese.
#2 The players have a gentlemen's agreement not to use cheese.
#3 Tiers 1 and 2 are banned for a more balanced game, or some other variant on that idea.
#4 At the beginning of the game the DM gives the players a list of classes that are allowed because the world follows a certain theme.
For example - "We are playing in a world with very little magic, and people don't control it." No spellcasters or classes that grant supernatural abilities are allowed. Rangers and so forth should use an alternative class feature to trade away their spellcasting. (Yes I know this would be a very strange game to play.)
Another Example - We're playing an oriental campaign. You can use classes from the Oriental Book and the ToB.

Thunndarr

2013-03-16, 02:23 AM

Zack Reever

2013-03-16, 04:25 AM

The whole situation clearly stinks of the DM having poor communication skills. Clearly, the DM had decided, prior to the character's death, that he was against splatbooks. (I mean, really, did he just decide, right then and there as the character died that splatbooks were forbidden? I highly doubt it.)

Ok, so the DM probably had been against splatbooks for some time. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the lack of communication. He didn't address the players before he unilaterally changed the underlying agreement the players had with him, and when questioned on it, he was unable to articulate his thoughts in a meaningful way. The guy simply isn't a communicator. And that's a problem. That makes him a bad DM.

I'll contrast this DM with my current DM (who is doing a great job, if he happens to be reading.) We're all playing gestalt classes, and my guy (Factotum 7/Wizard 7) is semi-optimized. Naturally, I ran across the level 4 spells and took polymorph and greater mighty wallop. Initially, I had wanted to cast polymorph on myself to turn into a 7-headed hydra. Well, the DM and I disagreed about whether I'd get the 7 attacks/round. Naturally, I was in favor of the reading that while polymorphed I'd get all natural attacks. But none of this discussion took place during game time, nor was it adversarial in nature. The idea is to have fun. So, we exchanged a few emails during the week and we came up with a consensus of which forms I'd use for polymorph and what abilities those forms would confer.

The main point? None of this is difficult. Just be a good communicator. I didn't spring the hydra plan on my DM during game night specifically because I didn't want to get into an argument about it and disrupt the evening for everyone else. By the same token, if the DM had decided the campaign was going to be Core-only from a certain point, he owes it to the players to let them know *before* it becomes an issue.

He did they balked and then when he didn't budge shouted him down. Not acceptable. The DM isn't the only one with communication problems. And a DM doesn't necessarily have to give you a reason for the decisions they make. Everyone has options if discussing things with the DM and the DM not "budging" was a problem you always have the option to use the door and your lpc's.
Not everything in life is fair deal with it. I have to deal with online forums violating my freedom of speech right, but their still operating. So I deal with it. I once asked a DM to allow me to trade away ranger spells for d10 HD, he said no; didn't argue just played the game as usual.
Why do most of you have a problem with it? Core only DM's aren't bad DM's they just made the decision to only run core. I'm trying to get a friend to run 3.5 tabletop, he used to allow anything even 3rd party 3.0 sources. Now he says core only. I suspect dragon-monk was one of the problems that spurred on his decision. This doesn't make him a bad DM just a DM that knows what he wants.

eggynack

2013-03-16, 04:56 AM

He did they balked and then when he didn't budge shouted him down. Not acceptable. The DM isn't the only one with communication problems. And a DM doesn't necessarily have to give you a reason for the decisions they make. Everyone has options if discussing things with the DM and the DM not "budging" was a problem you always have the option to use the door and your lpc's.
Not everything in life is fair deal with it. I have to deal with online forums violating my freedom of speech right, but their still operating. So I deal with it. I once asked a DM to allow me to trade away ranger spells for d10 HD, he said no; didn't argue just played the game as usual.
Why do most of you have a problem with it? Core only DM's aren't bad DM's they just made the decision to only run core. I'm trying to get a friend to run 3.5 tabletop, he used to allow anything even 3rd party 3.0 sources. Now he says core only. I suspect dragon-monk was one of the problems that spurred on his decision. This doesn't make him a bad DM just a DM that knows what he wants.
How did he bring up his concerns before it became a problem exactly? If he had said before the session, or before any session after he made the choice to ban splat books, "Hey ya guys. I don't think adding out of core material was a good idea. It's a lot of work for me, and it's imbalanced, and scouts get skirmish attacks, and whatever other irrational reasons I've come up with over this period of time. In the future, if a character dies, he's being replaced by a core character," then they probably wouldn't have devolved into a screaming match. Instead, he waited until the change would be the most devastating, and thrust it on the players.

Second of all, your DM telling you that you wouldn't be allowed to make arbitrary statistical trades on classes was neither unfair, nor out of the nature of his point. You wanted something, you asked out of game, he said no, and you all moved on. That could have happened here, but it didn't, and that's the problem.

Third of all, and this is kinda frivolous, a forum stopping you from talking doesn't violate freedom of speech. That's absurd. Whatever forum you're talking about is presumably privately owned, and stopping you from talking isn't creating a law ending your speech. It may have been unfair, but it certainly wasn't unconstitutionally unfair.

Finally, he isn't a dm that knows what he wants. He's a dm that emphatically does not know what he wants. Him not wanting core doesn't make him a bad dm (though many on this forum, myself included, think that it might make him a worse dm to play a game with for various reasons stated above). Throwing random rules changes at his players mid-game makes him a bad dm, if anything does.

Killer Angel

2013-03-16, 05:30 AM

the DM removed all of that material to the irritation of a recently deceased player.

How can we know he was irritated if he is dead?

That's why you should play with a member of the clergy. A dead player that rises from the grave, can be pretty annoying. It eats your chips, too.

Zack Reever

2013-03-16, 07:15 AM

How did he bring up his concerns before it became a problem exactly? If he had said before the session, or before any session after he made the choice to ban splat books, "Hey ya guys. I don't think adding out of core material was a good idea. It's a lot of work for me, and it's imbalanced, and scouts get skirmish attacks, and whatever other irrational reasons I've come up with over this period of time. In the future, if a character dies, he's being replaced by a core character," then they probably wouldn't have devolved into a screaming match. Instead, he waited until the change would be the most devastating, and thrust it on the players.
He brought up his concerns before the game began and rather than argue away hours caved(I agree he shouldn't have done this if he had a problem with out of core material) to players that didn't want to give the game a chance. And I don't care what year it is core only is always an option. I would call him a bad DM if he started making unreasonable or out-of whack house rules. By the way I don't think this player would've had a different reaction if it was mentioned outside of the game anyways.

Second of all, your DM telling you that you wouldn't be allowed to make arbitrary statistical trades on classes was neither unfair, nor out of the nature of his point. You wanted something, you asked out of game, he said no, and you all moved on. That could have happened here, but it didn't, and that's the problem.
Never said it was unfair and unlike 1/2 of this group when told no I let it be. And your right for players to act like this is a problem for any group. No player should ever feel empowered to overrule the DM unless there is a common sense reason why. I don't see that in this example.

Third of all, and this is kinda frivolous, a forum stopping you from talking doesn't violate freedom of speech. That's absurd. Whatever forum you're talking about is presumably privately owned, and stopping you from talking isn't creating a law ending your speech. It may have been unfair, but it certainly wasn't unconstitutionally unfair.
Wrong just because the internet is "everywhere" doesn't mean that it doesn't have to conform to the laws in nations where their information gos. Freedom of speech is just that whether spoken or typed.

Finally, he isn't a dm that knows what he wants. He's a dm that emphatically does not know what he wants. Him not wanting core doesn't make him a bad dm (though many on this forum, myself included, think that it might make him a worse dm to play a game with for various reasons stated above). Throwing random rules changes at his players mid-game makes him a bad dm, if anything does.
Wrong it seems like this DM knew exactly what he wanted, but got subverted by players that wanted their way. Instead of accepting what would be or going to start their own game...

Greenish

2013-03-16, 07:22 AM

Wrong just because the internet is "everywhere" doesn't mean that it doesn't have to conform to the laws in nations where their information gos. Freedom of speech is just that whether spoken or typed.Freedom of speech isn't "freedom to have other people provide you with a platform", you nincompoop. No forum limits your freedom of speech unless it's preventing you from speaking in public, publishing your own material, or hosting your own website.

eggynack

2013-03-16, 07:39 AM

He brought up his concerns before the game began and rather than argue away hours caved(I agree he shouldn't have done this if he had a problem with out of core material) to players that didn't want to give the game a chance. And I don't care what year it is core only is always an option. I would call him a bad DM if he started making unreasonable or out-of whack house rules. By the way I don't think this player would've had a different reaction if it was mentioned outside of the game anyways.

Never said it was unfair and unlike 1/2 of this group when told no I let it be. And your right for players to act like this is a problem for any group. No player should ever feel empowered to overrule the DM unless there is a common sense reason why. I don't see that in this example.

Wrong just because the internet is "everywhere" doesn't mean that it doesn't have to conform to the laws in nations where their information gos. Freedom of speech is just that whether spoken or typed.

Wrong it seems like this DM knew exactly what he wanted, but got subverted by players that wanted their way. Instead of accepting what would be or going to start their own game...
I guess I can run through this argument again, but it's a bit ludicrous in a lot of places. Fortunately, this time, your arguments tend to hold towards a single bit of fallacious reasoning, rather than having something different every paragraph.

He's the DM. He made a decision. I don't really care if you think he was pushed into it by unruly players. They asked for something, and he agreed, and then it was part of the game. I never really brought up the out of core thing as a major issue. There's a very obvious common sense reason why the DM should have continued allowing out of core material, and the reason is that he said out of core material was allowed. Unless he was being controlled by a malevolent spirit, that was his decision to make. He's human though, and prone to mistakes, but immediately after a character dies and decides to set himself aflame in the hopes of using a new non-core character is not the time or place to attempt to rectify those mistakes.

For your edification, here is the relevant part of the amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." You may take note of the fact that the amendment nowhere prohibits the rights of citizens to abridge free speech, and in the case you cited, the forum controller was in their full rights under the law.

Zack Reever

2013-03-16, 09:02 AM

I guess I can run through this argument again, but it's a bit ludicrous in a lot of places. Fortunately, this time, your arguments tend to hold towards a single bit of fallacious reasoning, rather than having something different every paragraph.
Actually your fallacious in this reasoning, I was countering your points.

He's the DM. He made a decision. I don't really care if you think he was pushed into it by unruly players. They asked for something, and he agreed, and then it was part of the game. I never really brought up the out of core thing as a major issue. There's a very obvious common sense reason why the DM should have continued allowing out of core material, and the reason is that he said out of core material was allowed. Unless he was being controlled by a malevolent spirit, that was his decision to make. He's human though, and prone to mistakes, but immediately after a character dies and decides to set himself aflame in the hopes of using a new non-core character is not the time or place to attempt to rectify those mistakes.
So I guess just because he made a mistake and allowed in something he didn't truly want(again of which I agree he shouldn't have) this DM doesn't have the right to overturn said decision(I agree it could've been done when the game was over or at some other time)? Your citing the governments big mistakes are in itself a counter here. And intimidation can happen in any environment.
And on that note I think it's better if we just agree to disagree and let it go.

eggynack

2013-03-16, 09:37 AM

Actually your fallacious in this reasoning, I was countering your points.

So I guess just because he made a mistake and allowed in something he didn't truly want(again of which I agree he shouldn't have) this DM doesn't have the right to overturn said decision(I agree it could've been done when the game was over or at some other time)? Your citing the governments big mistakes are in itself a counter here. And intimidation can happen in any environment.
And on that note I think it's better if we just agree to disagree and let it go.
I actually do think you are wrong that the DM has the right to just overturn decisions they've made. It's important in any game for that game to have rules, and spontaneously changing those rules mid game is problematic. Players make decisions based on the rules set in front of them, and if those rules can change sporadically, and if the goal posts move continually, then that game is unfun. It's problematic that he made the changes for this reason, and especially problematic is the manner in which he made these changes. I don't expect every DM to be an experienced game designer, but I expect rules that apply to character creation one day to still exist the next. I also don't recall the OP or anyone else involved in the game saying that they intimidated the DM, so you seem to be constructing your own narrative to fit your conception of events. Finally, I have no idea what you're talking about in reference to the government. If it's about the first amendment thing, I'm pretty sure that the writers of the constitution weren't making a mistake when they didn't put in a sub-amendment curtailing the rights of forum providers. If that's not what you're talking about, I'm a bit lost on this one.

Rejusu

2013-03-16, 10:52 AM

I have to deal with online forums violating my freedom of speech right, but their still operating.

How can you tell that they're violating your right to freedom of speech when you've just made it abundantly clear that you don't understand what your right to freedom of speech is?

Zack Reever

2013-03-16, 11:02 AM

I actually do think you are wrong that the DM has the right to just overturn decisions they've made. It's important in any game for that game to have rules, and spontaneously changing those rules mid game is problematic. Players make decisions based on the rules set in front of them, and if those rules can change sporadically, and if the goal posts move continually, then that game is unfun. It's problematic that he made the changes for this reason, and especially problematic is the manner in which he made these changes. I don't expect every DM to be an experienced game designer, but I expect rules that apply to character creation one day to still exist the next. I also don't recall the OP or anyone else involved in the game saying that they intimidated the DM, so you seem to be constructing your own narrative to fit your conception of events. Finally, I have no idea what you're talking about in reference to the government. If it's about the first amendment thing, I'm pretty sure that the writers of the constitution weren't making a mistake when they didn't put in a sub-amendment curtailing the rights of forum providers. If that's not what you're talking about, I'm a bit lost on this one.
Wrong each DM must be able to make a deliberation even mid game that a previous ruling s/he made is having a significantly problematic impact on the game and rescind it at that time or at a more appropriate time of his/her choosing. The game must be fun both for the players and the DM. If the person running the game is not having fun the game will burn-out before the players wish it to. Every DM has the responsibility of trying to make sure this doesn't happen. And point of fact from the beginning of the incident half of the players were being unduly nit picky(they have the right to their opinions of how the game should be played, but the DM doesn't have to agree or even codify this). And I'm assuming rather than get a big blown-up argument the DM caved(which if he had such a strong belief he shouldn't have done this). I'm going to assume that the DM wasn't having fun or the party was "steam-rolling" too much stuff(and or had it too easy) and he decided to rescind his earlier error in judgment(yes he should've done this at a better time). Now the players that "strong-armed" the DM into allowing their stuff is outraged and instead of trying to talk and resolve it "blew-up". There was a problem of communication all across the board. This part here is fact. Trunamer has since taken the best advice given to him and left the game, I'm hoping and assuming he talked to the DM and/or group before doing this.

Answerer

2013-03-16, 11:06 AM

Xerxus

2013-03-16, 11:46 AM

I can't see a scenario where the non-core material allowed was not causing a problem for this DM in some way, not elucidated by the story provided.

- "But that just makes him a bad DM, why would he allow something he couldn't handle?"

The why doesn't matter, the facts are that he - for some reason - allowed non-core material and then decided that it was a bad idea. I can see lots of problems with having to wrap your head around maneuvers, stances, psionics, essentia, truenaming (yeah yeah), hundreds of prestige classes, thousands of broken feat synergies etc etc.

I know the issue doesn't lie with the non-core vs core debate, but I think the explanation for why he would not allow his players to employ the expanded materials anymore lies here. There is a difference between allowing non-core and knowing what that decision entails. Mistakes could have been made, and for all we know the players could have been employing incredibly powerful synergies which he was unable to handle in an enjoyable way.

So he decides that he doesn't want non-core anymore (if he ever did). The only issue I have with this is the timing of the delivery, if the story provided is true. However, considering how little we know of the circumstances there is no way to judge his decision based on what one of the players (bias bias) says about it. Might sound like it came out of the blue, but for all we know it could have been obvious that he did not exactly approve of the decision they had made "together".
{scrubbed}

Zack Reever

2013-03-16, 12:12 PM

What you don't seem to understand, Zack, is that when a DM does that, they must admit that they made a mistake and allow players opportunity to reconsider their actions in light of the changed rules. A mid-game rules change is a failure by the DM, be it minor or major, and the DM has to recognize that. "I'm sorry guys, that ruling I made is really causing problems; I feel that we need to change it for the good of the game."

But instead we get "Oh by the way, unlateral rules change that you've all already expressed dislike for, cuz I say so." That is terrible DMing. OP made the right choice in getting the hell out.

So do you always as a player acknowledge when you made a mistake to the table or just deal with it and keep playing? I usually find most players just quietly deal with it. DM's by the nature of their jobs usually can't since dealing with it includes the players. This was a failure on both sides - the DM for caving and the players for coercing(for lack of a better word) him to cave. And you guys want to just blast the DM. Wrong answer. This attitude you have is the same attitude exhibited by the players.
Oh Xerxes the players are definitely not always right. I am just a player now. Just like I disagree with the saying the customer is always right...fallacy anyone?

Answerer

2013-03-16, 12:29 PM

Suffice to say that I disagree and would never, ever, want you as a player in my game. I like my players to be engaged, have opinions, make suggestions, and at all times be clear in communicating what they want out of the game. A player who just accepts anything I have to say and offers nothing is dumping all the work on me that could and should be shared, and a player who tells my other players they're not allowed to have an opinion is actively hurting my game.

The DM is just another player. He has more responsibilities, and he is given the tools to fulfill them, but it is a matter of responsibility first. Had this DM insisted on Core-only when no one wanted to play a Core class, he would have not been fulfilling those responsibilities. That doesn't mean he has to DM, or even play with this group: if the players (including the DM) cannot agree on what to play, maybe it's time for them to find other groups that want to play something else.

The OP indicates that they play Core-only quite frequently; it's only fair, in my estimation, for a little compromise on the DM's part, but that's his choice: he can choose to compromise, or not, and the players can choose to compromise, or not. If neither side is willing to compromise, they go elsewhere for gaming. Obvious compromises could have been "supplements allowed for this campaign, but then we go back to Core-only," or "you can choose x books that you can use for your character in addition to Core stuff," or "I don't want to DM that, why don't one of you DM it?" Other possibilities exist as well. Were I part of the group, I would have accepted that last compromise, but not the other two, personally. I have no interest in such arbitrary restrictions as "which book it happened to be printed in."

And if you agree to compromise, you should stick to it. This is not "ok, my ruling that you could set fire to grease has made that spell too powerful; I'm sorry but I'm going to have to change that." This is "I've decided that I don't want to play this game so I'm going to make you guys play the game I like." That's very different. Were I part of the group, yes, I would be quite upset, and yes, I would more than likely stop playing for that DM. He's entitled to his opinion but no more than I'm entitled to mine. I can't force him to DM the game I want to play, but he can't force me to play the game he wants to DM.

"What game are we going to play?" is a question that gets answered at the beginning of the game, when people are deciding if they want to actually play it. A group should come to an agreement to this. By switching the type of game they were playing after two months, the DM is being exceedingly unfair. He is delivering an ultimatum: either you play the game I want, or you give up the last two months of play as meaningless and go somewhere else. That's a jerk thing to do.

Again, the DM is just another player, not a king or god. His word is not law; he merely has the (considerable) responsibility to keep the game flowing, for which he has the (considerable) tool of Rule 0. But Rule 0 is not limitless, it is a function of the responsibilities that the DM has. Rule 0 can only be used to improve the game. As soon as Rule 0 is used to make the game worse (in someone's opinion), you are breaking the social contract wherein the players agreed to let you have the power of Rule 0 in the first place.

So yeah, pretty much, the DM was 100% in the wrong. I don't really care how the players reacted to it; their reactions do not retroactively justify the DM's actions, and moreover it is perfectly appropriate to be upset at this. The DM was not respecting their opinions or their time; that would definitely offend me. Yelling was "wrong," not in the moralistic sense of good and evil, but purely from the perspective of trying to accomplish something (since it doesn't typically work). But ultimately I don't think even that made much difference: the DM had already shown himself to not have any respect for the players, which means they'd be crazy to stay in the game.

The players, by definition, must trust the DM. The DM broke that trust. This is what happens when you do that.

P.S. Yes, when I realize I'd been reading a rule incorrectly, or missed a limitation, or whatever, I inform the DM of it and ask whether or not he wants to retcon anything, wants me to simply get it right from now on, or houserule that it works the way I had been using it. I think not doing so is dishonest. A DM must also trust his players; I would not play with anyone who I did not believe would do this, and anyone who I found out had not done it would, at the least, hear about it. If they intentionally hid it (rather than quietly correcting future actions), they would most likely be kicked out of the group.

Story

2013-03-16, 12:50 PM

So do you always as a player acknowledge when you made a mistake to the table or just deal with it and keep playing? I usually find most players just quietly deal with it. DM's by the nature of their jobs usually can't since dealing with it includes the players. This was a failure on both sides - the DM for caving and the players for coercing(for lack of a better word) him to cave. And you guys want to just blast the DM. Wrong answer. This attitude you have is the same attitude exhibited by the players.
Oh Xerxes the players are definitely not always right. I am just a player now. Just like I disagree with the saying the customer is always right...fallacy anyone?

If I discover that I misinterpreted a rule or forgot something, I'll tell the DM, whether it hurts or helps me. But that usually happens between sessions when I look up rules I wasn't sure about or go over my character sheet again or whatever.

eggynack

2013-03-16, 12:51 PM

This was a failure on both sides - the DM for caving and the players for coercing(for lack of a better word) him to cave. And you guys want to just blast the DM. Wrong answer. This attitude you have is the same attitude exhibited by the players.
There are some serious problems, I think, with this line of thought. You claim that DM's should have infinite power over every last aspect of the game at all times, but you also claim that the DM was essentially forced into taking actions that the players wanted. By my estimation, these things can't both be true. Either the DM has all consuming power, or he is an incompetent rube. You can't reasonably argue both at the same time.

edit: Unless, of course, the DM is a power hungry incompetent rube. That doesn't really sound like a good DM to me though.

Xerxus

2013-03-16, 12:57 PM

There are some serious problems, I think, with this line of thought. You claim that DM's should have infinite power over every last aspect of the game at all times, but you also claim that the DM was essentially forced into taking actions that the players wanted. By my estimation, these things can't both be true. Either the DM has all consuming power, or he is an incompetent rube. You can't reasonably argue both at the same time.

edit: Unless, of course, the DM is a power hungry incompetent rube. That doesn't really sound like a good DM to me though.

The DM is not the same thing as the person who is DM. In the game, the DM has power. Outside the game, the person is not immune to group pressure.

Roland St. Jude

2013-03-16, 03:26 PM

Sheriff: Please drop the tangential political discussion. Thanks.

Threadnaught

2013-03-16, 04:11 PM

Sheriff: Please drop the tangential political discussion. Thanks.

Do you mean politics of the table, or Zack's complaint about how his freedom of speech is violated.

I was enjoying that discussion. :smallfrown:

eggynack

2013-03-16, 06:45 PM

Do you mean politics of the table, or Zack's complaint about how his freedom of speech is violated.

I was enjoying that discussion. :smallfrown:
I agree on this. I like the whole DM mind changing dynamics debate, but I think I keep coming back in hopes that someone will say something about that discussion. It was just so weird, and vaguely out of place, even in the context of the topic. Either way, in terms of the "DM as human who can be influenced" argument, it makes some sense that it happened. It just seems like there are two conflicting views of the role of the DM, one in which his actions are at the whims of the players, and one in which he has ultimate power over the rules of the game. I'm inclined to think that in terms of the set-up of the game, the DM has all of the power, and from that point on any decisions he made are largely final. He has the reasonable ability to change the rules, but that is an action not to be taken lightly, and shouldn't have been used in that manner. In summary, the DM acted essentially in a manner opposite of that which he should have, and didn't acknowledge that it was a mistake. I believe that this puts him firmly in the wrong on multiple counts.

White_Drake

2013-03-16, 07:07 PM

What do the forum rules say about discussing political discussions?

Flickerdart

2013-03-16, 07:11 PM

What do the forum rules say about discussing political discussions?
For a meta-bannable offense? You probably get meta-banned. :smallbiggrin:

On-topic, I'm forced to agree that it's not what the DM did so much as how he did it that's a problem. Not willing to DM a game with splats is fine, even if I personally wouldn't run or play in such a game. But starting a game with splats and then backpedalling out of it without consulting the players is not great, because it's forcing them to play a game they didn't sign up for after they've already invested themselves into the plot.

Threadnaught

2013-03-16, 08:27 PM

For a meta-bannable offense? You probably get meta-banned. :smallbiggrin:

Except in this case, I think the discussion became a little too active. :smallamused:

On-topic, I'm forced to agree that it's not what the DM did so much as how he did it that's a problem. Not willing to DM a game with splats is fine, even if I personally wouldn't run or play in such a game. But starting a game with splats and then backpedalling out of it without consulting the players is not great, because it's forcing them to play a game they didn't sign up for after they've already invested themselves into the plot.

This. Specially the bolded part.

Though I would like to ask what you think of a DM starting Core only, and adding splats as the game goes on. My players are fine with it btw.

Flickerdart

2013-03-16, 08:33 PM

Though I would like to ask what you think of a DM starting Core only, and adding splats as the game goes on. My players are fine with it btw.
I'd have some reservations - it's a lot easier for the DM to add new content ("for tomorrow's encounter, I think I will send some CA ninjas") than it is for PCs ("in three levels, maybe I'll be able to get a feat from CA"). In circumstances where the addition could not have been avoided (such as if one of the group bought the book halfway through the campaign) the PCs should be permitted to rebuild.

White_Drake

2013-03-16, 11:08 PM

Except in this case, I think the discussion became a little too active. :smallamused:

Okay, what about talking about discussions concerning discourse involving banned topics?

I think I phrased that properly...

eggynack

2013-03-17, 03:57 AM

Though I would like to ask what you think of a DM starting Core only, and adding splats as the game goes on. My players are fine with it btw.
It happened in a game I was playing, and I was too happy that the game was expanding to be too annoyed. I was playing a druid though, at least a little bit because they're super unaffected by changes in the number of books used and I wasn't sure if the book number was going to remain constant, so that certainly had a role in it. If I were playing a character for whom all of my choices were essentially final though, I'd probably be quite a bit more annoyed and would probably try to get some build revisions. I tend to like to plan ahead a bit and optimize quite a bit when building characters, so a book expansion could be problematic if I were putting together a barbarian or something. Especially since I've had the notion to put together an intimidation barbarian in a low tier game for a bit.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-03-17, 12:25 PM

Though I would like to ask what you think of a DM starting Core only, and adding splats as the game goes on. My players are fine with it btw.

Depends. If it's a relatively new DM and he made it clear that he would be adding splats as his system mastery grew then I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

If he's an experienced DM with fairly sharp system mastery already though I'd be a tad miffed if the addition of new sources was a result of anything other than new sources becoming available to the group as a whole. (not likely, given my collection)

Grod_The_Giant

2013-03-17, 06:25 PM

Though I would like to ask what you think of a DM starting Core only, and adding splats as the game goes on. My players are fine with it btw.
If it's to provide new monsters? Please do. For exotic NPCs? Yeah, sure, why not, as long as dissatisfied players can eventually pick the stuff up.

Threadnaught

2013-03-18, 10:59 AM

Okay, what about talking about discussions concerning discourse involving banned topics?

I think I phrased that properly...

I have no idea what the scrubbed sections of those posts say, they could be about real world politics, but since I can't read them, they have nothing to do with my post. What does come into my post is the politics of the table and Zack's whining about his freedom of speech, these items were discussed at great length by everyone involved.
There are table politics btw, it's easier to recognize them as arguments though.

If it's a relatively new DM and he made it clear that he would be adding splats as his system mastery grew then I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

If it's to provide new monsters? Please do. For exotic NPCs? Yeah, sure, why not, as long as dissatisfied players can eventually pick the stuff up.

I guess I'm doing it right then. :smallbiggrin:

It also shows more of the problem in the OP. :smallamused:

NichG

2013-03-18, 02:58 PM

I think the DM's particular way of doing it here is pretty sloppy - he's basically saying 'I think this material is damaging the campaign, but I'll let it go until an in-game event occurs (your character dies)'. Thats really wishy-washy, and it sends a very confusing message. If the DM simply said 'I don't feel like I can balance encounters when all this material is in play, so I need us to go back to core only' then I think the players (while being disappointed) would at least be a bit more understanding. Heck, even 'dealing with this crap is burning me out, I can't keep running this stuff' will usually get some understanding.

There is a difference between the DM and the players. Its not some kind of god/king/etc thing, its simply that the DM must entertain the players, while the best players entertain eachother and the DM but it is by no means as critical (the group can survive two or three players who don't really contribute; it can't survive a DM who doesn't contribute).

As a DM I won't run something for players if I don't think I can handle running the system. I may discover I can't handle the system mid-game. My options at that point are to end the campaign, change the system, or waste everyone's time.

Granted, if I'm going to change the system I will do things like allow free retrains, discuss it with the players, etc. But putting aside my personal preferences, if somehow I end up doing the third option and wasting everyone's time with a crappy campaign because I can't handle the system then I'm being a bad DM.