DM/GM/Storyteller doesn't have new source

[randomhero00]

So this is the ongoing debate in my group. The current DM/GM/ST doesn't have the most current source...so she/he is saying she/he won't allow it. Yet I have it in my possession.

His/her argument is that she/he hasn't been able to fully read/understand the entire book. Yet all she/he needs is my few paragraphs.

I get this, but...its just a small section I need to make me (I feel) up to par with the rest of the party. Talking 3-5 paragraphs here. Nothing at all major.

I am making this specifically anonymous because I don't know if this group comes here.

Anyways, what are your thoughts?

[W3bDragon]

If the source was not included at the start of the game, then all you can do is "request" that the DM accepts it into his game. If he doesn't, its his prerogative. I suppose you could go over his head by taking it to a group vote, but, without knowing all the details, I'd have to say I'm on the DM's side on this one.

I don't really buy it when a player tells me that without that specific sourcebook or obscure rule or whatever, he'd be screwed. If you feel you're underpowered, do your best to work with what you have and let the DM handle the rest. If you end up dying, make a new character that doesn't rely on that source. Job done.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

You could scan / photocopy the part and pass it in to them?

On the other hand, as a GM, I would sometimes disallow splat-book content on the ostensible grounds that I don't have access to it, when what I really mean - but am too shy to mention - is that I don't have experience of the content, and it's implications in the wider game.
You, the player, may truthfully tell me that a piece of content is well-balanced, but if it's not something I'm familiar with, and used to considering when I write scenarios, then I'm going to be reluctant to include in my game.

But that's a complex discussion and an admission of weakness - it's much easier to say "I don't have that book, so I'm not allowing it."

[ArcturusV]

This is something that comes up a lot when I DM. Mostly because I'm poor enough I can usually only afford a fraction of the books that come out for a popular system like DnD, WW, etc.

I usually rule no on using it. And here is my general justification on it, and this MIGHT be what your DM is concerned about:

Power Creep.

If your party is using resources from X books, and you're using resources from X + Y books, you're generally going to be a lot more powerful than the rest of your party. This is in part due to designers wanting their books to sell. And the easiest way to sell? Make it more powerful than standard stuff. Everyone likes more power. Sometimes it's by filling a niche (see things like the Complete ____ series in DnD and such which expand a particular subject) but even those tend to be the subject of power creep as people just cram in options and ideas "because they fit" or "because they sound neat", and seldom seem to think about... "Wait... what if a character uses abilities from Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Eberron, Complete Arcana, and Dragon Magazine all at once on top of what I am writing right here, right now?"

So I usually find a series of books I both have available and are obviously limiting (Like I never let characters use abilities from two different Settings as that just strikes me as incredibly foolish, and usually where a lot of power creep and breaking comes from).

I don't know the particulars of your case, since it's general. But I can say as a DM, that's often something I think about.

[Jay R]

How can we have thoughts about this? You've left out every relevant detail.

Before beginning to form an opinion, I'd need to know the background of your character and all the others, the history of the group, the level of experience of the DM and the players, whether anybody has ever brought in an innocuous idea from a book that quickly became too powerful, and everything the DM has planned for the next several games.

I once turned down somebody's request to have an astronomy skill in OD&D. The reason I gave him was that no people except sailors would no that in this world.

The real reason was that the first several sessions were a major quest that they would eventually realize was based on the planets. Somebody with astronomy skill would be able to all the clue-finding of the first several sessions.

Not only would having astonomy skill at that time have ruined the plot, but knowing that astronomy skill was connected to the plot would have don e so as well.

But here's my advice: Don't assume that you know why the DM has made the ruling. Just accept the ruling and move on.

[Yora]

I have it easy. I usually run games that are Basic Rulebook only and that's it. So far I never had any players who had any objections to that. Only once did one player ask if he can have Extra Rage from CW and I said sure, go ahead.

In my approach to running games, the rules are a neccessity, and I want them to be brief and simple and a way to resolve the success and failure in situations where the result should be uncertain. I want the players to play characters, not stat blocks, so my games have only as much rules and options as are neccessary to make the rules system work.

[RandomNPC]

I tend to allow almost everything, the last time I called for "Core books only" I got requests from 3 out of 5 for "Just this one thing" from elsewhere, and nobody had fun. I openly state "Don't be a dink" when people are making characters, and my one power gamer keeps himself in check fairly well.

That being said, DM doesn't want it, you've got two options. Don't take it, or use it anyway and have a big fight with the DM when they find out.

I've only asked one couple to leave my group, one had a drama blow up and her boyfriend had admitted he was planning on doing things I already vetoed, so yea, I suggest the suck it up route over the underhanded do it anyway route.

[ArcturusV]

or use it anyway and have a big fight with the DM when they find out.

No.

No.

No.

For the love of god don't. It was annoying enough in my 4th edition campaign I was running. Told everyone, dozens of times, Player's Handbooks 1-3 (Minus a few races) over and over.

Had someone sneak in a Drow (despite the lack of Drow in my setting) swordmage, with not a single item, feat, or power that was anywhere in those books.

Found it out only 3 sessions later when he was trying to crawl through a dark place and I told him that, as an elf with only low light vision, he couldn't make out a target from where he was. And then he informed me he was a Drow with Darkvision and could.

Not only was I as DM wanting to throw a book at him. All the other players around the table also wanted to throw something at him.

[Jay R]

Had someone sneak in a Drow (despite the lack of Drow in my setting) swordmage, with not a single item, feat, or power that was anywhere in those books.

Found it out only 3 sessions later when he was trying to crawl through a dark place and I told him that, as an elf with only low light vision, he couldn't make out a target from where he was. And then he informed me he was a Drow with Darkvision and could.

Not only was I as DM wanting to throw a book at him. All the other players around the table also wanted to throw something at him.

DM: You suddenly recover from a delusion and realize that there are no such things as Drow - they are something your fevered mind invented and that do not exist anywhere in the universe. You also notice that what you thought was a sword is really a soup spoon.

Don't try to force your will on the DM. It can't work.

[Novawurmson]

I think the best thing to do would be make another post talking in more detail about the game in question, the group in question (power level, style of play), and the splat in question.

For example, I mostly play Pathfinder. I'd almost definitely allow a player to use something from the main PF series (ultimate magic, ultimate combat, etc.), but I'd be more hesitant to use most 3rd party material, 3.5 material, or setting-specific material without looking over it closely.

[Krazzman]

I think the best thing to do would be make another post talking in more detail about the game in question, the group in question (power level, style of play), and the splat in question.

For example, I mostly play Pathfinder. I'd almost definitely allow a player to use something from the main PF series (ultimate magic, ultimate combat, etc.), but I'd be more hesitant to use most 3rd party material, 3.5 material, or setting-specific material without looking over it closely.

Seconding this.

In the PF game I run I said d20pfsrd.com as source for everything, + updated 3.5 classes on a case by case basis. My GF came with an updated Swift Hunter (3.5 feat + scout brought to PF). One guy basically made an Lame Ancestor Oracle/Barbarian, then we have a Witch and well a newbie playing a druid. The only one really stressing it is my GF so far and she is playing a one-shot for massive damage route and is about on par with the Barbocle.

In another PF game I play in we are limited to Core + APG options (except for certain classes) despite the DM having Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. I asked if I could bring a Wildblooded sorcerer and it was ok. The Cleric asked for a Channel Energy feat from Ultimate Magic and it was ok.

I for my part would in a DnD Core only group would still ask for mundane Items/Weapons etc from the Completes. I just like hidden Blades and such stuff.

So please give us more insight on this matter. Even if they read it here this is a thing that belongs into a forum and they shouldn't be butthurt too much.
(The worst thing I got here was people bragging about a PF Druid should totally change into a Dinosaur at level 4 because it's the best form despite me having said what could this druid have encountered in a live where he basically never left his village. He saw an Owl, Goblindog and Rats. The DM saw that and first asked me why I was asking for OP tricks and wanted to start ranting, I just told him look at the OP again and read it again... he understood the problem even I had with it and never mentioned it again.)

[Mnemnosyne]

I strongly dislike it when a DM won't take the time to look over something a player wants to play. I mean, sure, I understand that DMing takes a lot of time and effort on the base of it, but when I do it (and I do it much more often than I get to play, really) I consider anything a player wants from any source.

If I'm worried about balance implications of a particular ability, I'll gladly be up front with the player about that. I'll explain I have some reservations about how this might turn out in play. If it doesn't look imbalancing, but I have a nagging feeling something might turn up, I might talk it over with the player, discuss what they intend to do and how they think the ability/feat/spell/whatever can be applied, and if I'm still on the fence, I might suggest trying it for a while, and make it clear to the player that if I have problems with it, I'll tell the player, then strip the ability from the character somehow.

But I do feel that if someone is going to take up the task of DMing, they should make sure to look over and give serious consideration to anything a player is significantly interested in, and not make excuses like not having that source, if the player presents them with the relevant text.

[Jay R]

But I do feel that if someone is going to take up the task of DMing, they should make sure to look over and give serious consideration to anything a player is significantly interested in, and not make excuses like not having that source, if the player presents them with the relevant text.

You don't know what's happening. You only know (some of) what the player knows.

Consider the following possibility. The first major quest is designed around a BBEG, who is really the PC's mentor in disguise. After several adventures, the PCs will be told that they passed his tests, and move on to the next phase.

Then a player shows up with a splat book and wants a class feature that lets him see through disguises automatically. The DM sees instantly that the entire game will be impossible with that ability.

If the DM says, "You can't have that starting ability; it will ruin the game I've written," then the player knows he's dealing with somebody in disguise, and that will ruin the game almost as surely.

So the DM glances at it, says, "I don't own that book; you can't use it," in order to preserve the game.

We can't know it's something like that, but we can't know it isn't, either.

Trust the DM, accept his ruling, and move on.

[BlckDv]

I strongly dislike it when a DM won't take the time to look over something a player wants to play. I mean, sure, I understand that DMing takes a lot of time and effort on the base of it, but when I do it (and I do it much more often than I get to play, really) I consider anything a player wants from any source.

If I'm worried about balance implications of a particular ability, I'll gladly be up front with the player about that. I'll explain I have some reservations about how this might turn out in play. If it doesn't look imbalancing, but I have a nagging feeling something might turn up, I might talk it over with the player, discuss what they intend to do and how they think the ability/feat/spell/whatever can be applied, and if I'm still on the fence, I might suggest trying it for a while, and make it clear to the player that if I have problems with it, I'll tell the player, then strip the ability from the character somehow.

But I do feel that if someone is going to take up the task of DMing, they should make sure to look over and give serious consideration to anything a player is significantly interested in, and not make excuses like not having that source, if the player presents them with the relevant text.

I'm glad that works well for you, and am thrilled for your players, sadly time is not a luxury we all have in spades. I used to have a very permissive system like this one, coupled with a fairly meager collection of splat-books beyond the core myself. Combine this with a couple of players with ample idle time and a large collection of books, and I soon found myself being expected to devote 5-10 hours A WEEK (I concede I may have had unusually demanding players) on top of my existing game prep reviewing elements from material I did not own. (Looking toward next level up, debating one of these 12 feats and 20 spells you don't own.. which would you allow?)

I don't have the time for that, and after hashing it out with my players found that most of them were unhappy that having more books meant some players got more toys. Since then we've had a clear "Allowed Sources' list for all games. A player can petition to get a Book (Or equivalent) added for all players, but not individual items.

[randomhero00]

It in't a splat book or 3rd party, its official. She/he plans to buy the book eventually. Its just something that goes perfect with the character because of the campaign/story arc we're in.

Edit: I 'spose I'm not saying anything wrong or hurtful here.

So here's the details. Its PF and all official books are allowed (yeah even ult combat) except ultimate magic. I only want to use an archetype from their since I'm playing a magic class that only has archetypes in that book, whereas the rest of the group has access to UC for their archetypes. (I made my character last, so had little choice in terms of what to play I haven't already recently played and what the group needed.)

[Gavinfoxx]

Uhhh all PF sources are here:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

He does know that, yes?

[randomhero00]

Uhhh all PF sources are here:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

He does know that, yes?

yeah

edit: err you see my frustration now yes? Its not like I'm asking for some obscure 3.5 splatbook here....

[Jay R]

yeah

edit: err you see my frustration now yes? Its not like I'm asking for some obscure 3.5 splatbook here....

Assume the possibility that he knows what he's doing, accept the ruling, and move on.

[ArcturusV]

Players never do that. It's Player Logic.

Just like DM logic often states that if a player asks for something unusual it's probably a bad idea to give them to it.

See for example: In a dark heresy game where my non-psychic (And never was going to be one) Cleric asked for a Force weapon. GM asked why? I pointed that it related to my backstory. That without Psychic Powers it was basically just a "monofiliment" Staff. And that it was an excuse to make my character a target because while he doesn't realize why it doesn't "Work" like when the Psyker used it in his backstory... others would, and might try to take it from him. And he was NOT going to give it to anyone but the character in his backstory for personal reasons.

Despite the explanation it still resulted in about 3 days of people passing e-mails and such between us about how I shouldn't be allowed to do it (And a few who wanted me to do it because they thought I'd just give their Psyker the weapon despite saying no, once the game began) and others saying no because it would draw undue attention from people who might want it... and others who wanted me to have it because it might draw undue attention from people who might want it... and thus more exciting encounters...

I did eventually get it.

The Psyker on our team, after he informed my Cleric it WAS a Force Staff and what that meant, found out my Cleric, true to my word, would refuse to give it to him.

So he murdered me in the night and stole it.

A day later he failed a Psychic Phenomenon and turned into an Unbound Daemonhost, so Karmic.

But all in all, it was probably still a bad idea to let me have it.

[tensai_oni]

Assume the possibility that he knows what he's doing, accept the ruling, and move on.

That would be acceptable - if the DM provided a good reason on why the source is banned. But they did not, their only excuse was laziness. Yes, DMs are not some sort of omnipresent masters of the game or judges that give out verdicts. They too have to rationalize themselves, and their rationalization can be wrong.

If we assume that the DM's intent really is to preserve the balance of the game, then I have issues with their attitude. If you do not trust the players enough to tell them the real reason why splat X is banned (no need to give out details, just say something generic like "I'm afraid it may unbalance the game"), or that they won't use this knowledge in a metagaming fashion - why should the players trust you back?

[ArcturusV]

Except Jay has been saying it might be situational.

"I have something that can give me True Seeing at will."

DM: (thinking) Hmm... as it stands their main mission contact is a (insert monster) who is using illusions to disguise himself. Having that will totally ruin what we are doing. "No, you can't have it, I don't have the book." Whew... that way they won't be told flat out that they're facing something where True Seeing will instantly screw it and have them poking everything with divinations and **** to figure out what is obviously false.

Player: "That's arbitrary and stupid!"

As opposed to just telling them: "No, if you do the big bad guy, a guy you know, will be revealed as being something other than what he is."

Player: "Hmm... so there is someone disguised..."

Sometimes giving out the reason means ruining plot twists or surprises you want to spring.

[tensai_oni]

As opposed to just telling them: "No, if you do the big bad guy, a guy you know, will be revealed as being something other than what he is."

Player: "Hmm... so there is someone disguised..."

Sometimes giving out the reason means ruining plot twists or surprises you want to spring.

Allow me to quote my post because that's not what I said.

(no need to give out details, just say something generic like "I'm afraid it may unbalance the game")

In this example, the DM says "truesight at will is overpowered, so no go". At MOST, it will make the players suspect that there's something illusion-based going on in their campaign or will be in the future, without any details, but there's where a matter of trust comes in. The players trust the DM to make fair judgements and not lie to them. The DM trusts the players not to abuse IC information they learnt OOC.

Roleplaying is a cooperative experience, not a conflict between players and the DM, or a social ladder where the high-and-mighty dungeon master looks down on the puny who are below him.

Player: "That's arbitrary and stupid!"

Well, he's right.

[Grod_The_Giant]

According to the information provided, yes, randomhero00 does have a right to be a little bit annoyed. On the other hand, it's not nearly a big enough issue to raise a fuss over*. Accept the ruling and move on.

*Assuming that you know/trust/are friends with the DM. If The guy's a total stranger, it might be a warning sign.

[Jay R]

Assume the possibility that there is a good reason that he isn't going to give you or even hint at, accept the ruling, and move on.

Maybe he's wrong this time. But so what? Whatever the template or class or feature you're talking about, the game will be fun without it. But complaining about not having it will not be fun.

Accept the ruling and move on.

[ReaderAt2046]

You don't know what's happening. You only know (some of) what the player knows.

Consider the following possibility. The first major quest is designed around a BBEG, who is really the PC's mentor in disguise. After several adventures, the PCs will be told that they passed his tests, and move on to the next phase.

Then a player shows up with a splat book and wants a class feature that lets him see through disguises automatically. The DM sees instantly that the entire game will be impossible with that ability.

If the DM says, "You can't have that starting ability; it will ruin the game I've written," then the player knows he's dealing with somebody in disguise, and that will ruin the game almost as surely.

So the DM glances at it, says, "I don't own that book; you can't use it," in order to preserve the game.

We can't know it's something like that, but we can't know it isn't, either.

Trust the DM, accept his ruling, and move on.

Yeah, I have had a similar problem. In one campaign I'm working on, the plot centers around a mysterious religion called the Children Of The Sun spreading through the PC's home continent. Now, this cult is actually using psionics, but psionics are unknown in PCland and this is a psi-mag opaque world, so noone has the slightest clue how the children's powers work. the problem is, if I tell the PCs that psi-mag transparency does not apply in this world, they'll know psionics are involved and be able to guess what's happening. Also, I have to tell them that they can't play or know about psionics, but make sure to phrase it in such a way that they won't realize others can.

[Gavinfoxx]

The current editions of D&D are built on trust and mutual understanding... and people being on the same page. If someone withholds relevant information, or doesn't trust players to do something basic like keep character and player knowledge separate, that trust is weakened...

[PersonMan]

If the DM says, "You can't have that starting ability; it will ruin the game I've written," then the player knows he's dealing with somebody in disguise, and that will ruin the game almost as surely.

I see, essentially, the same issue here as I do with most "spoilers". No, it won't. Ok, the player knows there are disguises involved...that's it. They don't know, when, where, on who, how, etc., just that they're involved and are important.

Now, unless the player will always abuse out of game knowledge and turn the game into a paranoid trip where everyone is deemed suspicious and thoroughly checked for disguises, they'll probably shug, say "oh, ok then" maybe look for a compromise ("if I remove [ability X] can I keep the rest?") and move on. Maybe, at the big reveal, they go "A-ha! That's why you disallowed that class feature!" but that'll be it.

There's also the "guess what I'm thinking" issue. DMs think their plots will be too easy to guess at with limited info...just like they think their riddles are simple. Turns out, 9 out of 10 times, it's not.

As opposed to just telling them: "No, if you do the big bad guy, a guy you know, will be revealed as being something other than what he is."

Player: "Hmm... so there is someone disguised..."

Sometimes giving out the reason means ruining plot twists or surprises you want to spring.

This is a terrible way of handling it, it's better to just say "Ok, between you and me, at-will True Seeing will mess with the campaign in a bit way. Seeing as we're both mature people who want to have fun with this game and have a social contract, I'm going to trust you to not be an ass and potentially ruin everyone's fun by spilling the beans and/or making a spectacle out of searching for illusions all the time, alright?"

The current editions of D&D are built on trust and mutual understanding... and people being on the same page. If someone withholds relevant information, or doesn't trust players to do something basic like keep character and player knowledge separate, that trust is weakened...

This. Basically, if you can't trust your players to not go full-on paranoid anti-DM's-plot mode with the slightest hint of information, don't play with them. Some of the comments I see make me wonder if my experiences have been unusual - generally, there isn't a bunch of deceit/adversarial pursuit of things that bring no benefit for anyone.

[Mnemnosyne]

I can sort of understand not wanting to give the players a hint. It can be very fun to discover something without having been handed a major hint out of character. I really enjoy it when I discover such a thing with minimal out of character hinting.

That said, I agree that there are ways you could disallow that particular thing without necessarily giving the player much of a hint. Be as vague as possible with your reasons, but look over what they want, then tell them you looked it over and thought that the abilities it grants are too powerful, or don't fit the campaign you envisioned, or don't work well with your story, without being any more detailed.

[Jay R]

This is a terrible way of handling it, it's better to just say "Ok, between you and me, at-will True Seeing will mess with the campaign in a bit way. Seeing as we're both mature people who want to have fun with this game and have a social contract, I'm going to trust you to not be an ass and potentially ruin everyone's fun by spilling the beans and/or making a spectacle out of searching for illusions all the time, alright?"

"Of course, it's a mystery, and you're starting out with the crucial clue, so you don't get the fun of slowly figuring that clue, but we're both mature people, so neither of us cares if I spoil all the fun for you, and long as you continue to pretend you're having fun solving the mystery."

Nope. It works for a simplistic "go get the McGuffin" plotline, but not for a mystery.

[PersonMan]

"Of course, it's a mystery, and you're starting out with the crucial clue, so you don't get the fun of slowly figuring that clue, but we're both mature people, so neither of us cares if I spoil all the fun for you, and long as you continue to pretend you're having fun solving the mystery."

Nope. It works for a simplistic "go get the McGuffin" plotline, but not for a mystery.

If it's a mystery, you wouldn't phrase it so precisely in the first place. Presumably the players know it's a mystery, so they can know "hey, maybe instantly seeing through disguises instantly or similar won't work". They also won't know if it's a double bluff and there are no disguises involved in the entire game.