I have recently been in a fairly large debate with my gaming group, specifically our DM about characters having creative liberties with the game. I say the more options we have the more fun we have. He says, he wants to stick to the 3 core 3.5 books like they are the 10 commandments. Now I do not believe this to the point that you get crazy with it, but as long as you can rationalize it in an understandable way and balance any gains out with some loss it should be good.
What is everyone elses take? more options = more fun?
Being fond of implementing rules, from supplements or houserules, i agree.
I also prefer more options.
I enjoy the fact my players and npcs can pick their race and classes among a bunch, can customize them and have many options during the game.
This being said, this is my preference as a DM.
As a player, i have no problem playing with only the core books.
I think that sometimes less is more, and having restrictions can actually develop creativity. It is up to the players to be creative and make original characters, even with the core books only.
|
I have recently been in a fairly large debate with my gaming group, specifically our DM about characters having creative liberties with the game. I say the more options we have the more fun we have. He says, he wants to stick to the 3 core 3.5 books like they are the 10 commandments. Now I do not believe this to the point that you get crazy with it, but as long as you can rationalize it in an understandable way and balance any gains out with some loss it should be good.
What is everyone elses take? more options = more fun?
As a player I definitely love options. Especially since I usually choose a theme for each of my characters. I've found that it's hard to get really in depth with a theme if you only stick to the core books. For instance, I played a character with a cold/ice theme once. In terms of feats, spells, and items, there isn't much in the core books. I'm currently playing a character with a chaotic/luck theme and the devotion and luck feats have really helped enhance that.
You can certainly role play your theme, but I love to role play the theme and actually have in-game mechanics as well.
Having tons of options certainly opens the door for players to go crazy and create totally insane characters. But I think DMs need to step in and set boundaries.
You can always choose to use less options. It doesn't really work the other way around.
So I agree. More options = more fun.
Pressuring A DM to step outside of their comfort zone, rules-wise, is usually a bad idea. DMs have to keep track of far more rules than players do. If your DM tells you what options they are comfortable with, you should respect that.
It's fun for players to have lots of options. But DMing a complex system like 3.5 can be demanding.And putting pressure on a DM to make the game more complex can ruin their enjoyment of the game in some cases.
|
|
For my games I limit the options, although not with balance in mind but with the campaign arc I want to gm. I talk with my players about the background of the setting and about what characters fit in easily and what characters I can't imagine in that setting / campaign. If my players really want other choices, I try (with their help) to implement them, but in the end it's my decision.
As for spells / feats, I mostly let my players chose them as they like, but I look over their choices and sometimes I decide that they have to chose different and maybe have their characters look for a possibility (teacher) to learn a desired feat, especially if that feat has a strong cultural background. I handle spells the same way. Spells from the PHB are always fine, any other spell I must approve or hand out in a spellbook. Cleric characters often recieve spells that aren't in the PHB as special rewards from their deities and most of my players actually like this system, because they think, like me, that the clerics choice of spells can be rather overwhelming if unrestricted use of all sourcebooks is possible.
All I have to say is quality over quantity.
A good set of many rules is better than a good set of few rules.
But even many good rules don't make a good set of rules. It's abut how the rules interact and influence each other, and as a semi-pro game designer, that's the key to every good design: Not the summ of it's part, but how everything fits together. Less can be so much more.
That's why I'm always very reluctant to allow stuff from splatbooks. Even if the one thing seems okay and won't hurt, adding more and more will actually lower the quality, not increase it.
But I'm a PHB and house rules only fan. ^^
One can certainly run into problems when using more options, such as power-creep in later splatbooks and unbalanced character builds, but common sense will hopefully prevent situations like that.
That having been said, I am most definitely a fan of many options. Like a previous poster mentioned, with more options it is easier to create a character whose game mechanics support his roleplaying theme.
As a DM, I'm willing to allow new stuff on an experimental/test basis. If things get out of hand, the player gets a free "re-spec" in order to re-create his character along more acceptable lines. The underlying rule is that everything must make sense with regard to the setting and story.
As a long term Gm I recently banned all books apart from the core rule books and any campaign specific stuff (we are playing Rise of the Rulelords).
Why did I do this, well for a few reasons:
1) Our group contains 7 players, with a mixed level of play, it was apparent in our last campaign that some characters were far more powerful and capable because they were using feats and spells from none core books that the other players did not have the time/inclination/get up and go to use.
2) In the last campaign the play ground to a halt on a few occasions because I did not understand how a feat/class feature/spell worked. It is very difficult for a DM to know every thing a player can throw at him. In a few of these occasions we found that the player had misinterpreted the rule and had been using it to greater or lesser effect than he should of (more often greater effect).
3) Some of the abilities available in those optional rule books were encounter breakers, the Druid in particular became capable of disabling a lone opponent with great ease.
I can see why players want more options, but the DM should have the ability to veto those powers at will in the same way that the players should ensure that they keep the game fun for every one, DM included.
|
WARNING:This is an opinion!
Most books written outside of Core compromises the game with breakable rules and power creep. In every game I have played in, the more books past the core 3 that are allowed, the faster the game broke down. This may not be true if you and your fellows players aren't into min-maxing, optimizing and powergaming. I have allowed 6 books beyond core in my Savage Tide game and now I have to tweak every encounter(they are at level 11) by 4-5 EL and they still blast through with no problem. I am going to have to find a way to wrap up the game early because I don't have the time as a DM to re-write every encounter with optimized NPCs and monsters. This means that they will miss out on a great storyline and I will miss out on more piratey goodness.
If your DM doesn't want to allow other options you should either be willing to DM yourself or accept that he doesn't have the free-time available to constantly ramp-up encounters to challenge an ever increasing discrepancy between the party's level and what will challenge them.
My suggestion......If you want more options then try some weird roleplay stuff. Talk to your DM about stuff like 'Hey I want to be an ice wizard, can I sub-out the elemental damage from a fireball for cold damage' and stuff like that. If the DM doesn't want to work with you a bit in helping you have a better way to express your vision of your character with flavor then he might just be a d*ck. But until he proves that he is, assume that he has seen games go bad with too many books. I have.
I am one of those DMs who has *always* kept things pretty close to core.
The first thing I think of when I see a new rule/option is "How can this be broken?/Is this intrinsically more powerful than something else?"
I recognize myself at one extreme of the spectrum, but I have witnessed the good effect it has had on my own games. I have successfully run a game up to 31st level over several years with many different sorts of characters running around, precisely because there were not billions (literally) of potentially broken combinations being added to the mix at all times.
For myself it is not a matter of lack of ability (you try running a 3.5 gestalt classed monster game fighting 1st edition NPCs), but of consistency and sanity. I've heard the suggestion that each game (or player) be limited to a single extra sourcebook - on the theory that each splat book is balanced with core rules by itself. It's a sensible compromise.
I have not been utterly opposed to new classes/etc. from other sources as character concepts. Typically I ask for what the player is wanting, tone it down to what I feel is appropriate, and see if they're willing to play it.
Fewer Options can = More Fun.
As a player and a long time DM I like more options. I think players have more fun with options and that in turn makes DMing more fun. Granted at one time, over 5 years ago, I did only allow the core books. At that time you could gain training in feats, spells, or classes outside the core as the campaign progressed.
This helped me and the players slowly learn all about the additional books without being overwhelmed. I also use to think that that it was the DMs job to keep players that build better characters in check compared to other players. The truth was I learned it didn't matter. Even with core rules only those that can build better characters will and those that can't simply don't care. So why punish those players that wish to use that cool new book?
As mentioned having to keep track of all those new new abilities can be hard, but thats why I have always made players turn in complete character sheets, at each new level, via email to me at least a week before the game. For those abilities that I know can be tricky, rules wise, I go over how I will handle these abilities before the game even starts. This prevents me from suddenly be surprised at a game session when a player uses a new ability or uses it incorrectly. It also gives players a chance to change feats or spells when they find out it does not work the way they wish it does.
Also as others have stated their are abilities that are simply broken when used with X other ability. I have learned its easier to balance out that single ability instead of banning a whole book that could add allot of extra fun for players. So I instead work with my players to balance out the ability. Then once this is done we include it in the groups Wiki that explains how the ability was changed. Granted our wiki has grown pretty big, but its easy to find the info needed.
We have also learned to use the same set of rule changes or house rules across different DMs and games. This helps cut down on allot of confusion on which set of rules are being used when creating characters. If their are any campaign specific rules then the DM simply lets the group know about that small change before the game starts. Otherwise a player can count on a specific set of rules in play.
So far our group has grown to include a good number of books which are:
DMG, MM, PHB, PHB2, Arms & Equipment Guide(Non-Magical Items only), Book of 9 Swords, Complete Adventure, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, Complete Mage, Complete Psionics, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Warrior, Eberron Campaign Setting, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic Item Compendium, Races of Destiny, Races of Eberron, Races of Stone, Races of the Dragon, Races of the Wild, Spell Compendium, Stormwrack, Unearthed Arcana (Small list of allowed Variant Rules).
I must agree with Fake Healer. The more books added, the longer the game took to get through basic things like combat (which becomes needlessly complicated unless the players are all very organised - a rare event).
That said, what kind of creative license do you want? If you want to be able to bend the rules to pull off Final Fantasy and Transporter's lovechild at level 3, then I can see the DMs problem. What is he stopping you from doing? Creative license can be taken quite happily within the contraints of the rules, provided you know them well enough.
I too worry about power creep and breakable rules (even while I mostly play with other players who, when they see a breakable rule, try not to exploit it).
And of the poor DM trying to keep track of it all. That's why I usually play quite close to core, or prefer to go with house rules more than optional splatbooks etc.
I am often also interested in further limitations, like themes for characters and parties, and see what can come up with those things. Then naturally all optional rules supporting those themes are welcome to at least be discussed. So yes, sometimes limiting options can be more fun.
It's bit like writing a sonnet: there are restrictions on metre and so forth but within those restrictions you can do whatever you want, and providing some restrictions gives better focus and direction.
|
Being fond of implementing rules, from supplements or houserules, i agree.
I also prefer more options.
I enjoy the fact my players and npcs can pick their race and classes among a bunch, can customize them and have many options during the game.This being said, this is my preference as a DM.
As a player, i have no problem playing with only the core books.
I think that sometimes less is more, and having restrictions can actually develop creativity. It is up to the players to be creative and make original characters, even with the core books only.
Seldriss pretty much nailed what I was going to say. I love playing the Warlock or the Archivist or the Dread Necromancer, but I also grew up studying the works of people like Chaucer and Shakespeare, who managed to create incredibly creative works, despite sticking to extremely strict prose and meter.
These days, 'thinking outside the box' is all the rage, but sometimes, forcing yourself to draw within the lines, you can really channel and focus your creativity.
Nothing teaches you to jump faster than a hurdle in your way, after all!
I don't have any problem with DMs restricting source books, if they want. But what I think is silly is when I hear people say "I restrict my game to Core books only because other books will ruin balance", as if there weren't any unbalanced things in the Core books (like using the Gate spell to summon powerful outsiders, using Planar Binding on efreeti for free wish spells, rebuking a shadow and using it to create a vast incorporeal army, etc.)!
Any option (Core or not), should be judged on its own merits as to whether it's appropriately balanced (IMO).
Anyway, about options and variants, i realized a long time ago that players don't really care about available options open to all.
They don't really want to flip gazillions of pages until they find the appropriate race or class for a new character.
They want to get options for the specific character they want to create. They want him/her to be different.
So instead of gathering multiple supplements, options and variants, it is often easier to give customized options to the player, specifically adapted to their new character.
That's why i always tell my players to think about the general concept of their new character, before thinking in game terms, such as race, class or numbers.
Once they have an idea of what they would like, and expose it to me, it's always easier for me to propose them options.
|
This isn't necessarily a debate about more options=more fun.
For example, the game world is very often created by the GM. Some extra books may easily introduce concepts foreign to the game world. Whle they may be fun for some settings, they could unravel the consistency of that game world.
Additionally, outside rules, spells, classes and races very often create a power creep in the game causing basic rules, spells, classes and races to be less than ideal for players.
Sticking to the core books can force creative ways to deal with problems. For example, I play a cleric of a fire god. Outside the domain spells and the limited domain power to turn water elementals, there isn't much there. So, I have added fluff to everything. My healing spells use flames, my scrying and diviniation spells require me to gaze into flames. My healing poitions use hot peppers. When I do use fire spells my body takes on an aura of flames. None of these have any game mechanic effects at all, and are used solely for flavor.
I believe that no outside book could have allowed as much fun as finding creative ways to work my fire theme into the game. There are feats to substitue flame effects for other effects. But really I don't need rules to do that.
I think there are very few concepts that cannot be acheived with the basic classes, rules, spells, races that a little creative thinking can't overcome.
That being said, I am always in favor of new ideas spells, classes, abilities etc. New ideas allow players and GMs to stretch to new concepts and explore areas they otherwise would not have.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
My DM just shoots down everything I want.
These are actual quotes (maybe not exactly word for word, my memory's not that great, but pretty close):
"Dragon isn't cannon D&D so you can't use anything from it"
"PHB2 is broken and you can't use anything from it"
**sees me showing another player something from the Minitures Handbook**
"or the Miniatures Handbook"
(Mind you he has neither book and hasn't read them either)
Won't let me use 3.5 Pathfinder Stuff (which is semi fair enough, it is FR)
"Noone can take Luck of Heroes because it is broken and it is a stupid Feat"
"No you can't play that race [insert race here]. It's stupid and/or broken and/or I just won't let you"
"Psionics aren't Fantasy they are Science Fiction and they are stupid so you can't use them"
He saw me reading KQ and said "No you can't use anything from that". I wasn't even planning on using anything from it, I was just reading it.
So essentially of my 1000's of $$ woth of 3.5 D&D Books and Magazines that I have collected over the past 2 1/2 years, I can pretty much just use the PHB. He will allow the Complete Books but I don't own them (except Complete Psionic, which as stated is useless).
I am seriously thinking of finding another group to RP with and just continue to play VtES with them on the off week (we rotate).
As an aside:
He wouldn't let a player name his elf Sylar (because he doesn't like Heroes) but was quite content to let him use Gorbensmith the Sixteenth for the same character after the player threw in a stupid non-elven name to be smart. Personally I thought Sylar was a pretty good elven sounding name.
I'm on Fake Healer's side as well. As a DM, I feel it absolutely necessary to limit racial choices to what makes sense in the campaign world and limit class/prestige class choices to control power creep.
"PHB2 is broken and you can't use anything from it"
**sees me showing another player something from the Minitures Handbook**
"or the Miniatures Handbook"
(Mind you he has neither book and hasn't read them either)
See, that seems valid to me. DMs are sometimes busy people and it's not reasonable (IMO) to expect someone to pore through a book they haven't read, playtesting each bit to see whether it's balanced or not, then coming up with a list of acceptable material from that source.
It would be worse (IMO) if he had read that book and knew there was some good material in there, and then still refused to let anyone use it.
Any one non-core book isn't a problem. Each book is more or less Core-balanced.
The problem is that each splat book is not balanced against each other.
At all. In the slightest.
While all the spells, feats, prestige classes and variants may be all fine and well with Core- the problem isn't that.
The problem is when you take Class A from this book and Prestige Class B with that book with the feat from book C and the cheap magical item from book D, that you have a problem. You become more than a sum of your parts with some of these combinations and it truly becomes *campaign breaking*.
Your DM is trying to keep that from happening. (and quite possibly may not own all the books or understand them even vs Core).
There is nothing wrong with that approach.
If you have a *specific* thing from a book you want to try and bring in, Talk to the DM about it.
Not just "hey, here's nightsticks, can I use them?" but:
"hey, I know when i created this character you said I could use Divine Metamagic, and then when that wizard asked you let him have Persist Spell. I was wondering if you'd allow this item. *shows book*. If I had one (or more) of those, I could DMM persist a spell without it costing me anything but a rod or two".
Then the DM knows *exactly* what you are asking. Don't hide the ball, don't throw in curve balls. Detail to the DM exactly what you are wanting and then you'll get an accurate result.
What makes DM's upset is when you say "can i use this"? and he reads it thinking.. "this campaign has no undead so who cares about turnings" and says.. sure!
Then 2 levels later you are Super-Chica and he's grinding his teeth and staring at you with daggers in his eyes.
(obviously I creatd the nightstick/DMM scenario as an example- but it's a good one as it illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. Multiple feats/items from different books- each being balanced but not with each other).
If he says no, ask him why. Help him to adjust whatever it is you want, to a happy middle ground. Maybe you really do just want night sticks in the off chance you meet more undead than you can handle. A simple house-ruled sentence addition to the item can shore up that weakness and turn a possible problem into a good item in the DM's eyes.
The DM isn't trying to limit your creativity he's trying to keep campaign cohesion. Work with him on that, and he'll be more likely to work with you on the other.
-S
|
|
I am of two minds about this.
As both a DM and a Player, I love having options. I like being able to tailor a character to the way I want to play it, or an NPC based on the role I want them to have. I love reading new rules and mechanics, so I have pretty much every splatbook.
BUT
1. Some things are just too potent, either alone (belt of healing, Factotum), or in combination (Duskblade + web + cloak of arachnida).
2. I have banned certain books from my table, but pretty much only those with alternate rule systems (Incarnum, Psionics, Nine Swords) that don't mesh well with the core rules, I don't like the flavor of, or that are just not worth learning.
3. As a DM, I have final approval of any character. If I miss something, and it comes up in play, I have the right to have you make a new character or nerf said broken ability to where I think it is reasonable.
4. It is always best to use the DMG advice for classes: if it does a job better than a core class, it is too good (houserules to fighters notwithstanding).
5. The game breaks down when you introduce NEW MECHANICS that don't work like anything in the core rules. For example, the Knockback feat allows a player to trip someone if they deal 10 damage. Nothing in core works like that, so it makes no sense to allow it. But Extra Music is essentially Extra Turning but for Bards, so it is fine.
6. This is the most important fact. It is infinitely more likely if you come to me with a request to make a "pyromancer" specialist wizard that I will say Yes, than if you ask to play a Marshal. In other words, I am willing to tinker with the core rules for a player to give them what they want.
One player in my group is pretty aggressive with his combinations - I am constantly reminding him he cannot select Realms feats for a Greyhawk campaign. My current Rule of Character Creation is that you get to pick one splatbook to pull your character from, plus core rules. That tends to limit broken combinations and still lets people make a character fill a role. However, occasionally I do need to veto something (see my thread on Dragon Shaman auras).
On my permanent Ban list:
Complete Psionic
Psionic Handbook
Magic of Incarnum
Tome of Magic
Book of Nine Swords
Books that are on my Watch list:
Player's Handbook II
3.0 Softcovers
Complete Mage
Complete Champion
Books that have become almost Core:
Unearthed Arcana
Complete Warrior
Complete Divine
Complete Adventurer
Complete Arcane
See, that seems valid to me. DMs are sometimes busy people and it's not reasonable (IMO) to expect someone to pore through a book they haven't read, play testing each bit to see whether it's balanced or not, then coming up with a list of acceptable material from that source.
QFT...
I work 50 hours a week, do volunteer work another 6 to 12. May 15th thru October 12th (or so) my wife and I do a lot of camping, especially during July and August. During the winter I have other non-work activities that take up a lot of time.
I do not have time to read thru every book that my players get a hold of and figure out if it is broken or not, also I don't have time to make sure that they are using the feat/spell/skill/etc correctly, ie. a priest found a spell in the FR spell book and was using it, well it turns out it was *only* for a priest of a specific deity and he wasn't.
As we are wrapping up the current campaign, cut short from going to level 15 or so down to level 7, and we are going to use the Pathfinder RPG Beta rules, I have said, no other books than the Beta. Period.
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
|
My DM just shoots down everything I want.
These are actual quotes (maybe not exactly word for word, my memory's not that great, but pretty close):
"Dragon isn't cannon D&D so you can't use anything from it"
"PHB2 is broken and you can't use anything from it"
**sees me showing another player something from the Minitures Handbook**
"or the Miniatures Handbook"
(Mind you he has neither book and hasn't read them either)
Won't let me use 3.5 Pathfinder Stuff (which is semi fair enough, it is FR)
"Noone can take Luck of Heroes because it is broken and it is a stupid Feat"
"No you can't play that race [insert race here]. It's stupid and/or broken and/or I just won't let you"
"Psionics aren't Fantasy they are Science Fiction and they are stupid so you can't use them"
He saw me reading KQ and said "No you can't use anything from that". I wasn't even planning on using anything from it, I was just reading it.So essentially of my 1000's of $$ woth of 3.5 D&D Books and Magazines that I have collected over the past 2 1/2 years, I can pretty much just use the PHB. He will allow the Complete Books but I don't own them (except Complete Psionic, which as stated is useless).
I am seriously thinking of finding another group to RP with and just continue to play VtES with them on the off week (we rotate).
As an aside:
He wouldn't let a player name his elf Sylar (because he doesn't like Heroes) but was quite content to let him use Gorbensmith the Sixteenth for the same character after the player threw in a stupid non-elven name to be smart. Personally I thought Sylar was a pretty good elven sounding name.
Dragon was 100% official and cannon. Sounds to me like you need a new DM. Instead of looking for a new class or whatever to play I would look for a new DM. In fact I think one of the Players needs to step up (maybe you) and convince the other players to try a new game you are running. Invite the old DM to be a player. Do not be rude, nasty of vindictive about anything. I just think new blood is necessary for running your games.
I do not think the GM has final god like rule on anything. Remember, it is a game meant for fun. If the players do not have fun, they quit. Then how much fun is it sitting at an empty table rolling dice by yourself? This game is a collaborative. And while I do not think a DM needs to read every single book that comes along, s/he needs to look at what a player is presenting, read it, and make an educated decision about its inclusion. If there is no solid campaign reason to not allow it, then allow it. "Stupid" is not a sound reason, as in effect it calls the player stupid for even wanting it. Not allowing a player to name a character what he wants-as in the above example- is unacceptable behavior.
While I can sympathize with limited time, I cannot accept "Stupid" as a legitimate answer.
As a player I've enjoyed looking at the books beyond 'core' as a means to explore a bit of variety in my characters. Some of my fellow players choose to limit themselves to the core. As a GM, and a newly reborn one, I can understand limiting the number of books.
For example, my Pathfinder campaign uses the Beta only. It's only until I get my GM feet back under me. Then I'll consider adding more. But definitely not all, due to lack of time to 'learn it all'.
Finding the balance in the game, and your GM/group, is the trick. The GM should have a decent understanding of the books they allow, or your game will slow down each time they need to 'learn/adjudicate' at the table. Not fun.
I guess it boils down to how much work your GM is willing to put into it, and if that satisfies the players.
|
|
Dragon was 100% official and cannon. Sounds to me like you need a new DM. Instead of looking for a new class or whatever to play I would look for a new DM. In fact I think one of the Players needs to step up (maybe you) and convince the other players to try a new game you are running. Invite the old DM to be a player. Do not be rude, nasty of vindictive about anything. I just think new blood is necessary for running your games.
That might be a bit harsh to abandon someone who has stepped up to DM. I agree they should try other DMs or possibly other groups, but not at the expense of their current DMs work. My group balances 3-4 DMs on a rotating schedule, and we all learn from eachother. It would be better to talk things out first and get to the real reason the DM doesn't want certain things in his game. Maybe he had a bad experience...
I do not think the GM has final god like rule on anything. Remember, it is a game meant for fun. If the players do not have fun, they quit. Then how much fun is it sitting at an empty table rolling dice by yourself? This game is a collaborative. And while I do not think a DM needs to read every single book that comes along, s/he needs to look at what a player is presenting, read it, and make an educated decision about its inclusion. If there is no solid campaign reason to not allow it, then allow it. "Stupid" is not a sound reason, as in effect it calls the player stupid for even wanting it. Not allowing a player to name a character what he wants-as in the above example- is unacceptable behavior.
I agree, Krome. Based on the information presented, the DM sounds like he is power-tripping and arbitrarily (and even a bit angrily) dismissing other materials that his players are interested in. But perhaps this is not the whole story. Before we "condemn" this DM, we should consider that maybe his players are ALWAYS pestering him for new things when he knows they won't work. Or maybe his players ARE aggressive optimizers even if they don't know it.
While I can sympathize with limited time, I cannot accept "Stupid" as a legitimate answer.
Exactly right. If the DM had said "Psionics create wierd situations where you can nova very easily, or ignore certain rules that restrict spellcasters, and plus I just find they push the realistic limits for the campaign I am creating for you, and I don't want to monitor book-keeping for an entirely new rules system" that would be fair. But just dismissing it (or anything else) as "stupid" just tells the players you aren't interesting in communicating with them about things in which they are interested.
I like options, but with the plethora of material out there, I've found too often that players are paralyzed by those options. I've found it much easier to keep with a set list of Books I Don't Have a Problem With:
Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Spell Compendium
Magic Item Compendium
Unearthed Arcana (for some things, like class variants and options)
and then allow other books in on a case-by-case basis (or, on a campaign "need" basis). I might open up other books as the campaign progresses (the Complete books fall into this category), but I try to keep initial 1st level choices to a minimum.
|
|
Exactly right. If the DM had said "Psionics create wierd situations where you can nova very easily, or ignore certain rules that restrict spellcasters, and plus I just find they push the realistic limits for the campaign I am creating for you, and I don't want to monitor book-keeping for an entirely new rules system" that would be fair. But just dismissing it (or anything else) as "stupid" just tells the players you aren't interesting in communicating with them about things in which they are interested.
Total agreement here.
I tend to try to *encourage* my players to try something new, like a Duskblade or a Warlock or an Archivist, but generally, they aren't interested in that sort of stuff. I *don't* encourage them to try stuff from the Tome of Magic, Psionics Handbook* or Magic of Incarnum, simply because I'm not interested in balancing the game for these additions or mastering these optional subsystems. Fortunately, none of them are remotely interested in any of that, and we haven't had a Psionic character since 2nd edition (when they were popular, right after Will & the Way came out).
But I'd never say, 'No, 'cause it's stupid.' I have too much respect for my players to talk down to them like that, because they are also my friends.
*Exception; I wouldn't discourage a Soulknife, because they work just fine with minimal understanding of Psionics, being an effectively 'transparent' class that could be just as easily called a 'Mageblade' or 'Witchknife' or whatever and function mechanically the same.
I'm a GM in pro of more options = more fun.
The problem is if you don't know the rules at least 70% it can get out of hand... The more rules you have the more page flipping you'll have to do, which means less time playing more time flipping (in more than one way). So as long as you have control, all can be OK.
I normally allow any "oficial" D&D 3.5 material. I used to think that the power balance was usually OK with all classes but then the Book of the Nine Sword came out... Lovely work but easely abused. Fortunately with the new PFBeta the core classes have been pumped up and I think the balance has been restored.
So, PF seem a bit Anakin-like beign! Lets how they don't turn to the Dark Side.... :P
I suggest you to propose your DM a halfway pact. The three core will be the official in the campaign, but the players can select "crunchs" in other manuals subjet at his approval. His decision will be final and no subjet to question.
Please excuse my poor english.
|
|
Honestly, I've never had anything campaign breaking in any of my games, and I've allowed every (save for Magic of the Incarnum, because I found it dumb (personal opinion)) Wizards of the Coast book and every Dragon (for 3.X) printed.
Seriously, after running Rise of the Runelords, Castle Ravenloft and Age of Worms this way (twice), I still haven't found a group of players who really "broke" the campaign. Honestly, I prefer if they would and then stop TPKing. Perhaps I just didn't end up with the smartest characters.
|
|
I'm generally in favor of variety as a player, too. But the funny thing is that with as much variety as we have available to us in game (there's a small army of books we have okay to use,) I more often than not end up running core classes with different RP twists to them. Not so others in my group. Most of our players know much more about how to get the most out of the rules, which variant rules most help out, and being aggressive optimizers than I do.
Some of that is based on past behavior of the GM... when a GM is big into roll-playing and very combat-heavy adventures, you just don't buy some skills that are good for downtime RP with your character. The downside to this is that a lot of times, their abilities, their special attacks and the amount of damage they deal out even take our GM by surprise, so he has to introduce more difficult monsters, whose CR gives them more XP and new abilities at higher levels. It's not a stretch to say our games tend to resemble the cold war.
Personally, when I GM (I'm planning to run the PF Beta through a Second Darkness playtest), I'm going to probably ask them to stick to core rules and the Second Darkness player guide, and when I GM I'll likely do that until I get a better feel for the extra books. I don't mind the flavor or the alternative rules, but 3.5 already has an awful lot for me to keep in mind, especially since the last time I GM'd was back when I was playing 2E.
|
|
*Exception; I wouldn't discourage a Soulknife, because they work just fine with minimal understanding of Psionics, being an effectively 'transparent' class that could be just as easily called a 'Mageblade' or 'Witchknife' or whatever and function mechanically the same.
Interesting. One of my players approached me recently and asked if he could play a Soulknife, explaining they didn't really use the psionic rules. I don't really like the flavor of the class, but reading it over again it does not appear to impact the game, and like you said it has the potential to be transparent with a magic-wielding fighter. In fact, with some tweaking I can see using it as a substitution for a Gish.
|
There are two key factors for me when considering how many options are too many.
DM Overlord
If a DM is constantly doing a double take on what people are using the game is going to come to a screeching halt. Fortunately most games have a simple limit on such materials - the number of players.
Player Overlord
However much the players might want to use and abuse that obscure (or not so obscure) class, prestige class, feat, or spell, even more devastation can come from the DM using such. Remember that the DM will in many cases create significantly more leveled NPCs during the course of the campaign than the number of PCs. As such, he is more likely to be throwing perverse combinations that drive players, and even himself, to distraction and frustration time and again.
Both players and DMs should consider this much more seriously than letting players use anything and everything with prior discussion and approval. Players will be opening themselves to true horrors of DM self-indulgent power-gaming, while DMs will find themselves with nothing but their own discretion stopping them from said indulgence.
As it goes, despite the amount of money I have dumped on 3.5 books, that remains the biggest appeal of the PFRPG to me. It is a pull to just say no to building yet another overpowered, overly complex NPC that is absurdly beyond the power level of my players.
I prefer to discuss character development with my players before a campaign begins so we all know what everyone will be using from non-core books. Then it is just restraining myself from going totally wild.
|
|
Adding options can be a double edged sword. More flavor is good, and being able to better model certain things without just using a generic class, is certainly beneficial - but power creep and juggling too many extra books can cause problems (which is part of why I don't like using Psionics).
Personally, I think Lilith and Samuel have a good handle on it. It's best not to go too far either way - having the books is good, but automatic inclusion or exclusion doesn't work out well (in my opinion).
|
|
It's fun for players to have lots of options. But DMing a complex system like 3.5 can be demanding.And putting pressure on a DM to make the game more complex can ruin their enjoyment of the game in some cases.
I think it's ironic. I'm the DM, but I'm the one that feels like he's pushing all the options on the players. I have a good friend who is also a DM who has the same "problem".
As to the OP -- "baby steps". Regardless of the book, ask one thing at a time and be open to "no" or even "we'll try it for a bit".
|
|
... and then allow other books in on a case-by-case basis (or, on a campaign "need" basis).
I agree, except that I don't know that it even needs to be with "books". An entire book might be really good except for that one spell/prestige class/magic item/feat/what have you. ANYTHING outside of what I allow (not just books) need to go through me. I don't have the time to read an entire book and find out if it is good or bad, but I can take a look at one thing at a time and try and work out the pros and cons of said item.
If your DM doesn't want to allow other options you should either be willing to DM yourself or accept that he doesn't have the free-time available to constantly ramp-up encounters to challenge an ever increasing discrepancy between the party's level and what will challenge them.
What Fake Healer said. Especially the boldfaced text.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
"Psionics aren't Fantasy they are Science Fiction and they are stupid so you can't use them"
Yes! I totally agree. Haha!
I am seriously thinking of finding another group to RP with and just continue to play VtES with them on the off week (we rotate).
This is a completely valid attitude because this GM isn't giving you what you'd like to see. However, GMs also have to walk a fine line between giving players what they want and ruining the game (which can happen in SO many ways).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Dragon was 100% official and cannon.
I've tried telling him this but he just says "not in my game it isn't"
Sounds to me like you need a new DM. Instead of looking for a new class or whatever to play I would look for a new DM. In fact I think one of the Players needs to step up (maybe you) and convince the other players to try a new game you are running. Invite the old DM to be a player. Do not be rude, nasty of vindictive about anything. I...
I have been really talking up Pathfinder to my group and have gotten one of the other guys to agree to DM Rise of the Runelords. We were supposed to start it as soon as we either finished or TPK'd our last adventure (Slaughtergarde) which we did last session (TPK'd that is, we were only about 1/3 of the way through). We were going to start RotRL this week, but he mentioned that he was leading us up to Red Hand of Doom and I caved and agreed to play that instead (simply because I have heard so much good stuff about it from you guys).
So Pathfinder goes on hold for the moment. I will probably be able to convince them to play a PFS Scenario here and there (simply because it will only take one session to run an adventure, no extended time considerations).I am seriously thinking of finding another group to RP with and just continue to play VtES with them on the off week (we rotate).This is a completely valid attitude because this GM isn't giving you what you'd like to see. However, GMs also have to walk a fine line between giving players what they want and ruining the game (which can happen in SO many ways).
The things I want aren't even breaking the game. Most of the time I want to play funky multi-class stuff that I am trying for flavour. I do try and make a build that won't crumble when it gets sneezed at, but that is a secondary consideration to me.
Flavour, uniquness and backstory has always been my motto.
Take for instance my current Character. I want to take a Feat that doesn't really fit with the concept I have in mind, so I have to come up with a backstory to justify taking that Feat. This is just me, my DM only knows the bare basics of the Character I am making.
Just as a clarification: I am the only player to want to try to use all of the stuff from other sources, so it's not like everyone is trying to make weird Characters. Everyone else is content to stick to the Core + Complete model (with a few exceptions that he allows).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I've not read every supplement and would never in good conscience say anything goes. That would be extremely unwise. My players approach me with their desires and I approve or deny, usually giving a decent reason. I'm quite reasonable and fair about it.
By the same token, there are things I strongly dislike that I allow. I abhor and have always abhored multiclassing. I'm not too fond of prestige classes (or kits in the prior edition) either, but I allow those on a case-by-case basis as well. I detest psionics and avoid using monsters that have it if at all possible as well.
I think the key to this issue is to strike a reasonable balance and to craft a partnership with players rather than make it adverserial.
|
|
Take for instance my current Character. I want to take a Feat that doesn't really fit with the concept I have in mind, so I have to come up with a backstory to justify taking that Feat. This is just me, my DM only knows the bare basics of the Character I am making.
Sorry, but now I'm confused. If you want a feat that is not justified by your original character concept, and you feel you need a backstory to explain how your character acquired the feat, then to me it sounds like the mechanics are your primary motivation (with a secondary desire to explain everything story-wise) - otherwise, you would be just as happy to play the character without that feat, and find one that fit better with your character concept.
|
|
More Options does not equal More Fun. "More Options" merely means More Options. You first must remember that "fun" is subjective. Everyone sees it their own way, and everyone has it in their own way. You may not like the concept of playing a dual-handaxe weilding Gnome Barbarian with the Track feat, max ranks in Survival & Open Lock, and carrying many flasks of Alchemist's Fire; I find it intriguing.
I'm currently in a game where the DM said core only, exceptions on case-by-case basis. I asked him if he'd allow the Monk fighting styles from Unearthed Arcana, and since they're not imbalancing, he's allowing me to use them. I'm playing a basically Core Monk, not the Tatooed Monk prestige class, not the Holy Monk alternate class from the magazines, or anything out there like that. Just a Monk which now gets a +2 Dodge bonus to AC instead of +1.
This doesn't mean that the character is bland. There are many things anyone can do with just the core books to make a character that by just the meat and potatoes, frosting aside, is very different from someone else's interpretation of that class.
This is what I find is most people's(READ: Not everyone's, just most) preoccupations with using classes, feats, powers, spells, and whatnot from suppliments; they want to make their own unique little snowflake. They look at the Core and say "Everyone's got those, everyone's using those, I wanna be different!", not realizing the irony is that so many others are looking at it that way too and being different just like them. Besides, are suppliments really meant to be used in a campaign as a whole? I can't see why people would take six more books and say "Okay, we're adding all of these to everything that's possible for you guys. Read up!"
Now, I mention I'm playing a Monk to one of these people and they may respond with any number of things, saying that it is boring, and that everyone is doing that, and so forth. Then I show them I made this one off the beaten path, taking non-standard choices in his creation and progression. Not trying to make the "most effective" character, just one that's fun. I don't need a character that can walk up and stomp on a demi-god at fifth level to have my fun.
I spent a feat to give him proficiency with the Longbow. Just because I wanted to present a Monk to my party that doesn't use the Sling for his ranged warfare.
I've spent ranks in Perform(Woodwind) and Craft(Instrument) to allow him to create and play his own flute, simply because I thought the idea of a wandering musical Monk is cool.
I've left his Str bonus alone and set him up with Weapon Finesse to allow his Unarmed attacks to hit based on his Dex mod, to make a character that doesn't hit as hard just more often.
Stepping away from my current character, I would hate to make any character who, outside of Core, uses three or four more books for features and skills. That becomes less of a game and more of a second job. Dragging a half-dozen books to the table? Do lawyers even carry that much material to court on a regular basis?
Again I must simply reiterate, there is no hard and fast rule as to what is fun, as everyone has their own tastes. What's good for you may not be for me, and vice-versa.
Oh well, personal oppinion and all that jazz.
Finally, that DM sounds like a punk. "No, you can't use it because its stupid." Why can't he just be honest and say "I don't like that concept.", "It doesn't fit the campaign.", or even "I haven't read up on that, and won't allow it untill I'm familiar with those rules."? Find a new DM or take some time behind the screen for a while, this guy is stagnating.
WARNING:This is an opinion!
Most books written outside of Core compromises the game with breakable rules and power creep. In every game I have played in, the more books past the core 3 that are allowed, the faster the game broke down. This may not be true if you and your fellows players aren't into min-maxing, optimizing and powergaming. I have allowed 6 books beyond core in my Savage Tide game and now I have to tweak every encounter(they are at level 11) by 4-5 EL and they still blast through with no problem. I am going to have to find a way to wrap up the game early because I don't have the time as a DM to re-write every encounter with optimized NPCs and monsters. This means that they will miss out on a great storyline and I will miss out on more piratey goodness.
If your DM doesn't want to allow other options you should either be willing to DM yourself or accept that he doesn't have the free-time available to constantly ramp-up encounters to challenge an ever increasing discrepancy between the party's level and what will challenge them.
My suggestion......If you want more options then try some weird roleplay stuff. Talk to your DM about stuff like 'Hey I want to be an ice wizard, can I sub-out the elemental damage from a fireball for cold damage' and stuff like that. If the DM doesn't want to work with you a bit in helping you have a better way to express your vision of your character with flavor then he might just be a d*ck. But until he proves that he is, assume that he has seen games go bad with too many books. I have.
My experiences too a 'T' with Age of Worms (allowed 5 extra books) and my current 3E game (allowed about 8 different books - a few from 3PP).
This effectively ruined 3E for me and when I do go back to it I will not allow anything that is outside of the Core 3.