Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Archangel62 05-21-06, 05:13 AM	I ask this as a DM myself, how many of you DMs who say 'Core Only' for your games use Monster Manuals 2 or 3, or any of the other supplement books that provide new monsters; Libris Mortis or Lords of Madness for example. Just wondering because I do have to admit that I find it somewhat hypocritical of a DM to scream core only at players and yet will use non-core monsters to attack players with. Just a thought.
Arakim 05-21-06, 05:23 AM	Players can use spells and abilities from any book I use monsters or spells. At the same time, if I had made up those monsters or PC's what would you then argue: That I had access to creativity that my players didn't have? While it's not my style to do so, if I used every 3.0 and 3.5 book to make my party challenges, and told the PC's that they could use core only, that would still be within my pervue. There are, in fact, some books that I will not be pulling monsters out of because of this very argument, but that's just me. If you don't like what your DM ruled, just stop playing his game. We DM's run the games, but the players have the power to end it at any time by walking out.
Witch 05-21-06, 05:32 AM	Some books are perfectly fine for monsters, or even in general, but have some broken combinations. It's hard to tell your players Heroes of Horror and Libris Mortis are both allowed, but combining a Dread Necromancer with Tomb-Tainted Soul isn't.
Archangel62 05-21-06, 05:35 AM	If you made up your own monsters I wouldn't complain unless it became impossible to tell what it's weaknesses etc. were with knowledge checks (unless a manufactured creature or something of that nature) My post was directed more towards the DMs who scream about core only and how allowing any Complete, Races of, Psionics, or any other supplement book will somehow magically overpower the PCs. Whereas it's fine for them to work outside of the 'Core' for gaining additional monsters and things like that. I usually run and I can say that my players enjoy my games. I will usually allow anything from the supplements so long as it fits with the setting and theme of the campaign.
FriendoftheDork 05-21-06, 07:05 AM	I play mostly core only, and I don't use the MM2 and MM3 or other scources for monsters.
Azezel 05-21-06, 07:12 AM	Archangerl - you seem to imagine that a DM who wishes to restrict his players to core only does so because he is a mean spiritted villain who wants to get one over on his poor and inocent players. This is not the case. The greater number of games played around the world are not players Vs DM. Really. Neither is it accurate to think that a DM who restricts his players to Core, and then uses non-core material himself is Hypocritical. The Dungeon Master has ultimate responcibility for every atom and star in his world, and is entirely within his rights to limit the options of his players, whilst suffering no such limit himself. To compare, would you cry hypocracy if presented with the case of a DM who anounced a no-evil campaign, and then introduced a chromatic dragon as the antagonist? Thought not. I seem to be wandering away from m'point, id est: When a DM asks for a core-only game, he does so for the good of the game & when he pulls a monster from a non-core source, he does so for the good of the game.
Bulletproof_Condom 05-21-06, 07:48 AM	The notion that using noncore books "against" the PCs is somehow unfair constitues an admission that noncore material is more powerful than it should be, for if it was truly balanced, it wouldn't make a difference whether you're allowed to use splatbooks or not; your chances for success would be the same. There has never been a monster in any book WotC has ever published that could not be beaten by a party of four core-only characters of a level equal to the CR. Maybe they would have had an easier time with a frenzied berzerker or a warmage in the group, but those classes aren't essential. If you do encounter a monster that no party of that level could possibly defeat, that simply means that the monster's CR has been judged incorrectly. Personally, I allow PHB, DMG, Monster Manual, XPH, and the Complete books, for the PCs, with Races and other material approved on a case by case basis. In return, I get to use whatever best fits the story. Doesn't matter what book it's from, if it's cool, and it probably won't result in a TPK, I'm doing it. The DM approves the PCs, not the other way around. Actually, the PCs do have to approve the DM. They do it by showing up.
Enialis Galadonels 05-21-06, 07:52 AM	Core only here. And I use Monser Manual 2. But please note, the main reason is to provide some more interesting monsters (in appropriate places of course) as an addition. If ever my player will come up with some combination of spells and monser manual 2 that makes him unbalanced then I will kindly talk with him. However, none has done it, and as Core is balanced I have no worries at all.
KJW 05-21-06, 08:04 AM	Archangel, I have to say this is a flawed argument as it basically revolves around the presumption that the game is about the DM playing against the players. I allow most WOTC materials and use all WOTC materials I have, for example, I deny my players access to BoVD and occasionally use it for villains. There is nothing wrong with that, I run a good campaign and the PCs shouldn't be usings things from that book (though I do allow BoED as a counter). This is sensible DMing, D&D is not a wargame, with the DM playing against the players, it is a roleplaying game and it is for the DM to adjudicate the world as he sees fit to encourage the story. If a DM restricts his players to Core, but uses other materials to fill out the world, then that is his choice. Now if he is unfair, sure there is a problem, but you would have the same problem if he was also just using Core and decided to be unfair. It is hypocritical of someone to criticize a DM for doing what they are supposed to do, set the flavor and dimensions of the campaign by making decisions on what is allowed. As has been said, if the players have a problem they can always leave the game.
Nani? 05-21-06, 10:40 AM	Almost core here, except for some bits of Unearthed Arcana, Spell Compendium, a sorcerer varient, and a simple couple house rules (half orcs get an extra feat, half elves get human skills points and may choose any of the +2/+2 feats instead of diplomacy/sense motive, craft/proffession is replaced with "choose two" on class skills). I'll look at your feats from other books. Also, monsters from the various books are fairly even. Reason, philosophically, I dislike a lot of non core is because it discourages player creativity. My attitute is, if want a "Ninja", make a Rogue or possibly rogue/wizard or rogue/fighter and call it a Ninja. Simularly, if you want a "shaman", we'll start with a Druid and tweak the weapon choices "Unearthed Arcana" style. If you want to be "warlock" your a sorcerer with a dark background and eschew materials. This lets me save me $$$. It also lets me screen players. For example, I meet someone who wants to play a ninja and brings complete adventuer, looks at me like a slack jawed idiot when they run into my personal philosophy. "Uhhh, that's not a Ninja." "Ninjas are members of a organization, not a class per se. I'll even let you have exotic weapon proficency for free for flavor purposes." "Uhhh, I don't understand." My reaction is great, one less moron I don't have to deal with. Thing is, you can do almost anything with Core and few simple tweeks. All the Best, Nani?
ChaotikLawful 05-21-06, 10:48 AM	I just use anything in the SRD (Except psionics! Bad psions, bad!) and whatever my players give me the info of and I consider balanced. Also, not sure if you actually think this but the DM's task is not attacking players with monsters, it's making sure they're having fun.
terrainmonkey 05-21-06, 10:57 AM	i restrict my players to core only, xph, the base classes from all of the complet books. that's all they get. I, on the other hand, get to use every book at my disposal. why? because i am the DM that's why. It's not about balance, it's about the setting and the story. If i want to use a monster such as the kenku for example, then i will use it. if one of my players asks, "hey, can i play a kenku?" i will say no. Its not a race i allow as a pc. Even though it can take class levels, the answer is still no. Does that make me a bad DM? 26 yrs and 150+ players would say no. You, as a player, get the players handbook. I, as a DM, get to use every book i want from PHB to Complete, books of, races of, draconomicon, lords of madness, Libris mortis, etc. If i find a monster i like to use from the MM3, i'm going to use it. Its all about the story.
olshanski_home 05-21-06, 11:04 AM	I play core 3.5 only. I own MM2, but I do not use anything from it. I often make up my own variations of creatures, and occasionally change the description of the monsters in the MM in order to make them less recognizable to people who have been playing for a very long time (and who have memorized the book). For example: I took an ochre jelly, made it red, and consisting of a teeming colony of tiny fungi. I then had it float. I switched its climb speed to a fly speed. Got rid of its acid damage. Increased its attack damage by 1 die (and gave it +2 strength). I got rid of immunity to electricity and gave it fire resistance 10. I don't believe that any of those changes is very significant, nor does it raise or lower the CR, but my players had no clue what they were up against, and the wizard who had "knowledge dungeoneering) was only able to recall that it was an ooze with no discernable anatomy, and that slashing and piercing weapons cause it to split. I do allow some non-core material in on an as-reviewed basis. In most cases, I do not like how the non-core material changes the game. For example: I think the rules in the Complete Warrior for throwing objects are terrible (I simply use lethal unarmed attack damage for most hurled items). I also have a number of small house-rules that make many of the new feats in the supplemental books irrelevant. For example, I've switched the normal toughness to "improved toughness".
Board_Rider 05-21-06, 11:18 AM	I wanted to write something. Bulletproof_Condom however summed it up for me.
celtredleg 05-21-06, 11:18 AM	I ask this as a DM myself, how many of you DMs who say 'Core Only' for your games use Monster Manuals 2 or 3, or any of the other supplement books that provide new monsters; Libris Mortis or Lords of Madness for example. Just wondering because I do have to admit that I find it somewhat hypocritical of a DM to scream core only at players and yet will use non-core monsters to attack players with. Just a thought. You must play in an odd area. I have never heard a DM scream any of his restrictions at anybody. But then I guess I am a hypocrit, because I only allow non-evil PCs, but I do have evil monsters. I also allow monsters to attack the players, and I dont allow the players to attack each other.
Keoki 05-21-06, 11:27 AM	If you don't like what your DM ruled, just stop playing his game. We DM's run the games, but the players have the power to end it at any time by walking out. Hear, hear! I once encountered a "core-only DM" and found it very limiting to my imagination. So I left the game. Of course, this was in the Seattle area, where D&D groups are plentiful. I imagine it's easier said than done if there aren't many games around.
revnk 05-21-06, 11:40 AM	I have never heard a DM scream any of his restrictions at anybody. IT'S JUST A SPEECH IMPEDIMENT! SWEAR TO GOD! :D But seriously: I don't like the "Complete" books and don't allow them right now. I'm not currently using psionics but haven't entirely ruled it out for the future. Players can get feats, spells, skills, and (upon approval) PrCs from any book I use. I do use the Fiend Folio and MMII and III and Necromancer Press' Tome Of Horrors for varied monsters, and Libris Mortis and Lords Of Madness, among other volumes. Bad guys sometimes draw on Book Of Vile Darkness. I personally don't see it as a "balance" issue: yes, using materials the players can't may shift the odds against the PCs. Since the intent is for the players to ultimately prevail, I think it's perfectly appropriate for them to prevail against overwhelming odds instead of low odds. I mean, technically I only need one monster--orcs, say--but where's the fun of that for my players? And, as Bulletproof_Condom wrote, it's about the balance of the encounter, not the raw abilities or nature of the monster: i.e. a CR3 monster ought to be beatable by a 3rd level group using 20% of their resources whether it comes from the Monster Manual, Lords Of Madness, Book Of Vile Darkness, or my _____. D&D is not a zero-sum game where one side loses and one side wins. It's a nonzero-sum game where everyone wins or loses together. If my players prevail over t3h 3v1L, I win. If the PCs fail to triumph, my hard work to make a fun and satisfying game has gone down in flames. (The exception to this comes in a Call Of Cthulhu-style one-shot where everyone expects to have fun dying or going crazy--and yet the principle is the same. If the players have fun dying, I have fun. If the players accidentally manage to shred Nyarathotep and stomp Yog-Sothoth--or their equivalents--and the players are angry that dark cosmic horror turned to droll hack'n'slash, I have done gone and messed things up despite the fact that the PCs "triumphed.") But, you know, my opinion and five bucks will get you a small latte.
stargate525 05-21-06, 11:43 AM	I try to keep my players to core and the completes. Anything else (end even some stuff in the allowed books since the chaos gnome incident) must be approved by me. Naturally, I approve anything I want to add. ;)
High Octane 05-21-06, 11:50 AM	Sometimes a DM doesnt want to have to read several splatbooks before or during a game in order to approve or disapprove material. Also, players can be more clever than you think in finding a loophole in splatbook material that could be overlooked by anyone casually looking through the book. You could have easily missed Pun-Pun for example. And then a player could turn that against you. Of course the XPH isnt broken in general and any DM would step in on that, but then players tend to get a little mad when you restrict something after they have made plans.
STAT 05-21-06, 11:53 AM	The notion that using noncore books "against" the PCs is somehow unfair constitues an admission that noncore material is more powerful than it should be, for if it was truly balanced, it wouldn't make a difference whether you're allowed to use splatbooks or not; your chances for success would be the same. Actually I believe his point was that it was unfair in the sense that the DM is using resources that he denied the player, not that it's unfair as in he gets to use more powerful stuff than the players.
Fiery Avenger 05-21-06, 11:55 AM	I appear to be (and this is neither good nor bad, simply the way I play it - I don't want to step on anyone's toes here) the only DM I'v ever met who trusts his players to understand the difference between broken and balanced, between fitting and totally out there. I've taught my players that the story, and the good of the group is important - roll 6 18's? You might take away from someone else's fun by crushing everything, sorry, take new stats. And The books I use work the same way - I own a vast array of books, and I allow my players to use any of these, so long as they clear it with me and understand that certain classes (Warlock, Ninja, etc; ) are off-limits due to the general consensus that they are too powerful (at least in my group, anyway). To sum it up, I trust my players to make the right decisions, and if they don't I try to steer them in the right direction - I make restrictions based on the world, and I only restrict what I feel adds convolution to the game (Psionics, for instance - which are restricted to Psionic Monsters like the Mind Flayer) That's just my Two Cents, though...
wrecan 05-21-06, 12:24 PM	I guess I am a hypocrit, because I only allow non-evil PCs, but I do have evil monsters. I also allow monsters to attack the players, and I dont allow the players to attack each other. Railroad!!!! ;)
Hochiu 05-21-06, 12:37 PM	I smell shenanigans. Anyway, I use whatever I get my hands on, while I limit my players' material they can use. I have to do this because a few of them know the monsters better than I do, so if I throw something at them that they're familiar with their characters suddenly KNOW how to defeat it. Giving monsters obscure classes, incorporating material the lesser circulated monster books, and even using 3rd party material (monsters) helps me to keep them on their toes and prevents them from metagaming. Another example is one of the churches I have in my world. It's not intended to be a church that the players can be a part of. They're dedicated to the mad god of slaughter...so...yeah. Having PCs who are clerics of that deity would be very disruptive and it gives me an almost certain foe to pit them against. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think the DM can be a hypocrite unless they're restricting something for the players and specifically uses it in the case of a DMPC.
twelvedrunkenmonkeyz 05-21-06, 12:44 PM	I only allow my players to BEGIN with certain things, and they are allowed to have one feat/ability outside of that list. Only if they ask me though. I have one player who is adiment about this, and just says that's what he's takin' and doesn't care what I say (think I'll have to 'pone his PC once or twice to get the point accross, I'm the DM). Personally I use all the books in my collection (and I have a big collection). My players however are allowed to acquire feats once the game progressess. For instance one of them made a feat so he could use the skeletal minion from Unearthed Arcana. Now he is burnning another feat so that his skeletal minion is boosted to intelligent and what not. Now as a downfall this same PC doesn't have a familiar, and his skeleton is gets none of the benefits of being a familiar. Right now he has spent 2 feats on this, and it is on par with a Quasit/Imp familiar really, but he gets it 1 level earlier. Now I know some people may say, that's over powered, not really I've already destroyed the minion once on accident (forgot that undead are immune to crits, but we both agreed that the minion would've been toast either way next round so we just looked for a way to bring it back, to make up for the early demise). The point is, let your players expand as the game goes on, open new doors and they will feel like they are discovering new things, and new abilities.
Purkake 05-21-06, 01:12 PM	Saying that the game is not Dm vs the players(which it isn't) and then limiting the players material so that they wouldn't become "overpowered" seems hypocritical to me. What this game is about to me is having fun with your friends who you trust not to create anything that would destroy the game not trying to desperately limit their options so that they wouldn't become "overpowered". And a good way to start the trust-thing is to allow them all the stuff you use. Note: it is underestandable to limit the options if you or any other player doesn't have access to all the material or for other reasons like that... Also note: the above is just my opinion don't get too offended.
Sereno 05-21-06, 03:25 PM	Currently, I'm running an Eberron game that's Core plus anything in the Eberron CS and the XPH, too. I don't own any of the "Races Of" books or the "Complete" books and I really don't want to have to borrow them from the player who does own them all just to understand the vast slew of (IMO) unnecessary options available. I do allow other material into the game, but only on a case-by-case basis. I think the job of DM is hard enough -- being creative, impartial -- without also having to be fluent in 20+ supplemental books just because of "options". None of my players have ever complained and we all seem to have fun. I would use monsters from the MMIII, but I wouldn't create NPCs that use feats or PrCs from any non-Core/non-Eberron source. To me, it *would* feel like cheating (becoming DM vs. Players) if I developed their opponents using character creation options I had denied them.
celtredleg 05-21-06, 08:10 PM	Railroad!!!! ;) Absolutely :D Actualy that is the result of 2 RW friends never speaking again after a game wher e it was allowed. It has been over 25 years, and they still dont. That is a rare thing, and shopuld not happen, but intense gamers can get that way sometimes. And why run the risk?? I dont think you can have to many friends, why lose some to a game??
LCD2YOU 05-21-06, 08:16 PM	Absolutely :D Actualy that is the result of 2 RW friends never speaking again after a game wher e it was allowed. It has been over 25 years, and they still dont. That is a rare thing, and shopuld not happen, but intense gamers can get that way sometimes. And why run the risk?? I dont think you can have to many friends, why lose some to a game??Um, they can grow up. Don't you think? I played in an evil game, the DM turned us all evil as he thought it would be fun, and my 12th level mage (1st Edition) was the only one left standing. The other players didn't know I was evil (my character still acted "good" so they dropped their guard.) Even though I didn't start the fights, more than a few of the others were playing Stoopid Evil, my mage lived. The group broke up 2 months after that with a lot of bad blood between more than a few.
Cadfan 05-21-06, 08:32 PM	Just wondering because I do have to admit that I find it somewhat hypocritical of a DM to scream core only at players and yet will use non-core monsters to attack players with. Just a thought. Eh? I'm not a core only DM, but I'll join in just to say that this doesn't make sense. I don't permit my players to just randomly make up character classes and then play them, but I do homebrew monsters. Does this make me a hypocrite? Because I can, of my own accord and through my own discretion, make up monsters, should the players be able to randomly make up feats and character classes? Saying that the game is not Dm vs the players(which it isn't) and then limiting the players material so that they wouldn't become "overpowered" seems hypocritical to me. This also doesn't make sense. The issue of overpowered characters isn't a "players versus the monsters" issue, because if that were the case, you could just throw in more powerful monsters and the problem would go away. Its a players versus each other issue, and a "one trick ponies make for unfun games" issue.
ctuttle 05-21-06, 08:34 PM	Saying that the game is not Dm vs the players(which it isn't) and then limiting the players material so that they wouldn't become "overpowered" seems hypocritical to me. At the risk of being inflammatory - you are comparing apples to oranges here. (edited this part our since I re-read Purkake's post) Bulletproof Condom has the correct answer. What Monsters a DM uses has NOTHING to do with what classes/races/feats, etc that he allows the players to use. Since the invention of D&D, DM's have made customer monsters, taken them from modules, Dragon Magazine, etc... Using additional monsters from DM source material (Such as Monster Manuals) while limiting what players were allowed to do is simply challenging the players. I would say if you didn't allow psionics but created or used a creature that could ONLY be affected by psionics... that would be something else entirely. That said - until just recently I WAS a core-only DM. However, I also made up my own creatures, used every Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, whatever I could get my hands on to give the players a unique experience. Fwiw I have DM'd for over 25 years and my players have all played for over 20 years. I now allow material from each of the class "complete" books, and the PH2 as well as spells from the Spell Compendium.
Archangel62 05-22-06, 02:32 AM	The point that I was trying to make wasn't that the game should be DM vs. Player or anything like that. Nor am I saying that Noncore is necessarily more powerful than core is. What I mean is more in the vein of level of options. A player who just uses core has a relatively limited toolchest if the DM allows nothing outside of the three main books. But give the DM multiple books to amp monsters and create foes and the players start running into more trouble than they need, in some cases more than they can handle. More monsters means that encounters are easier to customize and that the BBEG can be tougher with more options of minions and creatures to bring in. However the average characters, depending on design, are fairly likely to be identical mechanically or incredibly similar. I'm also not saying that DMs need to add in every single book that WOTC creates, but in many threads on the boards I've heard people whine and moan that anything noncore is overpowered. They blast things that are perfectly balanced as overpowered or munchkiny and it's frankly annoying. My point was more this, to those DMs that limit their characters options to one book but then give themselves dozens of books to draw power from that's something that honestly does get me more than a little annoyed. I'm writing this as a DM and I simply wanted to point out that I find it hypocritical to lock off players from any book but PHB and then use every other book to make enemies for them.
High Octane 05-22-06, 04:40 AM	The idea that non-core is overpowered is present but not the alpha and omega of the reasoning behind running a core only game. Sometimes its just because the DM doesnt have the books in question to review. They might also not WANT to have to read everything in the splatbooks and decide whether they are overpowered or not. Often enough, the DM thinks it will help the players focus on the roleplaying aspect rather than the statistical aspect of it. Also often the DM can get annoyed at the whole flavor of the week idea. A player picks up a new book, sees a class that would be fun, immediately wants to shift characters. It happens. It also can be annoying for a DM counting on their old character to be there. Those are all the legitimate reasons I can think of, but Im sure there are more. Of course, there are many dumb reasons for not allowing them that people use. Sometimes a DM will be a control freak. Sometimes a DM will be paranoid that new stuff will be overpowered. Sometimes DMs have a narrow vision of their world which can be shattered by a new idea. Some DMs might think that every book is a plot by Wizards to *GASP* make money. Heaven forbid that a BUSINESS wants to try to MAKE MONEY.
gleep 05-22-06, 11:44 AM	As a player, I would have no trouble playing in a core-rule campaign. In fact, the campaign I play in is, pretty much, core only. The DM is willing to work with people to go outside core, but by an odd sort of mutual consent, we players are keeping it pretty much pristine. And with characters like a halfling paladin with a 10str and a low wisdom, no armor because she likes her high dex; or the half-orc barbarian with ranks of profession sailor... well, we don't have a lack of "interesting" PCs. :) I use core-only as a tool. When meeting new players or developing a new campaign, core only is often used just to keep my job as a DM easier. Especially with new players; limiting them to core only means I can get a good idea of their playing style (if they are new to me but old to the game) or make it easier to teach them (if they're new to the game). After the initial period of adjustment, I'll allow most anything that's reasonable. The ground shifts from core-only character generation to core plus anything pending DM approval. When I do say no, however, I mean it. The vast majority of opponents the PCs meet are, however, actually core. I tend to give humanoids and critters levels, higher numbers, or magic rather than dig up something from an obscure source. The exception is one campaign that is designed to be the opposite. The players can create from any source, and so do I. As there is usually 1 or 2 PC deaths every session, there's lots of creating. :D --gleep
Twisted Puppy 05-22-06, 11:56 AM	Some DMs might think that every book is a plot by Wizards to *GASP* make money. Heaven forbid that a BUSINESS wants to try to MAKE MONEY. I DO think that. But I don't blame them for it a bit. ;) Nor do I have a problem with others who feel the need to buy every new product and incorporate it into their game. Good for them. My problem is with those who think I'm wrong if I don't do the same thing.
Morrowner 05-22-06, 12:57 PM	It is pretty frustrating. You're playing the old school tank Fighter and the BBEG is a Shadow Plane Temporal Filcher with 8 levels of Dread Necromancer, a horde of corpsecrafted Zombies and a Spriggan assassin/bodyguard riding a Monster of Legend Thrum Wurm. It is a bit frustrating. Nothing that insane has happened to me, but it sounds like Archangel has been on the business end of that just one too many times and its starting to stick in his craw. The GM has perfect knowledge of the character's capabilities even down to what equipment they'll buy and what feats they take. It seems like a game like this would devolve into the GM chucking 31 flavors of "you can't be serious!" at stale builds.
The man they call Boxhead 05-22-06, 01:08 PM	While I don't run a strict core only game, I did start with core only. As the PCs (and players) got a bit more experienced, I started to allow feats and prestige classes from other books, making the options available as I saw fit. If a PC showed a lean toward sailing, I showed them Stormwrack. The cleric slowly started using material from Complete Divine. I added a few spells from Dragon. Everything had fit the plot. The supplemental books were not there to be used as a shopping list, adding abilities on a whim. They were there to help shape the characters closer to how the story used them. As DM, I use whatever I want. If I am trying to run a level 5 adventure highly featuring abberations (for example), I won't limit myself to the MM, that's just not enough variety for me. I'll use everything at my disposal to make a challenging and entertaining adventure.
LordofIllusions 05-22-06, 01:24 PM	There is nothing wrong with options but WoTC is overdoing it and making D&D into an option-fest. Very few of their books have any content that encourages role playing for role playings' sake. The DMG 2 was filled with next to nothing and the PHB 2 has the nerve to place DM only material in a book made specifically for players and then say: "Players should not read this section." LoL! In other words, it seems like Wizards is just filling the shelves up with books for players who cannot commit to the decisions they make about their own characters and must have something new every month to snatch up and stuff into a campaign. A video gaming crowd who is only used to playing with one toy till the next one comes out and then dumping it to get the newest, coolest item. IMO D&D is a game of longevity, I have been running games for my players for well over 3 years now. They don't see any need for the new supplements, even though I have them. IMO this is because they focus on role playing rather than statting out characters every chance they get. All of the minute gamers that came through and thought they were going to change the campaign into a video gamer's delight overnight found out the hard way that we play real D&D around these parts. ;) ~~~
OravennasBrother 05-22-06, 01:55 PM	I only use the MM for monsters; opposition NPC's (BBEG anybody) tend to be human with a SINGLE Class. A single class enemy fighter with the leadership feat can be a tremendous challenge for the party without the need for non-core stuff. My players know better than to fear the big dumb brute. No matter how powerful, a brute can be outmaneuvered or outthought and his challenge overcome. A clever enemy is a challenge. If the enemy has Int and Wis of 14+ I use all the tricks in my arsenal to help them survive (that is to say all the tricks which I can think of without regards to the party specific abilities, unless it is a second or later encounter where the BBEG will have reson to know the parties commonly used attacks etc.) and even when they are significanly weaker than the party (as per the CR rules that a level appropriate challenge should use only 1/4 of the party resources) they DO make an impression. So yeah the enemy is ALSO restricted to Core - just makes things easier on everyone.
terrainmonkey 05-22-06, 05:24 PM	okay, so by your rationale, if i say, "players can only use core books for PC design, but i can use anything from the books to oppose you," that's hypocritcal. you couldn't be farther from the truth. For example. let's say i have a normal party, ala WOTC style. Fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue. I want to put them up against something from one of the books, let's say a grave touched ghoul true necromancer. you are saying this is wrong? how? what you seem to think is that I as a DM have to use the only things that I allow the players. Let me quote something from the DMG here, just to settle this argument once and for all. "The DM defines the game...Since you control the pacing, and the types of adventures and encounters, the whole tenor of the game is in your hands." I, as a DM, am in charge of everything in the world. If i want to use the example above, but say that the players can't use anything in the Libris mortis, how is this wrong? Its not about being broken, it's about the challenge and the story. I define the game. I define what the characters are allowed, but i can use everything from every book i want in order to create challenges for the players. They are allowed the player's handbook and that's all. I don't see where this is a bad thing. If i decide to give a dragon a few feats and spells from the Draconomicon that are not in the PHB, then i will. i don't see it as being hypocritical at all. I call it controlling the needs of the story, not the needs of the characters. Funny, i've never had a problem from my players about this at all. this is the way d&d has always been. As far as the splatbooks being broken, that's only true if you have a DM that doesn't understand how to effectively challenge the abominations that come out of said splatbooks. The DM is the final arbiter of game balance. He giveth and he taketh away. He is allowed by the DMG to do anything he wants. The players don't get that right. They are in charge of thier characters. the DM is in charge of the world and the story. what he uses to challenge said characters shouldn't be an issue.
LCD2YOU 05-22-06, 05:48 PM	terrianmonkey => Sing it brother. I will use monsters and some classes from splat books I don't really let the players use. Why? It is different. The areas of my world are different from each other. Some are Viking style. Others are definitely Greek, others Roman, etc. That means the monsters are different in different areas. You won't find a Banshee anywhere near a Medusa's lair. Likewise the BBEG are different in those different places that fit the societies. It is nice to use different creatures and PrCs to really add spice to the PCs' wandering. Why is that a bad thing? Still, the average "Joe on the trail" is going to be a core PHB/DMG class, even if that class is "commoner" or "warrior". I think the splat books are better used SPARINGLY. Use the core for 90% of everything and the rest for the spice. Tripping fantastic at every opportunity seems far more gimmicky than actual role-playing or long term gaming. Also, IMNSHO, trying to bigger, better, flashier indicates to me that the player or DM is not really playing original anything. The plots are all "Find the plot, get attacked, make some enemies, a small twist here, make some friends, find the BBEG, a small twist there, kill them, come home heroes". Because there is absolutely nothing in the story that is anything more than that to try and make it "interesting", they use gimmicks. That's my opinion.
Arganis 05-22-06, 05:52 PM	As far as the splatbooks being broken, that's only true if you have a DM that doesn't understand how to effectively challenge the abominations that come out of said splatbooks. Or doesn't have time to consult more than the SRD while planning his adventures at work. :weep: Still, I recall a spell from 3.0... Miasma. For the no-save effect, it was pretty cheesy in the hands of a PC and borderline vindictive in the hands of a GM.
xver 05-22-06, 06:30 PM	At the moment, I'm not running a game, but I am designing a custom world in which to run a game when the chance arrives. This game world is designed for a mostly Core only PCs, but I don't feel as DM that I should be restricted to core only stuff. (Actually, due to world specific stuff, some Core stuff isn't allowed either.) The way I run the game is as follows, the players get to use the PHB. I get the PHB, the DMG, the MM, and anything else I feel is appropriate to the game in question. If it's not in the PHB, it's only allows on case by case basis. For instance, a reasonable monsterous race selection will be allowed, but that dosn't mean that you can just peruse the MM (or other monster books) looking for anything with a LA for your PC's race. Or you can play an Expert or Noble (some people do want to), I won't complain, but PrCs have to be approved by me and be aquired in game rather than just picked up willy-nilly. Magic items have to be aquired in game (wether through treasure, shopping, or commision), you can't just assume that X GP == Y Magic Loot once you get back to town. The attitude that the players can just grab some books and build whatever munchkin character WotC prints without the DM's say so is just bunk. On the other tentacle, WotC seem to be pushing this sort of mentality. They seem to be putting out more and more player focused books and less and less DM geared material. Of course, there are more players than DMs and this is sound marketing. But I'm not gonna run out and buy every spatbook they put out. Furthermore, I'm not gonna allow any book I don't own, even if it is perfectly balanced. This is because I need to consider what the PCs options are to tailor an appropriate adventure and if I don't even have the rules to the class/race/whaterver they're playing, that becomes much more difficult. So no, it's not hypocritical in the least to allow yourself more options than the players. The DM and the other players have different roles in the game and the selection of who can use what materials is part of those differnces. (However, on a related, but slightly off topic, note: The PCs get to keep the stats they roll, even if they are high.)
Hidden 05-22-06, 06:56 PM	I knew a DM who would allow his player to use anything from any book that he owned, so long as it didn’t effectively raise their level. The real kicker was that he didn’t own very many books to start with, but a three of his players HAD to try the flavor of the week and ended up buying him a pretty much complete collection of books. :D
Operu 05-22-06, 07:30 PM	lol, pretty much Archangel - you are wrong... i think it has been explained well enough by everyone else. I am sorry you have some pent up bitterness, but get over it. The DM can use whatever he wants as source books, even unofficial material. I DM campaigns and I use monsters from ancient mythology and legend as adversaries. I creat my own stats for them, and it's totally fair. I have never played AGAINST my players, I merely create for them a beautiful world. The reason i use LOTS of things outside core is because most of them have played this game for a long time, and if I didn't D&D would become very boring fighting the same monsters over and over and coming against the same spells over and over. Since the DM is the referee it only makes sense that he would limit his campaign since he needs to be familiar with every rule going on in the campaign to make judgement calls. If players use obscure books from all over the place there is no way for any DM to be familiar with ALL of them and it very easily could unbalance the game. nuff, said... I should have put it more simply, the DM is God. What he says goes... Abide by that and your games will go smoothly.
Bruunwald 05-22-06, 07:59 PM	I limit my players to only the PHB, the Exp. Psionics Handbook and the Completes, and I allow aasimar and tiefling from the MM. I also use the Fiend Folio when I'm creating adventures, and I create a whole hell of a lot of homebrewed creatures. So if I'm a hypocrite for also using the FF, then what sort of a bastard must I be when I make something up from scratch? Oh yeah, I remember what I am... the DM. My job requires that people trust me. Look, my players are not incredibly rules-savvy. If left to their own devices, most of them will become confused, and at least one of them will munchkin the game out of existence. They rely on me to be fair and to impose order on the game and all proceedings. Part of doing that is helping them build, and maintaining balance - and reducing confusion - by limiting the sources available in the game. But building the world is a different story. I have to have more resources at my disposal in order to keep challenging them and interesting them, session-after-session. The point is you're only a hypocrite for limiting the players if you then use your resources to totally overpower or TPK them. Otherwise, you're exercising your DM's prerogative to continue providing new and exciting challenges in a moderate and fair game. Again, trust is a requirement. Your DM can not function without it.
psionichamster 05-22-06, 08:21 PM	my personal limitations (not that that was the question, but meh...) 1: get along w/ each other. (don't care if you're evil or good, find a way to work together or retire that char.) 2: be reasonable. (yes, this is a judgement call) 3: don't call for things you aren't prepared to deal with. (don't play a thrallherd and expect me not to do similar, or use a druid and not see a blighter. that's foolish) 4: MAD (mutually assured destruction-for a good read, check out the latest "Save my Game" article) is in effect. simply put: disjunction sucks, don't use it or i will. same goes w/ Frenzied Berserkers, Spiked Chain Gatling Trippers, Pun-Pun (remember, I'm the dm, so my Pun-Pun had those levels LONG before yours) and the like will result in similar characters/monsters in my hands. 5: no: Thrallherds. (just them, for now...they take up WAY too much time in battle) 6: my word is final. don't try to argue my decision, it'll just irritate us both. NOTICE: the only real "limitation" on the players part is "No Thrallherds". that's it. any other class/PrC/spell/feat is open to selection (although i may bar certain selections, like Leadership or Assassin's, depending on that particular game), and amongst our group, we have pretty much every 3.5 book and the entire Eberron Library (yep, got em all). does this mean i sometimes use things the PC's can't? sure enough it does. example: my (just ended) 20-month long eberron campaign featured a group of power-armored soldiers called the "Steel Battalion". did the PC's have an opportunity to get one of these suits? not unless they were willing to join up and become an NPC. when i put them up against them, they didn't know the exact stats of the armor (although i was nice and showed them my notes after), or the class levels/ feats of the enemies. does that mean i'm an evil, railroading dm who should be shot w/ the hammergun? i think not. face it. DM opportunity > PC opportunity. that's it. don't like it? be the DM next time. namaste' the hamster
Archangel62 05-22-06, 08:37 PM	Well, if you're all going to keep putting words in my mouth, even when I contradicted them in earlier posts, I'm not even sure why I bother here half the time. I already said that I have no problem with homemade monsters, nor do I feel that a DM is being unfair if he has restrictions. My problem comes more from the idea of this, let's imagine each book that exists as a tool. Comparatively speaking the DM and player have a roughly equal number of tools in core. Non-core books for players can again be used by both sides, so it's a tool for both sides again. Then let's add in monsterfest books like FiendFolio, or the other 2 monster manuals. They are effectively DM only tools. DMs that say players can only use the PHB for their characters, but then they (the DM) uses every other book under the sun to throw **** at the players seems a little unfair to me. I say this as a DM myself and also having been on the recieving end of a few of the 'This will be a core only game' and then facing everything from every single supplement as well as several third party splatbooks and three mongoose monstrosities where our characters were constantly ground into the dirt. What I wonder is why you feel that it's different when you use every single book but only let the players use one. Yes, the game is at least recently fairly pro-player. However I would argue that the game isn't fun either if the DM is an autocrat with a god complex.
Archangel62 05-22-06, 08:40 PM	my personal limitations (not that that was the question, but meh...) 1: get along w/ each other. (don't care if you're evil or good, find a way to work together or retire that char.) 2: be reasonable. (yes, this is a judgement call) 3: don't call for things you aren't prepared to deal with. (don't play a thrallherd and expect me not to do similar, or use a druid and not see a blighter. that's foolish) 4: MAD (mutually assured destruction-for a good read, check out the latest "Save my Game" article) is in effect. simply put: disjunction sucks, don't use it or i will. same goes w/ Frenzied Berserkers, Spiked Chain Gatling Trippers, Pun-Pun (remember, I'm the dm, so my Pun-Pun had those levels LONG before yours) and the like will result in similar characters/monsters in my hands. 5: no: Thrallherds. (just them, for now...they take up WAY too much time in battle) 6: my word is final. don't try to argue my decision, it'll just irritate us both. NOTICE: the only real "limitation" on the players part is "No Thrallherds". that's it. any other class/PrC/spell/feat is open to selection (although i may bar certain selections, like Leadership or Assassin's, depending on that particular game), and amongst our group, we have pretty much every 3.5 book and the entire Eberron Library (yep, got em all). does this mean i sometimes use things the PC's can't? sure enough it does. example: my (just ended) 20-month long eberron campaign featured a group of power-armored soldiers called the "Steel Battalion". did the PC's have an opportunity to get one of these suits? not unless they were willing to join up and become an NPC. when i put them up against them, they didn't know the exact stats of the armor (although i was nice and showed them my notes after), or the class levels/ feats of the enemies. does that mean i'm an evil, railroading dm who should be shot w/ the hammergun? i think not. face it. DM opportunity > PC opportunity. that's it. don't like it? be the DM next time. namaste' the hamster I never said that limiting things was wrong. EEESH, my comment was in limiting whole damn books. If you want to stop a certain class or feat, fine with me. But if you ban every book but PHB for players and use every other book in creation yourself I'd call that unfair.
terrainmonkey 05-22-06, 09:05 PM	I never said that limiting things was wrong. EEESH, my comment was in limiting whole damn books. If you want to stop a certain class or feat, fine with me. But if you ban every book but PHB for players and use every other book in creation yourself I'd call that unfair. okay, i've thought long and hard about this argument. Angel, if you want to allow every book to be available to your players, beautiful. if it works for you, then go to man, go to. Have a great time. i'm sure you will. here's the thing though. whatever i throw at my players has been carefully examined to discern whether or not they can handle it. everything in the player's handbook can reasonably handle everything in every splat book in creation. it's built into the core mechanic. everything has a certain amount of hit points, armor class, damage reduction, special ability that is equal to a certain degree with everything in the later books. This means, that if i have a party of iconic PHB characters, it is reasonable to assume that they have the 1-neccessary skills, 2-ability, 3-feats, 4-special attacks, 5-spells, 6-magic items, that can take care of what i throw at them, even if it is a huge undead construct with spell resistance 30 and DR 10 holy and good. if i took that construct out of a splat book of undead that i don't allow my players to use, i can assume that they have the ability to defeat said creature using the basic core mechanic of the game. this is not unfair. this creature has hit points. it has armor class. it has a certain die type for attacks, and a couple of special abilities, and i know for a fact that my party of Fighter/wizard/thief/cleric can handle it in the normal way with the abilities they have. your argument is unsound. you seem to think that any DM who uses every tool at his disposal, and only allows the players to use a hammer, is a bad dm. This is a wrong assumption on your part. I have a toolbox full of stuff i can use, they have a hammer, a screwdriver, and a prybar. that's it. They should be able to defeat my enemies with said tools. even if i use drills, jackhammers, and oxy-acetylene torches. now, this analogy is the same as the basic core mechanic of the game. i don't see it as unfair at all. What I wonder is why you feel that it's different when you use every single book but only let the players use one. Yes, the game is at least recently fairly pro-player. However I would argue that the game isn't fun either if the DM is an autocrat with a god complex. okay, i'll be the first to say I am an autocrat with a god complex. that's how i run my games. but my players fight with me tooth and nail to come out on top. This is how i like it. Its a friggin fight for survival! hell, sometimes at the table i feel like B.A. Felton after a rules raping by Brian. But i like it that way, and the whole group has fun. i don't run them into the ground, and i don't think most DMs do this. but hey, you have to control your game, and there has to be some amount of control over the players. Otherwise the game gets out of hand and falls apart, with characters who have 9 classes spread out over 12 levels because they bought all the books. but i don't want to get into that argument, so let's just end it here as an example of why DMs only allow core material. Simply put, if it is a sin to be a controlling DM, then by god i'm the most offending soul alive. And i wouldn't have it any other way.
revnk 05-22-06, 09:20 PM	A player who just uses core has a relatively limited toolchest if the DM allows nothing outside of the three main books. But give the DM multiple books to amp monsters and create foes and the players start running into more trouble than they need, in some cases more than they can handle. (a) The DM still has to look at encounter balance. He can amp up monsters using the core books and end up with something players can't face. He can amp up monsters using the most egregiously unbalanced third-party sourcebook ever published and still keep a monster within the appropriate encounter level guidelines so that a party of core PCs can handily beat the abomination. Point is: the DM who uses material unavailable to the players still has the obligation to keep the game fun and "winnable" for the players. (b) Note that "fun" and "'winnable'" in this context doesn't mean that the PCs can always beat the monsters. A DM always has the option of making a monster--core or otherwise--more than the PCs can handle; he must, of course, do it fairly and the players must always have options. The DM might, for instance, make a horrible creature that the PCs are expected to hide from and/or watch from a safe nook. The DM should make sure the PCs can hide and recognize the option--but if they want to do something foolish, 'tis always their right. (Think, as model encounters, of Frodo being stalked by the Nazgul or Harry Potter's first encounter with Dementors.) (c) I suppose that technically I'm not "core only," tho' I do think of myself that way. My players do have access to certain feats, skills and class options from non-core books I own. However, I reserve the right to reserve some options for NPCs and monsters. Why? Because the point of my game is for the players to feel that they ultimately overcame their limitations to triumph over great evil. In a sense, you might even say that "evil cheats" is a kind of point of the whole thing: evil doesn't play fair, uses vile damage, uses aberrant feats, uses overwhelming force, uses lies and coercion--and yet, if the players play their cards right, they can still win playing "straight." This isn't "players vs. DM": I only succeed as a DM if my players succeed and/or have fun. But the idea that evil plays crooked, fast and loose is a classic of fantasy from Arthurian legend to the Star Wars prequels and beyond: let the bad guys "cheat" by having "advantages," the heroes will answer their treasons with hearts brave and true! Or that's the working theory, anyway. :)
ctuttle 05-22-06, 11:14 PM	Well, if you're all going to keep putting words in my mouth, even when I contradicted them in earlier posts, I'm not even sure why I bother here half the time. I already said that I have no problem with homemade monsters, nor do I feel that a DM is being unfair if he has restrictions. My problem comes more from the idea of this, let's imagine each book that exists as a tool. Comparatively speaking the DM and player have a roughly equal number of tools in core. Non-core books for players can again be used by both sides, so it's a tool for both sides again. Then let's add in monsterfest books like FiendFolio, or the other 2 monster manuals. They are effectively DM only tools. DMs that say players can only use the PHB for their characters, but then they (the DM) uses every other book under the sun to throw **** at the players seems a little unfair to me. I say this as a DM myself and also having been on the recieving end of a few of the 'This will be a core only game' and then facing everything from every single supplement as well as several third party splatbooks and three mongoose monstrosities where our characters were constantly ground into the dirt. What I wonder is why you feel that it's different when you use every single book but only let the players use one. Yes, the game is at least recently fairly pro-player. However I would argue that the game isn't fun either if the DM is an autocrat with a god complex. Again, if you were in COMPETITION with the DM... this would be a valid argument. But it isn't. This isn't competition with the DM, the DM is creating an interesting world and interesting opponents for you to fight against. The DM (if he understands the game) is creating BALANCED encounters - regardless of what book is used - to CHALLENGE, not BEAT the players. The way you are describing it is as if the DM and the Players are playing a game of Magic:The Gathering, except the DM has access to all the new cards, but the players can only use the original set. Again this would be an accurate analogy IF the DM was trying to BEAT the players instead of just create a variety of encounters outside of the monsters the players are all familiar with in the MM1. I think it has been explained several times, and I am sorry that you cannot seem to grasp what people are telling you. If you continue to think this is hypocritical - well no one is going to change your mind.
ctuttle 05-22-06, 11:18 PM	okay, i've thought long and hard about this argument. Angel, if you want to allow every book to be available to your players, beautiful. if it works for you, then go to man, go to. Have a great time. i'm sure you will. here's the thing though. whatever i throw at my players has been carefully examined to discern whether or not they can handle it. everything in the player's handbook can reasonably handle everything in every splat book in creation. it's built into the core mechanic. everything has a certain amount of hit points, armor class, damage reduction, special ability that is equal to a certain degree with everything in the later books. This means, that if i have a party of iconic PHB characters, it is reasonable to assume that they have the 1-neccessary skills, 2-ability, 3-feats, 4-special attacks, 5-spells, 6-magic items, that can take care of what i throw at them, even if it is a huge undead construct with spell resistance 30 and DR 10 holy and good. if i took that construct out of a splat book of undead that i don't allow my players to use, i can assume that they have the ability to defeat said creature using the basic core mechanic of the game. this is not unfair. this creature has hit points. it has armor class. it has a certain die type for attacks, and a couple of special abilities, and i know for a fact that my party of Fighter/wizard/thief/cleric can handle it in the normal way with the abilities they have. your argument is unsound. you seem to think that any DM who uses every tool at his disposal, and only allows the players to use a hammer, is a bad dm. This is a wrong assumption on your part. I have a toolbox full of stuff i can use, they have a hammer, a screwdriver, and a prybar. that's it. They should be able to defeat my enemies with said tools. even if i use drills, jackhammers, and oxy-acetylene torches. now, this analogy is the same as the basic core mechanic of the game. i don't see it as unfair at all. What I wonder is why you feel that it's different when you use every single book but only let the players use one. Yes, the game is at least recently fairly pro-player. However I would argue that the game isn't fun either if the DM is an autocrat with a god complex. okay, i'll be the first to say I am an autocrat with a god complex. that's how i run my games. but my players fight with me tooth and nail to come out on top. This is how i like it. Its a friggin fight for survival! hell, sometimes at the table i feel like B.A. Felton after a rules raping by Brian. But i like it that way, and the whole group has fun. i don't run them into the ground, and i don't think most DMs do this. but hey, you have to control your game, and there has to be some amount of control over the players. Otherwise the game gets out of hand and falls apart, with characters who have 9 classes spread out over 12 levels because they bought all the books. but i don't want to get into that argument, so let's just end it here as an example of why DMs only allow core material. Simply put, if it is a sin to be a controlling DM, then by god i'm the most offending soul alive. And i wouldn't have it any other way. I would play in your game any day.
Khan2000 05-22-06, 11:30 PM	A fellow DM and I have only one restriction for our players: they are limited to only the books that he and I have. Needless to say, we have a vast number of books at our disposal between the two of us. :cool: The group is a good one, though. We let them know what they are limited to; yeah, we get a few gripes, but the players don't really argue. Of course, we set an example by following the rules and restrictions of other DMs. As a group, we like to experiment.... :cool: Sometimes, you do need to be tyrannical when you allow a lot of books. That's my stand and I'm sticking to it.
psionichamster 05-23-06, 03:58 PM	I never said that limiting things was wrong. EEESH, my comment was in limiting whole damn books. If you want to stop a certain class or feat, fine with me. But if you ban every book but PHB for players and use every other book in creation yourselfI'd call that unfair. yep. that's one word for it: unfair. is it unfair that my NPC's get to be x lvl w/o having to be played to that lvl? how about it being unfair that NPC's sell gear to PC's for full price, but only buy for 1/2? or, there are no alignment restrictions on NPC's (or monsters) hell, if i want to use a divine being in a game, that's unfair to the PC's, since they (typically) can't play as gods in a game. is it fair that i "own" the ships/buildings/entire armies in the campaign? or that NPC spellcasters don't need to pay for spells, or worry about research or picking spells by levels? (since i can just make them as is, and not worry about advancing them, that is) OR.... are you arguing that a DM and a Player shoud have the exact same input on WHAT HAPPENS IN THE WORLD? because, if you are, there's a fundamental premise that i simply deny, and the argument can stop there. otherwise, just what exactly is it about being "fair" that seems to be so necessary in a cooperative game such as DnD? in checkers, you each start w/ the same number of pieces, and they all move the same way. in chess, the same thing. in poker, there's chance on everyone's side in Final Fantasy, everyone gets the same game, with the same coding and whatnot. those are all "fair" games (assuming no outside influence like cheating/hacking), and all share 1 important thing: they have a winner. DnD doesn't have a "winner" much like it doesn't have a "loser", and therefore, there doesn't need to be an equitable playing field between the "game engine" and the "players" (ie, DM and players). now, if you were saying that each PLAYER should be given the same restrictions, then yes, i agree entirely. but a DM is not a Player (at least not in that same game, not as the core game is written) and is not subject to the same limitations. namaste' the hamster
Solik 05-23-06, 06:07 PM	Uh. Why does any of this even matter? If your DM is a power-hungry control mogul afraid that everything outside of the PHB will suddenly allow you to become recursively overpowered, then just get up and find a decent DM. I would never play under a DM who only allowed Core stuff. Why do you? Only group around? Turn to online play. It's what I do. All the excuses for restricting players to boring, cookie-cutter limitations are patently absurd, but it's even more absurd that so many players put up with it. I mean, I even invent my own PrCs (together with the DM) to realize the full detail of my imagined characters. I wouldn't necessarily require that from a DM, but at the very least I'd want plenty of options so I could create something close. Splatbooks aren't the problem. Munchkins are. You don't deal with munchkins by restricting everybody's options. When I DM, I allow every book in theory, but I always ask what their concept is, and stuff outside of core + complete does require me to look at it. If it's obviously not overpowered, then we run with it. If I'm not sure, then I'll let them try it, with the caveat that it'll change if it gets absurd or abused. Some character concepts may not be allowed (one guy wanted to play an orcish warlord in a party with good characters, with no armies involved... that got shot down for absurdity). In the end, the DM should do everything possible to work with the player to let them play any concept that's sensible and potentially fitting -- not the opposite.
wrecan 05-23-06, 06:26 PM	All the excuses for restricting players to boring, cookie-cutter limitations are patently absurd, but it's even more absurd that so many players put up with it. Cost (not all my players can afford the books and I won't reward my richer players with options unavailable to all) Time (many of my players and I have careers and families. We do not have time to read through all the books we might buy. I will not punish players with less free time by letting players with more free time to peruse supplements more options) Distance (some of my players -- we've been gaming together more than 15 years -- travel 45 minutes or more to get to the game. They cannot "borrow" another player's supplement. I will not punish players who live farther away and cannot access supplements owned by people who live closer to me) Those are valid reasons for restricting access to non-Core items. It has nothing to do with "cookie cutter" or "boring". It has everything to do with not being a jerk to my friends -- who also happen to be my players. Blanket and frankly insulting statements like yours are one of the things I despise about this forum. Let's try to keep it more civil and less insulting, okay? not everybody who restricts supplements does so for your imagined reasons.
terrainmonkey 05-23-06, 06:33 PM	Solik, While i agree with most of your argument, i think the main OP in this case is speaking of something else. He says it's unfair to restrict players to only the core manuals, while the DM can use every book and monster guide in the library to make foes. We DMs for the most part agree that this is faulty logic. I start my PCs with core and a few other classes, and a race restiction of only the PHB and forgotten realms races with a +1 LA only. I use everything else, but restrict those books that i deem are DM only. Any player in my game can ask me to play something from a splatbook and i will look at it. if i don't like it, i don't let the person play said class/race, etc. I don't think this is unfair. What happens is with the munchkin type players and here we both agree. These folks seem to think that it is okay to play a savage monster race with 9 separate classes spread over 12 levels to make them UBER. Just go to the optimization boards and you will see some degenrate broken stuff. This is why i don't allow most of the books. I have always said, you make the game the way you want. If you want to play in the game with every book and make all kinds of crazy wacked out characters, then go for it. If your DM allows that kind of thing, beautiful. But don't disparage or insult those DMs that want to keep some amount of campaign specific order to their games for only allowing core and nothing else. you have to understand. some DMs have a lot more experience of the game than others, and we as the experienced ones like to keep a bit of control over our campaigns. i don't see this as unfair or a problem. however, to each his own.
Solik 05-23-06, 07:01 PM	terrainmonkey- I know. My point is that the OP's complaint doesn't even matter. If the DM is Core-only, then walk away right then. Who cares if they are or aren't hypocritical? They're Core-only. That's sufficient. wrecan- Sorry if you're offended. My honest opinion is that Core-only DMs are awful DMs, and I would never waste my time playing at their table. Your reasons, also, are no good. Cost: Just require that players share any sourcebooks they use with everyone else. It could potentially cause slowdown if absolutely everyone wanted stuff out of the book, but then, why would an entire party be digging through Complete Warrior? Time: This is absurd. Kind of reminds me of communism logic. If a player is only able to play Core-only, then why should that restrict another player who is able to play other (and wants to do so)? If you make the false assumption that everything outside of Core is stronger, then I could maybe understand your point, but that's patently ridiculous. At least half of the PrCs published are less powerful than DMG PrCs or even base classes, and none of the new base classes are stronger than the base druid or cleric. Distance: See above. And even in the worst case, they could flip through a friend's sourcebook when the DM has paused to do something, or is engaged with another PC (particularly if the former isn't involved). Most groups I've been with spend the entire first session creating characters anyways (making sure everything makes sense together, etc). That's plenty of time for everyone to look through whatever books they want. If your characters have absurdly high death rates, I can see the downside of that, but then, that tells of other problems.
OravennasBrother 05-23-06, 07:32 PM	All the excuses for restricting players to boring, cookie-cutter limitations are patently absurd, but it's even more absurd that so many players put up with it. WOW I mean just WOW :mymy: I am surprised that D&D was able to last so many years before 3.X showed us TEH WAY. No really - before 3rd edition I generally played Male Human Fighters. I still do, but I must have been blind to not realize that my various fighters were, because they were mechanically similar, so boring. :weep: Sure one was a Knight, one was a Nordic Mercenary, one was an enforcer for a Thieves Guild, Heck one was a Spelljammer Captain (who hired Wizard Pilots) - but random attributes like strength aside, they were almost identical mechanically in a fight. Well apart from the minor issue of the weapons used (Broadsword and Shield or Lance for Knight, Battle Axe or Longsword for Norse, Shortsword or Dagger for Enforcer, and Scimitar for the Spelljammer) and Armor worn (Mail, Leather or Partial Plate depending on which). I never realized that their personalities counted for so little. Well we all know the one about fool me once :mad: From now on I will only play characters which have nothing similar to any character I have ever played before. No humans, no Elves, not even any halflings. No males (though this Could get tricky since once I have played a female character that will preclude the possibility of playing another female). Naturally no fighters, or rangers, or most of the rest of the classes. I know, I'll be a Hermaphroditic Mind Flayer Bard, never tried that before. What fun awaits. :cheer: NO hold the phone. I play fighter because I like using Tactical Sleight of hand. Not Spells. NOt Songs. Not Psionic Abilities. :embarrass Guess I'll have to play another Core Human Male Fighter.
Gold Medal Jedi 05-23-06, 07:48 PM	I ask this as a DM myself, how many of you DMs who say 'Core Only' for your games use Monster Manuals 2 or 3, or any of the other supplement books that provide new monsters; Libris Mortis or Lords of Madness for example. Just wondering because I do have to admit that I find it somewhat hypocritical of a DM to scream core only at players and yet will use non-core monsters to attack players with. Just a thought. So let me get this striaght... you think its hypocritical to restrict players to core material only for building their characters when the DM uses monsters (monsters only?) from supplemental material? So what you saying is if a DM only allows core, then he should only use core monsters? Seems like the game might get pretty boring for all then, what would be the point. I mean sure i like to stay core for palyable races, but beyond that i will allow anything from any book so long as i get a gander at it first and find that it fits the setting and feel of my game, but to restrict myself to only the core MM would seem a bit absurd. But even if i did restrict my players to core but used supplemental monsters, whats the real harm? So long as im not using the feats, spells, and other mechanics whats the real harm? Most monsters are built from core rules only anyhow so they arent really breaking any balance issues are they? One might bring up the psion factor but for every psionic moster in the books there is a magic equivalent, and if there isnt, it is easy to extrapolate a magic variant. One other question... just so we are all on the same page, what is core and what is non core? I mean to me core means DMG, PHB, and MM... if thats all your playing with.... WOW.... thats going to be a pretty static game of the same old, same old... over and over again. I mean how many bands of goblins, and orcs can you dessimate before you have seen enough?
terrainmonkey 05-23-06, 07:55 PM	yeah, and i guess i'll just have to play my core human paladin like i always do. no myconid vampire necromancer/cleric/blood magus/geomancer/fighter/blackguard for me, huh. you know what? i kinda like it that way. ehh. to each his own. oh, and if i was DMing, and i said "okay guys, this is going to be core only, i know we've had some great games in the past but i just want to get back to basics here. try it old school." Solik, you would get up and walk away? wow. how amazingly narrowminded and selfish of you. good luck finding another game with those kinds of attitudes. but then again, maybe you would like to play that myconid i described earlier. however, if you came to my game with that monster, i'd show you the door. nothing personal.
revnk 05-23-06, 10:52 PM	My honest opinion is that Core-only DMs are awful DMs, and I would never waste my time playing at their table. While you're entitled to your opinion, you might want to reconsider its premises and whether it is unduly limiting your opportunities. What I mean is that a DM's merits have nothing to with what rules he's using and everything to do with his skills at planning adventures and engaging players. I've played with lousy DMs and incredible DMs--and I've played with excellent and lousy Keepers, GMs, Referees, Storytellers, et al. in games that didn't use any version of the D&D rules at all. The quality of the DM never had anything to do with what game he was running or what rulebooks he used. The houserules employed sometimes reflected the referee's strengths or weaknesses, but not such that you could come up with a universal rule or law for it ("Every DM who ________s is ________..."). In any case, wrecan's list was a subjective summary of reasons that his group is core-only. It's not the kind of thing you can rebut objectively: unless you're actually one of his players, who are you to say how his friends deal with distance or expenses or property ownership? The main thing is that his reasons are good enough for him and his friends. (They are also reasons I can sympathize with, although I don't specifically share the same issues: subjectivity, again, you know?) Finally, there is a strange symmetry in the attitude you've expressed: were you to walk away from my table for the reasons you've expressed, you would not be missed. I am egotistical enough to think, perhaps mistakenly, that the loss would be entirely yours, but I would think that, wouldn't I? The symmetry is strange because here I am, inviting you to expand your horizons and try different things. And, if I knew you, I'm sure I'd invite you to give my table a chance. But I am too old and too busy to beg a player of your instincts to come back or frantically rush to the bookstore to buy supplements that might appease you. You might consider that before you next boycott a game--I'm sure I'm not the only DM who would respond to your walkout by cheerfully asking you to make sure the door doesn't "hit you where the dog should've bit you," as someone once said.
Vaelan 05-23-06, 11:49 PM	stuff Since you're fairly new here, I will go ahead and explain to you one aspect of how these forums work as a courtesy. When you quote someone and write something directly below the quote, that which you write is supposed to be in some way related to that which you quoted. Attributing sentiments to a person that they clearly did not express is not considered proper etiquette. Also, although some people who have been around here longer haven't done a very good job of demonstrating it, posting anything that addresses the poster instead of the poster's point is not proper etiquette either. Not only are such statements usually baseless, but they're also clearly forbidden by the CoC. One last thing, telling people that something shouldn't be done instead of reporting their post to a moderator isn't proper etiquette either. ;) What I mean is that a DM's merits have nothing to with what rules he's using and everything to do with his skills at planning adventures and engaging players. The reason given for refusing to allow such a variety of options, however, is often quite telling.
Solik 05-24-06, 12:12 AM	I am surprised that D&D was able to last so many years before 3.X showed us TEH WAY. There were these little things called "kits." Yeah, I used them profusely the little of it I played. Didn't play much until 3.5 though, for a variety of reasons. Sure one was a Knight, one was a Nordic Mercenary, one was an enforcer for a Thieves Guild, Heck one was a Spelljammer Captain (who hired Wizard Pilots) - but random attributes like strength aside, they were almost identical mechanically in a fight. Well apart from the minor issue of the weapons used (Broadsword and Shield or Lance for Knight, Battle Axe or Longsword for Norse, Shortsword or Dagger for Enforcer, and Scimitar for the Spelljammer) and Armor worn (Mail, Leather or Partial Plate depending on which). I never realized that their personalities counted for so little. And those all sound like very boring characters to play. Or, well, halfway. I'm sure the roleplay part was great fun, but the minor mechanical differences you listed would lead to exceptional boredom for me after the first one, particularly if I had a DM that was all about dungeon romping and combat. Having different AC and rolling d6 instead of d8 does not make the game more fun to actually play. From now on I will only play characters which have nothing similar to any character I have ever played before. You might be surprised how the quality of your game improves if you try that. Although the word "nothing" is obvious exaggeration. yeah, and i guess i'll just have to play my core human paladin like i always do. no myconid vampire necromancer/cleric/blood magus/geomancer/fighter/blackguard for me, huh. you know what? i kinda like it that way. ehh. to each his own. There's an absurd example. Yes, that's exactly the character I wanted to play. Or, maybe I'd just like to play a Swashbuckler/Wizard/Bladesinger, a staple of Elven warfare. Or perhaps I'd like to try my hand at a young aasimar songstress, a divine-themed temple bard (see sig) as a Divine Bard/Paladin of Freedom/Songstress of Selune. Nope, still nothing absurd. And the Core methods you'd use to build those characters will, you will find, change compeltely their style and capability (not to mention gimping them to near-uselessness in mechanical play). While you're entitled to your opinion, you might want to reconsider its premises and whether it is unduly limiting your opportunities. It isn't. I've yet to have a DM that demanded core-only. I've been lucky. In any case, wrecan's list was a subjective summary of reasons that his group is core-only. It's not the kind of thing you can rebut objectively: unless you're actually one of his players, who are you to say how his friends deal with distance or expenses or property ownership? The main thing is that his reasons are good enough for him and his friends. (They are also reasons I can sympathize with, although I don't specifically share the same issues: subjectivity, again, you know?) Which is why it was my opinion. You know, the way I viewed it, as if I were to be a member of his group. If Core-only works fine for the players, great. Whatever people have fun with. I still think it's stupid -- but that's just me. Finally, there is a strange symmetry in the attitude you've expressed: were you to walk away from my table for the reasons you've expressed, you would not be missed. I wouldn't make it to your table. I would ask any prospective DMs a few questions, and if they gave the wrong answers, I'd not bother wasting my time. I'd rather DM myself than play for one I'd be miserable under. You wouldn't miss me, and I guarantee I wouldn't miss you. And everyone is happy.
Crash01234567890 05-24-06, 02:06 AM	I'm core only with a few houseruled feats, spells, and classes. Then again, I started roleplaying on Deadlands and Shadowrun, both of which inspire much more roleplaying and less emphasis on rules than D&D does. I think it's mostly the lack of classes and levels. Anyway, if I make all the new feats, spells, and classes I can't complain about them being broken. I'm also poor. I let the player's come up with new ideas, and I come up with new ideas. I see spending 30$ on eight different complete books and 4 different races books plus all the other random junk that gets churned out so fast it doesn't even get decent editing completely pointless. The group I played with before bought every book under the sun and used about 5% of it. It seems that most of my feats are pretty balanced though, since I've seen most of them in the newer books, or versions pretty close. I mean honestly, it took them how long to finally get a shield focus feat printed.
Archangel62 05-24-06, 02:15 AM	Alright, you want me to explain exactly why I find it unfair and hypocritical is because of what I've seen from almost every single 'core only' DM on this board. You all claim repeatedly that the character the player wants can be made in core, it just takes longer and makes them less useful. I could use the same logic to state that you should be able to produce a challenging and fun encounter using only the monster manual. After all, the goal is just to have fun not 'win' against your players. Yes, I'm being saracastic but the problem I see with the whole concept of DMs can use what they want but players get one book is that it makes things dramatically more difficult for the players in question and makes any BBEG more powerful. Simple example I have is Monster Manual 3, in it are some of the greatest support monsters that I have ever seen. Put a few arrow demons or rune hounds at the back of an enemy as firing support and the players are suddenly far more restricted in what they are capable of doing and the threat to them rises. And yes, you can claim that a good DM can balance an encounter correctly but that becomes difficult with multiple different CRs as well as certain combinations of monstrous abilities. I've made encounters that looked far simpler on paper to defeat than they were in the game. Either because of luck or because certain abilities worked frighteningly well together. My group, for example, is going to be going into battle against a summoner who focuses heavily on demons. There are multiple demons in the area that they're heading for serving as his guardians. If I had stuck with the same CR demons but worked only out of the MM1, the encounter would likely be far easier for the players because many of the later books offer better support monsters for mass combat. I really don't ban things in my games per se, if a player wants to use a book I don't own (Currently just OA, and Complete Psi) I tell them to let me look it over and if I'm fine with it it goes in, if no, then no. I have said many times before that I have no problem with a DM stating "This game will have no clerics/Wizards work this way instead/This game I want all casters" or whatever else they may desire. But if the books are owned by people in the group and the classes/feats/whatever are reasonable and balanced and would fit in the setting and story I question why they say no simply because it's not a core book. I'm not saying that a player should have 30+templates or be some unstoppable juggernaut. But that also can comes more from the player usually than the game itself. It would also be really nice if you guys would quit putting words in my mouth. You act like I'm saying that all players should be able to be (insert Monstrous Race/Insert Template/Insert Template/Insert Template/ Insert Template/ Insert class/ Insert Class/ Insert Class/ Insert balanced but horrifically abused prestige class/Insert Class/Insert prestige class that manages to somehow synergize everything and make superman) What I'm saying is that I find it unfair to say that you get infinite options and the players get few. Yes, roleplay can differentiate characters but if the character is mechanically unworkable it can create plenty of problems for the guy who just wanted to be something different. One guy in my game is a mage slayer and is damn good at it. He's an illumian and takes the benefits of multi-classing, to most of you on these boards he'd probably be some broken abomination. Truth is in game play he's balanced, and very effective against his chosen foe. Outside of that arena he's more of a support melee and a wildman.
ProfWhy 05-24-06, 03:22 AM	What I'm saying is that I find it unfair to say that you get infinite options and the players get few. Yes, roleplay can differentiate characters but if the character is mechanically unworkable it can create plenty of problems for the guy who just wanted to be something different. It's very simple, and it's been stated several times in a more eloquent fashion than I could hope to express. The DM is the overseer, tender, and adjudicator of his game world. He has the final say of the things that occur within the realms he maintains. If he wanted everyone to play pixies in a land of giants, that's his call. If he doesn't want to have material from a book or two (or twenty) in his campaign world, that's his call. He has every right to draw upon every source he can in order to populate his game world with as many mysteries and intrigues as he desires, in order to make the game world fun and interesting for all involved. Perhaps the DM decides to allow his players to have limited resources for their character creation (such as PHB only, or PHB & Complete books, or PHB & XPH, etc.) because he's running a game for new players and he doesn't want to bog them down with a bunch of superfluous rules and options that might confuse them in the long run. Perhaps he doesn't own the books and hasn't the time to read them. There are plenty of other possibilities that have been touched upon by previous posters... Point being, perhaps the DM has a reason for limiting resources for player character creation that you're overlooking or neglecting. The players do have plenty of power in the long run, of course. If they don't wish to participate in a gaming group that limits the books available for their character creation, they have every right to not participate in that group. Nobody's holding a gun at anyone's head and saying "Play core or die!" or anything so foolish. If they want to tough it out and play the "limited" campaign, perhaps they might have the option down the road to petition the DM to allow other materials in on a case-by-case basis. However, they won't know this if they just decide to snub their noses at this DM's campaign because they can't play a certain character build at that point in time. Of course, these are my opinions, you're welcome to them if you want... ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-24-06, 03:31 AM	Simple example I have is Monster Manual 3, in it are some of the greatest support monsters that I have ever seen. Put a few arrow demons or rune hounds at the back of an enemy as firing support and the players are suddenly far more restricted in what they are capable of doing and the threat to them rises. And yes, you can claim that a good DM can balance an encounter correctly but that becomes difficult with multiple different CRs as well as certain combinations of monstrous abilities. I've made encounters that looked far simpler on paper to defeat than they were in the game. Either because of luck or because certain abilities worked frighteningly well together. If this is your argument for dumping everything WotC ever prints into the game, I fully expect to be able to head to the corner store and buy a couple arrow demons in your game. They should be on the shelf right beside the decks of many things and below the swords of Kas display rack. After all, it'd be unfair for those items to exist anywhere in the game if I can't get them. See, not everything is for players. And not everything fits into a given campaign setting. Yeah, its a continuity error if the DM is using scouts and it's physically impossible for a player character to make one despite them being rather prevalent in the world, but to suggest that the PC have to be able to make warlock thri-kreens of legend in a world where thri-kreen and warlocks don't exist because the DM used a damn arrow demon is rediculous.
High Octane 05-24-06, 04:14 AM	I know. My point is that the OP's complaint doesn't even matter. If the DM is Core-only, then walk away right then. Who cares if they are or aren't hypocritical? They're Core-only. That's sufficient. This is one of the least logical things I have ever heard. Want to know the top reason for "Core Only"? They are a new DM. They havent had the time to go through all the splatbooks yet. They havent decided if certain classes are going to be included in their game. Incarnum and Psionics for example. Or samurai. They havent decided yet if they will allow different races outside the PHB to be played by the players and which ones at that. They havent even decided if the group will be all good, all evil, or somewhere inbetween, and restrictions to core only stops a metric ton of potential problems in game from starting. Imagine how frustrating it is if one player decides to start plucking from the book of exhalted deeds for example. Or the book of Vile Darkness. What if a player decides to grab Savage Species and starts begging to be a Drow in an elven city, or a beholder. What if they want to be a psion? Does a DM have to go through all those books before a game and decide on every book there is? That is a lot of time and aggravation for a brand new DM. Now, all that DM has to do to make his starting game a lot easier is say "Core only." Easily understood by all players. Its a lot easier to keep track of possible problems if you list what IS allowed as opposed to what ISNT when you are a fledgling DM. Finally, heres another thought. Beyond the DM, what if the other players dont understand a certain book? I mean, how is a newer player supposed to adapt to psionics or incarnum if he has never played with it before? Core only is best for a group or a DM who is just starting out. Thats what I did. I soon added other books, but I started core only.
Vaelan 05-24-06, 07:25 AM	I mean, how is a newer player supposed to adapt to psionics or incarnum if he has never played with it before? Quite easily since both of those systems are far simpler and more intuitive than the magic presented in the PHB.
babysamurai 05-24-06, 07:37 AM	In my current Planescape campaign, my group uses everything WotC, and Dragon/Dungeon magazine...and it's balanced and fantastic. Not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with Core-only. In fact, in my next campaign, I'm planning on a 32-point buy core-only game...for a change of pace. Character concepts/history/personality, and builds/min-mixing/crunching, are not mutually exclusive. I enjoy both tremendously, and so do my players. Anybody who has only ever just played core-only should try a game with more options/books/choices. Just like people who have only ever played campaigns with lots of supplements whatnot, should try a core-only game. Mix it up. ...It’s time for my all "Expert" campaign.
wrecan 05-24-06, 09:09 AM	Sorry if you're offended.Clearly, you're not sorry you offended, because you keep being offensive. So stop the pretenses, Solik. False remorse is worse than no remorse. Just require that players share any sourcebooks they use with everyone else.Not possible because of the time and distance limitations already mentioned. I realize that in your world people don't have things like jobs, careers, spouses and children or anything that might be more important to them than devouring the PHB II or Savage Species. But some people think of this as a game, not an obsession. I understand you think such considerations are "stupid". I find that very sad and I am glad you would never play with me or my friends. why would an entire party be digging through Complete Warrior?To decide whether they want to play a warrior, of course. Why does one dig through any game supplement, except to decide if you want to use the material therein in your game? Time: This is absurd. Kind of reminds me of communism logic. If a player is only able to play Core-only, then why should that restrict another player who is able to play other (and wants to do so)?Because players are supposed to play games with an even footing vis-a-vis one another. If wealthier players, or players with more free time, have an advantage over players with less money or time, it becomes less fun for the disadvantaged players. They are relegated to the role of sidekick. Which is not to say that non-Core is necessarily unbalanced (although the optimization boards would indicate that they can be in certain combinations). What it is saying is that players who play a game together should not be penalized because of their lack of money and/or time. Would you let people pay the DM for extra hit points or armor class? For more spell points? I would imagine you don't. Why? Because it would be unfair. You might go so far as to call it cheating. How is allowing people to have more options based on wealth any different just because the money goes to Wizards rather than the DM? And because I suspect you will misconstrue what I just wrote, let me reiterate: I have no problem with players using supplements, if all players have equal access to them. I have no problem with Wizards making money and I hope they make a lot of it for a long time to keep my favorite hobby alive. Distance: See above. And even in the worst case, they could flip through a friend's sourcebook when the DM has paused to do something, or is engaged with another PC (particularly if the former isn't involved).If you think "perusing" a sourcebook during lulls in the game is going to garner you the benefits of owning a supplement, I don't think you actually know how to read. You clearly have no concept of what it is like to have a busy life. Instead, you dismiss what you don't understand. Some day, if you're lucky, you might. Most groups I've been with spend the entire first session creating characters anyways (making sure everything makes sense together, etc). My group has to make their characters at home because we can only meet once a month and if we spent a session leisurely making characters, we'd never play at all. Again, you don't get the idea of having very little leisure time and rather than accept your lack of understanding or even -- gasp -- educate yourself, you dismiss what you don't understand as beneath your contempt.
terrainmonkey 05-24-06, 09:38 AM	You all claim repeatedly that the character the player wants can be made in core, it just takes longer and makes them less useful. I could use the same logic to state that you should be able to produce a challenging and fun encounter using only the monster manual. After all, the goal is just to have fun not 'win' against your players. okay, let's get some things strait right now. while i understand your logic, your argument seems flawed simply because you have the misguided impression that this game is "DM versus Players." That seems to be the crux of your argument, after reading several of your posts. now, i have been in these types of games, and they are no fun. being in a game where the DM wants to feel like he's winning all the time is the case of a bad dm. i think we can all agree to that. D&D is a cooperative game, where DM and players alike can win if everyone shares the same goal to have fun. Yes, I'm being saracastic but the problem I see with the whole concept of DMs can use what they want but players get one book is that it makes things dramatically more difficult for the players in question and makes any BBEG more powerful. As has been stated before, most DMs carefully weigh every encounter they design, no matter the sourcer, against the tactical capabilities of their party. as i have said earlier, if i decide to create something along the lines of a monstrous big bad from the draconomicon, and minions made up from the MM3, complet arcane, and races of the wild, i know full well that my players can handle what i dish out, even though they have only the powers and abilities of core classes and races. The underlying core mechanic and player knowledge of the tactical situation at hand will carry them through. Any creation made by a DM who understands this is going to be ably handled by any reasonably tactical minded party, even the core iconic one. My group, for example, is going to be going into battle against a summoner who focuses heavily on demons. There are multiple demons in the area that they're heading for serving as his guardians. If I had stuck with the same CR demons but worked only out of the MM1, the encounter would likely be far easier for the players because many of the later books offer better support monsters for mass combat. And here we both agree to a certain degree. but once again, i go back to the basic tactical minded party and the core mechanic. All those later demons could still be handled by the basic iconics, as this is what the playtesters look at when designing creatures. So, if the basic iconics can handle the stuff in the MM3 or FF, or even the Abberations book, then it is reasonable to assume that your party of core only could do the same with the same CR. The core SRD mechanic holds true in every case. You act like I'm saying that all players should be able to be (insert Monstrous Race/Insert Template/Insert Template/Insert Template/ Insert Template/ Insert class/ Insert Class/ Insert Class/ Insert balanced but horrifically abused prestige class/Insert Class/Insert prestige class that manages to somehow synergize everything and make superman) What I'm saying is that I find it unfair to say that you get infinite options and the players get few. No, we're not saying that, at least i'm not. here's the thing. I am the DM. i don't find it unfair at all to say "you get PHB only" and i can use the rest. that is my "right" as a DM. Every book is optional, every rule is optional, and the DM is given the "Option" to use every means at his disposal to challenge his party. That's given on page 8 of the DMG. that's how it has always been, since the game was founded. Back when d&d was created, there were few options for both player and DM. There were no splat books, no creature guides, and things like that. All you had were fighting man, wizard, priest and thief. The DM had only a few monsters that he could use out of a 32 page book. so, the DM had to create all the challenges and monsters for his campaign. this led to some pretty unfair games. Trust me, i've played in a few. when you meet exploding zombies that regenerate and have acid for blood, you know you've got one of "those" DMs. Leave the game quick, because soon, you'll be meeting the great god Paul Mcartney and his avatars, john, paul, and ringo. So, later on in the game when monster books started coming out, the DM had more options with quantified rules for how monsters worked. This was all fine and dandy until the players started to learn what monsters were. then, DMs had to change out the monsters to keep the challenge up and keep the players guessing. Once again, exploding zombies with acid for blood. Now, every rule is built into the core mechanic. everything from tripping rules, grappling, weapon sizes, etc. are built into the core mechanic. Even exploding zombies with acid for blood. This has made the game more fair for everyone. Now, you seem to think that I as a DM who restricts my players to core, should not use anything at my disposal to challenge my players, and this is where your logic becomes faulty. I know that everything i create, Even the exploding Zombies, can be fairly handled by the iconics BECAUSE of the core mechanic of the game. Even if i use every splatbook in existence. The game has been deigned around Core for that very reason. If your players are core, and you design something out of everything but, much like the arrow demons in the above example, then basic strategy and tactics are the key. perhaps your players need to think more tactically and use strategy, different spell selections, or create magic items from the DMG to combat said demons. everything in the Core books can defeat anything that the DM creates even if it is from the complete book of XYZ or the races of XYZ. Even exploding zombies with acid for blood who regenerate.
OravennasBrother 05-24-06, 11:00 AM	There were these little things called "kits." Yeah, I used them profusely the little of it I played. Didn't play much until 3.5 though, for a variety of reasons. And those all sound like very boring characters to play. Or, well, halfway. I'm sure the roleplay part was great fun, but the minor mechanical differences you listed would lead to exceptional boredom for me after the first one, particularly if I had a DM that was all about dungeon romping and combat. Having different AC and rolling d6 instead of d8 does not make the game more fun to actually play. maybe I'd just like to play a Swashbuckler/Wizard/Bladesinger, a staple of Elven warfare. If Core-only works fine for the players, great. Whatever people have fun with. I still think it's stupid -- but that's just me. Kits came with 2nd edition and the proliferation of Add on books - two of the characters I listed were 1st edition (Norse Mercenary and Knight, though I could add a Highland Swashbuckler and a Greek Hoplite to those 1st edition characters; the Captain and Enforcer were 2nd, though neither used a Kit) Strangely Major mechanical differences in how abilities work don't make combat more "fun" if it is a repetitive "go into the monster's lair and bash it." However by changing the paradigm - from leading a band of mercenaries through dwarf and goblin mines, to timing the lance charge so the enemy foot breaks, to skulking along back alleys knowing that you can kill your enemy and still die if the city guard catches you, to carrying a letter of Marque and prowling the space lanes for enemy ships - the tactical situation changes dramatically even if the abilities/weapons used are very similar. The Swashbuckler/Wizard Staple of Elven Warfare is easy - A level of Fighter, perhaps a level or two of Rogue, and levels of Wizard. IF the levels of Rogue "Gimp" the character too much, then NO one forces you to take them. If Everything goes works fine for the players, great. Whatever people have fun with. I still think it's unnecessary -- but that's just me.
Solik 05-24-06, 11:10 AM	Want to know the top reason for "Core Only"? They are a new DM. Irrelevant to the current discussion. These guys are not new DMs. I have no problems with introducing things slowly due to learning curve. Nevertheless, I allowed many splatbooks my first time DMing. In fact, I didn't outright ban any books. I did request that people show me their characters. As I'd played before, I felt skilled enough to identify problems. There did turn out to be a problem with one of the splat feats the fighter took, but we talked it over and reached a good solution that balanced it all back out. Clearly, you're not sorry you offended, because you keep being offensive. I was being polite. If you'd rather I not be, then fine. You're as easily offended as a fat kid in a playground. I realize that in your world people don't have things like jobs, careers, spouses and children or anything that might be more important to them than devouring the PHB II or Savage Species. This is the sort of comment you make when you don't actually have a reasonable reply to make -- you just make stuff up about the poster and gleefully attack it. I work full time on top of programming and maintaining an online game and doing all the housework (I live alone). I don't have untold hours to blow on D&D sourcebooks. This is a pointless diversion away from the matter at hand. To decide whether they want to play a warrior, of course. That's silly. Such option books are for people who have already decided to play a warrior, and now want to see what all they can do. Playing an entire party of warriors is obviously not recommended, nor is it particularly common. Because players are supposed to play games with an even footing vis-a-vis one another. Once again, this argument does not apply. Using supplements doesn't give you an advantage; it merely gives you the flexibility to create more types of characters. If you want power, all you have to do is stick with core CoDzilla. Supplements are not required to munchkin. If you think "perusing" a sourcebook during lulls in the game is going to garner you the benefits of owning a supplement, I don't think you actually know how to read. You clearly have no concept of what it is like to have a busy life. Instead, you dismiss what you don't understand. Ad-hom garbage. You only need ONE session for everyone to have plenty of opportunity to make use of every supplement available to the group. You don't need to read all of them front-to-back. You use such things like an encyclopedia. Want to make an elven fighter/mage? Grab Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, and Races of the Wild, glance through the base classes and relevant PrCs, read more closely the ones that seem interesting, then dig through the feat lists after you've made your selections. It'd take two hours for a slow reader, less if they get pointers from the owner of the books. It's not complicated. My group has to make their characters at home because we can only meet once a month This will require a little more effort, if you really don't want to devote a session to it, but it's still doable if everyone decides on their concepts up-front. Then, you just distribute the splatbooks suitably, and if two players really need the same ones, they can meet in a coffee shop for an hour one weekend, using the same time slots they'd use to make the characters anyways. Or even better, meet for 5 minutes and exchange books. If you already trust your characters to make their PCs at home when you're not around, then you surely trust them not to suddenly start munchkining because the human wants to take options from Races of Destiny. It's odd that you make claims to not having free time, though. How many hours have you already spent just posting on these message boards this week? Perhaps your group could stand to gain something from using a message board between sessions. We make great use of that, especially for between-session roleplay.
Morrowner 05-24-06, 11:30 AM	I know this is a little late but... Said by Archangel62 "DMs that say players can only use the PHB for their characters, but then they (the DM) uses every other book under the sun to throw **** at the players seems a little unfair to me. I say this as a DM myself and also having been on the recieving end of a few of the 'This will be a core only game' and then facing everything from every single supplement as well as several third party splatbooks and three mongoose monstrosities where our characters were constantly ground into the dirt." BINGO. Sometimes the DM is so worried about keeping the game from being broken by non-core shenanigans... HE BREAKS THE GAME WITH NON-CORE SHENANIGANS! I limit myself as GM to whatever the players limit themselves to. If everybody shows up with core and 9 books that is what we use. I'll look over the stuff, I'll rule 0 some stuff that looks like cheese but after that the gloves are off. Enjoy the yugoleth bards and the Murderjack rogues. If I'm asked to run a core game that is exactly what you will get. I will limit myself to what you define as core. The game doesn't exist to stroke 1 person's ego, the GM must do whatever it takes within reason to make the others happy. Saying "Core Only" and threatening the boot is ridiculous.
wrecan 05-24-06, 11:48 AM	I was being polite. No, you were being disingenuous. Being polite would be to apologize and, actually, you know, mean it. you just make stuff up about the poster and gleefully attack it. Right, because when you wrote that a core-only DM "is a power-hungry control mogul afraid that everything outside of the PHB will suddenly allow you to become recursively overpowered" you weren't, you know, making stuff up about posters who claimed to be core-only and then attacking them. :rolleyes: I don't have untold hours to blow on D&D sourcebooks. This is a pointless diversion away from the matter at hand. No, the idea that you as a single guy working as a programmer has any concept of what its like to be raising kids and taking care of a family is precisely why you so cavalierly dismiss arguments that time, resource and distance require some games ot be limited to corebooks. option books are for people who have already decided to play a warrior, and now want to see what all they can do. No, option books exist for people who are thinking about playing a warrior and are dissatisfied with the options in Core, or at least not as satisfied as they might be. That's what supplements do: present more options. Playing an entire party of warriors is obviously not recommended, nor is it particularly common. Nor was it anything I suggested. Using supplements doesn't give you an advantage; it merely gives you the flexibility to create more types of characters. Flexibility is an advantage, particularly if you don't define the game as DM v. Player. Having more options is an advantage. Having more resources than the other players is an unfair advantage. You only need ONE session for everyone to have plenty of opportunity to make use of every supplement available to the group.Which I've aready said is unfeasible, but you just keep flogging that dead horse, okay? You don't need to read all of them front-to-back. I do if I am looking for ideas of what is in the book. What if I'm looking for ideas? The idea that the person who can peruse a book casually will gain the same benefit of someone who owns the book and has at whenever they have time is illogical. It'd take two hours for a slow reader, less if they get pointers from the owner of the books. Remember when I pointe dout you have no concept of what it's like for people without free time. insert that here. Then, you just distribute the splatbooks suitably, and if two players really need the same ones, they can meet in a coffee shop for an hour one weekend Call me when you begin to live in the world of adults with kids. We'll read this last statement you wrote over some coffee and we'll laugh and laugh... when we can both arrange babysitters at the same time and don't have soccer practice, ballet classes, swimming, math tutors, and weekend birthday parties to deal with. You don't get it. We get together to game. I am DM because I have enough free time to do things like write adventures and post to people too narrow-minded to even be able to fathom what life with kids is like. It's odd that you make claims to not having free time, though. It would be odd if I had claimed that, but I didn't. I claimed my group lacks free time. Try to keep up. Perhaps your group could stand to gain something from using a message board between sessions. Perhaps my group could stand to gain a lot of things, but I doubt anything from you. We already make use of a message board between sessions. Until Wizards consents to putting all the books on line, that's not going to allow us to open the game to supplements. Except of course that I've already pointed out that my next campaign will be open to the Complete Series because in the 4 years it will take to play out the current core-only campaign, my playing group will have had the time to read through these supplements and discover what if any characters from these books they might want to play. But you keep ignoring inconvenient facts like this.
James18 05-24-06, 12:03 PM	I run Core only. The biggest reason I've found that I do this is the players know right from the begining not to expect that they can use other material that they have spent 20+ hours reading and mastering. I'll import any and all monsters that help me create a good encounter or story. I'll allow feats from other books if players ask nicely and I don't think it's over powered. Same goes for prestige classes. Often I get ideas out of prestige classes I allow in. And if I say no i've already said core only so they can't bitc*
Solik 05-24-06, 12:10 PM	Yep, that's about enough. Your last post was nothing but ad-hom fallacy after ad-hom fallacy after ad-hom fallacy. Some people just don't know when to withdraw gracefully from a debate. A final little pointer -- flexibility in character creation is not the same thing as flexibility in the game itself.
wrecan 05-24-06, 12:49 PM	Your last post was nothing but ad-hom fallacy after ad-hom fallacy after ad-hom fallacy. Where? The only ad hominem in the post was the one I quoted from your original post on this thread. If you think I violated the use terms, hit the little button in the top right corner of my post and report me to a WizOp. Otherwise, I'm calling you on your b. s.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-24-06, 12:53 PM	'argumentum ad hominim' doesn't mean what you think it means.
Morrowner 05-24-06, 01:10 PM	Ad Hominim:Against the Man. I see no personal attacks against Solik in the above posts.
pres_man 05-24-06, 01:39 PM	I ask this as a DM myself, how many of you DMs who say 'Core Only' for your games use Monster Manuals 2 or 3, or any of the other supplement books that provide new monsters; Libris Mortis or Lords of Madness for example. Just wondering because I do have to admit that I find it somewhat hypocritical of a DM to scream core only at players and yet will use non-core monsters to attack players with. Just a thought. Well, I've not read all of the previous posts, and from the last few, I don't really wish to. I don't tend to be "Core only", but I would guess a reasonable agrument would be that most new monsters do not introduce new rules (there are a few exceptions). Thus the new monsters aren't really introducing anything new to the game in most cases. This is not true of many of the other books used mainly by players. I would expect a DM to allow creatures that have entries about Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally to be usable for PCs from additional MM's that the DM is using.
Stev Beren 05-24-06, 01:40 PM	My willingness to allow non - cre in is also related to how long the material has been in play. I generally don't add in much of anything non-cire that hasn't been around at least a year. I want to see other people playing it, see the problems it causes or that it has, see what solutions they use. Just like I don't go rush out to buy the latest greatest model of somethingUNtil its been out long enough to have consumer reports articles.
Solik 05-24-06, 02:04 PM	*shrugs* The majority of his post consisted of "you're a kid with no idea what it's like to have no time" (and that mistake about flexibility). If you can't see the ad-hom in that, that's fine; just remind me never to debate with you.
Morrowner 05-24-06, 02:25 PM	On further reading Wrecan did go after you a bit, but its usually because people want to get you all defense and saying "Ad hom!" like a baby. /Was that ad hom?
wrecan 05-24-06, 03:07 PM	The majority of his post consisted of "you're a kid with no idea what it's like to have no time" (and that mistake about flexibility). You cited your own life experience as a single man with a job as a programmer to support your contention that you understand what constraints married couples with children must suffer (and then to dismiss such constraints). I had no choice, rhetorically, but to point out that such an argument is laughable. And when you have kids, I actually do think you'll look back on your statements and laugh. Because to folks with kids, they're pretty funny. If you are offended, perhaps in the future, you will think twice before trying to use your own personal history as support for an argument.
revnk 05-24-06, 03:34 PM	*shrugs* The majority of his post consisted of "you're a kid with no idea what it's like to have no time" (and that mistake about flexibility). If you can't see the ad-hom in that, that's fine; just remind me never to debate with you. I count 15 paragraphs in his post. Three of them reference the claims that you "have no idea what it's like to have no time." That's interpreting them in the most insulting and offensive light possible: one paragraph, for instance, makes the statement about your time and schedule in the context of stating that some of your claims are made in a cavalier fashion--which doesn't strike me as an especially personal attack, but giving you the benefit of the doubt.... ...I come up with 3 out of 15, or 20% of wrecan's post. Since I did not do a per-sentence count, I'd be willing to fudge that number to 40% for the sake of an argument: still not a "majority." And I see nothing in his post that claims you're a "kid" or makes any reference to your age at all. The nearest thing to that would be the statement "Call me when you begin to live in the world of adults with kids," a statement that is slightly patronizing but, nonetheless, could be applied to many single adults. Indeed, it could easily have been applied to me up until around the time I was 31 or 32, when several of my friends began spawning. (As things stand, my life in the world of adults with kids is, in many respects, one on the periphery.) The point being that wrecan has largely responded with thoughtful posts describing a situation that is personal but relateable on a larger scale: his social set has limited time and budgets, and limiting gaming materials is helpful. This is a situation many gamers could be in, and wrecan proposes a personal solution that others might find helpful. You have tended, on the other hand, to react to posts very personally and have made condemning statements like, "If your DM is a power-hungry control mogul afraid that everything outside of the PHB will suddenly allow you to become recursively overpowered, then just get up and find a decent DM." [emphasis added] wrecan has proffered reasons for limiting sources that may not be applicable to you, but have nothing to do with being power hungry, etc. I think I had another point here, but have lost track of what it was. I guess I would close by respectfully asking you to (a)perhaps refrain from the blanket condemnations directed at everyone who disagrees with you, and (b)perhaps not take these disagreements so personally or re-read a post before you assume that a few negative comments are baseless personal attacks--an initial flush of anger can blind you to the larger context and message contained in something.
Arganis 05-24-06, 03:41 PM	I got yer ad hom right here: I can't believe you guys are arguing the same thing in two different threads at the same time. Stop it. No. Don't argue with me. Just do as I say.
wrecan 05-24-06, 04:02 PM	Well, technically, this thread was about "valid reasons for limiting to core only" and the other thread was "whether characters concepts can or should be expressed without reference to mechanics" At least those were the topics I was discussing.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-24-06, 04:46 PM	Well, the general thrust of both is that if you don't allow every stupid thing WotC sees fit to print into your game with no restriction, then you are a bad DM and by extension a bad person because it is impossible to be creative within the Core. Also, cribbing the fruits of others' creativity is creativity, while making minor alterations to base classes, or building new classes yourself, balancing them for your setting, instead of using WotC's version is not.
Solik 05-24-06, 04:53 PM	Well, the general thrust of both is that if you don't allow every stupid thing WotC sees fit to print into your game with no restriction, then you are a bad DM and by extension a bad person because it is impossible to be creative within the Core. I see you still have reading comprehension issues. I'm sure you can understand that there's a vast difference between a blanket ban on all but three books, and selective banning of inappropriate items (and then working with the player to accommodate the concept in a way that satisfies both parties). Also, cribbing the fruits of others' creativity is creativity, while making minor alterations to base classes, or building new classes yourself, balancing them for your setting, instead of using WotC's version is not. This isn't even relevant.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-24-06, 04:57 PM	Its entirely relevant as the only case 'against' going core only is 'help help, my creativey is being opressed!' Edit: And as far as blanket bans go, its a ban on all but one book. You stay out of the MM and DMG until further notice. "Well, I'm a Half-green Dragon Maralith Barbarian -- its in the core!"
Stev Beren 05-24-06, 05:17 PM	I see you still have reading comprehension issues. I'm sure you can understand that there's a vast difference between a blanket ban on all but three books, and selective banning of inappropriate items (and then working with the player to accommodate the concept in a way that satisfies both parties). This isn't even relevant. I much prefer selectively allowing things which fit.
OravennasBrother 05-24-06, 05:38 PM	I much prefer selectively allowing things which fit. You know Stev you are quite correct. I don't actually run a Core only campaign. Players can create from any book they have. I just tend to veto any character with more than one or two things outside of core. As well as vetoing most non-core races, though since I start campaigns at level 1 all the +ECL races are out at the start. And I veto any feat/PrC I don't like even if it is the only non-core element. Finally I'm not much up for "Theoretical Character discussion" so if you are preparing a sly "wait for this combo to be revealed build" well I can't help you too much; Feats have to be shown on the character sheet, and if you take a non-core feat that later causes problems when you add some core abilities, then it could cause problems for the character. LIke having the feat replaced by something less abusive. So see I'm not Really a Core only DM, I just am a close approximation of one.
High Octane 05-24-06, 09:43 PM	I much prefer selectively allowing things which fit. Which is a perfectly valid way of running a campaign. I personally can't stand the base issue of this thread, which is an attack on a style of DMing that is perfectly valid yet is read as obtuse or even tyrranical. The reason I think Core only is valid is because there is no character concept that cannot be expressed through core only means. Want a spellthief? Have a rogue/sorcerer combination. Want a samurai? Have a fighter/monk/paladin combination. Want a ninja? Have a lawful rogue/monk. Plus people seem to think that when a DM disallows it in his campaign that means he steals away your books and burns them so you can never look at them. If you want inspiration for a character from the books, thats great. Look at them when you arent playing. Of course I find the best inspirations for characters arent D&D books, but movies, books, comics, and other media. Also people play core only games for the same reason people play 5 card draw poker as opposed to some other form of card game that may be more fun. Simply put, everyone is familiar with it. Its comfortable.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-24-06, 09:57 PM	I personally don't believe that you can make any concept from the core rules. At least not so that the resultant character will be competent or balanced against more 'standard' (not min maxed) builds. However, not all concepts need to be possible. If your campaign doesn't have a fuedal component, there's not real reason for there to be knights/samurai. If there is not strong conflict between good and evil, you don't even really need a paladin class. Also, the concept argument doesn't even apply to things like races and templates. Why, pray tell, do Raptorans have to exist in ever campaign on the off chance someone doesn't recognise thier sucktitude and wants to play one?
High Octane 05-25-06, 01:22 AM	What Im saying is that if you wish to make a character that you wish to roleplay, you can make it from core. If for example, you wish to play the outcast archetype, you dont need to have some exotic race. A half-orc will do fine. Or a chaotic dwarf who dishonored his clan. If you want to play the archetype of the lumbering giant type, you can just make a particularly large human or half-orc instead of making a Goliath. Dont get me wrong, the added classes, races, and feats do allow these characters to be built better mechanically and work more smoothly, but It doesnt restrict them. All Im saying is that if you imagine a character based on a concept rather than a specific class or race, you can create that character using only core rules. If you wish to argue that restricting outside books restricts the ability of a player to make a concept for mechanically efficient, I would concede the point to a degree, but still the majority of concepts a player could come up with could be efficiently managed with core rules. You would just have to adapt your idea a bit.
Keoki 05-25-06, 09:23 AM	If you wish to argue that restricting outside books restricts the ability of a player to make a concept for mechanically efficient, I would concede the point to a degree, but still the majority of concepts a player could come up with could be efficiently managed with core rules. You would just have to adapt your idea a bit. Say I've just seen Lord of the Rings and want to make a character like Legolas, who wades into melee combat with a bow. In D&D I can do this with the Order of the Bow Initiate prestige class from Complete Warrior. If I use only core rules, however, he's likely to be cut down in his first battle by attacks of opportunity. How about a character like Jackie Chan, who uses objects at hand as improvised weapons. Drunken Master from Complete Warrior fits the bill quite nicely. Without it, there's really no point to using the improvised weapons, not to mention drinking:). Or a truenamer, a staple among fantasy mages, which, until the Tome of Magic, was an impossibility in D&D. Unfortunately, there are many character concepts that are not just mechanically inefficient, but unplayable with just the core rules (and still quite a few that even the expanded rules haven't yet allowed for!). For me one of the best things about tabletop roleplaying, as opposed to computer RPGs, is that my imagination is virtually unfettered. If we're just sticking to core rules, I might as well play Neverwinter Nights.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-25-06, 09:55 AM	Or a truenamer, a staple among fantasy mages, which, until the Tome of Magic, was an impossibility in D&D. Truenames are a staple, but a mage that specializes in them is hardly one.
revnk 05-25-06, 10:38 AM	Say I've just seen Lord of the Rings and want to make a character like Legolas, who wades into melee combat with a bow. In D&D I can do this with the Order of the Bow Initiate prestige class from Complete Warrior. If I use only core rules, however, he's likely to be cut down in his first battle by attacks of opportunity. How about a character like Jackie Chan, who uses objects at hand as improvised weapons. Drunken Master from Complete Warrior fits the bill quite nicely. Without it, there's really no point to using the improvised weapons, not to mention drinking:). Or a truenamer, a staple among fantasy mages, which, until the Tome of Magic, was an impossibility in D&D. Unfortunately, there are many character concepts that are not just mechanically inefficient, but unplayable with just the core rules (and still quite a few that even the expanded rules haven't yet allowed for!). For me one of the best things about tabletop roleplaying, as opposed to computer RPGs, is that my imagination is virtually unfettered. If we're just sticking to core rules, I might as well play Neverwinter Nights. One issue, however, is whether any of those concepts are compatible with the game that the DM has agreed to run and the other players have agreed to play. If everyone at the table wants to be in a game where such things exist, fine. But as Vaal has pointed out, "not all concepts need to be possible." If everyone at the table wants or is willing to play a game where only the base classes and races are available to players, there's no issue with "core-only" or its cousin. If everyone wants to play with every option ever published in every edition, book, magazine, website, whatever--then go for it. Suppose I've just sat through a marathon of The Matrix movies on TBS and want to play Neo in a subsequent D&D game. I want to have nearly unlimited godlike powers, the ability to stop missile weapons in flight, the ability to warp and change reality at will, psionics, every skill and feat ever published, and I want to be the most important person in the universe (with the rest of the people I play with consisting of lesser, "non-chosen-one" beings and/or non-human "programs" that serve some purpose in my greater quest to save/destroy/reboot the entire campaign). Is it an interesting character concept? Sure. Is it a viable character concept for a social game and am I likely to keep many of my friends if I stick to it? Well, no. Now, this is the point where someone reading this starts saying, "Oh, well, but you can totally play someone who is like Neo if you use this monk variant or take this feat from Complete Whatchamacallit, etc., etc., etc." That's beside the point. The point isn't that you could come up with a "build" for someone like Neo, or that you can't--it's that you probably shouldn't most of the time. After all, if everyone in your gaming circle is willing to let you play an all-powerful god, that's one thing: but the odds are that your friends who play want their characters to be special, too, and that your friend who DMs probably has invested a good bit of time and energy into coming up with a world that doesn't need or have a "Neo" running around. Which means that, in all likelihood, you're going to have to compromise that character concept so that it works with what everyone else is doing. So, maybe you have to play a clumsy but charming alcoholic monk instead of a "drunken master," is that really that big a deal? Maybe your elven archer can't wade into melee with a bow--you know, if everyone else in your group wants a gritty, "realistic" combat, that may be for the best anyway. Perhaps your DM, for various reasons, doesn't want to have naming magic in a game he's running--the reason might be as simple as he doesn't like it--will it kill you to play a different kind of mage? Most DMs would let you play a "namer" by way of flavor even if you're stuck with the traditional D&D Vancian system, and any good DM who has a reason you can't will explain it to you when you're making your character. (A good reason being some setting-specific rule for how magic operates in the campaign you'll be in.) Work with the DM and players you're with, or find another game. But don't assume that a DM who limits rules is doing so out of caprice, malice, incompetence, or is acting tyrannically. As the Stones once said, "You can't always get what you want; but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need."
Solik 05-25-06, 11:36 AM	Neo is not a character concept or a standard build. He's a guy that was rolled up at Epic level and was given a free Chosen template (FR). Valid in high-power epic campaigns.
Tormsskull 05-25-06, 01:02 PM	Neo is not a character concept or a standard build. He's a guy that was rolled up at Epic level and was given a free Chosen template (FR). Valid in high-power epic campaigns. Black is black. But what about when its grey? Black is black. But sometimes, just sometimes its grey. Black is black. I dunno, if you look at it from the side, you can definitely see some grey in it. Black is black. Well, there are different gradations of black, so is it pitch black? Black is black. Maybe its charcoal black? Black is black. How many times do people have to say things before you understand them? Why do you have to keep trying to evade the issue? I suppose it is true what they say, ignorance is bliss. Keep on truckin' O' blissful one.
High Octane 05-25-06, 02:28 PM	Say I've just seen Lord of the Rings and want to make a character like Legolas, who wades into melee combat with a bow. In D&D I can do this with the Order of the Bow Initiate prestige class from Complete Warrior. If I use only core rules, however, he's likely to be cut down in his first battle by attacks of opportunity. Legolas never used a bow when an orc was less than 5 feet away from him. He was never in threat range. What you are looking for is weapon proficiency (Arrow) to stab an orc in the eye with it. How about a character like Jackie Chan, who uses objects at hand as improvised weapons. Drunken Master from Complete Warrior fits the bill quite nicely. Without it, there's really no point to using the improvised weapons, not to mention drinking:). Maybe he was taking a -4 on all attacks. I said mechanically inefficient but not impossible. Of course, you can argue that Flurry of blows unarmed strike could include the improvisation of your surroudings. If we're just sticking to core rules, I might as well play Neverwinter Nights. Now you are just being ridiculous.
LCD2YOU 05-25-06, 02:56 PM	Say I've just seen Lord of the Rings and want to make a character like Legolas, who wades into melee combat with a bow. In D&D I can do this with the Order of the Bow Initiate prestige class from Complete Warrior. If I use only core rules, however, he's likely to be cut down in his first battle by attacks of opportunity.Uh, no. Legolas can easily be CORE, just that he's high level Core. He'd be a Rogue/fighter (yeah that's it) with Improved Two Weapon fighting bow and short sword speciallizations, etc. You can't be Legolas at 1st level.How about a character like Jackie Chan, who uses objects at hand as improvised weapons. Drunken Master from Complete Warrior fits the bill quite nicely. Without it, there's really no point to using the improvised weapons, not to mention drinking:).Nope again. A relatively high level Monk with lots of skill points in Tumble, Jump and feats like Acrobatic.Or a truenamer, a staple among fantasy mages, which, until the Tome of Magic, was an impossibility in D&D.Or a Mage who specializes in Divination. They are also a high level Lore Master with maybe some Bardic stuff thrown in.Unfortunately, there are many character concepts that are not just mechanically inefficient, but unplayable with just the core rules (and still quite a few that even the expanded rules haven't yet allowed for!). For me one of the best things about tabletop roleplaying, as opposed to computer RPGs, is that my imagination is virtually unfettered. If we're just sticking to core rules, I might as well play Neverwinter Nights.No. Just character concepts that require high levels, good Intelligence scores, properly chosen feats and a dedicated player who doesn't swing from one "neato" PrC to another to get the really nice abilities. You know the stuff you EARN and are not just given at low levels?
loaba 05-25-06, 02:57 PM	Just a side note on the Legolas thingie - as described by Tolkien, and as depicted by Jackson, he was most definately an Epic level character. Since I'm going off on this tangent, I might as well mention my belief that Aragorn was a 20th level character, and thus attaining the Kingship of Gondor was his gateway to Epic levels. Derailment over, back to arguing.
Arganis 05-25-06, 03:28 PM	Just a side note on the Legolas thingie - as described by Tolkien, and as depicted by Jackson, he was most definately an Epic level character. Since I'm going off on this tangent, I might as well mention my belief that Aragorn was a 20th level character, and thus attaining the Kingship of Gondor was his gateway to Epic levels. Derailment over, back to arguing. No way. It's high time to dally further off topic. I never got the impression that Legolas was epic in the books, but the movies definitely portrayed him that way. And yet in the movies Gimli was not given the same treatment. Boo for one of the coolest characters being reduced to comic relief.
wrecan 05-25-06, 03:46 PM	In the books, I don't remember Legolas using his bow with melee combatants within five feet of him. I don't remember him using manyshot. I'm pretty sure he draws his elven blade at that point. So even if Tolkein's Legolas is non-epic, he's a basic elven fighter with longbow, archery feats and longsword. Oh, and he can somehow walk on snow. I'm not sure there is supplement that allows that.
loaba 05-25-06, 03:48 PM	No way. It's high time to dally further off topic. :clap: I never got the impression that Legolas was epic in the books, but the movies definitely portrayed him that way. And yet in the movies Gimli was not given the same treatment. Boo for one of the coolest characters being reduced to comic relief. Well, Tolkien was a little more subtle than PJ, so I can see where you could get that impression. As to Gimli, yeah his cool-factor was definately down-played. Question though; how much of that was due to John Ryhse-Davies? On the subject of Gimili's level, I'd say he was at least close to 20th if not already there. Note to serious posters who want to continue the thread topic - lemme know and I will cease and disist... :D wrecan - Legolas uses "two long knives", per Tolkien, and in one of the indexes(sp?) it's stated that he's thousands of years old. One word: Epic.
Arganis 05-25-06, 04:00 PM	Well, Tolkien was a little more subtle than PJ, so I can see where you could get that impression. As to Gimli, yeah his cool-factor was definately down-played. Question though; how much of that was due to John Ryhse-Davies? I'd say a small amount. His demeanor was definitely comic. However, there are two major points that were left out due to scripting. 1) Gimli extolled the beauty of the caves of Whatever. Legolas offered the beauty of Thisorthat. The names elude me now, sorry. Regardless, by the end of the books it was made clear that both were deeply moved once they saw eachothers' location. In the movie, Gimli pretty much spent the whole time in elfland blushing and Legolas never reacted to anything dwarven. 2) Legolas far surpassed Gimli's kill count in the movies. In the books they went toe-to-toe. On the subject of Gimili's level, I'd say he was at least close to 20th if not already there. I can see the argument for epic. I would definitely pin both of them at 20 at least. Nigh-epic if not epic. Note to serious posters who want to continue the thread topic - lemme know and I will cease and disist... There are two threads for this bloody core thing. I regret nothing.
OravennasBrother 05-25-06, 04:06 PM	Just character concepts that require high levels, good Intelligence scores, properly chosen feats and a dedicated player who doesn't swing from one "neato" PrC to another to get the really nice abilities. You know the stuff you EARN and are not just given at low levels? Wait a minute, you mean that you would restrict me from bringing in a D20 BESM Fighter core class? I mean it is Core for BESM D20, and it is balanced vis a vis other BESM classes AND against CoD-Zilla. All I really get is the base fighter class with a few "BESM Character Points" at higher levels. Won't affect my at level fighter at all. Wait you say you know just how powerful "BESM Character Points" are? Well but MY CONCEPT is a really Really REALLY kick *#@! Fighter. So I have to have those points, otherwise I'll just be a normal fighter, the same as everyone else. Don't tell me you're one of those elitist purists who insist that RL heroes were typically just ordinary Joes with cahones the size of Nebraska. Cause I won't play with those sort of wicked cruel heartless inhumane power-mad tyrranical DM's. :embarrass Oh wait everyone can tell I'm spoofing by now. Swift will have to wait.
LCD2YOU 05-25-06, 04:19 PM	Just a few thoughts on this idea that Core Only DMs lack imagination and are somehow dictatorial jerks: 1: I think it takes more imagination and grey matter to see how to make things the way you want them to be instead of just having it handed to you. The splat books hand things to people, the Core, as I and others pointed out, can do what you want just not when you want to do them. So who has a better imagination? 2: Why does it appear as the majority of the "Core Only Sux" crowd the same ones that seem to want the 1/2 Vampire-Hulking Hurler-1/2 Dragon-1/2 Tiefling-1/2 Assimer(sp?) with feats such as Monkey Grip type characters? Oh yeah, they have no idea who their parents were being dropped off at a monastery where they kill the Grand Master (at pre 1st level) and all the other students. The characters are also filled with more aignst than a room full of teenagers. 3: Why is bigger, brighter, louder and newer somehow better by virtue of it being recently released? 4: Why do so many splat books have the shelf life of a KFed CD? Expiring minds want to know.
Solik 05-25-06, 04:21 PM	No one has argued for non-Core to increase their power level. Or even HINTED at such. All people want is a better concept fit at equivalent power. That's all. I don't give a damn if you can shoehorn every class into some ridiculous multiclass combination that you are satisfied with. If I don't think it fits, guess what -- it doesn't fit. It's not your character. But please, go ahead and make these tangental off-topic arguments. It makes it easy to dismiss entire posts as irrelevant.
LCD2YOU 05-25-06, 04:26 PM	Wait a minute, you mean that you would restrict me from bringing in a D20 BESM Fighter core class? I mean it is Core for BESM D20, and it is balanced vis a vis other BESM classes AND against CoD-Zilla. All I really get is the base fighter class with a few "BESM Character Points" at higher levels. Won't affect my at level fighter at all. Wait you say you know just how powerful "BESM Character Points" are? Well but MY CONCEPT is a really Really REALLY kick *#@! Fighter. So I have to have those points, otherwise I'll just be a normal fighter, the same as everyone else. Don't tell me you're one of those elitist purists who insist that RL heroes were typically just ordinary Joes with cahones the size of Nebraska. Cause I won't play with those sort of wicked cruel heartless inhumane power-mad tyrranical DM's. :embarrass Oh wait everyone can tell I'm spoofing by now. Swift will have to wait.Well, what can I say other than YES I would restrict you. See, I'm one of those DMs who are: 1: Lacking imagination 2: Tyrannical 3: Want to only use the neat things against my players so I can kill their PCs off. See I'm too simple to be able to make a dungeon or series of events that are logical and will do the same without them catching on. Mee an injunire! 4: Face it, I'm too busy using my shoulders as a seat cushion.
wrecan 05-25-06, 04:34 PM	I don't give a damn if you can shoehorn every class into some ridiculous multiclass combination ... Maybe you've forgotten how that argument came up, but it was by the anti-Core contingent claiming that certain concepts could not be made with Core. So if you think them "tangental off-topic arguments" and "irrelevant", respond to the people who are making them, not the ones responding to them.
LCD2YOU 05-25-06, 04:39 PM	No one has argued for non-Core to increase their power level. Or even HINTED at such.Disagree completely. From:In D&D I can do this with the Order of the Bow Initiate prestige class from Complete Warrior. If I use only core rules, however, he's likely to be cut down in his first battle by attacks of opportunity.it would appear to me that he wants to do things immediately. Guess what, there are ways of doing that IN the Core rules. That he can't get them at first level (and using the 3000 year old Legolas is a really bad example) means he wants to be more powerful.All people want is a better concept fit at equivalent power. That's all.No, they want to do the same things as what they see on the screen which can be done when his character gains levels.I don't give a damn if you can shoehorn every class into some ridiculous multiclass combination that you are satisfied with. If I don't think it fits, guess what -- it doesn't fit. It's not your character.Who's shoehorning anything? A fighter that fights with a sword, shield and with spring attack is very different than one who wades into a fight with a great big sword wading through bodies with Power Attack and Great Cleave. No shoehorning required just imagination and an attention to detail from the player. But while it's not MY character, it is still my world and as DM I have to set the rules I and others, not just the addled brained guy without an imagination who wants it handed to them on a platter. Also, what is the "Initiate of the Bow Incarnate" any different from a well designed and thought out Rouge/Fighter?But please, go ahead and make these tangental off-topic arguments. It makes it easy to dismiss entire posts as irrelevant.No it shows the idea that somehow "Core Only Sux" and "Core Only DMs are Unimaginative, Dictator Louts" is a completely assinine idea with no merit proposed by people with no imagination and no clue.
Lincoln Hills 05-25-06, 04:44 PM	I see no moral difficulties or 'hypocrisy' in saying "You can't do that" when I'm handed a new character sheet. The notion that players have a "right to play any character they can create in any campaign" is fallacious. Players have a right to create any character they like! No limits there! You don't even have to follow any of the rules! It's your character concept. But the DM is in charge of "enforcing the reality" of the setting he is presenting. DMs have a responsibility to refuse admission to any character for whom they don't like the flavor or the mechanics. It's part of the "arbitrator" part of the job and it must be done. No setting exists without some kind of limits. Even fellow players have unconscious limits - yes, even those of you arguing for "total character-generation rights." You, too, would rebel if your fellow players showed up with character concepts involving a singing cowboy, a 500' tall orbital assault robot, and a self-aware pineapple (particularly if they were all the same character.) Any pressure you feel to "alter" your character so that you can play in this campaign is entirely on your side. No character concept is invalid, but not all character concepts fit this particular campaign. "Core only" is simply the strictest way for a DM to ensure that your character will work within his setting.
OravennasBrother 05-25-06, 04:58 PM	No one has argued for non-Core to increase their power level. Or even HINTED at such. I never have seen someone telling me "Yeah I want this PrC for the Power." It is always "This Fits my Character concept." They never even HINT that the power might be a factor. Yet the way they play is seldom consisten with their claimed thematic Concept. So why DID they want that character? I know I have made a few "theoretical builds" for MY fighters, to look at what they might be like in a few levels. I even had a character in one "open to anything" campaign where I skimmed through some splatbook another player suggested. CW I believe. I was tempted by two or three PrC's; because they all gave such great "Stuff" - better Will Saves, Special abilities, Spot and Listen as class skills, etc. Then I caught myself, because NONE of those PrC's were really the Role-Playing direction I wanted to take my Fighter. I played Straight Core Human Male Fighter to 12th level. Every other player had PrC's, Feats, etc. from half a zillion splat books. Though I was not just competitive, but a powerhouse in combat, that was due to my personal mastery of tabletop tactics. At least three times during that campaign another player told me that, upon reaching the next level and adding "X" from such and such source book that their character would outshine everyone else in combat. And every time they leveled they told the DM with a straight face that "I need this PrC/Feat for my concept." So you may have to forgive my scepticism, but it IS based on honest experience. CORE. Only.
Solik 05-25-06, 05:07 PM	Maybe you've forgotten how that argument came up, but it was by the anti-Core contingent claiming that certain concepts could not be made with Core. Please don't ignore the words "shoehorn" and "ridiculous" because they're inconvenient to your argument. it would appear to me that he wants to do things immediately. I can see why you don't use supplements, if you don't even know what a prestige class is. Who's shoehorning anything? Obviously the Core-only crowd don't think it's really shoehorning. If they did, they probably wouldn't be Core-only. This is a subjective assessment that we'll agree to disagree on. But while it's not MY character, it is still my world and as DM I have to set the rules I and others, not just the addled brained guy without an imagination who wants it handed to them on a platter. :rolleyes: Try to stay in the realm of the discussion at the very least please. No it shows the idea that somehow "Core Only Sux" and "Core Only DMs are Unimaginative, Dictator Louts" is a completely assinine idea with no merit proposed by people with no imagination and no clue. This tripe has already been stated, AND refuted, even by people in your own camp. Do try to keep up. The notion that players have a "right to play any character they can create in any campaign" is fallacious It's also not being put forward. It's already been granted that anything that doesn't fit the campaign and/or the adventure should be banned. That does not explain why you should arbitrarily ban an entire book if there's a couple feats, a skill usage, and a piece of equipment that would be a perfect fit. The time argument is the only remotely valid argument I've seen for such behavior, and that's really an argument of necessity instead of an argument of preference, which really has nothing to do with the disagreements at hand. But the DM is in charge of "enforcing the reality" of the setting he is presenting. DMs have a responsibility to refuse admission to any character for whom they don't like the flavor or the mechanics. It's part of the "arbitrator" part of the job and it must be done. No setting exists without some kind of limits. Even fellow players have unconscious limits - yes, even those of you arguing for "total character-generation rights." You, too, would rebel if your fellow players showed up with character concepts involving a singing cowboy, a 500' tall orbital assault robot, and a self-aware pineapple (particularly if they were all the same character.) I agree on every point. Pity they're not related to the subject at hand. "Core only" is simply the strictest way for a DM to ensure that your character will work within his setting. Generally, the strictest way to do something is not the best way to do it, especially for a hobby where the focus is on having fun. [Edit] Oravennas-- I bet those guys had fun, too. We certainly can't have that, now can we? Regardless, it doesn't matter what experience you've had. I'm not going to put forward my 80-year-old chain-smoking neighbor as proof that cigarettes are safe, so please don't be committing the same fallacy.
wrecan 05-25-06, 05:17 PM	Please don't ignore the words "shoehorn" and "ridiculous" because they're inconvenient to your argument. Not only did I not ignore those words, I quoted them. The point remains. if you think the argument is tangential and irrelevant (your words, not mine), direct them at the person who actuall made the tangential and irrelevant argument, not the person who responded to them. it doesn't matter what experience you've had. I'll remember this the next time you cite your single-employed programmer lifestyle as evidence to refute the idea that married people with kids have sufficient free time to use all supplements currently available. :rolleyes:
LCD2YOU 05-25-06, 05:28 PM	I can see why you don't use supplements, if you don't even know what a prestige class is.Ah, I see why your arguements are easily picked apart and then tossed asside. You really don't know what you're talking about do you? Yeah, I'm fully versed in PrCs. Some PrCs can be had by someone as low as 5th level. Also, the Splat Books don't just have PrCs but actual "classes" some players may want to use because they think it gives them more power starting out. That is what I'm talking about. It happens at 1st level, when one first begins to play. I think that does mean "immeadiate", don't you think? So I wasn't just talking about PrCs. If you had more attention to detail, you might have seen it and understood it, but I won't hold my breath.Obviously the Core-only crowd don't think it's really shoehorning. If they did, they probably wouldn't be Core-only. This is a subjective assessment that we'll agree to disagree on.Who says I'm Core Only? I'm not, but sometimes "Core Only" and not allowing many Splat books or even parts of them is totally the correct thing to do. So it's not an issue of "agree to disagree", it was your attempt to say, once again that Core Only is shoehorning whenit is most certainly not. :rolleyes: Try to stay in the realm of the discussion at the very least please.How cute. Let's see, what did I actually say for you to use that? Oh yes:But while it's not MY character, it is still my world and as DM I have to set the rules I and others, not just the addled brained guy without an imagination who wants it handed to them on a platter.And what's the thread called? A question to 'Core only' DMs Thanks for playing.This tripe has already been stated, AND refuted, even by people in your own camp. Do try to keep up.Ah, I think not. Your reading comprehension as shown above and by others is already suspect. I await your otherwordly explaination, including those in "my own camp". Yeah some have said things like that, but you've heard of sarcasm haven't you? Try again.
Arganis 05-25-06, 05:30 PM	it doesn't matter what experience you've had. By the same token, your argument in the other threat that core-only allows more time to be spent on roleplaying is directly related to your group's experience with levelling at the table, not to the use of supplemental content as a whole. Now that I've made a cross-thread argument, I feel dirty. My stance continues to be: -Neither Core nor Supplement detract from Roleplaying in any meaningful way. -Neither Core nor Supplement encourages creativity more than the other, and neither implies lack of imagination. -Powergaming is easier with Supplemental material, but non-core material holds no monopoly on munchkins.
loaba 05-25-06, 05:42 PM	Now that I've made a cross-thread argument, I feel dirty. You should. -Neither Core nor Supplement detract from Roleplaying in any meaningful way. Agreed --Neither Core nor Supplement encourages creativity more than the other, and neither implies lack of imagination. Agreed --Powergaming is easier with Supplemental material, but non-core material holds no monopoly on munchkins. Unfortunately I have to agree here too.
OravennasBrother 05-25-06, 05:42 PM	I bet those guys had fun, too. Actually NO they didn't. They constantly complained that they were too weak in combat. Two of them complained when we had RP time - as it took time away from the fights. Yes, the same fights where they complained about being weak. One of the RP complainers was a Rogue PrC multiclass who should have had plenty to do outside of combat. My fighter had just about Zip for non-combat skills - one cc rank in diplomacy and a few points in craft blacksmithing along with handle animal meant I could work as a farrier in the down time, and I always had a homily applicable to any situation drawn by analogy to smithing or shoeing horses. I contend they would have had more fun spending less time trying out all those Splatbook tweaks and more time playing their characters. Certainly they would have been more successful in combat if they had stuck to good tactics instead of trying to get some bizarre "Combo" to work.
Solik 05-25-06, 06:19 PM	Ah, I see why your arguements are easily picked apart and then tossed asside. Congratulations. You have established that there are people who disagree with me, and that you are one of them. Uh... thanks Captain Obvious? Also, the Splat Books don't just have PrCs but actual "classes" some players may want to use because they think it gives them more power starting out. That is what I'm talking about. It happens at 1st level, when one first begins to play. I think that does mean "immeadiate", don't you think? Guy said Order of the Bow Initiate. You responded saying that he wanted those powers immediately. No, it doesn't mean that, and you still have no clue what you're talking about. Also, Core classes also give power at level one. it was your attempt to say, once again that Core Only is shoehorning whenit is most certainly not You cannot objectively quantify "shoehorning" (or, at least, nobody here has done it yet). So, it remains a subjective assessment. You do know what those words mean, yes? not just the addled brained guy without an imagination who wants it handed to them on a platter I quoted the nonsense part that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand to help out a bit, since you seemed to need it. I await your otherwordly explaination, including those in "my own camp". Yeah some have said things like that, but you've heard of sarcasm haven't you? I see how you could miss it. It's in the other thread on this forum about pretty much the same topic. Here's a link: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=641077&page=8&pp=30 Starts with post 234. Let's not repeat that argument here. Agree or disagree with how it resolved in that thread, but keep it to yourself and let's move on. My stance continues to be: -Neither Core nor Supplement detract from Roleplaying in any meaningful way. -Neither Core nor Supplement encourages creativity more than the other, and neither implies lack of imagination. -Powergaming is easier with Supplemental material, but non-core material holds no monopoly on munchkins. You, sir, are my hero. Actually NO they didn't. Well, that's unfortunate. I've had a player like that, too, and sympathize with your problem. Instead of banning books, I banned the player.
wrecan 05-25-06, 06:49 PM	By the same token, your argument in the other threat that core-only allows more time to be spent on roleplaying is directly related to your group's experience with levelling at the table, not to the use of supplemental content as a whole.Except, unlike Solik, I do think that people's personal experiences can be relevant. Let me correct that. Solik apparently believes his personal experiences can be relevant but other people's are not. I have no problem with your stance by the way. The only reason my current game is Core-only is due to time, cost and distance limitations.
OravennasBrother 05-25-06, 07:19 PM	Well, that's unfortunate. I've had a player like that, too, and sympathize with your problem. I sympathis with the [problem i see yuo having. You seem to have bought into WoTC marketting to the point you truly believe that you need supplements to match your character concept. It has never been true. You could be several hundred, perhaps a few thousand, dollars wealthier if you had resisted their marketting. Well unless money burns a hole in your pocket, I know a few people like that. You could still play a variety of characters if you played core only. Interesting characters. Viable Characters. Even both at the same time. And have extra money in your pocket. Thousands of other gamers are in your shoes; if they all decided to stop puchasing WoTC splatbooks, then it would adversely affect Hasbro's bottom line. But so what. Are you willing to part with your hard earned cash just to give a Carribean Vacation to some Hasbro exec? The truth is that all those supplements can hinder the play of the game; that is the most common effect I have observed in games I have played in or seen played. And I see a lot of games played. So my EARNEST, BEST advice to you is "Give up the Splatbooks. Play Core for a while. Practice solid straightforward tabletop tactics either with Core D&D or any other wargame rules you enjoy." Then see if you are enjoying the game more. It won't cost you a dime. In fact I'll profer that same advice to anyoen else who thinks Core only is too restrictive.
Tony111 05-25-06, 07:43 PM	I only read the first and last pages of this long thread, but I would like to contribute the following observation. When players are given new additional material to choose from, they choose the most powerful options available among their new set of options. I call this principle: The Cheese Floats to the Top. When a DM is given new material, he [supposedly] chooses whatever he thinks is most interesting and/or most plot/theme related and/or most cool, not what is necessariliy most powerful. The Cheese Floats to the Top (CFT), applies to the players but not to the DM. Thus, giving the players more material directly leads to power creep, but giving the DM more material does not lead to power creep. Thus, it is balanced to restrict the players to core only, while allowing the DM to use whatever sources he wishes including stuff pulled from his own head. This is an important observation based on the principle of CFT. Note: Please ignore everything I said if you have a killer DM. -Tony
Radin Of The Justice 05-25-06, 08:10 PM	I ask this as a DM myself, how many of you DMs who say 'Core Only' for your games use Monster Manuals 2 or 3, or any of the other supplement books that provide new monsters; Libris Mortis or Lords of Madness for example. Just wondering because I do have to admit that I find it somewhat hypocritical of a DM to scream core only at players and yet will use non-core monsters to attack players with. Just a thought. Well I’d like to respond to the original poster if I might, I can say honestly that I have run a few core only games, and that if I said core only I stuck to it myself meaning PHB, DMG, and MM were the only D&D books I used. Note: Core only isnt my usual style of DMing but i have done it before, just incase :cool: :pumpkin: :chicken:
Archangel62 05-25-06, 11:15 PM	Well I’d like to respond to the original poster if I might, I can say honestly that I have run a few core only games, and that if I said core only I stuck to it myself meaning PHB, DMG, and MM were the only D&D books I used. Note: Core only isnt my usual style of DMing but i have done it before, just incase :cool: :pumpkin: :chicken: I have no problem with people saying that certain things aren't for use in game. Nor am I saying that 'Core Only' is made up of tyrants and unimaginative idiots. All of you 'core-only' types keep claiming that I am saying that though so I'm not sure if you're having a case of guilty conscience or what. But anyhow, my problem stems from DMs who say that players can have nothing outside of PHB, (not counting gear and materials from DMG) but have no problem with themselves using every book under the sun. You all keep saying how allowing these things in will allow players to overpower the game and everything else. I hate to say it but it sounds as if you feel that the game is player vs. DM with the DM constantly getting attacked by players. I have never said that a DM can't say that certain classes or feats aren't available in a game because of theme. But I have a problem with a DM who says that anything non-core is overpowered but feels that their non-core monsters and creations are perfectly balanced and fine to throw against the party. So I'm sorry but yes, that does sound rather hypocritical.
terrainmonkey 05-26-06, 01:53 AM	I hate to say it but it sounds as if you feel that the game is player vs. DM with the DM constantly getting attacked by players. I have never said that a DM can't say that certain classes or feats aren't available in a game because of theme. But I have a problem with a DM who says that anything non-core is overpowered but feels that their non-core monsters and creations are perfectly balanced and fine to throw against the party. So I'm sorry but yes, that does sound rather hypocritical. okay, archangel. i'm sorry you feel this way. but as i have always said, you make the game the way you want. if it suits you to open your game to every book, and you want to use every feat, PrC, and option, then fine. there are a million different players and each one plays different. you'll never find one group who plays it like the next. if one plays core only, that doesn't limit thier fun at all, even if the DM uses everything else in the book to craft a tale. Here's the thing about balance though. The DM is in control of game balance at all times. Let me repeat that just so you can understand. The DM is in control of game balance at all times. He is the final arbiter of the game, the rules, the opponents, the fairness of the game, etc. He is the head cheese, the story teller, the screenmonkey, the organiser. He makes the rules of the setting and balances everything with it. Let's say i was a core DM. so i say to all my players, "you can only use the classes and prestige classes from the PHB and DMG." so, using my basic rules for character creation, they create a party and i run them through a bunch of levels of stuff from the MM. Then, one day, they meet a creature i have taken from the libris mortis, let's say a gravetouched ghoul wizard with corpse crafter feats and a host of goliath barbarians as his minions. Even though i have put the challenge rating the same as the characters, you are saying this is unfair. I fail to understand your reasoning, still. after 5 pages of posts. Now, i'm not saying that i'm an expert here. i play mostly core, and my players have never had a problem with it. we too are in the camp where i have to travel a long distance and we only get one day a month to play. so we keep it simple. But i still have a lot of the books, and i still use a lot of stuff i don't allow them, because a lot of it seems like DM only stuff. So, i use it against my players, and they think about it. they reason through it. they role play and use tactics to defeat my enemies. Why? because they can with core only guys, and i have kept the challenge rating to the same level as they are. As i have stated before, the basic party of iconics can defeat anything in the game using a mix of strategy, tactics, role playing, and the basic core mechanic of hit points, AC, and attacks. i beg you to find a horrible nasty made from 18 splatbooks that a party of iconics couldn't take on just using core. now, about your "DM v. Players" debate. i would guess that a majority of games are not played that way. sure, in the old days they used to be because the rules of the game were left on the DM's shoulders and he had to make more rules calls. This put him in opposition to the players, and i've seen more than a few table flips for a bad rules call that ended a character's life. Now, we have every rule quantified and explained. now, you have less arguments and the players have just as much control over the story as the DM. This doesn't mean the DM has lost control entirely though. He is still responsible for the plot. He is still in charge of the setting. And, if i am DMing a party of iconic core PCs, maybe i just want to see how they compare against the gravetouched ghoul wizard and his goliath minions. and if they ask, "can i play a goliath?" i'll just reply, "no, it seems like a monster race to me. just stick with the basics out of the forgotten realms and phb for now." Again, i don't see this as wrong. It seems to me like thats the way the game us supposed to be played. And i don't think i'm a bad dm for believing that way. much to the disagreement of some people on this topic. to hear some folks say, "if a DM only allowed core and nothing else, he's a crap DM." So if that makes me a crap DM, i can live with that. however, 26 years and 150 players in 6 states would probably disagree with you vehemently on that fact.
Stev Beren 05-26-06, 08:12 AM	Please don't ignore the words "shoehorn" and "ridiculous" because they're inconvenient to your argument. I can see why you don't use supplements, if you don't even know what a prestige class is. Obviously the Core-only crowd don't think it's really shoehorning. If they did, they probably wouldn't be Core-only. This is a subjective assessment that we'll agree to disagree on. :rolleyes: Try to stay in the realm of the discussion at the very least please. This tripe has already been stated, AND refuted, even by people in your own camp. Do try to keep up. It's also not being put forward. It's already been granted that anything that doesn't fit the campaign and/or the adventure should be banned. That does not explain why you should arbitrarily ban an entire book if there's a couple feats, a skill usage, and a piece of equipment that would be a perfect fit. The time argument is the only remotely valid argument I've seen for such behavior, and that's really an argument of necessity instead of an argument of preference, which really has nothing to do with the disagreements at hand. I agree on every point. Pity they're not related to the subject at hand. Generally, the strictest way to do something is not the best way to do it, especially for a hobby where the focus is on having fun. [Edit] Oravennas-- I bet those guys had fun, too. We certainly can't have that, now can we? Regardless, it doesn't matter what experience you've had. I'm not going to put forward my 80-year-old chain-smoking neighbor as proof that cigarettes are safe, so please don't be committing the same fallacy. Yes, the focus is on having fun. .for both the players _AND_ the DM.
Radin Of The Justice 05-27-06, 01:04 AM	about my previous post, i didnt mean it to anyone in specific, or to insult anyone just giving feed back, im not very good with with the written word so please dont think i meant it that way. :cool: :pumpkin: :chicken:
roguebfl 06-22-06, 01:54 AM	My group, for example, is going to be going into battle against a summoner who focuses heavily on demons. There are multiple demons in the area that they're heading for serving as his guardians. If I had stuck with the same CR demons but worked only out of the MM1, the encounter would likely be far easier for the players because many of the later books offer better support monsters for mass combat. And it was pure coincident that Vrak Riston the party's Brass Dragonheart Mage had just taken Banishment, in preparation for dealing with being from the Elemental plane of Fire to further his research 8) Though the asked issue was not really about Campaign restriction, (I myself in my turn in the GM's Chair do things like No Evil Alignment as I expect co-operative play). But the question of "You say no to a player wish to play/use a class/feat but turn around and let your NPCs use it."
Khan2000 06-22-06, 02:46 AM	If I told my players "Core Only," I'm restricting their characters' classes and races to core only. But then again, my players are imaginative enough to use core only with their weapons and other gear too. All I have to do is tell them what I am allowing and not allowing, and they'll go with that. Kinda like 'Scenes From A Hat' on "Whose Line?" They can do whatever within the parameters of the scene. Now, as DM, I have an entire buffet of things to choose from in order to challenge the players. Some bad guys are going to uber-powerful; I design them that way so that the players don't go rushing into a fight. However, the players sometimes don't get the hint, and some or all of them get seriously hurt or even die. Some bad guys aren't uber-powerful and are just regular run of the mill bad guys. I like when my players use their heads together in order to overcome the challenges I set forth. I don't really restrict my players to "Core Only" unless I had a reason to do so. I only restrict them to whatever books I have available to me. :D
Weirgreif 06-22-06, 04:02 AM	I haven't heard an answer in this thread that personally satisfies me; my creativity is mostly of the outlandish sort, though. For example: while pondering paladins today, I stumbled over one more likely than most to be executed for heresy. Kobold paladin of Kurtalmak, crusading to remind that lawful evil deity of what things could be like if it weren't for that nasty, tricksy, falsssse gnome god at the beginning of time. Kobolds are the only LAWFUL evil standard monster race of which I am aware; playing against that is a lot more satisfying for me than the half-orc. I like unusual things, and I especially like comin' at ya from unexpected philisophical directions. :D When I get to read Races Of Et Cetera books, that means I can construct for myself a place for my character to fit in without knowing much about the campaign setting. Frequently I have little opportunity to study the world, and none to discuss with the DM where the character is expected to have come from. ...don't even ask me about what I play in my free time. :rolleyes:
High Octane 06-22-06, 05:43 AM	Guy 1: Tea is great! Why doesnt everyone drink tea? Guy 2: Well I dont like tea. I prefer regular water! Guy 1: Tea isnt poisoned! Why do you think its poisoned? Guy 2: I didnt say it was, but now that you mention it, Ive heard of many peoples tea being poisoned. Guy 1: You just dont like tea because you are afraid of trying anything new! Guy 2: Well you only like tea so you dont have to figure out how to make water taste good. Guy 1: Well you are stupid to not like tea! Guy 2: Well you are stupid for calling me stupid! Guy 3: Lord of the Rings didnt have tea! Guy 4: Yes it did! Guy 1: Well only stupid people like you like water so water must be stupid! Guy 2: Well only stupid people like you like tea so tea must be stupid! Guy 1: You cant make certain drinks without tea! Guy 2: Why should everyone have to learn how to make tea to drink with you? Guy 5: Want it? DRINK IT! Dont want it? DONT DRINK IT!
OravennasBrother 06-22-06, 10:22 AM	I haven't heard an answer in this thread that personally satisfies me; my creativity is mostly of the outlandish sort, though. Kobolds are the only LAWFUL evil standard monster race of which I am aware; : I suppose you never saw the entry on Hobgoblin? I believe they are as standard as Kobolds. BTW Outlandish and Outre are good methods to alienate the other players. Are you saying that you would enjoy making all the other players uncomfortable? If you stick to Core only (or whatever restrictions the DM puts in) that won't be a problem. In my group you do have to fit in with the party before you bring in a character. What would you do if your DM said "Everyone must play a Kobold with LG alignment." Would you still want your Kobold paladin, or would you need "something different" ? Core can build any concept which is not chosen outside the race limits. The DMG and MM (3.5) even have rules for playing with some of the monsters form the MM, though the player would need to provide their own miniature figure if they chose one I don't have (or use a near fit if that's OK by them). I have all the standard race/class combinations covered pretty well and we do use mini's.
Solik 06-22-06, 10:50 AM	Why oh why did this thread get resurrected. Just let it go.
Krelios 06-22-06, 10:55 AM	There has never been a monster in any book WotC has ever published that could not be beaten by a party of four core-only characters of a level equal to the CR. ROFLMAO! Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I would never make an absolute statement like that, especially with as badly as the CR system is written. As a mental excerise, you ask me to pick a monster that can't be beaten, then you make a party specifically designed to beat it. Now I throw a monster that you are so specialized that you cannot defeat at you. Do you see the dilemma? Sure, there's a core-only party for any monster, but not a core-only party for every monster. CR is only half of the equation when challenging your party. If your players all decided to play rogues, would you constantly throw undead and constructs at them just because they're the "appropriate" CR? If you would, I imagine you don't have any players.
TarlSS 06-22-06, 11:00 AM	I see core-only as a conservative back-lash against an influx of new material. It's like democrats and republicans, liberal and conservative. One advocates and embraces change, the other does not. Both are perfectly valid points of view. What is not valid is violating the demands of the constituency. If the players of the game devote the time and resources to purchase and learn supplements they find entertaining, the DM should at least acknowledge and make an effort to incorporate that material unless he finds it exceptionally distasteful. The Core-only policy is really a trust issue. Can you really trust WOTC and your players to provide you with balanced quality content? I can. Me being of the 'all supplements' policy, think it's the highlight of arrogance to dismiss all supplements new and old. You're saying you, with little professional authority of your own, know more about balance and structure than the people who do this for a living? I'd say no, that argument fails. Core only is ultimately a very insular, selfish and arrogant attitude, believing no other writers of material have any creative and balanced ideas that could possibly work in YOUR game, of all games. Malarky. If your game was so wonderful, you'd be writing books too. We live in a world where actions speak louder than words, and merit is judged on the basis of certification and past experience when it cannot be determined first hand. Based on that, the core-only philosphy can be only looked at as an upstart ideal touted by amateurists with no actual judge of benefit that can be viewed from a non-experimental perspective. I certainly was never happy in a core-only game. We may all be upstart amateurists here, but at least the supplements have sales and professionals backing their quality- certainly no one of applicable qualification or with relevant data (Other than anecdotal evidence) has done the same with Core-Only. Nor can I forsee anyone with the desire to provide that data. If you don't want to spend the effort to back it up, I can't really see what's so great about it.
Sereno 06-22-06, 11:39 AM	As a mental excerise, you ask me to pick a monster that can't be beaten, then you make a party specifically designed to beat it. Now I throw a monster that you are so specialized that you cannot defeat at you. Do you see the dilemma? Sure, there's a core-only party for any monster, but not a core-only party for every monster. That's pretty much a weak argument, too. Unless you've got a party with Pun-pun and the Hulking Hurler, how can you ever guarantee you can beat each and every monster regardless whether you're core-only or all-supplements-welcome?
DemonDavyJones 06-22-06, 12:06 PM	Personally, I use Core Only, but then that's all I can afford at the moment. I just change descriptions of classic monsters (troll, orc, ect.) use less used ones (aboleth, ect.) and make new ones, like my homebrew ShadowStalker. I play a PHB, MMI, and DMG game, and the players love it. If you have extra books, and you know how they work, and the players can be trusted to/can be restricted to not make broken combos, then use non core books. I've played in core only games that went well, I've played in core only games that sucked, and I've played in non core games on both ends of the spectrum as well. In short, if it works, use non core, and if it doesn't, don't use it. There are good arguments for both, even though I don't see that much personally aside from psions that you can't make using PHB, DMG, and MMI. It all comes down to how the DM uses whatever side he picks. Just my 2 cents. Please don't flame my neutral views! :P ;)
Twisted Puppy 06-22-06, 12:53 PM	We live in a world where actions speak louder than words, and merit is judged on the basis of certification and past experience when it cannot be determined first hand. Based on that, the core-only philosphy can be only looked at as an upstart ideal touted by amateurists with no actual judge of benefit that can be viewed from a non-experimental perspective. I certainly was never happy in a core-only game. We may all be upstart amateurists here, but at least the supplements have sales and professionals backing their quality- certainly no one of applicable qualification or with relevant data (Other than anecdotal evidence) has done the same with Core-Only. Wow, aren't we precocious. Reads like Anne Coulter's latest. Make a bunch of claims that you say can't be refuted, even though the same lack of data applies to your assertion. Isn't it fun to put the burden on someone to prove a negative? The fact that a sales staff and marketing department touts something does not necessarily make it a quality product. I hope you don't need me to trot out examples of that? IIRC, the very same professionals produced the core books, did they not? Is the quality of the core books not advanced by the same people, or at least the same company? If you're not happy in a core only game, fine, that's your opinion. You're certainly entitled to it. For those who like core only, if they and their players are having a good time, what's the problem? Since you probably haven't met them, who are you to say their game isn't fun? Personally, I think a DM that can't run a fun core-only game will likely have problems regardless of the material allowed.
OravennasBrother 06-22-06, 01:02 PM	The Core-only policy is really a trust issue. Can you really trust WOTC and your players to provide you with balanced quality content? I can easily trust my players. It's Hasbro/WotC/TSR that cannot be trusted. Do you need a lesson in game industry history? Hasbro, through the efforst of Sid Meier produced a computer game called Civilization. But more than a decade before Sid Meier's little "gem" a Avalon Hill had produced a board game called Civilization. Meier/HAsbro decide to market a "Civilization" board game. They run into AH's game. Meier starts a lawsuit for copyright infringement, AH places a countersuit. AH, rightly, wins - Meier did infringe on their copyright as it included rights to the computer version (through a subsidiary called SSI if memory serves). So Hasbro gives AH a (non)choice - sell their company to Hasbro or face endless litigation until they run out of money. WotC made its place by producing the game "Magic the Gathering". Perhaps you have heard of it. Now, correct me if I am wrong as I was never much of a magic player, but everyone I knew complained that all the new "Sets" released were designed to be more powerful, just to generate card sales as you could not build a competitive deck without 'teh' (sic) newest cards. Remember these are the people in charge of day to day decisions for D20. They had a sucessful marketing scheme - make supplements more powerful than the original material, why would they change it? TSR, last of the three. Trustworthy? Ask Arneson, or the design staff at SPI. THuogh TSR has nothing to do with daily WotC operation. WotC does. Hasbro does. And I trust neither of those two. Based on that, the core-only philosphy can be only looked at as an upstart ideal touted by amateurists with no actual judge of benefit that can be viewed from a non-experimental perspective. Right - except Steve Jackson, perhaps you have heard of him, is on record as stating "3.0 is a marketing scheme. Which would you rather play - a game or a marketing scheme." Of course the easy rebuttal for you is "Well Jackson runs Steve Jackson Games, so naturally he would not like a competitor's product." But that gives your "amateur" claim easy support; either someone is an amateur, a D20 designer or a competitor. D20 designers WILL support their product and rivals will NOT. Please - the professionals who make d20 are like the professionals who make any other product - more interested in profit than anything else. How many times have you seen a computer game (Harpoon anyone) which was released with so many bugs it was unplayable (How does a cruiser travel over solid ground?).
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-22-06, 01:17 PM	You realise that that intentionally inflamitory post didn't warrent serious responces, right?
Weirgreif 06-24-06, 12:45 AM	Tea and No Tea. I happen to like tea. :D Kobold paladin, you're out; tea-sage elf is up next. It is a truly elven quest to combine tea from the Beastlands with Elemental Water, with the teakettle boiling over natural sticks n' stuff. And that one Core, until the Planes start getting interesting and we need advice to fill an infinite expanse of water. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, I occasionally say. I can't see any purpose in trying to convince anyone one way or the other on this board; all experiences will be individual. I don't think any worse of a person on either side than the person whose sig indicates "only books I own" every post. *nod*
Dan Hemmens 06-24-06, 11:05 AM	I ask this as a DM myself, how many of you DMs who say 'Core Only' for your games use Monster Manuals 2 or 3, or any of the other supplement books that provide new monsters; Libris Mortis or Lords of Madness for example. Just wondering because I do have to admit that I find it somewhat hypocritical of a DM to scream core only at players and yet will use non-core monsters to attack players with. Just a thought. I for one, don't. Hell, I usually don't use all the monsters in the core rulebook. It just feels stupid to me for the players to be fighting vampires one week and Beholders the next.
Dan Hemmens 06-24-06, 11:11 AM	I only read the first and last pages of this long thread, but I would like to contribute the following observation. When players are given new additional material to choose from, they choose the most powerful options available among their new set of options. I call this principle: The Cheese Floats to the Top. When a DM is given new material, he [supposedly] chooses whatever he thinks is most interesting and/or most plot/theme related and/or most cool, not what is necessariliy most powerful. The Cheese Floats to the Top (CFT), applies to the players but not to the DM. Thus, giving the players more material directly leads to power creep, but giving the DM more material does not lead to power creep. Thus, it is balanced to restrict the players to core only, while allowing the DM to use whatever sources he wishes including stuff pulled from his own head. This is an important observation based on the principle of CFT. So what you're basically saying is that GMs are intrinsically better people than players?
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-24-06, 12:55 PM	So what you're basically saying is that GMs are intrinsically better people than players? No reasinable person could have gotten that from that post and I willing to wager that you are a reasonable person and just decided to use this as a very stupid strawman.
Dan Hemmens 06-24-06, 01:07 PM	No reasinable person could have gotten that from that post and I willing to wager that you are a reasonable person and just decided to use this as a very stupid strawman. I prefer the term "hyperbole". That post took, as its premise, that players would naturally use the most powerful elements of the source material, while GMs would naturally use the most flavourful. This does, in fact, boil down to an assumption of moral superiority on the part of the GM.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-24-06, 01:21 PM	No it doesn't. When one is doing the job of DMing, one will often have to sacrifice power for plot and emmersion. When the same person is taking the role of player, they often don't feel at all beholden to plot or emmersion and thus need only to focus on power. This is a factor of the job. Beleive it or not, some people play *and* DM and thier needs do in fact change betwen roles. Not only that, but there are those who would tell you (wrongly) that a 'good' player always min-maxs and that is in effect why they MUST be given carte blanche.
Dan Hemmens 06-24-06, 01:45 PM	No it doesn't. When one is doing the job of DMing, one will often have to sacrifice power for plot and emmersion. Why? When the same person is taking the role of player, they often don't feel at all beholden to plot or emmersion and thus need only to focus on power. Again, why? This is a factor of the job. Beleive it or not, some people play *and* DM and thier needs do in fact change betwen roles. So when somebody becomes a player, they suddenly become an inveterate game-wrecker concerned only with power? Not only that, but there are those who would tell you (wrongly) that a 'good' player always min-maxs and that is in effect why they MUST be given carte blanche. So because some people believe players should min-max, therefore all players will always min-max?
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-24-06, 02:34 PM	So when somebody becomes a player, they suddenly become an inveterate game-wrecker concerned only with power? ... ... I'm just going to stop bothering with you.
Solik 06-24-06, 02:47 PM	He's right.
Dan Hemmens 06-24-06, 07:25 PM	... ... I'm just going to stop bothering with you. That's your perogative. I don't think I've said anything particularly unreasonable. You still seem to be characterising "players" as being power-crazed drones, uninterested in plot or immersion. You have not justified this in particular, you've just stated it as gospel.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-24-06, 09:28 PM	That's your perogative. I don't think I've said anything particularly unreasonable. You still seem to be characterising "players" as being power-crazed drones, uninterested in plot or immersion. You have not justified this in particular, you've just stated it as gospel. No, I'm describing basic reasoning behind trends and you're responding with overreaction and blatant hyperbole. There is no reason to try to discuss anything because what you're doing is akin to the stereotypical hypersensitive: "Hey Bob, you don't look happy." "What? So you think I'm depressed? What's the matter with you?! I am not on mood altering drugs, how DARE you insinuate that." "Huh? I think you misunderstand..." "Oh, so now I'm stupid too? Alright, you bastard, I'm going to break your face for that..."
High Octane 06-24-06, 10:37 PM	Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, I occasionally say. I can't see any purpose in trying to convince anyone one way or the other on this board; all experiences will be individual. I don't think any worse of a person on either side than the person whose sig indicates "only books I own" every post. *nod* That was what water and tea was about :)
WizO_Cat 06-24-06, 10:45 PM	I'll just chime in here and remind everyone to keep their posts on the subject of the thread and not other guests. You don't like the way core only DMs play the game? Fine, post away. However, let's keep the opinions of other posters off of the boards since it is considered Baiting and thus is against the Code of Conduct. If it continues, I'm going to have to take other disciplinary actions. Thanks in advance for everyones cooperation, and if you have been cooperating all along, I say "Thank you."
Dan Hemmens 06-25-06, 12:59 PM	No, I'm describing basic reasoning behind trends and you're responding with overreaction and blatant hyperbole. You're not, you're describing percieved trends, and providing no reasoning. You could, for example, have argued that since they possess unlimited authorial control over the gameworld, DMs have less incentive to seek out the powerful material in sourcebooks, or that players have more time and energy to devote to the optimisation minigame, and are therefore more likely to hit upon and use overpowerful combinations. That is *not* the same as saying that players will focus on power, but GMs will focus on theme, plot, and immersion.
Blue Paladin 06-26-06, 12:52 PM	Umm. I'm late to this whole discussion, and I admit, I skipped all the earlier pages. So here it is in a nutshell: When everyone plays with Core-Only, everyone (in-game and out-of-game) has particular basic knowledges of the game and what's in it. It sets particular boundaries that are well-defined and (pretty) well-known. Thus when I throw in something new (I have homebrew, theoretically balanced according to MM advancement rules), everyone knows it's new. It's something special. Beyond the pale. I have no idea what the pale is, but this is beyond it. And always always there's a good and valid reason for it. It's not new for the sake of being new, it's new because someone created it (and has left behind a fair number of failed perhaps-still-living-experiments as well). It's new because it's migrated from beyond the trackless desert due to a environmental shift and/or predatory changes in its local fauna. It's new because it came with the invading force from the far distant Empire. It's new because of a hundred different reasons that actually matter to the game world. When the mage (the go-to girl for all info regarding the beasties they come across) with her scads of Knowledges can't identify what it is, the party actually sits up and pays attention. They initiate a bit of caution as they don't know (in-game or out) what's coming. Well, except for the Barbarian's standard response ("Power Attack for 2"), but that's totally in character for him anyway :)