DM does not allow some sources

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Have you folks ever had disagreements with your DM over what sources are allowed in the game?

I really like getting to see *everything* that is available to my character using the character builder. And, I tend to look at guides to get idea of what the better powers/feats/items/etc to help narrow down my choices.

But, outside the CB, my group doesn't have all these sources. And some of them (like Dragon Magazine) are considered to be "sketchy" by some.

I really don't want to be a power gamer... what are some reasons to not allow feats, powers and magic items from more obscure sources?
Dragon content (assuming that you use the final version of something, not the preview version) is generally average-to-somewhat weak, power wise. Its main distinction is filling in gaps or unusual niches that the print books don't cover (and stuff initially published in Dragon has often shown up in print books later on, frequently getting a tune-up in the process).

But if you have access to the character builder then you've got all of the relevant rules-text for the content in question (again, assuming that you're dealing with the online builder or the final version of the offline one).

The main concern that I see is added complexity, although that's much less of an issue in 4E than it was in older Es, since things generally fit into the same basic structures.
Often people will consider something to be sketchy because it wasn't made by "The Man" but someone else who obviously doesn't know what "The Man" is thinking.

Its also because something radically changes something. Like the ability to cast fireball using any elemental damage in place of fire.


Or its because they think something is not fantasy, IE Warforged being "Robots" just simply cause they are made out of a bit of metal rather than flesh. Often people believe the only races that should even be allowed are the standard corebook races, sometimes barring teiflings and dragonborn. I call this "It has to be human" syndrom that pretty much started when tolkin first made fantasy as big as it is.

Sometimes things are banned becase "Its not in the campagin setting". This is sometimes and unspoken ban, as a campagin specific guild doesn't exist for you to take a campaign specific paragon path or PRC.


Much of it though is the fear. The fear of the players having ability to do things that the DM does not expect. The fear that the players are trying to screw over the DM at every turn. The fear of the unknown. ect.
I'd get along more with people if they didn't jump onto a hyberbole every single time you say something they don't understand.
As a DM I have banned stuff before, for what I usually feel is are just reasons. Some prior reasons include:

Setting- As mentioned above, sometimes things just don't fit within a particular setting, especially some of the things mentioned in world specific books like Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, or Ebberon.

Familiarity- There is a ton of material out there. I do not proclaim to have read it all, be aware of it all, or even to have access to it all. As a DM this is important. There are particular things that sometimes are determined to be "broken" that end up getting houseruled, but when you are talking about sources which the DM may not have had any knowledge of this becomes more problematic. You can always ask a DM to view a feat or a particular power, but I know from personal experience that planning a campaign puts a lot on your plate and sometimes you really don't feel like reading a whole dragon article, checking erratta, and everything else that goes into a new game element.

Play by Post Games Join us Currently running: The Wheel of Time
One of the house rules for the group I play with is that it is only allowed if it's in physical printed form, and present at the session. Every book is present in his own collection so this isn't much of a problem, except for Dragon Magazine.

Basically, the guy who's house it is (and our usual DM) has effectively banned anything from Dragon Magazine. He also makes the stipulation that we can't just print out a specific issue, but would have to print off EVERY single issue of Dragon Magazine in order for the feats, powers, etc, to be allowed in.

His excuse is that he has always had this as a rule (I've only been playing with him for two years), and that he doesn't want to have to read the online magazine to look up what's in the magazine and have to balance for it in his campaigns. He claims he doesn't have the time due to college (he takes some night classes a couple nights a week).

My biggest frustration is that the magazine is only online, so with his house rules I'd have to spend hundreds of dollars in printing fees to get the handful of useful feats and powers I'd like to use. I'm not trying to power game, but there is some great synergy in the expanded feats that work well with certain character themes.

Additionally, he never allows any players to start with, or buy/find, any equipment they want within reason. He always has us submit charcater sheets ahead of time with equipment requests and then decides what equipment that he wants us to have, possibly giving us equipment that completely ruins our build like he did with one player's warlock. He didn't even let my lvl 17 Pursuit Avenger start with a +2 Symbol of Victory, and instead gave me a generic +3 holy symbol.

All I can say is, I will never be the kind of DM that bans anything without giving the group the opportunity to decide as a majority that my ruling is unjustified.
I wouldn't go so far as to ban a book... like some kind of Nazi. If you find something you like in a book,  magazine, or flying around the internet you should be able to present it.

If the DM believes it is too fantastic for your character they should limit it or change it so it has a place at the table.

When I'm playing as a PC the DM is always needing to make rules as most of my spells are from my own brain. If a spell sounds to amazing for my level the DM will tell me to wait two or three levels before I can choose that. In my spell book I have spells I know, spells I want to learn and even a few spells I'm perfecting and changing to interoduce down the track.

The next time you find something you want to use in the game don't tell your DM about where it came from, just provide the basic ideas of what you want and have them shape it to work in your games world. They may even search for that spell or feat after you describe it and find the very rules they would have otherwise blacklisted.

Also your DM may feel like letting in one crazy book edition in will open the flood gates and let all the players start picking crazy skills and spells from other sources. Just make sure your DM knows they still have final say.
Just in case I failed to mention; I am playing D&D 3.5e.
Typically my DM allows just about everything in, though I'm the only player who really uses it. But thats cause he knows I normally have an idea such as "My character is a badass wolfman who wield scythe and casts necromancy spells. Oh and he is slowly becoming closer to being undead."

Then I scorer everything I can find to create the concept. I feat here that gives me prof with a scythe and knowledge religion, a PRC that makes me closer to becoming undead, A race from a dragon magazine that fufuils the wolfman thing without having to be a werewolf or something. (Or begging to be human but look like a wolfman.)

and eventually I come up with something. Unfortantantly most concepts require a lot of work to get into the few levels I have.

Ocassionally, I do go the other route if I have a possition to fill. (Find something cool, make character off of it.) but often Its to test everything out and find what we like and what we don't like.


I'd get along more with people if they didn't jump onto a hyberbole every single time you say something they don't understand.
Some bans make sense; like banning most dark sun material from a dark gothic campaign so you don't have deal with psionic dread pirates and sand shark cloaks messing up your dark and looming castle.

I can see banning dragon magazine, as well, just to level things with other players. Not everyone has access to that specific source, and they do contain a few sketchy powers.  Like letting rouges wield any one-handed heavy in rouge powers; totally invalidates rapiers.
Some bans make sense; like banning most dark sun material from a dark gothic campaign so you don't have deal with psionic dread pirates and sand shark cloaks messing up your dark and looming castle.

I can see banning dragon magazine, as well, just to level things with other players. Not everyone has access to that specific source, and they do contain a few sketchy powers.  Like letting rouges wield any one-handed heavy in rouge powers; totally invalidates rapiers.



Not true at all. Rapiers are still generally a better choice. The only heavy blade choice that would do more damage is a bastard sword, but it's only +1 damage on average. Light blades have better support overall for rogues, with feats such as Nimble Blade and Light Blade Expertise (which gives you a scaling +1/2/3 damage with CA, as opposed to an average +1 with the bastard sword).

This kind of thinking to ban stuff is what upsets me.
Unless you counter by heavy blade expertise, and pull a Githzerai blade master (+2/3/4 with heavy blades), but then you lose efficiency due to feat duplication, and twenty posts later we'll find ourselves with a broadsword wielding githzerai, who depends on the dragon mags to work right. Could be fun though.

The issue is that dragon magazine content is harder to access for some players than others. I have two who, until this week, didn't even have phone or internet lines ran to their house; how could they access anything like that? Combined with the fact that not all of the feats or powers mesh well with the written books, it creates the opportunity not for abuse, but more for player dissatisfaction.

Take, for example, the statement I made about rapiers; a somewhat untrue one, really, but a reflection of my players reaction when I commented about how the feat in question allowed a rouge build I have been experimenting with to pull out 1d10+11 with each properly executed blade vault at level four. With my players being extremely new to building characters, this seemed like some sort of extreme damage output, and it made them feel like lightblades were thus pointless for rouges. As they saw it, grabbing this feat meant they had access to an entire set of weapons instead of just one (surface logic, I know) and meant they could step from the d6 to the d10 immediately. 

They saw it, quite simply, as something that I had, and they didn't. Moreover, they saw it as something which I had, and they couldn't get, and that is the issue.

I used to ban dragon, back before it was done by WoTC. It was pretty evident that Dragon would published stuff with what had been printed by WoTC in mind (Obviously) but WoTC wouldn't pay any attention to what dragon had printed (Why should they). So I constantly had weird rules interactions I would have to hash out, and it just wasn't worth it. Plus 90% of the stuff was awful, and I would have super gimped PCs who couldn't keep up with the rest of the party.


Now that WoTC does it, it seems to work better. Plus the character builder makes it harder to disallow it than allow it. (I don't have the new one, so maybe that changed.)


I also still ban all 3rd party books. (With the exception that if you run it by me I will probably allow it)


I can see banning specific things from specific campaign settings. EX: Red Wizards of Thay cannot exist without a thay, but I can also see a case for a few small modifications to the class and then letting players use it.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

Well when Paiso was doing the dragon magazine, nearly 90% of the stuff made it into published books.

I'd get along more with people if they didn't jump onto a hyberbole every single time you say something they don't understand.
> He also makes the stipulation that we can't just print out a specific issue,
> but would have to print off EVERY single issue of Dragon Magazine in order for
> the feats, powers, etc, to be allowed in.

This is...

Well, if he also takes the view that no print book material (including, y'know, the PHB) can be allowed in unless every print book published to date is available at the table, it would at least be consistent.

Though still utterly nonsensical.
I like to allow anything that's in the CB.  I haven't really seen any WotC-made 4e stuff I'd ban.  There have been a couple crazy combos that I would consider nerfing, but WotC usually slaps them down with errata before I ever notice them.

The DM I play with used to have a ban on Dragon material, but lately it's been more of a "Just ask me before you use it and it's cool"

One of the house rules for the group I play with is that it is only allowed if it's in physical printed form, and present at the session. Every book is present in his own collection so this isn't much of a problem, except for Dragon Magazine.

Basically, the guy who's house it is (and our usual DM) has effectively banned anything from Dragon Magazine. He also makes the stipulation that we can't just print out a specific issue, but would have to print off EVERY single issue of Dragon Magazine in order for the feats, powers, etc, to be allowed in.

His excuse is that he has always had this as a rule (I've only been playing with him for two years), and that he doesn't want to have to read the online magazine to look up what's in the magazine and have to balance for it in his campaigns. He claims he doesn't have the time due to college (he takes some night classes a couple nights a week).

My biggest frustration is that the magazine is only online, so with his house rules I'd have to spend hundreds of dollars in printing fees to get the handful of useful feats and powers I'd like to use. I'm not trying to power game, but there is some great synergy in the expanded feats that work well with certain character themes.

Additionally, he never allows any players to start with, or buy/find, any equipment they want within reason. He always has us submit charcater sheets ahead of time with equipment requests and then decides what equipment that he wants us to have, possibly giving us equipment that completely ruins our build like he did with one player's warlock. He didn't even let my lvl 17 Pursuit Avenger start with a +2 Symbol of Victory, and instead gave me a generic +3 holy symbol.

All I can say is, I will never be the kind of DM that bans anything without giving the group the opportunity to decide as a majority that my ruling is unjustified.


This is just bizarre.  And a DM maintaining that level of control would be a serious red flag for me.


Some bans make sense; like banning most dark sun material from a dark gothic campaign so you don't have deal with psionic dread pirates and sand shark cloaks messing up your dark and looming castle.

I could see a psionic character in a dark, gothic campaign.  They've begun to develop strange powers of the mind that would cause some to hate and fear them.  The character himself unable to convince himself that his powers aren't unnatural and dangerous...

I can see banning dragon magazine, as well, just to level things with other players. Not everyone has access to that specific source, and they do contain a few sketchy powers.  Like letting rouges wield any one-handed heavy in rouge powers; totally invalidates rapiers.


Everyone not having access to Dragon at home isn't really any different than if one or more players doesn't have their own copy of a book.  And the material generally isn't too bad.

Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Have you folks ever had disagreements with your DM over what sources are allowed in the game?

I really like getting to see *everything* that is available to my character using the character builder. And, I tend to look at guides to get idea of what the better powers/feats/items/etc to help narrow down my choices.

But, outside the CB, my group doesn't have all these sources. And some of them (like Dragon Magazine) are considered to be "sketchy" by some.

I really don't want to be a power gamer... what are some reasons to not allow feats, powers and magic items from more obscure sources?



I think you answered your own question but might not have realized it.

If ALL of my players have all 3 Players Handbooks and a laptop running the CB, then sure use anything you want is cool with me.
If I show up for a game, and I have my one Players Handbook to go for the whole table of 4 players, then no, I am not letting anything not in that one book into the game.

My rule is if I don't have it you don't have it.
I don't play 4th edition D&D for Wizard's sake I play it for my sake.
Nothing wrong with the DM banning material from his game, including entire books outright.  Nor doeds doing so make one akin to a Nazi.  Only an immature child with a false sense of entitlement would think that.  The DM is tasked with creating a campaign setting that is entertaining for the group, and if he does not like a particular feat or power or whatever then it will affect his enjoyment of the game and that will in turn affect the enjoyment of everyone at the table.  More importantly the DM has to maintain a balance over the game to ensure that everyone is having a good time.  That can be a difficult job when players start to introduce elements that could unbalance the group. 

Should a DM summarily dismiss things willy nilly?  Of course not.  But  if a player asks him to change his mind about something or wants to introduce something new the player has to remember that "No" is still a possible answer.
Gygaxian is NOT a slur. Those who use it as such should be punched in the face. Repeatedly.

Back in 3.5, I used to disallow Dragon on the principle that it wasn't published by WotC (though if a feat/spell from Dragon was reprinted in a later official supplement, I'd gladly accept it) and was therefore, in my opinion, no better than any other 3rd-party book. It was not designed by the same people that have the vision on where they wanted to take D&D and what abilities fit the game.
I'd also banned a couple of official books because I really really hated them. Psionics Handbook, Savage Species and Unearthed Arcana were the bane of my g'damn existence. Overpowered as. CS's were also out, since the game had its own unique world and I didn't wanna mish-mash.

With the most recent game I'm DM'ing, I initially kept the ban on Dragon, mostly because I had no access to it (CS's were allowed with consultation). I prefer it when I have the source in front of me and I can pick it up and read it whenever I want to without asking anyone for it.
However, I later found out that one of the players who did have access ignored my explicit ruling and picked up both a magic item and a feat from Dragon without consulting me. He never remembers to take advantage of the feat (and I ain't going to remind him; serves him right) and I've given him a replacement magic item, but I've also reconsidered my stance on Dragon since then.

IMO, a DM can ban whatever book he wants, just as he can make whatever rules he wants. It is up to the players to decide whether the DM's ruling is tolerable enough to pursue a game under that DM. You can argue, sure. Definitely bring it up with him. Some DM's may take a look at the proposed feat and decide to make an exception for it. But, if he says no, I would not press the point. It's his game.

~The Chilli God Has Spoken.

Nothing wrong with the DM banning material from his game, including entire books outright.  Nor doeds doing so make one akin to a Nazi.  Only an immature child with a false sense of entitlement would think that.  The DM is tasked with creating a campaign setting that is entertaining for the group, and if he does not like a particular feat or power or whatever then it will affect his enjoyment of the game and that will in turn affect the enjoyment of everyone at the table.  More importantly the DM has to maintain a balance over the game to ensure that everyone is having a good time.  That can be a difficult job when players start to introduce elements that could unbalance the group. 

Should a DM summarily dismiss things willy nilly?  Of course not.  But  if a player asks him to change his mind about something or wants to introduce something new the player has to remember that "No" is still a possible answer.



I agree that banning material to account for settings that wouldn't have it, or broken power gaming that exploits a loophole is fine. However, I'm also assuming you read my earlier post in this thread.

Summarily dismissing all Dragon Magazine materials and reasonable equipment is effectively what has happened. The equipment thing is even more problematic because my friend's character has reduced effectiveness and could run around buck naked with no difference in his capacities.

The rule requiring all the DM issues to be printed and present for them to be allowed is a scapegoat. Why he feels so threatened by it is beyond me. We all have access to the magazine, and we understand that unbalanced or out of place materials should be banned, but no one has ever asked for unreasonable materials. Yet we still can't have them because he doesn't allow any chance to discuss the issue and possibly change his mind.
Never had disagreements both as player or dm. In my opinion the DM has an idea for a story and world and makes that available with any base rules he wants.

Before the very first game everyone gathers. During that talk the DM gives a general outlook of the setting and which materials he allows. This is not open for discussion and be changed. If a player doesn't agree with it he just leaves and finds another group. I'm not going to change a thing just because someone doesn't like it if only PH1 is allowed. When that is done the group can talk about every other possible houserule and is up for discussion. Next the characters get created and that is the end.
When I started DMing 4th edition, i hadn't played D&D since 1st edition and the dragon magazine stuff back then could be ... um... uneven. I wanted to keep things simple, so I started with the rule: just the hardbound books. At the time it was PHB1 & 2 and a handfull of powers books.

Since then I've kep the rule in place mostly just to keep everyone at the same power level. (I don't alllow races or classes from PHB3 or essentials either)  I've found that it prevents the cascade of people begging to reroll new characters that I've seen in other games. In the games I've played that allow new material whenever it was available, it frequently turned into the "character build of the month club" when one or more players asked to change characters because they wanted to try out a new class/race/build.

If I started a new campaign, I don't think I would have a problem with most of the dragon mag stuff out there, but I can understand a new DM wanting to keep things simple. It's a lot of work to run a campaign, give your DM a break.
Overall it sounds to me like you have a DM who doesn't trust their players to not break the game.  Part of this could be in terms of exploiting mechanics loopholes, but also part of this is the theme, tone, and atmosphere the DM is trying to provide.  If as a DM I have to account for how in the world that Gnoll/Hyena Jongular/Entertainer hybrid race/class ever came to exist in my Human/Dwarf/Elf centric world, then I also might lay down the law and say as a generic rule no "off spec" classes/races/gear without extensive discussion/examination by me in advance.

My question back to you is this, Why is none of the large quantity of "On Spec" rules good enough for your character concept?  Why do you have to be "special" and the "exception" different from the rest of your fellow players?  Honestly answer this question for me in terms of your enhancing the personality of your character concept and how you feel it will enhance our overall campaign, then as a DM I'd very likely be allow "off spec" character modifications.  If your answer basically comes down to wanting to stir up trouble in the group or with your DM by breaking play balance or campaign setting, then as a DM I'm very likly to just ask you to leave the game.

So unless you want the player next to you to be playing an eight armed pink elephant with a 30 strength and 8 attacks per turn because that is their idea of an ideal character, you should take any character "off spec" customization requests to your DM with a grain of salt.  If you haven't tried sitting on the other side of that fence dealing with the full scope of creative player imaginations, then you should probably not be too quick to judge when a DM declines in this circumstance.

I hope this helps.
Overall it sounds to me like you have a DM who doesn't trust their players to not break the game.  Part of this could be in terms of exploiting mechanics loopholes, but also part of this is the theme, tone, and atmosphere the DM is trying to provide.  If as a DM I have to account for how in the world that Gnoll/Hyena Jongular/Entertainer hybrid race/class ever came to exist in my Human/Dwarf/Elf centric world, then I also might lay down the law and say as a generic rule no "off spec" classes/races/gear without extensive discussion/examination by me in advance.

My question back to you is this, Why is none of the large quantity of "On Spec" rules good enough for your character concept?  Why do you have to be "special" and the "exception" different from the rest of your fellow players?  Honestly answer this question for me in terms of your enhancing the personality of your character concept and how you feel it will enhance our overall campaign, then as a DM I'd very likely be allow "off spec" character modifications.  If your answer basically comes down to wanting to stir up trouble in the group or with your DM by breaking play balance or campaign setting, then as a DM I'm very likly to just ask you to leave the game.

So unless you want the player next to you to be playing an eight armed pink elephant with a 30 strength and 8 attacks per turn because that is their idea of an ideal character, you should take any character "off spec" customization requests to your DM with a grain of salt.  If you haven't tried sitting on the other side of that fence dealing with the full scope of creative player imaginations, then you should probably not be too quick to judge when a DM declines in this circumstance.

I hope this helps.



Point, but that is taking things to the extreme.  I could very well be playing a "normal" human paladin but want to use a source book because it has a feat or two I like.  Maybe I want to play a particular class or prestige class (3E) even if it's just for the fun of the game mechanics involved.  Maybe I'm playing a 3E Sorcerer and choosing spells with a theme where a spell in a particular source book fits perfectly.  Wanting to use a source book does not necessarily mean wanting to play Pun-Pun's little brother.

The DM is entitled to limit source books.  My concern would be why a particular source book isn't used.  Not fitting the campaign theme is fine.  It uses a significantly different ruleset he doesn't like or want to bother with is fine.  Banning something because a player character can be "powerful" is not fine, because it is not a crime for a player character to be good at something.  "Powerful" doesn't mean I Win D&D.

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!

My rule is if I don't have it you don't have it.


Here's a copy of my character sheet with all of my capabilities conveniently summarized. Ta-dah!

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
Banning something because a player character can be "powerful" is not fine, because it is not a crime for a player character to be good at something.  "Powerful" doesn't mean I Win D&D.




One player being "powerful" in comparison to their opponents or the rest of their party can certainly mean that everyone else loses in D&D.  Frequently it turns in to a Monty Haul style escalation of a player cold war if the DM is permissive of this behavior.  If all the party joins in the munchkin fun, then the challenge and excitement of playing D&D also tends to wane as all of the "at level" encounters turn into cakewalks, and above level encounters turn into fuel for a rapidly advancing party level with even more disparity between the characters and the world in which they exist.

However, if you insist that "powerful" can't break a game, then I'll be perfectly glad to show up with my "meta" level 75 solo monsters to take on your level 10 party.  I'm planning to attend Gen Con this year, and we can meet up for a session if you like.  If you don't want to be on the "losing" side of that situation, then I will also gladly run my level 1 goblins against your level 30 characters.  My contention is that unbalanced character feats, powers, items, or levels certainly can adversely impact game play for all the participants.  Just because a player wants a "special item" does not mean the world or the DM is obliged to provide it.

Now if a player can have an out of game discussion to demonstrate how that "off spec" enhancement they want doesn't upset the balance of the game, and does improve the personality/color of the characterization in context of the game setting, then as a DM I'm very likely to say yes to it.  I do think it is the DMs job to make the game fun for all the participants, and as long as the requested addition doesn't interfere with that goal, then I'm usually ok with it.

If the player wanted to play a eight armed pink elephant with 30 strength and eight attacts per turn I would even let them do it, as long as it fit the campaign setting and didn't present a unbalanced advantage against the other player's ability to contribute.  They simply also have to expect that the foes they encounter will find nothing overly challenging about their abilities either.  I hope that elephantine player appreciates when they have to face that ninja mouse with 50 dexterity and 30 attacks per turn.

I hope this helps.

One player being "powerful" in comparison to their opponents or the rest of their party can certainly mean that everyone else loses in D&D.  Frequently it turns in to a Monty Haul style escalation of a player cold war if the DM is permissive of this behavior.  If all the party joins in the munchkin fun, then the challenge and excitement of playing D&D also tends to wane as all of the "at level" encounters turn into cakewalks, and above level encounters turn into fuel for a rapidly advancing party level with even more disparity between the characters and the world in which they exist.



I hope this helps.



Immediately you equate "powerful" to munchkin and Monty Hall.  You already lost the argument with me.  You auto-assume "powerful"  to wanting to play pink elephants with 30 strength.  Such ridiculousness as this is exactly why I have issues with a DM who bans a sourcebook because it makes a player character "powerful".  Such a DM auto-assumes the player wants to play Pun-Pun.  Such a DM hates his players.



Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!
Immediately you equate "powerful" to munchkin and Monty Hall.  You already lost the argument with me.  You auto-assume "powerful"  to wanting to play pink elephants with 30 strength.  Such ridiculousness as this is exactly why I have issues with a DM who bans a sourcebook because it makes a player character "powerful".  Such a DM auto-assumes the player wants to play Pun-Pun.  Such a DM hates his players.




It is interesting that you automatically assume that DMs who don't grant every player request must by default "hate his players".  It is an issue of perception.  The DM should look after the interests of the players, the game, and also the DM.  The player only usually looks after their own interests, and usually complains and fails to understand when the DM perceives a conflict between the interest of the individual and the interests of the group and the game.  A DM has only a couple of choices in this situation.  Go Monte Hall as more and more requests for "power" need to be statisfied to placate the players, or put a foot down when a player is seeking power for personal advantage over the other players or the environment. 

I've already pretty clearly stated that as a DM I'm fine with letting players by mutual consent with the group at large go "Super Sayan" but in return they are going to be fighting other "Super Sayan" style opponents.  I am not going to be handing out power-ups like candy without consequence.  If ridiculous levels of power are what all the players want then that is what they will face as well.

If players don't want to face playing the ridiculous, then they have to be prepared to hear "no" from the DM from time to time.  My advice is for them to grow up a little, and move on to select a different feat/power/item.  Don't come here to these forums complaining that DMs hate players.  If you think it is so easy then become that DM that only says "yes" to every player request and find out for yourself whether my predictions of Monte Hall or broken campaigns are accurate or bogus.

Personally I think having read some of your posts over time that you are a player who can only view DMs as an opponent to be defeated.  This may well be the case in your personal experience with DMs you've played against.  However, in my games I try to be a DM you play with instead of the opponent to the players.  In return for this, I expect the players to cooperate and play with me as well instead of against me.  Part of this is not having players come moan and whine while they use forums to prove my "unsuitability" as a DM based on not letting them do anything they can conceive they might possibly want. 

Personally as a player or a DM I try to be cooperative with everyone playing the game.  Part of that is just frankly speaking serving the needs of the whole.  When you as a player start thinking in those terms as well, then I believe you'll find I'm not so much out of line as you want to portray.

I hope this helps.
Immediately you equate "powerful" to munchkin and Monty Hall.  You already lost the argument with me.  You auto-assume "powerful"  to wanting to play pink elephants with 30 strength.  Such ridiculousness as this is exactly why I have issues with a DM who bans a sourcebook because it makes a player character "powerful".  Such a DM auto-assumes the player wants to play Pun-Pun.  Such a DM hates his players.




It is interesting that you automatically assume that DMs who don't grant every player request must by default "hate his players".   


He's not claiming that DM's who say no hate their players at all (Although I maintain that a good DM should have one of three answers to every question: Yes, and; Yes, but; and No, because). He's saying that DM's whose default mode is "You want to be good at what you do? **** that munchkin bullshit." do.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
He's not claiming that DM's who say no hate their players at all (Although I maintain that a good DM should have one of three answers to every question: Yes, and; Yes, but; and No, because). He's saying that DM's whose default mode is "You want to be good at what you do? **** that munchkin bullshit." do.



While I agree that I'm pushing the point to an extreme in terms of his reaction this is pretty much the same thing navar100 does in any reply he makes to another post he disagrees with.  I personally don't have any problem with a player pursuing a personality, or character image which makes them happy.  I will always say "yes" to anything I don't perceive as imbalancing the game for the players or the setting. 

I also don't have a problem with a player with a character being "good" at their thing.  I do start having a problem with any players who need to be better than anyone else in their group or the campaign world.  This is the very definition of munchkinism and seeking "powerful" as in more "powerful" than anyone else is a key indicator of that tendancy.  Muchkins by their very nature can't settle for being "as powerful", and will fight tooth and nail until they get their way otherwise.

If navar100 can't or won't see that distinction, then that is his issue not mine.  I'm not offended either way.  However, saying that any DM who doesn't grant player requests or who suspects any player of potential munchkinism is a DM who hates players is untrue as a general statement.  Having read several of his posts here over time I also maintain that his perception frequently relayed is that an antagonistic relationship between players and DMs is the default condition of a game.

It may well be that this is the case in games in which he has played.  It is not the case in the majority of games I have played in over 32 years.  I also reject the basis of his thesis that any DM who turns down a player request for an increase in power beyond what the DM finds fitting for their game is the result of a DM who hates players.  I don't doubt that some DMs hate players, just as some players hate DMs.  I just refuse as a player or DM to play with those kinds of people.

I hope this helps.


The DM is entitled to limit source books.  My concern would be why a particular source book isn't used.  Not fitting the campaign theme is fine.  It uses a significantly different ruleset he doesn't like or want to bother with is fine.  Banning something because a player character can be "powerful" is not fine, because it is not a crime for a player character to be good at something.  "Powerful" doesn't mean I Win D&D.




Remember, though, that "powerful" does NOT always stop at being "good at something."  There are quite a few players out there who will take powerful past being "good and stomething" and will not stop until they hit "Pun Pun." 

Also, the DM is responsible to trying to ensure that everyone at the table has fun, and a power player can easily unbalance a group and that can lead to a loss of enjoyment of the other players at the table.  If the DM sees that as being a distinct possibility then I see absolutely nothing wrong with the DM limiting material he things is or will be too powerful.
Gygaxian is NOT a slur. Those who use it as such should be punched in the face. Repeatedly.
The most likely reason I wouldn't allow something in the game would be due to the setting.  For instance if I had a campaign that used the basic fantasy races of human, elf and dwarf but a player wanted to play a dragon born I would tell them to think up a way for dragonborns to fit in.

As for the mehcanical aspect of the game I might let players use something that i'm not familiar with on the condition that if it turns out to be a broken power that is causing problems that I may make them retrain.   

If I had a player whose character was a rapier weilding swashbuckling rogue who immediately wanted to retrain to use heavy blades when that content came out I might make the player think up a good reason his character would switch to a completely different style.  

 
I have forbidden Essentials material and Hybrids - but I did it at the beginning of the campaign and was perfectly open to someone else DMing.

I see nothing wrong with forbidding as much, or little, as a DM wants - though, I think it's best to do so at the beginning of a campaign.
Some DMs ban material because they aren't comfortable with the book in question, sometimes having outright no idea how the rules work meaning which can cause all sort of headaches during gameplay. 
Its not the answer that matters, its the questions. This is the sarcasm point ---> {.) the period can be substituted for whatever punctuation mark is appropriate. Use it so show sarcasm in written text.
Have you folks ever had disagreements with your DM over what sources are allowed in the game?

I really like getting to see *everything* that is available to my character using the character builder. And, I tend to look at guides to get idea of what the better powers/feats/items/etc to help narrow down my choices.

But, outside the CB, my group doesn't have all these sources. And some of them (like Dragon Magazine) are considered to be "sketchy" by some.

I really don't want to be a power gamer... what are some reasons to not allow feats, powers and magic items from more obscure sources?



I think you answered your own question but might not have realized it.

If ALL of my players have all 3 Players Handbooks and a laptop running the CB, then sure use anything you want is cool with me.
If I show up for a game, and I have my one Players Handbook to go for the whole table of 4 players, then no, I am not letting anything not in that one book into the game.

My rule is if I don't have it you don't have it.


I do the same as DM, however I only use character builder as a suppliment for my players. They can use any of the books I have (not all of them can shell out the money for a PH anyway) but DMG material is usually strictly mine to use (mostly for building NPCs). I ask my players to provide paper sheets. Not only does it make sure only ONE laptop is on the field saving space, it saves us all the time of looking it up every darn time someone uses it (unless they want to take the time to write all the details down for their powers, which is something a lot of my players do on scrap paper as reference as opposed to thumbing through books all the time.)
Immediately you equate "powerful" to munchkin and Monty Hall.  You already lost the argument with me.  You auto-assume "powerful"  to wanting to play pink elephants with 30 strength.  Such ridiculousness as this is exactly why I have issues with a DM who bans a sourcebook because it makes a player character "powerful".  Such a DM auto-assumes the player wants to play Pun-Pun.  Such a DM hates his players.




It is interesting that you automatically assume that DMs who don't grant every player request must by default "hate his players".   


He's not claiming that DM's who say no hate their players at all (Although I maintain that a good DM should have one of three answers to every question: Yes, and; Yes, but; and No, because). He's saying that DM's whose default mode is "You want to be good at what you do? **** that munchkin bullshit." do.



Thank you!  Exactly!

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!

While I agree that I'm pushing the point to an extreme in terms of his reaction this is pretty much the same thing navar100 does in any reply he makes to another post he disagrees with.  I personally don't have any problem with a player pursuing a personality, or character image which makes them happy.  I will always say "yes" to anything I don't perceive as imbalancing the game for the players or the setting. 

I also don't have a problem with a player with a character being "good" at their thing.  I do start having a problem with any players who need to be better than anyone else in their group or the campaign world.  This is the very definition of munchkinism and seeking "powerful" as in more "powerful" than anyone else is a key indicator of that tendancy.  Muchkins by their very nature can't settle for being "as powerful", and will fight tooth and nail until they get their way otherwise.

If navar100 can't or won't see that distinction, then that is his issue not mine.  I'm not offended either way.  However, saying that any DM who doesn't grant player requests or who suspects any player of potential munchkinism is a DM who hates players is untrue as a general statement.  Having read several of his posts here over time I also maintain that his perception frequently relayed is that an antagonistic relationship between players and DMs is the default condition of a game.

It may well be that this is the case in games in which he has played.  It is not the case in the majority of games I have played in over 32 years.  I also reject the basis of his thesis that any DM who turns down a player request for an increase in power beyond what the DM finds fitting for their game is the result of a DM who hates players.  I don't doubt that some DMs hate players, just as some players hate DMs.  I just refuse as a player or DM to play with those kinds of people.

I hope this helps.



I never claimed a player should be allowed to be better than everyone else regardless of their or DM's feelings.  You said that.  You're the one who brought up pink elephants with 30 strength.  You're the one who said I said a player wanting to use a sourcebook the DM doesn't does so as a desire to be more powerful than everyone else.

You started off with the extreme of a player wanting to exploit loopholes and the desire to be special and different from other players.  My initial response was stating that a player's desire to use a sourcebook may have nothing to do with ultimate power at all.  He may just want a feat or two for his human paladin or a particular spell fits his sorcerer's theme list.  The player doesn't want to be special and different; he may just like an interesting feat or spell.

Then I talked specifically about my concern for a DM not using a sourcebook.   Doesn't fit camapgin theme? Fine.  Has a significantly different ruleset don't like or want to bother with? Fine.  Only because a character could be powerful?  Not fine.  Powerful is not meaning I Win D&D, just really good at something.  

That  is when you chime in about playing multi-armed pink elephants with 30 strength.   You go right back to the extreme position that a player wanting to use a sourcebook auto-assumes he's wants to win D&D by wanting to play the biggest, baddest character of them all.  When you assume the worst of a player, that is a DM hating his players.




Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!


The DM is entitled to limit source books.  My concern would be why a particular source book isn't used.  Not fitting the campaign theme is fine.  It uses a significantly different ruleset he doesn't like or want to bother with is fine.  Banning something because a player character can be "powerful" is not fine, because it is not a crime for a player character to be good at something.  "Powerful" doesn't mean I Win D&D.




Remember, though, that "powerful" does NOT always stop at being "good at something."  There are quite a few players out there who will take powerful past being "good and stomething" and will not stop until they hit "Pun Pun." 

Also, the DM is responsible to trying to ensure that everyone at the table has fun, and a power player can easily unbalance a group and that can lead to a loss of enjoyment of the other players at the table.  If the DM sees that as being a distinct possibility then I see absolutely nothing wrong with the DM limiting material he things is or will be too powerful.



True.  The player has his own responsibilities: not create a character that wins D&D, not create a character that can't function as an adventurer, and not create a character that clashes in personality (i.e. no pirate ninja evil mcnasty when the game is about the holy order of saintly philanthropists).

There is that fine line between powerful and too powerful, but I do object to DMs drawing the line at being powerful at all.  The inherent problem is people have different tolerance levels for power.

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!
There is that fine line between powerful and too powerful, but I do object to DMs drawing the line at being powerful at all.  The inherent problem is people have different tolerance levels for power.



This is so very true.

When I first started running games in 4e, I didn't allow stuff from Dragon Magazine. My reason for this was mostly unfamiliarity with it, but also because I assumed much if it was broken (or potentially broken). By the time my second or third game rolled around, I began to realize...that there just isn't a whole lot 'broken' in 4e, comparatively. It's very balanced, Dragon Magazine options included. So now I allow just about everything, save for a few setting-based restrictions when needed.
- - -

Somewhat related to the topic at hand, I'm running a 3.5 game set in Oz. Before I go any further, I should explain that Oz has a very delicate plane balance - mostly between the "modern" world and the land of Oz, but I've incorporated a number of other planes closely connected to Oz for this game.

One of my players wanted to play a Janni. After looking at the details of the race, I told him. "Hmm. No. This is far too powerful for this level. Maybe we can weaken it somehow, if your deadset on playing one, but for now I'm going to say no. Especially with that planeshift ability..."

So he found the Savage Species progression. I looked at that option, and I said, "Well this could work, but I'm going to take away your planeshift ability. It's potentially gamebreaking in this setting. We can replace it with something else."

"Well I don't want to play a Janni, then.

And it was at that point I knew the main reason he wanted to play one was to screw with the game. This is one of the instances where I could visibly see the "line between powerful and too powerful."

- - -
Normally I only "ban" something for an particulair reason depending on setting. But since lately I've actually placed one WoTC production on a perm-ban list in my games. The Essentials. Everything related to Essentials is banned. Why? Because it is awfull.
I never claimed a player should be allowed to be better than everyone else regardless of their or DM's feelings.  You said that.  You're the one who brought up pink elephants with 30 strength.  You're the one who said I said a player wanting to use a sourcebook the DM doesn't does so as a desire to be more powerful than everyone else.

You started off with the extreme of a player wanting to exploit loopholes and the desire to be special and different from other players.  My initial response was stating that a player's desire to use a sourcebook may have nothing to do with ultimate power at all.  He may just want a feat or two for his human paladin or a particular spell fits his sorcerer's theme list.  The player doesn't want to be special and different; he may just like an interesting feat or spell.

Then I talked specifically about my concern for a DM not using a sourcebook.   Doesn't fit camapgin theme? Fine.  Has a significantly different ruleset don't like or want to bother with? Fine.  Only because a character could be powerful?  Not fine.  Powerful is not meaning I Win D&D, just really good at something.  

That  is when you chime in about playing multi-armed pink elephants with 30 strength.   You go right back to the extreme position that a player wanting to use a sourcebook auto-assumes he's wants to win D&D by wanting to play the biggest, baddest character of them all.  When you assume the worst of a player, that is a DM hating his players.




I also clearly said that as a DM my answers are never "no" unless in my analysis that player is looking for "more powerful than everyone else".  Yet here you are claiming that DMs who say no to "changes" to established rule baselines for power must hate players.  I'm simply stating my case, but you are not willing to agree on that point.  Fine enough we disagree, and likely always will disagree where to draw the line exactly on this issue.  I do think that when I put the extreme example out there that we can both agree it is theorectically possible for a player to go to far.  Just how far is too far is where we likely differ.  That and your contention that a less permissive DM must by default "hate the players". 

I don't asume the worst when I make my analysis, but I do presume the potential for a best case and worst case scenario.  In a best case scenario allowing something enhances the game for all the players, and in a worst case scenario allowing something breaks the game and causes it to disolve.  Only assuming one condition or another is a mistake I don't make.  I look at the likelyhood of where a change will take the game before I make that decision. 

Automatically presuming "hateful DMs" is just as bad as automatically presuming "munchkin players".  In either case a DM or a player should let actual gameplay determine the circumstance involved.  If they DM and player game style is not compatible, then for the good of the game and group they should not keep playing together.

Also why do you presume that the player with an eight armed pink elephant with 30 strength can't be playable in a game?  While it certainly wouldn't fit in a typical game setting, as a DM I could certainly invent a setting where it would blend in without much exceptional notice or overpowering the environment.  Your lack of understanding on that point can hopefully be corrected.  What is one person's ridiculous can certainly be another group's acceptable oddity. 

The point I'm making is the group and the needs of the game will often dictate where that line of acceptable "changes" can be drawn.  Sitting on the outside of a game without being able to look in except from the perspective of a player who feels wronged doesn't give us a complete picture of what happened in the OPs case.  Yet several people are quick to say, "Gee, that would be just fine in my game, so your DM is a jerk."  They say this without understanding the game at hand, or the limitations the DM is facing.

It may be quite possible that this player is not a power seeking munchkin, but that another player in the group has that potential.  This DM might be aware that opening the door for "changes" in the established campaign will give that other known munchkin the gap they need to ruin it.  So the DM has established the default ruleset up front, and is holding the line on what is allowed to keep the issue from opening at all. 

Yet time and again navar100 jumps to the "evil DM" assumption with only a single perspective at hand.  If may well be true the OP has an "evil DM".  The only sensible advice to give in that case is do not play with them.  The same might also be said of munchkin players, or players who automatically presume DMs are all out to ruin their day.

The advice I would give this OP has always been discuss it with the DM, and decide if this level of customization is worth quitting the game because they really think the DM is being evil about not allowing it.  The OP can qq here all day long.  However, at the end of the day they are the one in the situation who has to decide if this game is worth their time, and/or if character feat/power/item choice is worth quitting over. 

Coming here to "badmouth" their DM over an unpopular choice isn't solving anything beyond allowing the player to vent.  However, it is also potentially generating bad blood within their game when people like navar100 say, "look it must be another DM who hates players."

It's pretty convienent that navar100 has figured out how to read into the heart of another human being based on whether they allow Dragon Magazine based character modifications.  I don't presonally have that skill, and I really suspect it doesn't exist except for navar100's preconception that DMs are potentially evil.

I hope this helps.
There is that fine line between powerful and too powerful, but I do object to DMs drawing the line at being powerful at all.  The inherent problem is people have different tolerance levels for power.



This is so very true.

When I first started running games in 4e, I didn't allow stuff from Dragon Magazine. My reason for this was mostly unfamiliarity with it, but also because I assumed much if it was broken (or potentially broken). By the time my second or third game rolled around, I began to realize...that there just isn't a whole lot 'broken' in 4e, comparatively. It's very balanced, Dragon Magazine options included. So now I allow just about everything, save for a few setting-based restrictions when needed.
- - -

Somewhat related to the topic at hand, I'm running a 3.5 game set in Oz. Before I go any further, I should explain that Oz has a very delicate plane balance - mostly between the "modern" world and the land of Oz, but I've incorporated a number of other planes closely connected to Oz for this game.

One of my players wanted to play a Janni. After looking at the details of the race, I told him. "Hmm. No. This is far too powerful for this level. Maybe we can weaken it somehow, if your deadset on playing one, but for now I'm going to say no. Especially with that planeshift ability..."

So he found the Savage Species progression. I looked at that option, and I said, "Well this could work, but I'm going to take away your planeshift ability. It's potentially gamebreaking in this setting. We can replace it with something else."

"Well I don't want to play a Janni, then.

And it was at that point I knew the main reason he wanted to play one was to screw with the game. This is one of the instances where I could visibly see the "line between powerful and too powerful."

- - -



Sign me up for this view point.  I did the same thing regarding Dragon Mag.

And you did the perfect thing with the player who wanted a Janni.  The best way to deal with Troublemaker players isn't to say no, but instead to offer alternatives.  You will quickly find out, as Miarra did, that the player only wants the option because they know it will cause trouble.

Ultimately, my stance on banning is this: there is nothing wrong with banning anything as long as your Players don't mind.  You can always work together to find creative solutions (like replacing a problematic power with something else).  Fair minded Players will always be willing to compromise if you (as the DM) are likewise willing to give and take.  So I don't even have an issue with Falstyr's blatant injection of Essentials disgust that added nothing to this thread other than reminding us that he dislikes everything even remotely connected to Essentials.  I'm not going to try to argue, "Thats silly!  You shouldn't ban it! I like it..." etc, because there is no point.  I'm going to assume that Falstyr's friends share his dislike of Essentials, so having a non-Essentials game is perfect for them.

As a Player, the key is to have a discussion with your DM.  Find out why they are banning stuff, and press for actual reasons beyond, "Its stupid".  You can always counter with, "But I like it, doesn't that matter?"  There are always compromises.  Say you want to be a Drow, but the DM wasn't planning on allowing them.  He explains how he wants them to be very evil, and so no one would ever trust the character.  He would effectively be treated as a monster, never allowed into towns, attacked on sight, etc.  As the Player, you might suggest simply using the stats and powers of a Drow, but visually you would be an Eladrin.  They both count as Fey, have the same Trance power, and similar stat bonuses.  The Drow also has magical innate powers, like the Eladrin's teleport.  The DM might then say, "Well...that would be fine, but I wouldn't want you using the Darkness power, as that is what the Drow are most known for."  You would then take Darkfire, and you would both be happy.  Compromise.


When I first started running games in 4e, I didn't allow stuff from Dragon Magazine. My reason for this was mostly unfamiliarity with it, but also because I assumed much if it was broken (or potentially broken). By the time my second or third game rolled around, I began to realize...that there just isn't a whole lot 'broken' in 4e, comparatively. It's very balanced, Dragon Magazine options included. So now I allow just about everything, save for a few setting-based restrictions when needed.
- - -



Not being familiar with the material is fine too.  If the DM doesn't know how it works, he can't adjucate it.  My preference is for the DM to let the player teach him the material and/or let the DM study it for himself and then decide, but the DM already has a lot to do creating the adventures, so it's understandable not wanting to spend time and energy learning something new.  Perhaps next campaign when he can look over the material at his leisure in the meantime.

Somewhat related to the topic at hand, I'm running a 3.5 game set in Oz. Before I go any further, I should explain that Oz has a very delicate plane balance - mostly between the "modern" world and the land of Oz, but I've incorporated a number of other planes closely connected to Oz for this game.



Interesting!

One of my players wanted to play a Janni. After looking at the details of the race, I told him. "Hmm. No. This is far too powerful for this level. Maybe we can weaken it somehow, if your deadset on playing one, but for now I'm going to say no. Especially with that planeshift ability..."



Fair enough.


So he found the Savage Species progression. I looked at that option, and I said, "Well this could work, but I'm going to take away your planeshift ability. It's potentially gamebreaking in this setting. We can replace it with something else."



Perfect compromise.


"Well I don't want to play a Janni, then.

And it was at that point I knew the main reason he wanted to play one was to screw with the game. This is one of the instances where I could visibly see the "line between powerful and too powerful."

- - -



True.  The player was now being unreasonable.   You were right to say no at first because the power level of the proposed race was too high for the starting game.  The player counter-offered a way to play the race that fits in with the power level.  You liked the system as it fits with the power level and agreed to the player's request, albeit with a change since that one thing is still too powerful for the starting game.  You offered to let the player have something else nifty in exchange.  Then the player blew it.  He showed he really was interested in being better than everyone else.  He wasn't willing to accept the idea you were willing to meet him half-way even though you were agreeing to his request despite your initial refusal.

Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!