D&D 5E I don’t really care what rules the players use.

[TiQuinn]

I guess I should include a caveat: there are specific individual players I know who I would scrutinize if they brought in some random BS. These are mostly the guys I play D&D with that love Magic and treat D&D like that. That kind of power gaming just isn't fun for me.

Unfortunately I’ve been at tables where if it weren’t for a single set of rules and a DM who was determined to keep options limited to a few sources, this would’ve been disastrous as some players really lean into the power gaming to a degree that I would’ve found distracting.

 

[Reynard]

OK so your type of game rewards high system-mastery. If player 1 knows that there's a fireball spell that does 2d6 more damage than another fireball, but player 2 brings in the lower damage fireball, I assume you'd allow player 2 to switch to the higher damage fireball.
If player 3 takes two feats from two different books that let them take up to a -10 penalty to hit, but add up to +20 to damage with each attack, and they have features that let them roll 3 dice and take the highest to hit- no issue? Or are these the instances where you'll start scrutinizing, the people that have high system mastery?

Edit: This isn't a combative question btw, I just try to understand tables how "anything goes" with dozens of books/sources work without the GM bogging down combat by having to throw more and more difficult/complex monsters to handle their power- and then there are the other players at the table that aren't looking for the best options and just pick "whatever," who are getting toasted by the higher difficulty enemies being brought to bear vs. the powerful characters.

I expect the players to work together. There would be 1 fireball spell, and the players would decide which one to use. But in a practical sense, that is very likely 1 player deciding because only 1 player is going to have access to it.

 

[Reynard]

Unfortunately I’ve been at tables where if it weren’t for a single set of rules and a DM who was determined to keep options limited to a few sources, this would’ve been disastrous as some players really lean into the power gaming to a degree that I would’ve found distracting.

Uninvite those players if they won't create characters in good faith.

Note also that I don't think power differences between characters are a huge problem, and if the players are okay with it, so am I. And I know power gamers that use their powers for good, and that's fine too.

It is D&D, and I am the GM. There is nothing a player can choose or do that is going to make it impossible for me to do my job.

 

[MGibster]

I haven't allowed third party D&D products to be used in my games since....pretty much forever. And when I run games, I tend to use the latest rules. If I pick up the next edition version of D&D, I'll expect everyone to use those rules when creating characters and selecting spells, feats, or equipment.

 

[TiQuinn]

Uninvite those players if they won't create characters in good faith.

Note also that I don't think power differences between characters are a huge problem, and if the players are okay with it, so am I. And I know power gamers that use their powers for good, and that's fine too.

It is D&D, and I am the GM. There is nothing a player can choose or do that is going to make it impossible for me to do my job.

It's not a good or bad faith thing, sometimes it's just a difference in play styles, and more often than not one side or the other will "cash in their chips" and leave the table (in our group's experience). That's not ideal, though, and if it can be avoided, that's for the better. Finally, I've seen good DMs burnt out trying to create viable encounters for games with too many options in complicated systems. It's not always a question of whether it's impossible to do one's job but whether that is actually fun for them.

Point is, so much of what you are saying is highly dependent on the DM's skill, free time, enthusiasm, and the personalities at the table (not necessarily a judgment on those personalities either.)

 

[TiQuinn]

Another downside to this approach - this rewards players who have the time and money to seek out alternative material versus everyone working off the same material.

 

[Reynard]

It's not a good or bad faith thing, sometimes it's just a difference in play styles, and more often than not one side or the other will "cash in their chips" and leave the table (in our group's experience). That's not ideal, though, and if it can be avoided, that's for the better. Finally, I've seen good DMs burnt out trying to create viable encounters for games with too many options in complicated systems. It's not always a question of whether it's impossible to do one's job but whether that is actually fun for them.

Point is, so much of what you are saying is highly dependent on the DM's skill, free time, enthusiasm, and the personalities at the table (not necessarily a judgment on those personalities either.)

Another downside to this approach - this rewards players who have the time and money to seek out alternative material versus everyone working off the same material.

To be clear, I don't mean this thread to be advice. I'm just talking about how I feel about this particular subject: in the context of the 5E variants out there, and more broadly 3PP material, I, as the kind of GM I am, do not care what the players decide to play.

I used to. I used to agonize over balance. Then, one day, I realized it doesn't matter. Most of the time I am building factions, enemies and encounters that make sense in the fiction, so who and what the PCs are is irrelevant to that. Other times, I am building encounters keyed to the PCs, which means I care about what they can do, but not where it came from.

I don't want to make it sound like I have no problem with completely broken character builds. Rather, that's a problem that can happen in limited,official only campaigns because, frankly, 5E isn't particularly well balanced to begin with and just in the PHB there are tons of broken build options. Again, if a player wants to break the game, THAT is the problem.

 

[TiQuinn]

To be clear, I don't mean this thread to be advice. I'm just talking about how I feel about this particular subject: in the context of the 5E variants out there, and more broadly 3PP material, I, as the kind of GM I am, do not care what the players decide to play.

I used to. I used to agonize over balance. Then, one day, I realized it doesn't matter. Most of the time I am building factions, enemies and encounters that make sense in the fiction, so who and what the PCs are is irrelevant to that. Other times, I am building encounters keyed to the PCs, which means I care about what they can do, but not where it came from.

I don't want to make it sound like I have no problem with completely broken character builds. Rather, that's a problem that can happen in limited,official only campaigns because, frankly, 5E isn't particularly well balanced to begin with and just in the PHB there are tons of broken build options. Again, if a player wants to break the game, THAT is the problem.

And I don't want to belabor the point I was making, and turn this into a thread crap either. Just giving a different perspective based on the groups I've played with.

 

[overgeeked]

It's not a good or bad faith thing

If the referee asks you not to power game and you do anyway, that’s making a character in bad faith.

 

[Shardstone]

It occurred to me as I was trying to formulate a response to another thread that I, as GM, don't actually care which PHB -- or combination of PHBs -- my players care to use. Or PC facing supplements for that matter.

If I run 5E, I am going to use a combination of rules from the various forms of 5E,plus some stuff from other games,plus some house rules,plus just making stuff up as I go.

So, honestly, if they like 2024 monk or A5E fighter or ToV Warlock best? Whatever. The only thing that would make me care is if one of those things required a game wide rule implementation,which then I would have to actually consider.

This is the way. Yes, Reynard, embrace the power that is the vast toolkit being brought before us. These game companies, these publishers, they give us tools hand over foot. 10 how to build a dungeon books, 30 wilderness systems, thousands of Ranger classes. It may sound like I'm being tongue in cheek, but I'm serious,