(Rant) Why do Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 GMs insist on playing Core-only?

Something that has begun to become a recurring theme here is the fact that I see multiple games where players and GMs insist on Core-only campaigns or events.  Why? I understand maybe to make things simpler and keep track of things is easier, but aren't expansion books supposed to introduce more flavoring, challenges, and add interesting options to the game?  I've never met a person who just eats just a cheeseburger every day, because people wish for something more on the menu. Does it add an interesting challenge for the players to come up with good builds?  Perhaps (I'm an optimizer myself).  But then again, isn't tabletop gaming about more having fun and be who you want to be instead of having to pigeonhole your character concepts because the DM is either too afraid to keep track of everything, they think players will take advantage of them, or some other reason? A good DM (the ones I have mostly enjoyed and have great success) is able to work with players, saying yay or nay and dictating the house rules... but gives full range of options to choose from.  And if there is a problem... well he is  'god', so final ruling goes to him.  Challenge is to have the players abide by your rules, give them freedom, and not seem like a jerk.

I've had some GMs that prefer allowing only books they have physical copies of because a physical copy is easier to refer to than a pdf or website. It also does keep it simpler, and doesn't give those min-maxers as much material to exploit. Personally, I much prefer playing classes straight in Pathfinder because they have a stable progression and something at the end to make you want to get to it. (most classes having a level 20 ability) I am opportunistic in choosing what seem to be good feats and traits across a wide selection, but a lot of that is opportunistic for the character storywise instead of build-wise

It is total up to each GM to use what he or she is comfortable with. Those expansion books you sing praise of might contain that they do not wish to use / bother with / have no use for so they just flat out say no to them and stay with the core rules. I would rather have a GM that is comfortable with what he wants in his game then have one that is badgered and bullied by a player that rants about not being allowed to play whatever he or she wants just because it is in print and caves in to that pressure just to make that poor player happy.  Sorry that you feel that all GM's must make their games revolve around your wants and ignore their need to find fun but that will not usually happen. Some GM's are comfortable with using all the books or even some of the books but not all GM's are like that and to demand that they do so is a immature action. I'm glad you find GM's that run the games you like but please don't expect every gm to run a game to your specifications. If you want that then run the games yourself and have fun.

*Mod hat on* Moved to Off-topic. A warning, if this thread becomes uncivil I will close it. Tread lightly.  *Mod hat off* Personally, I find it amusing when a GM bans the expansion books. One of my most devastating builds is CRB only. I need the expansions to reduce the power level of my PCs in favor of more diversity. However, I also understand the problem of certain combinations and builds from the later books. How I deal with it is I say no to specific builds while still allowing the majority of the book. A GM not familiar with the ramifications of those later books etc may well have a bad impression of the book as a whole. - Gauss

Personally I tend to start out as Core only (or custom list of available classes/races) and then let the players gain access to more things as they go. Where they begin has nothing to do with where they end. I am doing this in a Mage: the Awakening game at the moment. Only the base books to begin with (WoD: Core and MtA: Core) but obviously they will, sooner or later, discover some secrets, pieces of lore, ancient artifacts or inscrutable beings that will move them into the territory covered by other supplements.

Is the problem that suppliment books lead to powerful PCs? I don't know what the problem is.  Play the character you want to play.  I prefer my players coming out as victorious heroes-- if they are overpowered, I'll ramp up the encounters a bit. But I actually prefer them kicking ass through my adventures. I've personally never understood the DM vs Players mentality.  I want the players to complete the adventure with their beloved characters. My rule zero: Awesome always trumps rules as written.  ALWAYS. Players: Play awesome. DMs: Let  your players play awesome. EDIT: I think I lost sight of the whole suppliments vs core thing... but... no... no I didn't.  I just injected a little rant. :P

Personally, your safer and more in control if your using say the Core materials. For me typically, I see mostly fixating on a certain element like Pathfinder most often you see "Paizo only" for games. The issue comes for me with balance, and not knowing how some third parties are this balance can easily be disrupted. Often you CAN fit in like special races or what not unless your world is fully mapped up. Even with that though, there is Paizo stuff that can be considered quite game breaking. To me being overly powerful, specially compared to allies drags the game down. For me it would make me try to counter them, like a gunslinger might actually have a harder time with guns having them break instantly on ones and making repairing them or other details harder to counter the fact they are quite strong early, though lowering the price perhaps of ammo and making higher level play have some little boosts to it. It can involve banning certain particular parts or limiting components, like maybe making a summoner Eidolon limited in some way. or other elements to limit strength. For me, third party or 'non-core' stuff would mostly need to be 'case by case' since really it can infringe on the story or the aspect of balance. I'd have no problem having it pitched, but it doesn't necessarily mean I would accept it. I'm a more mathmatically attuned mind so for me, I just need that sense of balance and having things stand on more even ground.

One thing that should be considered, what defines 'core'? In Pathfinder Core has two definitions. Many people consider core to mean 'Core Rulebook' while the Paizo staff often reference the main hardbacks (CRB, APG, UC, and UM) as 'core'. When you reference core (for yourself) you might want to define it.  - Gauss

I think some of it comes from people reading the Paizo forum or another RPG one, and see stuff like "Summoners are OP!!", "Gunslingers do 30000 damage per shot at level 1" or "The Ninja is too asian!" and then decide to simply not bother with it and ban the books outright. Others might actually have had some bad experiences in the past. Maybe they saw some build in another game that completely broke it, that utilized synergy between feats from 3 different books to become a murder machine or so, and want to prevent that. I find it more easy to say "Paizo stuff, usually yes, 3rd party on case by case basis, I might veto anything that seems too weird"

See everyone has an opinion on what they feel comfortable with. That is why each game master will allow or disallow things be it specific book, specific pieces of the book, etc... It is up to the GM not the player to decide what is allowed and not allowed. The OP appears to have gotten upset from being told he was not allow to use books that he felt he should be allowed to be use but the GM might have felt that for his game only the core rules were needed (for now or maybe permanently). Each basis of a game reflects what the gm sees for the game and while it is true that the pc's get to alter that world, it is still boils down to what is the GM is comfortable with, not what the player feels what they think should be in the game. I'm not saying that the OP was wrong in posting his view but his tone is what pushed my buttons late last night and for that I do apologize for how I worded my view.

Character optimization (the chief reason I see certain materials "banned" from games) only really affects certain aspects of the game. If a GM's game is heavily-focused on those aspects, then optimization will affect that game more. I personally think it's easier to change my game so that optimization doesn't have such an impact rather than limit the players who tend to be desirous of additional options. As a result, highly optimized characters can function right alongside less optimized characters with no problems. Games like D&D and Pathfinder incentivize optimization because of the default failure modes (death or boredom in the form of "I miss so nothing happens"). You're swimming against the current if you try to limit players from mitigating that. You might as well say, "Stop trying to avoid death or boredom." The only possible reason I'd ever limit anything is for thematic constraint ("We're playing Dark Sun...") and even then I'd ask for the players' buy-in on that before unilaterally making that decision for them. 

Actually Metroknight, I wasn't upset at anything nor not allowed to play anything I want (I personally like playing rangers).  I was just asking why is it that GMs do so.  I understand that people have their comfort zones, but shouldn't GMs also be open to exploring new ideas and becoming more creative in their process?  I feel that is the only way a GM can mature and be more well-rounded. Also, I don't make apologies for my tone.  Though it wasn't meant to be hostile, I can see now how I probably could have worded it differently.  Still, I'm not politically correct, so I'm not going to make it so by sugar-coating it.  I'm entitled to my opinion and say it how it is. Still, I agree with everyone's opinions.  It just has come to my attention it seems to be a recurring trend, and I wish that GMs would be more open to some variations, possibly down the road when campaigning. So what if the PCs are over-powered?   Amp up the challenges and throw more high-level stuff at them, or hordes at them .  If the GM fails to see this, then the GM has failed to equalize the playing field. The GM as stated is merely the omniscient storyteller deciding the progression by luck; that is just at the basest definition.  They are meant to entertain the players, not rule them.  It's about having fun, not a contest of wits and tricked out builds and encounters between the GM and players. Still, that is just my opinion.  Agree, disagree, I couldn't take one side or another.  I reiterate that tabletop gaming is about having fun and creative freedom, and I feel if people continue on that path they are squandering that.  Whether one decides to use books or not is not about what's broken and what's not, it's about the players not being abusive and the GM tailoring to the party's wants, not vice-versa. Simply put, it's just a... roll of the dice.

As a long-time GM, I am with Metroknight on this one. The GM is entitled to have fun too, and that includes running his game how he sees fit. After all, he's the one that's doing all the prep work outside of actual game time. It is the GMs job to state up-front exactly what kind of game he's going to run, what he will allow and not allow, and so on. It is the potential player's job to consider that and then decide if he can play within those boundaries. If the answer is yes, then great. If the answer is no, then move along. But what a player should not do is initially agree to the GM's conditions, then start pestering him to change his campaign to suit what the player really wants to do. You can always ask about something, but if the GM says no then drop it. The OP says that GMs should be open to exploring new ideas. Ok, fair enough, and I agree. But that's a two-way street. How about also asking the players to come out of  their  comfort zone and playing something other than their favorite character type every time?  I suspect they would find it's actually a lot of fun to try something new.

Adoven L. said: Actually Metroknight, I wasn't upset at anything nor not allowed to play anything I want (I personally like playing rangers).  I was just asking why is it that GMs do so.  I understand that people have their comfort zones, but shouldn't GMs also be open to exploring new ideas and becoming more creative in their process?  I feel that is the only way a GM can mature and be more well-rounded. Also, I don't make apologies for my tone.  Though it wasn't meant to be hostile, I can see now how I probably could have worded it differently.  Still, I'm not politically correct, so I'm not going to make it so by sugar-coating it.  I'm entitled to my opinion and say it how it is. Still, I agree with everyone's opinions.  It just has come to my attention it seems to be a recurring trend, and I wish that GMs would be more open to some variations, possibly down the road when campaigning. So what if the PCs are over-powered?   Amp up the challenges and throw more high-level stuff at them, or hordes at them .  If the GM fails to see this, then the GM has failed to equalize the playing field. The GM as stated is merely the omniscient storyteller deciding the progression by luck; that is just at the basest definition.  They are meant to entertain the players, not rule them.  It's about having fun, not a contest of wits and tricked out builds and encounters between the GM and players. Still, that is just my opinion.  Agree, disagree, I couldn't take one side or another.  I reiterate that tabletop gaming is about having fun and creative freedom, and I feel if people continue on that path they are squandering that.  Whether one decides to use books or not is not about what's broken and what's not, it's about the players not being abusive and the GM tailoring to the party's wants, not vice-versa. Simply put, it's just a... roll of the dice. Having played and DMed in 3.X for about 8 years before moving on to 4e at launch, I can understand how some of those builds can get completely out of hand. But again, they only get out of hand in some games - games where the DM is presenting content that is heavily affected by the optimization of the PCs. Unfortunately, those games are quite common and so you're probably seeing that reflected here on the forums. Oddly enough, I see a lot of restrictions on 4e books and options too which makes even less sense considering that 4e has baked character parity into the design of the game with monsters that scale accordingly (especially post-MM3). Optimization is a solution to a design problem created by D&D and games like or based on D&D. It's not a fault of the player for doing what the game incentivizes people to do. It is the fault of a player to go against the expectations of a particular game he agreed to play, however. Nevertheless, I think we'd see a vast improvement in the quality of games if DMs understood where optimization comes from and altered their game accordingly. A DM that understands the "why" of these things can use it to make much more robust gaming experiences. Oh, and wizard and druid are part of the Core, right? That's already about as powerful as it gets in that edition!

Gauss said: One thing that should be considered, what defines 'core'? In Pathfinder Core has two definitions. Many people consider core to mean 'Core Rulebook' while the Paizo staff often reference the main hardbacks (CRB, APG, UC, and UM) as 'core'. When you reference core (for yourself) you might want to define it.  - Gauss Specifically everything that is supplemental and not part of the original release (i.e. Rulebook, GMs Guide, and Beastiary). I just think GMs shouldn't make that decision for players without asking them first.  Unilateral decisions seems a bit unfair. I agree with the previous two statements,  but just some things to point out: 1. It is  a two-way street, I agree.  But if it isn't brought up, then how can a GM get an accurate reading of what players want and vice-versa? Whenever it is, most seem to get hostile and offended, as if one was criticizing.  I don't believe a GM should act in such a fashion. 2.  Pestering is a no-no, personally hate that (as a GM and player). But it has been on both sides too, where GMs push their ideas to overrule player's decisions, even if it follows their pre-established house rules.  I've seen many a time (for example) where a player rolled well, and a GM overrules it because it wasn't 'going their way'.   That  is abusive GMing.  Don't get me wrong, I understand GMs have the final say, but if they do it in an unfair manner I don't believe that is a good GM. 3. Optimization should be understood by all  GMs.  No excuse for that. Heh wizards and druids are pretty great.  I myself am playing a Ftr/Wiz/EK in a campaign at home.  Still, even including additional feats/spells/equipment is a bonus.  Ban specific classes and spells/feats/abilities instead of entire books.  GMs should fully  do their research and decide "Huh, well that feat isn't at all that powerful, maybe I'll allow it in".  Simple things like that are great enough to get a game rolling! :P

I never said you were upset just that the way you worded your post made the appearance of it. Someone up in the thread stated something that probably more GM's do then anyone knows. They start out with core only and in game they expand the books so the pc will be allowed to grow into something as it gains experience. I understand and agree about GM's growing and becoming more well-rounded but that takes time.  I never asked for apology for your tone. I just stated how I read it. As a mature well rounded GM that chooses to limit his players to specific rules and not allow everything under the sun, I did get upset with what you wrote and how you worded. I was also tired and wrote in a fit of anger, that is why I apologized. Never expected or asked you to do so. As you said everyone has an opinion and everyone gets to express it however they wish to just don't be surprised if someone gives their opinion against your view and doesn't sugar coat it either. Adoven L.  said: So what if the PCs are over-powered?  Amp up the challenges and throw more high-level stuff at them, or hordes at them.  If the GM fails to see this, then the GM has failed to equalize the playing field. I think this is the crux of why there are a lot of restricted games. Some GM's don't understand how the interaction of the supplemental book with core rules change the power level of the said game and they had previous games fail because of this. They are then afraid of their new game failing so till they can read, study, work with, experiment on, they ban various books. You asked a why question and you received many different answers so have a nice day.

Metroknight said: You asked a why question and you received many different answers so have a nice day. Wasn't needing a sarcastic reply either, but hey it's all good. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why GMs do the things they do, wasn't wishing to disprove anyone else.  Playing devil's advocate gets people on their bad side I guess. Anyways, thank you all for sharing your opinions.  There were a few comments present that I agreed/disagreed about (no biggie) and some reasoning I hadn't thought of, and for that, I am better enlightened. Again thanks people, happy gaming!

@Adoven L.: In my experience both in play and on the forums, it's a rare GM that ever really questions why he or she does things the way they do, even if what they do is objectively pointless and frustrating to others or damaging to their own game. And change? Forget about it. They vaguely heard something about "min/maxing" back in the 80s or had a player actually play effectively, ruin their plot, and they couldn't handle it, so books get banned. Whenever I've asked about why things are banned, I've never actually gotten a logical, reasonable answer. It's all highly knee-jerk which tells me it's a defense mechanism. Defensive GMing is the worst possible way to GM in my opinion. Of course, these are just things I've personally seen, not a generalization of all GMs.

Iserith said: @Adoven L.: In my experience both in play and on the forums, it's a rare GM that ever really questions why he or she does things the way they do, even if what they do is objectively pointless and frustrating to others or damaging to their own game. And change? Forget about it. They vaguely heard something about "min/maxing" back in the 80s or had a player actually play effectively, ruin their plot, and they couldn't handle it, so books get banned. Whenever I've asked about why things are banned, I've never actually gotten a logical, reasonable answer. It's all highly knee-jerk which tells me it's a defense mechanism. Defensive GMing is the worst possible way to GM in my opinion. Of course, these are just things I've personally seen, not a generalization of all GMs. Exactly my point.

As someone that's (mostly) sticking to core rulebooks for a Pathfinder game, my reason's a lot simpler than balance or munchkinry.  I have limited time and experience to split between six players, many of whom need help (re)learning the system themselves.  I just don't want to dick with it.  It's a extra time I have to spend not helping other players or getting the campaign ready, and I expect people to respect the fact that I don't have unlimited time with which to decipher their new class, feats, and spells. I don't want one of my player to roll up something like a dragonrider just to be forced to part with him down the line because other players can't stand him.  I don't want to realize partway through that his large golden dragon mount can't fit through doors and thus he's utterly useless where it counts.  I don't want drama or excessive rules lawyering or accusations flying across my table.  I want everyone to play the game and have fun, and if I don't have the time to make sure a class works towards that goal it's better for me and my group to just disallow it ahead of time so that no one ends up spending most of the week creating something that ends up being turned down. There's exceptions to that rule.  If a player understands that all the time he spent creating his non-core character could go to waste and chooses to do so in hopes that it might be accepted, that's fine so long he's got a backup plan.  I don't feel like I have to say yes.  If the player is someone that I know understands the system intimately and can trust his word that the class should work fine, then it doesn't take any extra resources from me to trust his judgement and allow it.  But I imagine that can't fly for all groups, who might see such an allowance as favoritism.  The player who wanted to make a dragonrider is going to want to know why you denied his class without knowing its ins and outs but OK'd this other player's time thief without knowing its ins and outs. Other times it just clashes with the setting or the rest of the group.  Sometimes I just don't want the topic of someone's slug fetish coming up when I tell them they aren't allowed to play as a lecherous slug man.  Sometimes a race or class just runs so counter to the rule of cool that you'd sooner tear your own gonads off than allow it in your game.  Again, making a character is pretty big time investment in my group, I don't want players getting upset that I denied something they spent hours and hours making because of thematic reasons. I don't have a traditional roleplaying group.  They're a bunch of assholes I know off of an internet forum.  They're my assholes, but they're still assholes.  I've been searching for days for a way to disable drawing for particular players so that a certain someone doesn't draw dicks everywhere when it's not his turn, without escalating it to threats to remove him from the table.  The whole reason we're using roll20 is because we're focused more on getting everyone actually playing before interest fizzles out. I don't know these guys like you know your own IRL gaming group.   I imagine this is the boat a lot of people find themselves in when they start looking looking for players over roll20.  You have no idea what this person's like or what his tastes are, and it's a time investment to figure out if someone's willing to play ball and get along.  By restricting the books to the core rules, you're only going to get players who are OK with that, who aren't going to hound you and demand more of your time so that you can interpret something obscure, possibly while that person is trying to mislead you about some important facet of whatever it is he's asking for. If I came into a game with a GM like you seem to expect, Adoven, I'm sure I'd have the same expectation.  If a GM is capable enough to quickly gauge 3rd party material and read her players, then she should probably favor the player's enjoyment over perfect balancing.  It's just that I doubt such experienced GM's make up the masses.  Call it a logical fallacy, but I have a hunch a lot of GM's are just as lazy and time strapped as I am.

I trust players to use the materials they know how to use and table the ones they're not sure about until another time. If they're shaky about some mechanic during play that I'm not familiar with, it's literally nothing to me to rule in their favor and move on. My game will not break because of this, even if we get it totally wrong. Errors like this average out to nothing over time. The dragonrider issue is solved with a solid Session Zero in which the players discuss character creation while the DM discusses the premise and theme of that game. Meet somewhere in the middle. I think we put ourselves into an adversarial relationship with our players right out of the gate when we assume being in the position of "approving" or "denying" things or being an auditor of character sheets. The "DM is god" thing is a discredited viewpoint at best when compared to the power of consensus. It's about building the game everyone buys into rather than having one side trying to get around the other's arbitrary barriers. Outside of the odd unannounced absence or lateness, I've never had a single problem with any player on Roll20 and I run a lot of pick-up games. I'd like to think that's because I don't do things like ban books or audit character sheets or any of the other things. Players are encouraged to play what they like and do what they like. I don't use improvisational blocking on them in any way. The game just flows. My point in all that is I view the book banning as a treatment for a symptom, but not the underlying issue which often boils down to trust and the specific approach and mindset the DM employs, all of which is mutable.

You're also speaking from a perspective of someone that's ran a lot of games.  My previous attempts at getting this group to play DnD ended prematurely trying the Session Zero approach, people just don't want to show up unless it's play.  It's time consuming not just for me (again, interested in not wasting time) but for everyone who has to clear their schedules for not-fun time where their characters are open to criticism from not just the GM but everyone else who may or may not be tactful about it.  It just doesn't work with some groups, mine in particular, without someone a lot more experienced to arbitrate discussion. The whole point of going core-only is avoiding having to approve or deny anything in the first place, you're right that it sets up an adversarial tone where one side tries to get around the other's arbitrary barriers.  That's why I'd rather just not have it come up in the first place.  If it's not an option, it's not something that need arbitration to see if it works.  My arbitrary barriers sure as hell aren't going anywhere, I'm just not going to GM a game where a player is trying to have sloppy slug sex with NPC's.  I'd rather not single such a player out and just let everyone know ahead of time that these books are pre-approved and I'm not going to dick with anything else for this game. If someone decides to be that guy that insists on using third party material anyways despite the group's rules to the contrary, it's not a big deal to tell him to find another game.  At that point, it's completely on the player whether he's going to play or not.  The group has no obligation to allow exceptions for him, they were up front about what they were going to do. If I were a better GM, maybe it'd be trivial for me as it is for you to just ballpark stuff.  I'm a terrible GM right now, however, and I don't have interest in testing my own skill in GMing until I know I can keep a game running for a while.  I don't plan to be core-only forever, but it's significantly easier to handle than a game whose rules change every time a player hands you a character sheet. My point is that I (and possibly other GMs) aren't banning books to treat any symptoms.  The books ARE the underlying issue, it's stuff to read and reading stuff for a system you're not 100% familiar with takes a lot of time better spent on the campaign itself or doing something more enjoyable in your free time.

It is not adversarial for the GM to be in the position of approving or denying. The GM must come up with the challenges. If the player's uber-builds make it harder for the GM to come up with challenges he SHOULD say no. The GM's job is to provide challenges, but the GM has to be able to play within himself. If the GM is not as skilled (tactically, builds, whatever) as a particular player the GM should limit that player to a level the GM can handle.  Additionally, sometimes you get a single player making uber-characters in a group that has average characters. Who is going to balance that? The GM. Should the players balance it themselves? Yes. Do they? Rarely. Thus, the GM has to figure out a way to provide a challenge for the group without killing those players that are not uber. That can be a very tall order. So now, the player has forced the GM to double or triple his prep time in research, figuring out how to counter one player and not kill the others.  Examples: Gunslingers are really hard to balance against. They are simply encounter enders. They hit everything that doesn't have a high touch AC and can do significantly more damage than a 2handed melee character. Yes, I ban them or modify them by removing the touch AC aspect. Master Summoners are also hard to balance against. With a moment's of preparation they can have a virtual army. Even when it isnt a matter of balance they chew up a disproportionate amount of attention. The other players will get bored while the Master Summoner is taking his 15 minute turn.  Finally, while I am versed in most of the Pathfinder system (and 3.5 before that) there are things even I am not familiar with. Nothing hits my table without me vetting it. If I don't know what the effect will be so how can I properly design an encounter? Yes, there are GMs that design encounters without ever considering the PC builds and equipment. That can result in players complaining about the GM being too easy or a killer GM. In short, GMs are supposed to calibrate. It is what players want us to do. In order to calibrate we calibrate BOTH sides of the screen. Calibrating one side of the screen is just too difficult and time consuming. - Gauss

Here's my 2 cents, you want it or not. In D&D if everything is allowed and the players are "veterans" they can and usually will come up with builds that are utterly broken. They usually are one-trick-ponies who when they get to use their trick are unbeatable (and I'm not only talking about combat here) but if you strip that trick from them (the trick can't be used or for some reason is not effective in that situation) they become useless. This is usually very problematic to the GM. If they GM ever wants to challenge the PCs s-/he needs to use something where the tricks don't work but then the challenge almost automatically becomes too difficult.

What I'm saying is that a GM shouldn't be approving or denying - he or she should be discussing, compromising, and consensus-building. Talk about the game everyone wants to have and if that includes the players wanting to play with powerful builds, the GM can simply ask what sorts of challenges they think would be interesting and fun for those sorts of characters. A little collaboration and compromise means the players can get their optimization on while the GM provides them content that has the players' inherent buy-in. That also makes prep easier. Players optimize to avoid death and boring failure. Minimizing death and boring failure will reduce the incentive to optimize. Including player ideas for encounter design and other challenges means they're less likely to want to completely circumvent their own input. As well, the GM can turn the tables on any optimization by simply making encounters about more than one side killing the other. Give the monsters goals that, once achieved, means the scene ends with a failure other than death from which the game can more forward with new complications. Do that and watch even the most optimized characters at your table have to pull out all the stops to succeed. And if they fail, the world's a bit more dangerous and complicated, and they continue on to greater adventures. These are all things the GM can control which makes them the most sure approach to dealing with the situation. The players get to optimize. The GM still gets to challenge them. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is to invite the very adversarial situation and potential arms race GMs hope to avoid. Of course, that statement doesn't apply if your players buy in to whatever laws you've laid down. I'm just saying with some changes on the GM side of the equation, you don't have to lay down those laws in the first place.

Iserith, I agree that in a perfect game, consensus building is ideal. In one group I am in we work together to make the characters so that they are all of similar power levels. This helps the GM. But, in another group I am in that is not the case. Each player wants what they want and they don't really listen to each other or the GM. There is no consensus. If the GM did not limit certain builds some players would be insanely powerful while others would be very weak.  Simply put, there is no one size fits all.  Regarding optimization, optimization does not have to result in characters that can handle only one thing. Heck, mine don't. Even when I have a weakness, it is usually not that important and a GM would have to be hard pressed to keep hitting that button. Ultimately, the point is that uber-characters make things harder for the GM. It requires more work to balance encounters designed for uber-characters. Many GMs do not have the time. I do and I still cannot balance them properly all the time. And with certain classes there is simply no real way to balance encounters against them for the good of the group.  - Gauss

In my view, no consensus - no game. It's not worth it to me to go in with mismatched expectations. We're either all working in the same direction and making a great game, whatever it may be, or we're not playing. I could get into more about encounter design and how to challenge both optimized characters and un-optimized characters in the same party, alternative combat goals/objectives, collaborative design, monster motivations, and scene change-ups, but that's a topic for another day. Suffice it to say, it's easy, generally requires very little prep (sometimes less prep than traditional encounter design), and makes for very dynamic and challenging scenes for everyone. Finally, at the risk of sounding like an edition warrior, in the D&D sphere, 4e has more parity among the character classes by design and a better system for building and balancing encounters compared to the CR system of 3.X. It may not be feasible for some, but switching to that edition will result in immediate improvement in those areas, if desired. That said, I still see 4e DMs banning books. It's baffling to me. I think it's really about trust more than anything, which is fair enough. But I find I get trust when I give it.

While it is a noble concept, it is my opinion that all this navel-gazing about GM / Player consensus is rather pointless. My sense of it is that it is a GM's market out there right now. A GM that advertises a game is going to get responses from interested players, despite any rules restrictions he imposes. If a particular player decides he cannot live within the GM's boundaries, there's probably someone who would love to take his spot. A couple of months ago I advertised for a 1st edition AD&D game, core books only. Within a few days I had a half-dozen solid responses, more than enough to get a game going. I still get on average 1-2 inquiries a week from people, asking if there's still a chance to get in on the game.

There are more players than GMs, yes. But there are also, in my experience, more terrible GMs than good ones. It's not navel-gazing to suggest GMs work on improving their group management skills which includes consensus-building (or understanding the source and basis for optimization for that matter) and leads to better, longer, more stable games even with all the additional splatbooks. That there will be GMs who will want to unilaterally decide what will and will not be in "their" game is assured - those sorts been around since the 70s. I'm just saying that outside of thematic reasons, this isn't necessary because of concerns over optimization. It's easily fixable to preserve the GM's idea of a challenge should be in "his" game while the players get access to all the options they like.

Assuming that's the real reason the masses go core-only, as opposed to something simpler like convenience.

I can only go by what I see. What I see, generally speaking, are DMs banning books to curb power creep or the perception thereof. This is especially true of 3.X/Pathfinder where that is a legitimate concern whereas in 4e it is not as much of one. Still, all of this is solvable on the GM's side of the equation rather than by banning player options. I'm not sure how convenience applies. The GM needn't really be involved in the character creation process or in auditing sheets in my view. If the GM feels the need to comb through character sheets looking for exploits, then I would suggest the problem is a lack of trust at that table that should be corrected.

By saying it is a GM's market, I don't mean to imply that it is carte blanche for the GM to act like a DB. Any GM who does deserves to have his players walk on him. I'm just saying that a GM who is willing to run a game needn't be overly concerned about catering to the players' every whim. If one gets in a snit and threatens to quit, there's probably someone else who would be happy to have his seat at the virtual table. I cannot speak to Pathfinder, I've never played it and do not own any of the products. But in the case of 1st edition AD&D, there were a lot of rules expansions and splat books created for that system, some of which should have never seen the light of a printing press. In one case, the author even recently apologized to the gaming community for being responsible for such an abomination. In my case, I recently decided to get back into gaming after a long hiatus. I had a definite idea for the campaign I wanted to run and I knew it would work within the framework of the AD&D 1st edition core rule books. So I decided to limit it to those books and that is the game I advertised up-front. I had no problem getting players and still get inquiries to this day. I allowed the players I selected to create their own characters and I built character sheet templates in Roll20 for them to fill in the details. I did not force them to roll virtual dice in Roll20 while I watched them creating their characters, I trusted them to be honest and post online what they actually rolled on their own. Everything worked fine and everyone was happy. However, what I do not have is the spare time to tweak and modify my envisioned campaign to accommodate every potential flavor of character the players could potentially create, had I allowed all the 1st edition splat books ever printed. I have a wife, daughter, job, other hobbies and interests, etc and I have only so much time each week that I can spare for gaming. Not just actual play time, but all the prep work that being a GM requires. If I limited my players to the core rule books, I knew that their characters would work well within the campaign arc I envisioned.

Brett sums it up pretty well.  It really isn't primarily or exclusively an issue of trust or optimization (though the latter certainly is something to consider).  GM's have their own priorities and it's not asking too much for potential players to respect their time.  I don't know about you, but the last time I took something funky it took me a good three hours to explain everything to my GM.  Luckily he enjoyed that sort of thing, but for someone more time-strapped spending an additional two-three hours per player that wants something exotic is stretching it.  I'm sure with experience those conversations can go a lot faster, but that's not something everyone can draw on.

I just thought I'd put in my two cents worth on this topic. I personally hate banning expansion books, they add so much variety and flavor to the game. What I do usually forbid is excessive multiclassing. Just stick to one class and prestige class, and no matter which ones you pick it doesn't usually get too out of balance. In my experience, none of the base classes (in the core book or the expansions) are OP by themselves. In my campaigns, I always stress that players play a character, not a build. So sticking to one base class and one prestige class (unless that prestige class requires multiclassing) is my standard practice. When people try to build invincible PCs by combining multiple base classes (and often multiple prestige classes), not only does the power level of the PC get out of hand, but the whole game starts to feel like a video game where the players are more concerned about getting the "perfect" combination of feats and class features than actually taking on the role of their character, which is why it's called "Role-Playing" in the first place. 

In my opinion the job of the DM is to open up a world for players to expirience as they want, so i generally allow all books, including Dragon Mag, under the condition that I must first allow all content that is not core. PC's will usually still go with the good old Wizard, Fighter, Cleric roles but sometime you can get some really fun characters.

Jeremiah N. said: When people try to build invincible PCs by combining multiple base classes (and often multiple prestige classes), not only does the power level of the PC get out of hand, but the whole game starts to feel like a video game where the players are more concerned about getting the "perfect" combination of feats and class features than actually taking on the role of their character, which is why it's called "Role-Playing" in the first place.  You're bordering on Stormwind Fallacy here. This is one of those conclusions, I believe, that gets in the way of the DM understanding why players optimize and therefore how to address it without restricting options. It's not because they're not good roleplayers. It's because of how the game treats failure. In most games, failure equals death, or "I miss," both of which represent a hit at some level to the player's participation in the game itself. (If you're dead, you're "out," until you make a new character or until you're raised. If you miss, you're "done" with your turn having potentially contributed very little until it comes back around again.) So players make characters that, among other things, cannot miss and cannot die (or rarely in each instance). If you know this, you can alter your game in very subtle ways such that these failure conditions are not as prominent, making optimization have less of an unbalancing impact on your game and reducing the urge to do it in the first place. Mechanics and optimization has exactly zero to do with a player's roleplaying ability.

Exactly.  If a player can set a stormlord/druid in a steampunk world (for example) and work it perfectly with the mechanics and theme, sweet.  BUT, if they are terrible at it, they're just playing a build.  Roleplaying has to do with creativity, not optimization or mechanics.  People who say otherwise can eat my dirty socks. The base opinion is, GMs AND players need to work together.  It's a give and take relationship with compromises on BOTH sides, not one dictating the other.  You may be a great player or GM, but if you can't get to play a GM/players to play with, then what are you doing playing tabletops?  Probably watching saturday morning cartoons with cereal (I do love my Rice Krispies).

I only run books that I own/am familiar with, nothing to do with power creep. Just makes it easier. It was mentioned earlier that as long as it's stated ahead of time, it honestly shouldn't ever be an issue. Realistically, limitations tend to enhance role play diversity, which is what I'd prefer anyway. 

Tetsujin said:  Realistically, limitations tend to enhance role play diversity, which is what I'd prefer anyway.  Precisely... one of the most memorable characters I ever ran was when I walked into an existing game and took up a pregen Magic-User with "meh" abilities, including a very low Constitution. I decided to really role-play based on his stats and he ended up being the spotlight character of the group. I keep seeing the word "compromise" thrown around in this thread, but I get the impression that the only compromise really being sought is on the part of the GM. I said it earlier and I'll say it again: Instead of expecting the GM to bend to the players so they can always have their favorite type of PC, how about asking the players to step out of their comfort zone and try something new?

For the one shot's I've run, I prefer core only because I only own the core book.   For me, that's all I am willing to spend at the moment, and unlike when I was a kid, I don't spend a lot of my leisure time studying rule sets. I also don't walk around with my laptop opened up to the SRD.  I have allowed a couple of characters whose classes were from the Advanced Player's Guide (at first level, they cannot be so bizarre as to be unworkable without my knowing much about them). If I were to run a campaign, it would naturally be Core only as well...because I don't want to have to spend a lot of time studying spell lists from alternate books to ensure that enemy casters have the same options as all of the heroic casters (who only have to read the spell lists for their character classes instead of for all).  Likewise with feats. A single non-core character class  in a campaign might be fine, if all materials were provided to me so I did not have to spend my own money to learn its capabilities. Thing is, nobody is forced to play in anyone's game.  I don't mind gaming with non-core characters in my party, as a player, but as a GM, I am still trying to master the basics of the Pathfinder system.  Having only played D&D and related games sporadically over the last couple of decades, I am not always certain whether a rule is current Pathfinder, or a memory of 3.5, 3.0, 2nd  or 1st.  I don't need dozens of of extra classes and races right now when the core classes don't function like they used to. However, I am sure plenty of GM's are willing to run non-core material.  If that is your preference for play, then game on!  It's no skin off my back and its all about having fun telling a story, and working within a framework in which you are comfortable.  It's just going to take me awhile before I am open to alternate materials. 

Of course any game can work with player buy-in. That's not my point, and I see value in the creative constraint a theme-based curtailment of sources can bring to a game (e.g. Dark Sun, so no divine). What I see here in the LFG forums is not usually theme-based curtailment. It's based largely on fear of optimization (e.g. "Don't take anything broken ..."). I like to think I'm a pretty good DM and player. By banning things for no apparent reason, you're effectively keeping me and players like me out of your game, players that can bring their system mastery to bear in a way that supports the game experience rather than detracts or derails. My hope is that GMs will examine more closely their need to ban books. If it's based on a fear of optimization or the feeling they need to audit everything the players are doing, then I'd suggest there are ways to curb those issues without asking players to avoid certain sources. "Not having enough time" is really the same as saying you don't have time to audit the player's sheets or buy/read the books they're drawing from in my opinion. Neither of which you need to do if there's trust there. And if there is no trust, why are you gaming with those players? As always, I don't have the mentor tag, but I do collaborate with a lot of DMs on these things. So if you'd like any advice on these matters, please don't hesitate to send me a message.

Iserith said: "Not having enough time" is really the same as saying you don't have time to audit the player's sheets or buy/read the books they're drawing from in my opinion. Neither of which you need to do if there's trust there. And if there is no trust, why are you gaming with those players? Trust has nothing to do with it. If I didn't trust my players, I wouldn't be gaming with them in the first place.  As the GM, it is my job to create a campaign world and scenarios within it that are both challenging and rewarding for my players. This is how I (and any good GM) derives "fun" from playing the game and it is our reward for all the outside time and effort we put into it. I am by no means an "adversarial" GM, I really do want to see my players succeed. One of my players, I have been personal friends with for 25 years. The last thing I want to do is screw him over. But if we as GMs have no idea what our players' characters are capable of, then how we can we effectively do our job? How can we know how to challenge them? I can have all the trust in the world towards my players (and in my case, I do) but if I do not have full awareness of what their characters are capable of, then how can I craft challenging situations for them? Here is my advice to the OP: Advertise an offer to start your own campaign, allowing all the expansion books and character classes you want. But a condition for players to join your game is that they must agree to rotate GM duties. That way, everyone gets to play whatever character they want. And everyone who does play, being fully familiar with all character options, can create scenarios suited for those characters. Unless you're willing to do this, you're just going to have to live within the boundaries set by whatever outside GM you decide to throw in with.

Brett E. said: But if we as GMs have no idea what our players' characters are capable of, then how we can we effectively do our job? How can we know how to challenge them? I can have all the trust in the world towards my players (and in my case, I do) but if I do not have full awareness of what their characters are capable of, then how can I craft challenging situations for them? I run games for pick-up groups here on Roll20 at least weekly, sometimes more than that. I prepare adventures for no particular group of characters. I change nothing about said adventures, even when the players tell me the race and class combos they're going to play. I'm sure nobody of the dozens of players who've been in these games would say they aren't fun and challenging. Not only that, but the story comes out differently every time, even if players replay the same adventure more than once. So while I'm sure your particular process is what you're used to and works for you and you group currently, you can learn to create adventures in a complete vacuum that are challenging to any and all character builds. I've talked about that, in part, above. This means no book-banning required, no additional research and preparation time necessary. If you want to learn how to use these approaches, feel free to hit me up over PM.

So what it boils down to is that those of us that want only specific things in our games and not everything including the kitchen sink is wrong while everyone one that believes nothing including the kitchen sink should be banned is right. That the gist of how I understand what is being said in this thread.  Those of us that have a specific view of what we want in our games are being told that we are in the wrong for not allowing everything ever printed for that particular system because it will limit the player creativity. Is this correct on what is being said? I just want to understand how I spent the last 20 yrs doing things wrong and still have my players tell me that my games were incredible, that they didn't feel stunted in their creativity.

From the third post above yours: "Of course any game can work with player buy-in." Advocating my way is not the same as saying your way is wrong.

I wasn't aiming at you in particular but this whole thread is mostly about how no books should be banned and the gm's that ban books need to learn another way because their way limits players. Everyone has their way and if gm's wish to ban books then that is their choice. I was picking up an overall vibe from the thread that all Gm's should not ban books even though it is their game and their vision of their world.  My view is that it is the GM's World, the same one that he spent days, weeks, months maybe in building and has a specific view on what is living / existing in this world. If certain books do not contain anything he think should be in HIS world then why not ban those books. They don't have anything that belongs in THAT world. It doesn't matter if the player thinks that a specific race or class or even skill / power should be allowed. If the GM says that it DOESN'T EXIST in his world then it doesn't. End of story. As a player, a person can choose to not play his game and that is his right.

Metroknight said: I was picking up an overall vibe from the thread that all Gm's should not ban books even though it is their game and their vision of their world.  My view is that it is the GM's World, the same one that he spent days, weeks, months maybe in building and has a specific view on what is living / existing in this world. If certain books do not contain anything he think should be in HIS world then why not ban those books. They don't have anything that belongs in THAT world. It doesn't matter if the player thinks that a specific race or class or even skill / power should be allowed. If the GM says that it DOESN'T EXIST in his world then it doesn't. End of story. As a player, a person can choose to not play his game and that is his right. In my experience, the best GMs with the greatest games don't think of it as "their" world or "their" game. They don't believe that whatever time they've put into prep work, which can range from next to none (my preference) to months as you say, gives them any particular right to say what is and isn't or can and cannot be (outside of thematic considerations with player buy-in). They understand that in the context of a fantasy world based upon our collective imaginations in which anything is possible, there is only one reason something can't be: Because DM said so. And for them, that's just not good enough because there are other people at that table with ideas of their own and it is in the presence of that collaboration that games like D&D really shine. But as I said above, if you'd rather have total control over what is and isn't in your game because it's your game, and you have players that buy into that paradigm, then keep on keeping on!

I will.

Iserith said:  If you want to learn how to use these approaches, feel free to hit me up over PM. Enjoy your game, I'm quite happy with mine... thanks anyway.

you can make a fun character with just the core rule book all you need is to make an interesting character to roleplay

I use 'core' only for my D&D; and even that is heavily restricted.  There is just way too much 'stuff' available, and most of it has no place in my world.  I run a game very close to a historical medieval Europe.  When characters go into a tavern, I'd rather not have it look like a Star Wars Cantina scene, with bizarre races and eccentric classes.  I have been playing D&D since the mid 80s, and have had a core of friends that have played throughout, with those that come and those that have moved on. Since we have recently started using Roll20, we have added a couple people met on internet forums.  Their addition was with the understanding that my world has very specific things allowed, and tons of things NOT allowed.   I admit that I am authoritarian when it comes to running my game; but I've been told many, many times that THAT is precisely why they prefer me to be the DM.  The chaos quotient is brought to a minimum.  The game focuses on the characters, not their 'builds' and 'optimization'. I don't know you Metroknight, but I support your views on this subject.   There are many ways to play and everyone should be able to find a group that works for them.  But in mine, when it comes to what is available to play, it's my way or the highway.  :)