Andrew Majik said:
All right, listening to the whole 3.5 complaints section about crazy multi-classing and such was representative of poor GMing. story telling is my main-stay. I must not be like most GMs because if things don't work, or you can't manage your party... you have the problem.
Tell a player NO. Yes, some players want to optimize their combat. and that's good. You always need someone to carry combat for players that want to play social or other non-combat characters.
When I run a game, I decide what books are permissible. Usually anything within the setting we are in. If we are in Eberon, then there's no Forgotten Realms books, or raven loft. Books that fit with classes specificity, such as the Complete series is a little more complicated. Generally, it's a yes or no to the whole set. And as I don't have PHYSICAL copies of those books, usually it's a NO.
It's up to the GM to keep things in focus. Bitching about optional material like splat books is a cop-out.
I respectfully disagree. As someone who DM'd from day 1 of 3.0 to the final days of 3.5, I saw the pile of splatbooks growing and growing. I did my best to keep up with them, and I disallowed most of them from my campaigns. Yes, it is up to me to say "Yes" or "No."
But guess what?
Players don't like to be told "no." They get excited about looking through the new books, finding new powers, new spells, new items, new feats, and combining them all in different ways. In publishing more and more splat books, Wizards is basically saying, "This is how we expect the game to be played." When the DM says "no," it's difficult to not come across as a miserly curmudgeon who is just a buzzkill.
As much as possible, I would try to evaluate every single book, power, feat, etc. on a case-by-case basis. But it becomes overwhelming. "Oh crap, I allowed this feat from Book 1 and that item from Book 2; now they combine that into something overpowered, and I have to go back on my word or the whole game is broken."
DM has final say on everything, yes. But when players want to use all these fancy new books that keep coming out, and the DM says no, well... They may just look for a new DM. A DM is allowed to run any kind of game he wants to run... and a player is allowed to decide not to play.
Thunderous Cacophony said:
It was during the podcast that the perils of Advantage started to become clear to me. I'm not a fan of this no-stacking at all. As a general rule, to keep things moving fast, fine. But if players want to plan out something elaborate, I will certainly house rule in stacking +2 (or whatever) bonuses. I feel your pain.
Oh, as a corollary to the bonus point system I used for consistent RP, we even found that it allowed nicely for character growth. A sample discussion: "Hm, Thovinion showed compassion to you today. That was out-of-character. Maybe he's growing; maybe he's softening up. Let's remember this and see how it progresses." The first glimpses of character growth aren't rewarded (nor do they detract from reward), but once that growth starts to become a consistent trait, then it is rewarded. Sure enough, that player had thought out a character arc in which he would become "nicer" over time, thanks to the companionship of his fellow PCs.