Burning Questions: Why Do DMs Limit Official WOTC Material?

In today’s Burning Question we discuss: In D&D, why do DMs limit spells, feats, races, books, etc. when they have been play-tested by Wizards of the Coast?

Photo by Mark Duffel on Unsplash


The Short Answer

A DM (Dungeon Master) is well within their right to decide which options are available at their table, regardless of the source of that material. After all the DM is responsible for the integrity of the game experience and may deem some material inappropriate or unbalanced.

Digging Deeper

This may seem a bit unfair to those who have paid for a product and expect to be able to use that product anywhere they go. However, the idea of limiting the material available to players is not without precedent. Currently the D&D Adventurers’ League has a PHB +1 rule, meaning a player can use the Player’s Handbook and one other source for their character. I believe this may be increasing soon. Previous incarnations of D&D organized play would use certs and introduce content a little at a time. There is a logic to setting limits. A DM can only know so many things and it is easy to get overwhelmed with a system like D&D or Pathfinder, where the amount of add-on content is enormous and occasionally deeply themed.

Appropriate Thematics

When creating a world to play D&D in, or more specifically to run D&D (or other games) in, a DM/GM will often choose a theme for the world. It may only apply to that specific campaign or it may apply to the entire world, but the theme sets expectations for the kinds of play experiences players may run into. Many DM’s, including myself, try and create a zeitgeist, a lived in feel to the world and this may well exclude certain types of character options.

Let’s just take a few examples from the PHB itself and show how they might not be appropriate for every campaign.

  • The Gnome. In general played as a cutesy and clever race, akin to dwarves but more gem obsessed. They work fine on Faerun, but if you were porting gnomes to say historical renaissance Holy Roman Empire, would they work? Maybe not. .
  • Eldritch Knight. In a world where knights do not exist or magic is inherently evil, warriors may not even think of learning sorcery.
  • Oath of the Ancients. Works great in a world where Fey and ancient forests are prominent. Works somewhat less well in desert or ice settings and campaigns.
Of course any of these could be made more thematic with a little work, but as mentioned the DM already has a lot of work to do. An overabundance of options mean keeping track of more abilities and their potential impact on both the setting and other party members. Even having the players keep track of the information themselves does not necessarily ease that burden. A more limited scope can work better for one shots and short campaigns. Where as wildly varying characters and character abilities may upset the verisimilitude of that style of game or possibly be game breaking.

Out of Balance

Of course just because WoTC tested a product does not make it right for every campaign. Balancing mechanics across an entire game can be a daunting task. Some might say an impossible one. And typically as a design team (who might have new members added) tinkers with mechanics and new options, a degree of power creep inevitably sneaks in.

Even a balanced rule can cause issues. Take for instance Healing Spirit from Xanathar’s Guide. There is a great deal of debate over whether Healing Spirit should be allowed in a game or not. Many players do not like its downsides. Certainly more than a few players enjoy the potential upside as well, but Healing Spirit is not a slam dunk or no-brainer for a DM.

In general, a DM has a high degree of latitude when creating a setting or planning a campaign. Ideally they will discuss their motives with players and come to the best compromise.

This article was contributed by Sean Hillman (SMHWorlds) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sean Hillman

Sean Hillman

Sadras

Legend
Again, how is a setting so inflexible as to not allow new ideas into it?

Where can one draw the line so that you will be satisfied as a player?
Because when posters inform you that the DM is essentially master of the setting which coincides with the advice provided by the DMG, you come back with is the setting so inflexible?

No one is saying that DM's may not work with their players towards a solution, but it seems like you are pushing that HAS to be the case every time. The No answer is never accepted.

Exactly where is the line? Don't give us the setting inflexible nonsense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

5ekyu

Hero
Anybody remember 3rd edition? Limiting player options was the only way to preserve DM sanity. 4th edition too.

As for 5th edition, here's another Xanathar's Guide example. When a player wanted to take the Ceremony spell from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg. 151, I kinda went nuts -
Here's the spell in D&D Beyond: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/ceremony
My answer to him:
* Atonement has been:
- 5th level spell in 1st edition.
- 5th level spell in 2nd edition.
- 5th level spell in 3rd edition.
Now we make it a first level spell? Hell no!

* Bless Water: See page 152 of the PHB - already allows this for one hour, 25 gp of silver and a first level slot.
* Funeral Rite - Gentle Repose does what this does, but it's a 2nd level spell, lasts 10 days.
* Coming of Age / Dedication: Just use Guidance (cantrip)
* Wedding: +2 AC because of a wedding? Uh, no

So, official doesn't mean good.
Obviously tjo, its subjective. I find all these effects fine for the spell and its nature which is to create not do much go-to dungeon crawling effects but avaried list of small thematic blessings.

Alignment has been seriously devalued in this game 5e, so keeping an alignment chg dpell at top of tier-2 makes little sense.

Bless water - so they duplicate the effect into this ceremony grab bag. No harm. No foul.

Funeral - the 2nd levrl GR does a lot more and quickly. It extends the clock on the various spells and is an action to cast. The diff between that and this part of first level grab bag makes sense to me.
Coming/Dedicate - Again, these are not aimed at dungeon delving cleric beside you at all time but a one time benefit. They seem fine to me.
Wedding - AC is meh... my bet is most newlyweds might have preferred advantage on con checks and saves for a day... or a week of just vs exhaustion.

I see this spell as one of the somewhat underrepresented category of "effects that should be covered but not useful to typical dungeon stuff" flavor bits. As such, seemed great for my game.
 

Hussar

Legend
Between this thread and the other "Bad DMing" one, one thing stands out to me.

People really, REALLY take ownership over their games. I think the reason I'm getting so tangled up in these arguments is that I don't. I never see it as "my" campaign or "my" world. It's ours. It's the table's. And, if someone up and said, "Well, I'm going to run X, if you don't like it, you run something", my response would be, "Do you prefer 4d6 or point buy?" Because behind that current DM, there's at least two if not three or four other people who are perfectly willing to run a game at any point in time. For me to get what I want, I REALLY have to sell it to the group. When I ran my Primeval Thule experiment and banned all classes with cantrips, I faced a real uphill battle convincing the group that this was a good idea.

But, at no point could I simply say, "Well, either I run it this way or someone else runs" because, well, I'd be shunted to the player seat so fast I'd have burns on my cheeks. :D

At the end of the day, I look at what makes DMing fun for me is knowing that I ran the most enjoyable game I could for this group. The more fun that the players are having, the more fun I have. Which generally means that yup, I'll put my preferences behind what the players want most of the time. If I can convince the players that my ideas are good enough, then, yay, I get what I want. But, otherwise, I'm pretty much stuck if I want to run a game where any of the players aren't interested.

So, to use the Matt Mercer example. A DM who is unwilling to listen to what his or her players clearly state that they want, and adjust to their tastes, is a bad DM. DMing should always be about listening to the players and giving them what they want.

To use [MENTION=277]jasper[/MENTION]'s example, to me it's unbelievable that the group would exclude a friend just so they could go eat Chinese food. That's a pretty dick move. That's not what I want my friends to do and I would never do that to a friend. "Hey, we're all going somewhere that you hate, see you later" when there are obviously other options available is unbelievable to me. That would be the last time I went anywhere with you. And, if I'm late coming to the car, you're going to take my wife home and leave me there? Yeah, number one, I'd be looking for a new wife pretty quickly if she didn't get out of that car and number two, that would be the absolute last time I'd associate with you.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] Every Dining out hussar votes steak, steak, steak, steak, steak, steak,. Some times Fried shrimp with steak. The rest of us vote on variety. Sooner or later Hussar is going lose the vote. So he has to learn to got along with reasonable demands. Or hit Steak and Shake alone this Taco Tuesday.

Sorry If I told the group the Convoy/Train/Plane leaves at 1600 hrs 2 times before the event, 2 times in the ride to the event. 2 times at the event. And at 1545 I tell you to be ready, you turn and run away deeper in the con. You are the one with problem.

So Matt Mercer must allow me to use my Vulcan with wolverine claws, phaser, and magical missile or he is a bad DM. Got it.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Where can one draw the line so that you will be satisfied as a player?

Man, so confrontational :D "Exactly where is the line?" Are you honestly that upset over me questioning how much authority a DM needs? Is it really wrong of me to assert the idea of working with your players to figure stuff out? Guess I shouldn't tell you about how I just go from game to game ruining DMs' settings by inserting my nonsense homebrew races without nary an argument. That is the power of my "player entitlement" lmao.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
No, it is not the job of the DM to dictate the terms and conditions of the game. The DM creates or controls the world, and runs the game, but the terms and conditions of the game are agreed to by the group of people playing it, including the DM. Even if the DM makes an integrated pitch including the rules and setting, and the players just reply "ok," that's agreement. It is not the role of one member of the group to say to the others, "This is what we're going to play, and this is how we're going to play it," disregarding any input from the other members of the group (which is what "dictating the terms and conditions of the game" is.)

.....
You are missing the point. To sum up. I have 7 players 6 Dms.
Brief and blunt summary. " I have a world but no under dark races especially Drizzit clones. My way or the highway."
Or
Long summary, "Guys blah blah" Using five dollar/pound words, fifty five word sentence, five paragraphs with extra props of glossy 8 by 10 photos with circle and arrows " Which is just a long sell pitch of the brief summary.
Those are both the same thing. The blunt summary gets the main point across with less typing.
 

pemerton

Legend
Given that the 5e DMG is full of Master-of-the-Setting type advice, it might be seen that with comments such as these, you're implying that the WotC designers seem to be undermining the game.
I woudl say that they tend to undermine rather than fost what is fun and distinctive about RPGing, yes. I see a parallel to 2nd ed AD&D in this respect.

Where can one draw the line so that you will be satisfied as a player?
Because when posters inform you that the DM is essentially master of the setting which coincides with the advice provided by the DMG, you come back with is the setting so inflexible?

No one is saying that DM's may not work with their players towards a solution, but it seems like you are pushing that HAS to be the case every time. The No answer is never accepted.

Exactly where is the line? Don't give us the setting inflexible nonsense.
I find this srong normative language a bit out of place, I think maybe for the same reason as [MENTION=59554]Panda-s1[/MENTION]. Putting to one side certain formal or semi-formal contexts (AL games, convention games, club games with a GMing roster, etc) we're talking about a social activity among friends. So the question of "where the line is drawn" is the same as "where is the line drawn on choosing a film or choosing a restaurant" - it's a matter of social negotiation among people who may have slightly divergent preferences, and almost certainly have divergent starting points, but who put a high priority on doing the thing together.

A further consideration in relation to RPGing, though - and the one that I was emphasising upthread in the post you replied to - is that integrating and combining preferences, and bleding divergent starting points to form a common destination, is part of what is good about RPGing. Because it's part of establishing a shared fiction together. So whereas, when it comes to films or restaurants, sometimes we have to compromise, with RPGing compromise often isn't the right notion at all: the GM who works with the player to integrate the "last mage" into the campaign about a world without magic isn't compromising, s/he is building something together with the player that integrates and follows on from their divergent starting points.

I'm not going to say that RPGers who don't want to do this are doing it wrong, but I don't think they're maximally exploring the potential of the activity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
"Matt Mercer is the DM, he has the ultimate authority on what happens in his game."
"If Matt wants to be a good DM he should listen to his players and see what he can do for their characters."
"
So Matt Mercer must allow me to use my Vulcan with wolverine claws, phaser, and magical missile or he is a bad DM. Got it.
"

Did I miss something that would lead you to this conclusion? :confused:
 

Sadras

Legend
Is it really wrong of me to assert the idea of working with your players to figure stuff out?

And if the concept does not fit, then what? Do you delay playing and keep working on it out until it does?
At what point are you going to accept the DM as master of the setting. i.e. Where do you draw the line?

To give you an example, your line could be - all published material MUST be available which goes against what the DMG says, which reflects that the setting is very much the DM's and he/she might decide to have 0 magic in the campaign which is one of the examples which eliminates a large portion of the playable races and classes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top