Xanathars guide

[John Brebeuf]

... the conclusion that the DM must have mastery over every class in order to make good table judgements ...

An egregious straw man. I never said the DM has to have mastery over every class, I said (by implication) that he has to have mastery over every class that's involved in his campaign. If the group he's DMing consists of a fighter, a cleric, and a monk, then the DM has to know how the fighter, cleric, and monk classes work AT LEAST as well as his players do. He doesn't need to know how the bard class works because he's not DMing a bard. Thus, he should spend as much time as is necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the ins-and-outs of the relevant classes, which is certainly more than a mere glance through the PHB. Thus, back to the original point of this thread, the DM who disallowed the used of XGTA in his campaign may very well have decided that the not-insignificant amount of time and energy it would take to become thoroughly acquainted with the class options presented therein that were being proposed for use in his campaign (which, I will insist, is what he SHOULD do as DM) was not time and energy he was willing to spend (a perfectly legitimate decision, as far as I'm concerned).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

An egregious straw man. I never said the DM has to have mastery over every class, I said (by implication) that he has to have mastery over every class that's involved in his campaign.

I find it hard to keep reading when you open with nitpicking.

If the group he's DMing consists of a fighter, a cleric, and a monk, then the DM has to know how the fighter, cleric, and monk classes work AT LEAST as well as his players do. He doesn't need to know how the bard class works because he's not DMing a bard. Thus, he should spend as much time as is necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the ins-and-outs of the relevant classes, which is certainly more than a mere glance through the PHB. Thus, back to the original point of this thread, the DM who disallowed the used of XGTA in his campaign may very well have decided that the not-insignificant amount of time and energy it would take to become thoroughly acquainted with the class options presented therein that were being proposed for use in his campaign (which, I will insist, is what he SHOULD do as DM) was not time and energy he was willing to spend (a perfectly legitimate decision, as far as I'm concerned).

So, back to the non nitpicking part of the discussion...see my previous response. You keep stating that it's required, but won't extrapolate any reasoning for that conclusion. I find the conclusion entirely without merit, both logically and experientially.

The DM needs a basic understanding of what is on the character sheets. That's it. The general rules are vastly more important, but only in a game with serious imbalance issues would the GM need to have the same degree of knowledge of the specific character options in play than those who are actually using them. 5e isn't that game. 5e doesn't require constant DM oversight of player abilities just to run the game without it falling apart at a basic level, like in some previous editions. The DM can simply focus on running the game world, on reacting to the player characters, and giving them things to react to, and building a story and a world in the process.

For extra credit, let's examine this further, specifically in the context of what I started out saying here. IE, the DM doesn't need to put in any extra effort just because someone is using a subclass from a new book.
There are two possiblities here, and either way the idea falls apart.

a) The DM has mastered every class and subclass in the PHB, which means that the PHB options aren't any extra cognitive load in the context of a new character, but also means that DM has very advanced system mastery of 5e DnD.

2) the DM hasn't mastered every class and subclass in the PHB, in which case any subclass or class not already being used will be just as much cognitive load as a subclass from a new book, because both are new in terms of whether or not the DM has already mastered them.

In a, the DM has a level of system mastery that renders new options like a subclass (which are quite small in 5e) trivial to understand. If he can't look at the Scout Rogue and tell if it's unbalanced with other options available, he couldn't have mastered the entire PHB already.

In 2, the DM would have to also ban options not already in play in order for banning Xanathar's options to be consistent and sensible. ie, "I've only mastered knowledge of the specific options you are already using, so you have to pick from that list for new characters."


If you want to nitpick the difference between "literally no additional cognitive load" and "effectively no (ie absolutely trivial to the point of it being non appreciable) additional cognitive load", find someone else. I don't care about nitpicking arguements.

 

[John Brebeuf]

I find it hard to keep reading when you open with nitpicking.



So, back to the non nitpicking part of the discussion...see my previous response. You keep stating that it's required, but won't extrapolate any reasoning for that conclusion. I find the conclusion entirely without merit, both logically and experientially.

The DM needs a basic understanding of what is on the character sheets. That's it. The general rules are vastly more important, but only in a game with serious imbalance issues would the GM need to have the same degree of knowledge of the specific character options in play than those who are actually using them. 5e isn't that game. 5e doesn't require constant DM oversight of player abilities just to run the game without it falling apart at a basic level, like in some previous editions. The DM can simply focus on running the game world, on reacting to the player characters, and giving them things to react to, and building a story and a world in the process.

For extra credit, let's examine this further, specifically in the context of what I started out saying here. IE, the DM doesn't need to put in any extra effort just because someone is using a subclass from a new book.
There are two possiblities here, and either way the idea falls apart.

a) The DM has mastered every class and subclass in the PHB, which means that the PHB options aren't any extra cognitive load in the context of a new character, but also means that DM has very advanced system mastery of 5e DnD.

2) the DM hasn't mastered every class and subclass in the PHB, in which case any subclass or class not already being used will be just as much cognitive load as a subclass from a new book, because both are new in terms of whether or not the DM has already mastered them.

In a, the DM has a level of system mastery that renders new options like a subclass (which are quite small in 5e) trivial to understand. If he can't look at the Scout Rogue and tell if it's unbalanced with other options available, he couldn't have mastered the entire PHB already.

In 2, the DM would have to also ban options not already in play in order for banning Xanathar's options to be consistent and sensible. ie, "I've only mastered knowledge of the specific options you are already using, so you have to pick from that list for new characters."


If you want to nitpick the difference between "literally no additional cognitive load" and "effectively no (ie absolutely trivial to the point of it being non appreciable) additional cognitive load", find someone else. I don't care about nitpicking arguements.

Only nothing follows from alternative (2) that serves your purposes. Of course reading those parts of the PHB that he hasn't already read would require more time and effort, but the PHB is part of the core rules of D&D and a DM would be rightly expected to put that effort in, unless he explicitly stated before the campaign began that certain classes will be excluded from play. Absent such a stated intention, it's ASSUMED that the entire PHB and all classes therein are playable, and so the DM ought to be thoroughly familiar with whatever content from it ends up in the game he's running and has an obligation to his players to put the time and effort into becoming so. Supplements, however, are an entirely different issue: they're SUPPLEMENTS, i.e., NOT part of the core rules of the system and a DM is entirely within his rights to eschew spending any time on them without shirking his responsibilities as DM because there's nothing in the game system that says supplements MUST be included. Nor can any player hold it against him for NOT doing so because nothing in the rules of the game says he must (unlike the PHB, which is a substantial PART of the rules of the game except for those elements which are explicitly stated to be optional).

 

[Stalker0]

I think we are losing sight of this key fact: The DM doesn't want the extra material.

Maybe its because he doesn't like splatbooks, maybe he just doesn't want to bother with anything new (aka his gameworld is just fine no changes needed). Maybe he cares about worldbuilding and doesn't want to figure out how the new stuff is in his game when it wasn't before. maybe he really like the balance of the current system and sees no reason to add more.

We can argue until we are blue in the face how much effort it takes a DM to learn new stuff, and how much stuff he has to know to be a DM.

It simply doesn't matter, because the DM said no. That's the end of the story. It doesn't even matter if he's being rationale about it.


Fundamentally what this thread is about, is how much control a DM gets over his game. And the real answer is....a whole lot, a lot lot. Players play Dnd, but DMs work at DND.

Both having DMed a lot of years and played a lot of years, I have never seen any person be 100% satisfied with every DM call. There is always that one that was "handled wrong" But the DM puts in a lot of work, and therefore is entitled to some slack. There are those DMs that are just crazy irrational, so far this DM doesn't sound like that. He just made a call that he didn't want splatbooks. He doesn't really need more reason than that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Only nothing follows from alternative (2) that serves your purposes. Of course reading those parts of the PHB that he hasn't already read would require more time and effort, but the PHB is part of the core rules of D&D and a DM would be rightly expected to put that effort in, unless he explicitly stated before the campaign began that certain classes will be excluded from play. Absent such a stated intention, it's ASSUMED that the entire PHB and all classes therein are playable, and so the DM ought to be thoroughly familiar with whatever content from it ends up in the game he's running and has an obligation to his players to put the time and effort into becoming so. Supplements, however, are an entirely different issue: they're SUPPLEMENTS, i.e., NOT part of the core rules of the system and a DM is entirely within his rights to eschew spending any time on them without shirking his responsibilities as DM because there's nothing in the game system that says supplements MUST be included. Nor can any player hold it against him for NOT doing so because nothing in the rules of the game says he must (unlike the PHB, which is a substantial PART of the rules of the game except for those elements which are explicitly stated to be optional).

You're sidestepping the actual point, and I'm beginning to suspect that it's on purpose.

Option 2 means that the DM would be spending the same time and effort on a new character whether it's a PHB class he hasn't had at the table before, or a Xanathar's subclass.

"He should be familiar with the entire PHB" is in contradiction to your previous statements, as well! Make up your mind!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think we are losing sight of this key fact: The DM doesn't want the extra material.

Maybe its because he doesn't like splatbooks, maybe he just doesn't want to bother with anything new (aka his gameworld is just fine no changes needed). Maybe he cares about worldbuilding and doesn't want to figure out how the new stuff is in his game when it wasn't before. maybe he really like the balance of the current system and sees no reason to add more.

We can argue until we are blue in the face how much effort it takes a DM to learn new stuff, and how much stuff he has to know to be a DM.

It simply doesn't matter, because the DM said no. That's the end of the story. It doesn't even matter if he's being rationale about it.


Fundamentally what this thread is about, is how much control a DM gets over his game. And the real answer is....a whole lot, a lot lot. Players play Dnd, but DMs work at DND.

Both having DMed a lot of years and played a lot of years, I have never seen any person be 100% satisfied with every DM call. There is always that one that was "handled wrong" But the DM puts in a lot of work, and therefore is entitled to some slack. There are those DMs that are just crazy irrational, so far this DM doesn't sound like that. He just made a call that he didn't want splatbooks. He doesn't really need more reason than that.

IMO, those two statements are 100% incompatible. If he has more control, the reasoning behind his decisions are more open to review and expectation of explanation. THe DM's word is only absolute during a session. Outside that, the players absolutely and without exception have the right to expect explanation for any given decision, if they ask. "I don't want to" may or may not be good enough. THat depends on the group, not commenters on the internet. Either way, though, it's a discussion with the group, not a matter of "The DM made his decision, no further discussion allowed."

The OP post may not show a DM that is being unreasonable in general, but the follow up posts by the OP surely do. The DM is being adversarial with a group that doesn't seem to want that, in a game that didn't start that way, with no player buy in for that change in tone.

The OP needs to have a group discussion about the problem in general. The rest is just the rest of us discussing how we run games and digging into the esoterica of GMing.

 

[John Brebeuf]

You're sidestepping the actual point, and I'm beginning to suspect that it's on purpose.

Option 2 means that the DM would be spending the same time and effort on a new character whether it's a PHB class he hasn't had at the table before, or a Xanathar's subclass.

"He should be familiar with the entire PHB" is in contradiction to your previous statements, as well! Make up your mind!

You're misquoting me, which I'm beginning to suspect may be on purpose. I never said "He should be familiar with the entire PHB," I said he should be familiar with those parts of the PHB that are involved in the campaign he's running (have you already forgotten my example of the campaign featuring a fighter, a cleric, and a monk, but NOT a bard? or are you deliberately ignoring it?), and if parts of the PHB become involved that weren't before, then he has an obligation to become completely familiar with those parts too, because the PHB is part of the CORE RULES. XGTA is NOT part of the core rules and so he has no obligation whatsoever to become familiar with ANY of it (except those parts that HE HAS AGREED to allow into his campaign, and he's under no obligation to allow ANY of it, unlike with the PHB).

As for your scornful dismissal of my investing the term 'Dungeon Master' with significance from which conclusions can be drawn, so be it; let's use the non-D&D-specific term: 'referee'. That's what the DM is, after all. I know of no refereed game whatsoever where the referee is not expected to be MORE familiar with the rules of the game than the players themselves. (Imagine a football ref having to ask the quarterback whether he's allowed to throw a forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage!) There's no conceivable reason why a D&D referee should be held to any less a standard (and despite that, all I've insisted is that the DM should know the rules AT LEAST as well as the players).

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

4 players have the book. They’ve all offered to let him borrow it.

The fact that he doesn’t have to do a thing doesn’t mean that not doing it is reasonable.

Not allowing a book simply because you don’t personally own it, when getting ahold of it is very easy, is beyond unreasonable.

No, it's a completely reasonable position that's been part of RPG's since the first supplements came out. There were DM's who didn't allow Eldritch Wizardry, Greyhawk, or Blackmoor in their OD&D games because they didn't have them, hadn't read them yet, or didn't like what they saw. A DM is 100% allowed to say "no" to add on more rulebooks or character options or anything else published for a game. You don't have to like it, but it's not unreasonable or wrong to decline an expansion.

Did he allow the monster race options from the MM? Did he allow the ones from Volos? Did he allow the PC's to use material from SCAG? The Elemental Evil companion? If any of those are "yes" then maybe you can ask him why X and not Y. If those are all a "no" then he's been consistent throughout the campaign and the OP probably shouldn't be surprised about his stance on Xanathar's.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think we are losing sight of this key fact: The DM doesn't want the extra material.

Maybe its because he doesn't like splatbooks, maybe he just doesn't want to bother with anything new (aka his gameworld is just fine no changes needed). Maybe he cares about worldbuilding and doesn't want to figure out how the new stuff is in his game when it wasn't before. maybe he really like the balance of the current system and sees no reason to add more.

We can argue until we are blue in the face how much effort it takes a DM to learn new stuff, and how much stuff he has to know to be a DM.

It simply doesn't matter, because the DM said no. That's the end of the story. It doesn't even matter if he's being rationale about it.


Fundamentally what this thread is about, is how much control a DM gets over his game. And the real answer is....a whole lot, a lot lot. Players play Dnd, but DMs work at DND.

Both having DMed a lot of years and played a lot of years, I have never seen any person be 100% satisfied with every DM call. There is always that one that was "handled wrong" But the DM puts in a lot of work, and therefore is entitled to some slack. There are those DMs that are just crazy irrational, so far this DM doesn't sound like that. He just made a call that he didn't want splatbooks. He doesn't really need more reason than that.

I agree with a lot of what you said, except the part where you said that the DM does not need to be rational about his reasons. I think he does.

I said earlier, that this thread seems like it's just people on each side (essentially DM side and Players side) and refusing to say that their view is not correct. But when something like this actually comes up at the table....where friends are playing together face to face, usually a conversation happens.

In that case, it may indeed prove to be reasonable for the DM to not allow additional options from Xanathar's. It just as likely may prove unreasonable.

I don't think we can or should boil this down to either "side" being always right. It shouldn't ever be "It's the DM's game so his word is final" or "The players should always have all officially published options available to them." It should really depend on the circumstances.

Based on the ones we know in this case, it sounds to me like the DM is being unreasonable. He doesn't allow magic items because they're too overpowererd....and then he TPKs his party with a beholder while using some questionable tactics?

I think the request to use other options is reasonable....especially since it's the DM who decided to kill the existing PCs who were PHB only.

If the DM cited some compelling reasons for why he wouldn't allow Xanather material in the game, that would be different. But he didn't. He just said no.

I think there's a difference there that matters.

 

[schnee]

An egregious straw man. I never said the DM has to have mastery over every class, I said (by implication) that he has to have mastery over every class that's involved in his campaign. If the group he's DMing consists of a fighter, a cleric, and a monk, then the DM has to know how the fighter, cleric, and monk classes work AT LEAST as well as his players do.

I don't agree that it's a necessity. Our table is run West Marches style, and we create adventure hooks for our players to choose - and develop adventures based on a 'level of risk' they've sussed out through rumor and research, and based on a certain type of scenario (like 'heist' or 'dungeon crawl' or whatever). I don't necessarily know who's going to show up that given day, so I just throw in a wide variety of challenges and situations and let them figure it out.

I have mature players that are good about keeping the rules up from their end too. So, I know the monsters and the overall rules cold, and I let players fill me in on the gaps.