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?

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

epithet

Explorer
I can't believe I'm hearing the argument that if some players went up to Matt Mercer and told him, "We want to play a tactical grid based game. We don't want you to narrate the game like you do.", then Matt is a failed entitled DM for saying, "I'm sorry, this is my style, I don't want to do that. You're more than welcome to start your own game like that, but I can't do it that way."

I can't either. I've read (I think) the entire thread, and I've never seen anything like that. Where are you hearing that argument?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TiwazTyrsfist

Adventurer
Bold of you to assume things published by WotC are actually play-tested.

Also, since WotCs own Adventurers League runs PHB+1, we must assume no post PHB supplements are cross tested at all. What happens if an Air Genasi is a Storm Sorcerer? Doesn't matter, it's not AL legal so you're on your own, DM, figure it out.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I can't either. I've read (I think) the entire thread, and I've never seen anything like that. Where are you hearing that argument?

From you, for one. When you say things like:

"That's really your whole job as DM, to run a game that the players enjoy."

If the players enjoy a tactical grid based play and don't like narrative, you're literally arguing that it's Matt's job to change his style to give them what they want. There are many other comments from you, TwoSix, and Hussar that are along the same lines about how the player consensus should dictate how the DM should run the game. Heck, almost every post you've made in this thread is along those same lines. So for you to say you haven't seen those arguments? Well...that strikes me a pretty odd. You either have some serious blinders on, or you're being deliberately obtuse.
 

epithet

Explorer
From you, for one. When you say things like:

"That's really your whole job as DM, to run a game that the players enjoy."

If the players enjoy a tactical grid based play and don't like narrative, you're literally arguing that it's Matt's job to change his style to give them what they want. There are many other comments from you, TwoSix, and Hussar that are along the same lines about how the player consensus should dictate how the DM should run the game. Heck, almost every post you've made in this thread is along those same lines. So for you to say you haven't seen those arguments? Well...that strikes me a pretty odd. You either have some serious blinders on, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Matt bends over backwards to provide a game that his players will enjoy. His game is so enjoyable that thousands of people who aren't playing in the campaign will watch it, live, for hours and hours, every Thursday. It boggles the mind.

So let's imagine Matt were inclined to run his campaign combats as "theater of the mind" encounters instead of using the elaborate battlemaps and Dwarven Forge builds he likes to prepare, and one of his players (let's say Travis) came to him and said "Hey, Matt. I am having trouble sometimes imagining where Grog* is, in relation to the bad guys. Do you think we could use some kind of battlemap?" Do you seriously think that Matt, who is clearly committed to making sure his friends enjoy the game, would say "No, Travis, if you want a battlemap game, run it yourself" in that situation? Hell no. Matt would talk to the others, and if it was just Travis maybe he would sketch a quick map on graph paper to indicate where things were, but if the rest of the group agreed that battlemaps would be an improvement then I'd bet significant sums that Matt would start using battlemaps.

I have never, and would never, suggest that Matt would be a failed, entitled DM for saying "this is my style, I don't want to do that." What I will absolutely say is that Matt is a great DM who would absolutely consider the style in which his friends want to play the game, and would make every effort to accomodate them. If something came up that ran contrary to the way he wanted to run the game, he would put effort into finding a solution that made everyone happy. No one can do everything, but I do very much believe that he would at least try.

It's not that Matt would be a 'failed, entitled DM' for saying "This is how I play. If you don't like it, move on." It's that as a DM who is passionate about running an enjoyable game, there wouldn't be many situations where he would say that to one of his friends, and having to say that to one of them would be an unpleasant truth, not some kind of manifesto of supremacy.

*I haven't seen any of the new series.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
There are many other comments from you, TwoSix, and Hussar that are along the same lines about how the player consensus should dictate how the DM should run the game.
Well, yeah. I mean, if there's actually a literal consensus from the players about something they'd like to see in the game, what DM is actually going to prioritize the purity of their vision over the group's needs?

If the DM feels like he's unable to accommodate this kind of request, then he needs to be either upfront ("Guys, running that kind of game just isn't my wheelhouse") and see if some kind of compromise can be reached or give up his spot in the DM rotation.
 

I agree with that, that seems reasonable. That's basic DM worldbuilding, and certainly doesn't preclude taking player input into consideration.

I'll admit I'm on the side of the fence that thinks the phrase DM entitlement is a non-sequitur, because putting those limits on is something I consider part of the GMs job (especially if it is non D&D game, Like HERO or GURPS that can easily be abused).

But I do agree with you about consensus... I think we just completely disagree on when. The person in the group has an idea for setting/world and tone and approach. That person explains that idea to the group, lays out the rules limitation, and asks the group what they think. The group then agrees on whether or not to play - once that agreement has happened, then the game proceeds with the GM being the absolute final arbiter of what is allowed/banned. If in the initial pitch the players don't want to play that game, he doesn't run it, and someone else can GM. If the rest of the group doesn't have anyone who wants to GM, and it would dissolve without that person running the game - the players suck it up and play the way the GM wants... or they can leave, or have someone else GM (my wife was forced into GMing quite a few times, so I've seen that happen).

Say a new player joins, and the game has been running 3 years, and is about halfway done (we run LONG campaigns). The new player wants to play a race that has already been disallowed in the game - and the player joining didn't listen to the DM (or bothered to check) about what his game allows, then yes that race should be denied.

As another example - I run a game that has a very unique structure for deity/cosmology - effectively only one church and only a few Gods (it feels sort of "fictionalize generic Catholic" and the Gods, structurally are like saints), and there are no evil Gods (just demons and devils, which are variation of each other). Those gods are defined and are an integral part of my worlds setting. I'm not going to introduce a new deity just because a new player wants to worship a Feurun Deity (for example).
 

epithet

Explorer
I'll admit I'm on the side of the fence that thinks the phrase DM entitlement is a non-sequitur, because putting those limits on is something I consider part of the GMs job (especially if it is non D&D game, Like HERO or GURPS that can easily be abused).

But I do agree with you about consensus... I think we just completely disagree on when. The person in the group has an idea for setting/world and tone and approach. That person explains that idea to the group, lays out the rules limitation, and asks the group what they think. The group then agrees on whether or not to play - once that agreement has happened, then the game proceeds with the GM being the absolute final arbiter of what is allowed/banned. If in the initial pitch the players don't want to play that game, he doesn't run it, and someone else can GM. If the rest of the group doesn't have anyone who wants to GM, and it would dissolve without that person running the game - the players suck it up and play the way the GM wants... or they can leave, or have someone else GM (my wife was forced into GMing quite a few times, so I've seen that happen).

Say a new player joins, and the game has been running 3 years, and is about halfway done (we run LONG campaigns). The new player wants to play a race that has already been disallowed in the game - and the player joining didn't listen to the DM (or bothered to check) about what his game allows, then yes that race should be denied.

As another example - I run a game that has a very unique structure for deity/cosmology - effectively only one church and only a few Gods (it feels sort of "fictionalize generic Catholic" and the Gods, structurally are like saints), and there are no evil Gods (just demons and devils, which are variation of each other). Those gods are defined and are an integral part of my worlds setting. I'm not going to introduce a new deity just because a new player wants to worship a Feurun Deity (for example).

I don't think we actually disagree on "when," either. I am completely in agreement that once the terms of the campaign have been set and the campaign begins, the DM is the absolute final arbiter. I've said that very thing myself, but it was a few pages back. I do think that the players aren't the only ones who can "suck it up," though. In that initial agreement phase, I don't think the players should necessarily "take it or leave it," and a DM should entertain suggestions, like using feats or multiclassing, even if the world and setting are pretty much locked down.

I'd also point out that the Catholic Church adds saints all the time, so I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to propose a local addition to the pantheon in your generic fictional Catholic situation, but then I'm sure there's a lot more to it than you went into above.
 

Al'Kelhar

Adventurer
It's acceptable that you have such poor taste. We still like you despite your incredible deficiency in taste concerning this singular topic. I consider it simply a disability you unfortunately have obtained, either through birth or environment. You may even park in the disabled parking spot, provided you display a "I Hate Bards" sign in your window so that all may see your special needs and shake their heads in understanding.

I get a surprisingly positive response to the "I run over monks" sticker on the bull bar of my ute. Can I park in the disable car park, too?
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Bold of you to assume things published by WotC are actually play-tested.

They are. You're on a forum which includes many of those playtesters. Who are under non-disclosure agreements to not talk about it.

Also, since WotCs own Adventurers League runs PHB+1, we must assume no post PHB supplements are cross tested at all. What happens if an Air Genasi is a Storm Sorcerer? Doesn't matter, it's not AL legal so you're on your own, DM, figure it out.

Playtesting is not done specifically to AL rules. It is done with a huge number of players and DMs who do in fact use many books at once.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top