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

epithet

Explorer
I particularly like how he's said any DM that tells players to suck it up is a failed bad DM while at the same time saying the DMs have to suck it up if the players want without realizing the inherent contraction and double standard there. If the first is true, then wouldn't that infer that any player who wants a DM to "suck it up" is a failed bad player?

You do seem to love that "failed bad" terminology.

I think the distinction here is not between "a player" and "the DM." In either case one person shouldn't be dictating the terms and conditions of the game to everyone else in the group. The important distinction is between the group as a whole, via consensus among its members, and one individual member of that group, be he a player or a DM. I don't think anyone is saying that a member of a game group has to go along with the group consensus on everything, but participating in a group activity does inevitably involve some instances of "sucking it up" and going along to get along.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


epithet

Explorer
Hmm this boils down to a two real life situations.
Barbara to husband Bob. The group agreed to go out of Chinese this time. You can just have the soup or we see you back here at 9:30.
Me to a group of gamers I drove to a con. When the driver is ready to go home the whole car is ready to go home. Lucky for Bob it took me five extra minutes to check out. Bob was knocking on the window just as I put the car in reverse.
In both cases me and Barbara were right.

Sounds like Bob needs to be more assertive, but whereas Barbara was the spokesman for the group, you were not. I don't know how far away the con was, but claiming the prerogative to tell everyone in the group when it's time to go seems more than a bit obnoxious, and actually rolling out without Bob would have been a real phallic move.
 

Let me turn the question around.

Why should a GM be required to allow any WOTC material?
Why would a DM even want to run a game that has all of the official material in it? Can you imagine how nonsensical and unfocused that world would be, if you had to deal with all of those different elven subraces and sorcerer origins and weird rock monsters and warlock patron entities? It would be horrible. It would be like playing in the Forgotten Realms.
 

epithet

Explorer
... And if people who know what style of DM Matt Mercer is, and still more than half say they don't like his narration style but want a tactical boardgame style, Matt is not a coward, entitled, or bad DM like you and others have said by not doing that style. ...

Using Matt as an example doesn't help your argument, because Matt adapts the rules of the game and the lore of the world to accommodate his players' desires.

Just sayin'.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
You do seem to love that "failed bad" terminology.

I think the distinction here is not between "a player" and "the DM." In either case one person shouldn't be dictating the terms and conditions of the game to everyone else in the group. .

That is literally the job of the DM: to set the ground rules, expectations, and which of the dozens of optional rules will be used in the game. LOL.

Using Matt as an example doesn't help your argument, because Matt adapts the rules of the game and the lore of the world to accommodate his players' desires.

Just sayin'.

As a surprise to no one, you are wrong yet again. I am positive Matt would not completely change his style and refrain from what he is famous for and good at (narration and role play) in favor of a strictly tactical grid based game with no narration at all. I would bet you money that his response would be closer to "Then maybe you need to find a different DM, because you're asking me to do the opposite of what I'm the best at." Actually, check that. He'd probably say, "Well, let me do what I'm really good at, and then you can see how fun it is."

Either way, I'm sure Matt's fun would be pretty much eliminated if you forced him to run a game that is the opposite of what he likes and what he's very good at. But more to the point of what you, Hussar, and twosix have argued, him declining to DM in that situation doesn't make him a bad, failed, or otherwise entitled DM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

epithet

Explorer
That is literally the job of the DM: to set the ground rules, expectations, and which of the dozens of optional rules will be used in the game. LOL.

As a surprise to no one, you are wrong yet again. I am positive Matt would not completely change his style and refrain from what he is famous for and good at (narration and role play) in favor of a strictly tactical grid based game with no narration at all. I would bet you money that his response would be closer to "Then maybe you need to find a different DM, because you're asking me to do the opposite of what I'm the best at." Actually, check that. He'd probably say, "Well, let me do what I'm really good at, and then you can see how fun it is."

Either way, I'm sure Matt's fun would be pretty much eliminated if you forced him to run a game that is the opposite of what he likes and what he's very good at.

It is the job of the DM to be the final arbiter of the rules, not to disregard the players.

It may be that you've never watched Critical Role, I myself haven't watched it in a while. I do know, however, that Matt uses a "tactical grid" in the form of battlemaps and elaborate Dwarven Forge scenario builds. I'm not sure what you mean by "no narration at all," because I can't imagine how you would run D&D, or any tabletop RPG, without narration. If you're suggesting a hypothetical where everyone at the Critical Role table would just point at their mini and grunt, and Matt would then roll some dice and smash the mini with a hammer, well... you might as well posit a scenario where they're all playing while hanging upside down from the rafters, wrapped in aluminum foil. The entire cast of Critical Role has a clear consensus when it comes to the amount of narration in the game. If Matt had announced that season two would feature significantly less role play and more tactical combat, the group would have imposed upon him to reverse that position.

It seems like you are trying to prove up your version of the typical, basic tabletop RPG group dynamic by coming up with increasingly unlikely and, quite frankly, ridiculous scenarios. I don't think any of us (other than you) are talking about circumstances where a member of the group (much less the group as a whole) are advocating "no narration at all" in a D&D game. That example is not helpful to the discussion.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Sounds like Bob needs to be more assertive, but whereas Barbara was the spokesman for the group, you were not. I don't know how far away the con was, but claiming the prerogative to tell everyone in the group when it's time to go seems more than a bit obnoxious, and actually rolling out without Bob would have been a real phallic move.
Not when I told the group the move out plans twice before the con, twice at the con. And then told Bob we leaving in 15 minutes to have Bob do an about face and walk out of meeting room. Especially Since Bob was not paying part of the room fee, gas money, or did not even offer to buy me a soda for the trouble. The con was only 94 miles away. But I told Bob I would have left him even if it was 200 + miles to home. Bob was being the phallic.
And Bob the husband had told people before when they lost the dinner choice to suck it up, we just laught.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sacrosanct

Legend
It is the job of the DM to be the final arbiter of the rules, not to disregard the players.
.

I see you're now resorting to strawman arguments as well. No one said anything close to saying the DM should disregard the players. This is what you actually said, which is in fact the job of the DM:

In either case one person shouldn't be dictating the terms and conditions of the game.

If you can't even attempt to be intellectually honest, then I think we're done here.
 

epithet

Explorer
...
As a surprise to no one, you are wrong yet again. I am positive Matt would not completely change his style and refrain from what he is famous for and good at (narration and role play) in favor of a strictly tactical grid based game with no narration at all.
...

To further beat on this horse that is already coughing up blood, no one is talking about "completely changing" anything here. That's your ridiculous example that you imagine might prove your otherwise untenable point. What we're talking about is the limitation or admission of individual slices of published 5e content, like the use of particular feats, or spells, or subclasses. We're not talking about the fundamentals of running a game, we're talking about the details.

So let's leave behind the nonsensical "no narration at all" example, and look at a real example from Critical Role. Matt's campaign world, Exandria, had no firearms. D&D 5e has no gunslingers. Nevertheless, based on his experience with Pathfinder, Taliesin Jaffe wanted to play a gunslinger in Matt's campaign. Matt homebrewed the 5e archetype for him based on the Pathfinder version, and concocted new lore for the setting to support Percy's invention of the firearm based on fiendish guidance, and a hilarious NPC who could provide some extra black powder to Percy if he needed it. Matt accommodated his player's desires into the rules and setting of the game, rather than saying "That's not in my world; if you want to play a gunslinger you need to find another DM."

It would not have made Matt a "failed bad" DM for being unable to accomodate Taliesin's character concept, but he certainly wouldn't be as good a DM as he is if he had been unwilling to even consider it.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top