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

Sacrosanct

Legend
I know right? What a terrible person I am for suggesting that DM's listen to their players and learn what their players want. Terrible. Just terrible. If we listen to the players, they'll as has been suggested in this thread, only want to break the game and twink out their characters. Much better if we, as DM's police their tastes and wants so that they play the game the right way.

Horrible. Just horrible. :erm:
.

Has anyone called you a horrible person or otherwise insulted you? No. In fact, it's you and a few others who have been the ones to personally insult other people who don't agree with you (cowards, failed, bad DM, etc). And has anyone in this entire thread even remotely made the claim that if a DM listens to the players, then the players will break the game? Or that DMs need to police their tastes?

Serious question, are you physically incapable of actually responding to what people are actually arguing without resorting to hyperbole and strawmen?

For some reason, you continue to assume that the argument "DM's aren't beholden to what the players want, especially if what they want doesn't fit in the game world" is the same thing as "DMs shouldn't bother listening to players at all, and if they don't like it, they can suck it." Well, those two things are not the same. Everyone advocates listening to the players. The only difference is that people like myself have been saying that after listening to the players, the DM isn't required to do what they want, especially if it runs counter to that DM's world.

The fact that you think someone not doing what you want means they didn't even listen to you speaks volumes, frankly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sacrosanct

Legend
Yeah, I have a 7 player group, myself included. I run a S&W game and there is the backup 5e game, so yeah I do get a bit more leeway since none of them seem to want to put the effort into running a game outside of John and my games tend to be preferred by the group. And honestly, if I'm being pushed to run something I don't really have a desire to it leads to me putting less time into it. I have limited amount of game hours in the week, and if my choice is spending prep time on a game I'm not totally into or putting that time into painting units or terrain for my weekly Chain of Command/Frostgrave/Bolt Action games...well the game I'm enjoying more tends to win out. Not to punish the players for not toeing the line, but because I get more enjoyment out of the other one. So my group tends to go along fine with whatever I want to run.

Maybe Hussar does have every single member of his group want to DM, but that's certainly not the norm. The fact is, is that DMs are in high demand. Most people don't want to for various reasons (they feel intimidated, they don't enjoy it, they don't want to put in the work, they don't feel they know the rules well enough, they think they will be bad at it, etc). That's indisputable. So knowing how there are a shortage of DMs, the attitudes displayed by some there that the DM must cater to the players really strikes me as odd. The reality is this. Any DM can ban things, limit things, and otherwise run their game world as he or she wants and still have plenty of players who want to join, and have fun while doing so because those players don't demand that they be the snowflake everyone else should cater to. Does it sound harsh? Maybe. But it's reality. That's the incentive for being a DM. You put in a ton more work than anyone else, so you get to run the game how you want. That doesn't mean you should be a tyrant (because then don't complain when no one wants to play with you), but it does mean you have control over your game world.
 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
Remember kiddies "No roleplaying is better than bad roleplaying."
Remember kiddies "If the DM is not having fun, you won't either."
Remember kiddies "You don't have to play the game unless you are an addict!"
Remember Kiddies, "Auntie Jasper will be here all week and remember to tip your host!"

QFT.
 

Satyrn

First Post
A silly little aside

. . . Honestly, I don't know how well the chef analogy works under scrutiny . . .
*raises hand*

Ooh, ooh! I know the answer. Call on me Mr Kotter!


Like every analogy ever, the chef analogy fails horribly under scrutiny.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
First of all, people are misapplying coward to themselves even though I explained exactly what I meant by coward. "I find it cowardly if you ban something without looking into it because you think it'll ruin your plans." "So if I ban a race because it doesn't fit my setting it makes me a coward? :):):):) you buddy!"

But also you make it sound as if such DMs don't actually exist. There's already an example in this very thread; some people refuse to allow the Ceremony spell because in 3rd edition Atonement was a 5th level spell and therefore it's too overpowered. But as others already pointed out the Atonement part of Ceremony is not nearly as powerful as its 3rd edition counterpart, also alignment has little to no mechanical value in 5e. IIRC Atonement was mostly used in 3rd edition to help paladins who went against their alignment, but now paladins follow a very specific set of vows and no amount of changing your alignment is gonna help with that.

You're not listening but that's OK, I am patient. I think a lot of the objection to what you said is less to do with your ultimate position, and more to do with the over the top aggressive manner you took that position. For example, rather than saying, "You're concerned rule X will be unduly burdensome to keep track of in the game, or shift the balance of power in unexpected ways" you say, "but preemptively banning something because you're afraid of it ruining your carefully laid out plans seems like you're incapable of dealing with not everything going the way you want it."

So let's apply that to what you just said. Sure, some DMs are hesitant to allow the ceremony spell BECAUSE THEY ARE CONCERNED IT WILL SHIFT THE BALANCE OF POWER IN AN UNEXPECTED WAY. Maybe they are incorrect in thinking that, but that's what they're concerned about. Not because they are "afraid of it ruining their carefully laid out plan and are incapable of dealing with not everything going their way".

Get it now? You took a way over the top aggressive stance, and you don't even appear to believe in that stance when it came to the first example you tried to apply to your position. So maybe chill out on calling people cowards and incapable of coping when you appear to actually mean people should try things out before concluding they will upset balance or require too much tracking?

I also recall when 4e came out...

I feel very confident your over the top aggressive approach to this topic is not because of some event which literally happened a decade ago with people not even in this thread.

You took a position to the people in this thread. It was a strawman. You appeared to intentionally poke at people calling them cowards and/or incapable of dealing with something, and when people pushed back as I am sure you knew they would, you acted the wounded victim saying things like, "Man, so confrontational :)" as if you didn't expect calling people cowards and/or incapable of dealing with an ordinary challenge of the game to get a non-confrontational response.

I mean it's your right to be so in your face to people if that's what you enjoy, but don't act so surprised when people are in your face back over it. Own your behavior.
 


Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Use rope much?

Okay the eladrin uses a rope to get other players across. While he's setting up the rope he's ambushed by goblins and has to fight them off on his own. Or in the case of hobgoblins the party is ambushed while two of the PCs are going across on the rope, and one of the hobgoblins manages to cut the rope before they can get across.

You could argue Mystara does not have misty-stepping Eladrin.
Irrelevant.


But at what point can you not accept no for an answer?
Never, did you miss where I said I go from game to game and ruin DMs settings by inserting my weird homebrew races?


Do you just love eladrin that goddamn much?
It's an example.

To be clear I don't give a crap about Eladrin, I just think you should be honest about how you represent DM's as inflexible but are unwilling to answer the same question when turned on the player.
Players don't get to be very flexible, meanwhile DMs can do whatever they want in their game, why would I advocate for DM flexibility? "Please make a donation to my charity The Panda-s1 Foundation for the Rich, will someone please think of the billionaires???"


@Panda-s1
“.. OR Bob still refuses to innovate…” and when Jo Vegan becomes a success and pulls the veggie crowd away. Bob restaurant GROWS TOO because “He has the MEAT” and half the casual wait staff of JO quit and go to BOB BEEFEATER because the beef eaters tip better. Success for Bob again! Be like Bob eat beef! A burger today keeps a vegan away on Tuesday.
Why would Bob suddenly start selling meat? He's a vegetarian. Also every other restaurant in his area sells meat, changing to a meat based menu doesn't make him special or stand out.

You're not listening but that's OK, I am patient. I think a lot of the objection to what you said is less to do with your ultimate position, and more to do with the over the top aggressive manner you took that position. For example, rather than saying, "You're concerned rule X will be unduly burdensome to keep track of in the game, or shift the balance of power in unexpected ways" you say, "but preemptively banning something because you're afraid of it ruining your carefully laid out plans seems like you're incapable of dealing with not everything going the way you want it."

So let's apply that to what you just said. Sure, some DMs are hesitant to allow the ceremony spell BECAUSE THEY ARE CONCERNED IT WILL SHIFT THE BALANCE OF POWER IN AN UNEXPECTED WAY. Maybe they are incorrect in thinking that, but that's what they're concerned about. Not because they are "afraid of it ruining their carefully laid out plan and are incapable of dealing with not everything going their way".

Get it now? You took a way over the top aggressive stance, and you don't even appear to believe in that stance when it came to the first example you tried to apply to your position. So maybe chill out on calling people cowards and incapable of coping when you appear to actually mean people should try things out before concluding they will upset balance or require too much tracking?
I don't believe saying "coward" was at all over the top.

Also "Not because they are "afraid of it ruining their carefully laid out plan and are incapable of dealing with not everything going their way"." This is the sort of DM I'm talking about. I guess we have a disagreement that this sort of DM exists. I gave examples of this sort of thing happening. You don't have to believe me, but that's fine.


I feel very confident your over the top aggressive approach to this topic is not because of some event which literally happened a decade ago with people not even in this thread./QUOTE]
It's a valid example of people overreacting to official RPG content they thought was overpowered.

You took a position to the people in this thread. It was a strawman. You appeared to intentionally poke at people calling them cowards and/or incapable of dealing with something, and when people pushed back as I am sure you knew they would, you acted the wounded victim saying things like, "Man, so confrontational :)" as if you didn't expect calling people cowards and/or incapable of dealing with an ordinary challenge of the game to get a non-confrontational response.

I mean it's your right to be so in your face to people if that's what you enjoy, but don't act so surprised when people are in your face back over it. Own your behavior.
It's only a strawman if I'm applying it to every DM who doesn't allow official content. I'm not. Nor should saying "some DMs are cowards" evoke aggressive question asking. I may have been flippant throughout this thread, but not once did I angrily grill anyone with loaded questions because they dared to question a player's desires. Saying a specific type of DMs are cowards is probably the most aggressive thing I did in this thread. Otherwise, I fail to see where I've been "so in your face".
 

Grognerd

Explorer
I don't believe saying "coward" was at all over the top.

And this pretty much summarizes why debating with you or attempting to reason with you on this is a pointless endeavor. When multiple people are pointing out and demonstrating why your rhetoric is caustic and you fail to see it... well, not much more to say.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I don't believe saying "coward" was at all over the top.

Well believe it brother, cause that's no illusion.

It's only a strawman if I'm applying it to every DM who doesn't allow official content. I'm not. Nor should saying "some DMs are cowards" evoke aggressive question asking. I may have been flippant throughout this thread, but not once did I angrily grill anyone with loaded questions because they dared to question a player's desires. Saying a specific type of DMs are cowards is probably the most aggressive thing I did in this thread. Otherwise, I fail to see where I've been "so in your face".

Who in this thread has given you the impression that their disagreement with you on this topic is because they are "incapable of dealing with not everything going the way [they] want it?" Name one person.
 

the Jester

Legend
Irrelevant...


It's a valid example of people overreacting to official RPG content they thought was overpowered.

If it's irrelevant when other people use your example to show you the holes in your argument but a valid example when you're using it, you aren't arguing in good faith. Do you not see the problem here?

As for your calling people cowards and whatnot, and multiple people pointing to that as problematic rhetoric, and your response being "nuh uh!"- that's more of the same.
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top