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

Sacrosanct

Legend
This, more than anything else that I see on En World, I think explains the largest difference I see in how people approach D&D.

I haven't played in a group with only one DM, well, almost ever. A couple of years in 2e was about the only time. The vast majority of time we've had multiple DM's in the group so, one DM being able to claim "my way or the highway" is a quick route to playersville. We virtually have to have consensus since, pretty much at any time, someone else is willing to run a game that everyone (rather than just some of the group) wants to run a game.

No one is really saying "my way or the highway" though. That's a negative spin on it. What's happening is "if you want to play in my game world, we're going to play in the structure of that game world. Otherwise, I'm totally open to anyone else running a game." I'm not kicking people out of my house and not allowing them to play anything if they don't agree with me.

If we wanted to play in Middle Earth, and more than half of the players wanted to play dragonborn but the DM said "sorry, it doesn't fit the game", are you seriously arguing that that DM is saying "my way or the highway"?

It's why I loathe phrases like that, or "mother may I". They are aggressive terms loaded with inference to paint the DM as an inherently bad person. I'm at the point now that when I see people use those terms, I start assuming they are people who if they don't get their way, start attacking other people much like a child would.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sacrosanct

Legend
There's a holy trifecta, if you will, of rules I think if everyone lived by, many of these issues would be resolved:

1. No reasonable request should be unreasonably denied
2. There isn't a single DM conflict in preferences that can't be resolved by DMing yourself, or finding another DM
3. Rules will not fix broken people (play with people you enjoy hanging out with and playing with, don't expect rules to keep bad people in check; it doesn't work)
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
If we wanted to play in Middle Earth, and more than half of the players wanted to play dragonborn but the DM said "sorry, it doesn't fit the game", are you seriously arguing that that DM is saying "my way or the highway"?
I'd probably point out that if the half or more than half of the players want to play dragonborn in a Middle Earth game, they're pretty much saying they don't want to play in a Middle Earth game. Or at least, they're interested in using elements from Middle Earth but not actually using the whole setting.

That's usually the point where I would suggest something else.
 

epithet

Explorer
...
If we wanted to play in Middle Earth, and more than half of the players wanted to play dragonborn but the DM said "sorry, it doesn't fit the game", are you seriously arguing that that DM is saying "my way or the highway"?
...

I would submit to you that if more than half of the players want to play dragonborn that y'all don't actually want to play in Middle Earth.

Although... if among the refugees from Laketown were a number of women who were pregnant when Smaug's blood rained upon Esgaroth and tainted the Long Lake, their children born thereafter might carry some legacy of the dragon, even if they don't look like D&D dragonborn. I can see using the dragonborn crunch even if the dragonborn fluff is inapplicable.

Edit: Dammit, [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]!
 
Last edited by a moderator:


da_baron

Explorer
"Healing Spirit" specifically has soured me on allowing anything beyond the standard 5e material.

I think people need to read the spell description more closely. It states... "Until the spell ends, when you or a creature you can see moves into the spirit's space for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, you can cause the spirit to restore 1d6 hit points to that creature, no action required."

Everyone seems to miss the work "first". This means the spell only works once for each person who enters the spirit or starts their turn within it. If you re-enter or its moved over you a second time, it won't work. The spell is actually balanced nicely for 2nd level. The ranger in our party uses it all the time to help give provide a little one time healing or revival of a fallen comrade.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
I think people need to read the spell description more closely. It states... "Until the spell ends, when you or a creature you can see moves into the spirit's space for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, you can cause the spirit to restore 1d6 hit points to that creature, no action required."

Everyone seems to miss the work "first". This means the spell only works once for each person who enters the spirit or starts their turn within it. If you re-enter or its moved over you a second time, it won't work. The spell is actually balanced nicely for 2nd level. The ranger in our party uses it all the time to help give provide a little one time healing or revival of a fallen comrade.
Has this been clarified on the AL DM discussion page? If so how did I miss it?
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Probably someone already said this but I don't allow bards because they are bards

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.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
This, more than anything else that I see on En World, I think explains the largest difference I see in how people approach D&D.

I haven't played in a group with only one DM, well, almost ever. A couple of years in 2e was about the only time. The vast majority of time we've had multiple DM's in the group so, one DM being able to claim "my way or the highway" is a quick route to playersville. We virtually have to have consensus since, pretty much at any time, someone else is willing to run a game that everyone (rather than just some of the group) wants to run a game.

We also have multiple DMs.

It's just that all our DMs are awesome, and the players trust them to make their choices for good reasons. If the players want to use Facing rules and one of our DMs says, "No that's not a good choice for this campaign" the players all trust this is a good decision because of years knowing that DM, and all our DMs, are really very good and don't make those decisions lightly.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I'd probably point out that if the half or more than half of the players want to play dragonborn in a Middle Earth game, they're pretty much saying they don't want to play in a Middle Earth game. Or at least, they're interested in using elements from Middle Earth but not actually using the whole setting.

That's usually the point where I would suggest something else.

I would submit to you that if more than half of the players want to play dragonborn that y'all don't actually want to play in Middle Earth.

!

Well, then you'd both be wrong. It's also a pretty big assumption to just assume that if players want to impart any part of D&D that isn't canon into ME that it means they don't really want to play ME. ME is a lot of things. The lands, the lore, the NPCs, the stories, etc. Maybe the players want to play with all of that, but just wanted to play dragonborn (or a tiefling, or a class, or whatever else) in that setting. You shouldn't assume that wanting to play something not canon to a setting means they don't want to play in that setting at all. That's simply a bad assumption to make.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top