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


log in or register to remove this ad

Sacrosanct

Legend
As [MENTION=9002]two[/MENTION]-Six says, if your entire group says, "We want a game like X" and you want to run a game for that group, then, yup, you get to suck it up and run the game that they want to play. Or, find a new group. It cuts both ways. A DM who boots players just so he can run his pet project is not a good DM. A DM who tells his entire group, "Nope, I know you all want X but I don't, so, well, I'm running the game, so you all can suck it up" is a bad DM.

At any rate that DM is playing with the wrong group.l

Ah, so we're shifting goalposts. Twosix didn't say the entire group. He said a vote. A simple majority. 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. And why do you keep using aggressive hyperbole and strawmen? Is your argument really that weak that you can't make a point without it? Have I ever said "I'm running the game, if you don't like it you can just suck it."? Have I or anyone else said that a DM who runs the game in their style and preference "Just so they can run their pet project."? Everyone plays in their preferred style when possible. The constant way you attribute malice to people who don't agree with your preference makes me sad, because I think your gaming experiences must have been horrible in order to have this mindset.
 

I don't get how a setting is suddenly immutable after you've started a campaign. I don't see how any scenario here needs to be outright denied either.

I mean this player who "didn't listen to the DM (or bothered to check) about what his game allows" (I mean realistically most D&D campaigns these days don't have racial restrictions, so I wouldn't put it that way), I dunno I'd probably allow the race they wanted if it were reasonable like "oh hey a gnome, were they here before? I dunno, do we need to mention gnomes every session for them to exist?" Maybe it'd be different if it were a race that explicitly didn't exist, but even then I'd consider it, that's something interesting setting-wise. Like the drow didn't go extinct like we all thought they did, they just went into hiding and this new PC has come to warn us (warn is pretty ambiguous here I suppose), or tieflings didn't exist before and suddenly there is one, what's up with that? are they the only tiefling? were they just a regular human before? are devils plotting something? that sounds like an incredible new development in the world that could lead to a new plot thread in the game.

I guess the deity thing is a bit different, but even then I'd work with that player to figure out a thing that makes sense for their character than just "Choose one of these three deities or gtfo".

Ultimately it's your game, I just don't get how a setting can be that immutable, especially when it starts out with player collaboration.
.

One big thing is fairness. The rules of the campaign are set up at the beginning and DM and players agreed to it. Say everyone at the table (but one) hates dragonborn (for whatever reason) - so dragonborn are banned from the game (the one guy who likes them thinking "oh, I can play one in a different game". Then a new player comes in and wants to play a dragonborn - most everyone at the table hates them, and the one guy who would have played a dragonborn, but didn't because he was ok with waiting - would then have thier fun lessened by catering to the late-coming player.

Another reason - Everyone's job at the table is to make sure everyone has fun - DM and players. And just as a DM wouldn't tell a player "You now have a level in Warlock" because that isn't the players choice.. a DM (who's input into the game is the World, the NPCs primarily) has the same sense that player would if a new player came in and said "you are going to let this character play as written".

The DM sets the world/setting/tone (usually with input, or at least agreement to a pitch from the players), the players then abide by that structure. If a player doesn't want to, he can wait to play that character concept later, or not play, or chose to DM himself - there are lots of options for that player.
 

Satyrn

First Post
Ah, so we're shifting goalposts. Twosix didn't say the entire group. He said a vote. A simple majority.
Then why are you using the word consensus to describe what he said? A consensus implies that everyone is on board with the idea, a simple majority does not.
 

the Jester

Legend
As [MENTION=9002]two[/MENTION]-Six says, if your entire group says, "We want a game like X" and you want to run a game for that group, then, yup, you get to suck it up and run the game that they want to play. Or, find a new group.

Or- you let someone else run that game and you take a turn playing, or you sit out that campaign.

No DM is obligated to run a game that caters to anyone but themselves. Nor is any player obligated to play in a game they aren't interested in. It is incumbent upon the group to find the answer that works for everyone. Sometimes that answer is, "Players A and B will be leaving, and we'll find a few new people to play in this campaign." Sometimes it's "I guess I will run this campaign for a different group."

A DM who boots players just so he can run his pet project is not a good DM.

A DM who doesn't force players to play a game they aren't interested in is a good DM. If that is because he is running his pet project, that does not make him a bad DM. It makes him a DM with clear playstyle preferences. That's all. The group doesn't decide what the DM runs except inasmuch as the DM chooses to let them. Nor does it decide what a given player plays, except inasmuch as that player chooses to let them.

A DM who tells his entire group, "Nope, I know you all want X but I don't, so, well, I'm running the game, so you all can suck it up" is a bad DM.

Nope. They're just a DM who wants to enjoy running what they want to enjoy running, and the rest of the group may need to be a different set of players.

The players and DM need to agree, broadly, on what the game is going to be like. But if they don't, they simply find other people to play with. Different playstyles don't make you a bad DM or a bad player. And if they can't, maybe they just don't play that game.

At any rate that DM is playing with the wrong group.l

This is possible. And that doesn't make the DM a bad DM or the players bad players.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Or- you let someone else run that game and you take a turn playing, or you sit out that campaign.

.

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?
 

jasper

Rotten DM
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.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Ah, so we're shifting goalposts. Twosix didn't say the entire group. He said a vote. A simple majority.[...]
Are we really at this level of nitpicking now?

One big thing is fairness. The rules of the campaign are set up at the beginning and DM and players agreed to it. Say everyone at the table (but one) hates dragonborn (for whatever reason) - so dragonborn are banned from the game (the one guy who likes them thinking "oh, I can play one in a different game". Then a new player comes in and wants to play a dragonborn - most everyone at the table hates them, and the one guy who would have played a dragonborn, but didn't because he was ok with waiting - would then have thier fun lessened by catering to the late-coming player.
I don't get how working together with a player to figure out their race is "catering". This doesn't even address the same as the scenario(s) I presented.

Another reason - Everyone's job at the table is to make sure everyone has fun - DM and players. And just as a DM wouldn't tell a player "You now have a level in Warlock" because that isn't the players choice.. a DM (who's input into the game is the World, the NPCs primarily) has the same sense that player would if a new player came in and said "you are going to let this character play as written".
Where did I ever say this was okay???

The DM sets the world/setting/tone (usually with input, or at least agreement to a pitch from the players), the players then abide by that structure. If a player doesn't want to, he can wait to play that character concept later, or not play, or chose to DM himself - there are lots of options for that player.
Again, how is a setting so inflexible as to not allow new ideas into it?
 

the Jester

Legend
Again, how is a setting so inflexible as to not allow new ideas into it?

Let's say as an example that the DM is running a humans-only for pcs campaign. Do you really think he's obligated to allow a player to make a pc that isn't human?

It's not necessarily about inflexibility. Not every piece of material fits in every campaign. Some campaigns simply don't have race x or monster y in them. That's the DM's purview to decide. In others, a given race may not fit for pcs. If you want to play a Drow pc, you need to do it in a campaign that isn't mine, because in my game, Drow are monsters, not pcs. Likewise, if you want to play a changeling, my game is not the place where it is going to happen, because they aren't around in my game. I'm not going to shoehorn a race in to satisfy a given player. The integrity of the setting is more important than catering to one player's desires. Sorry, but not all DMs or campaigns give that level of narrative control to the players. If that doesn't sit well with someone, I'm not holding a gun to their head and forcing them to play in my game.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top