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?

View attachment 102414
​

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!

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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.

That was just to indicate how different a feel it had than normal expected D&D settings, so yeah.

I hadn't seen what you referenced when you posted, so cool you mention it.
While I argue the "power of the DM" - in my own games I tend to allow just about anything in - I use a lot of third party material, some DMs Guild, some UA. So the mechanics type stuff is usually up in the air for me. I tend to disallow on flavor and theme more than anything.

 

[Panda-s1]

Man I stop paying attention for a day and people are still hung up on me saying "coward". Let's go over what I said again:

In my experience some DMs are just cowards.

Oh hey look, an important word here is "some"! I didn't say all DMs are cowards, but to be fair at this point I could be splitting a dichotomy between DMs who will and won't ban official material from their games.

I mean okay some stuff might not make sense thematically, or sometimes things will gain a reputation for being problematic.

I give some understanding here. I get why DMs might want to ban official material from their games. Hell, I like to be pretty open as a DM, but I've had to say X material won't be allowed for Y reason in my game before.

But I've known DMs who take a look at some official material and their knee-jerk reaction is that it needs to be banned from their game.

HUH in this sentence I'm pointing out a specific type of DM. Specifically, one that I've had to deal with before. Let's see if I elaborate on this point...

Like damn, you're the DM, if something turns out to be OP you can ban it, or you can make things tougher for the players[...]

Oh hey, I do elaborate.

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.

And this is the behavior I'm calling out as cowardly. People seem to believe that I don't think DMs get any sort of authority, but nothing can be further from the truth. This is why I'm calling some DMs cowards; what is it about something that seems powerful at first glance that makes you not want to deal with it in the first place? "Ngggh what if they get a +5 Holy Avenger at first level?" Then f*cking have their god smite them out of righteous fury 'cause a peon decided to wield an artifact meant exclusively for their champions, like god. Or just undo their action and say "Haha no, we'll discuss this later, but for now you can't use X power 'cause it's clearly broken," and if they're gonna have a tantrum about it then tell them to leave. More likely though, as the "laws" of that one blog post better articulated, DMs like this are just afraid of having to think of new and creative ways to deal with some cool new thing, and would rather conform their players than let them be creative with their characters (yes I'm painting broad strokes here, but I'm getting into other behaviors said DMs tend to have). Also, disclaimer about obviously broken stuff (sure, feel free to say this ruins my argument, but if you're gonna compare a +5 weapon at first level to something like, I dunno, one extra cantrip at first level then that's a completely different issue entirely I suppose).

If you don't fall into this category, well I still might (greatly) disagree with what you have to say, but I'm not really calling you a coward.

And if you're upset about me using the word "coward" to describe such people... well, damn. I dunno. Some people get upset 'cause they're not "allowed" to say things like racial slurs, but this isn't even on that level, and not only am I pointing out a specific behavior, but it also falls under what is considered cowardly.

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.

This is part of why I starting GM'ing myself. When I was a wee young tabletop gamer (read: a 19-year-old attending college who had negligible experience with RPGs) I went through a number of GMs, a few who were really good, and well some of them were pretty "bleh". Even with little experience, I was kinda wary of any GM who wasn't into this whole "collaborative storytelling" thing.

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 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.




Aside: someone's probably gonna call a PC being the only representative of their race some disparaging name like "snowflake" or "Mary Sue", but in a game where heroes are supposed to be exceptional that hardly seems like an issue.

 

[Hussar]

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.

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

 

[TheSword]

There are plenty of things I don’t allow that are in the PHB.

Leomunds tiny hut!

 

[Sadras]

I do not intuitively regard those two statements as legs of the same pair of trousers.

Reversible trousers?

I'm the only DM really for our D&D group. Some of the players would want a battle grid for every encounter. I pretty much enjoy running ToM, especially lower levels. I do of course pull out the grid every once in a while for particularly complex combats or if we are dealing with a BBEG, but otherwise the simple answer is no.

Bad DM? No.
Bad player habits? Yes, such as not always paying attention for one or another reason to descriptions provided. I'm not going to change my preferred style of play due to some bad player habits or label myself as a bad DM for not pandering to their every request for a battle grid.

 

[Hussar]

Reversible trousers?

I'm the only DM really for our D&D group. Some of the players would want a battle grid for every encounter. I pretty much enjoy running ToM, especially lower levels. I do of course pull out the grid every once in a while for particularly complex combats or if we are dealing with a BBEG, but otherwise the simple answer is no.

Bad DM? No.
Bad player habits? Yes, such as not always paying attention for one or another reason to descriptions provided. I'm not going to change my preferred style of play due to some bad player habits or label myself as a bad DM for not pandering to their every request for a battle grid.

Well, there's always three stories, your story, their story and probably somewhere in between is closer to the truth.

Do they have bad player habits or are you not quite as entertaining in your descriptions as you think you are? I dunno. I don't sit at your table. But, there's a pretty consistent pattern among DM's to blame the players for "bad habits" rather than stepping back and maybe adjusting to the group. The fact that you label it "pandering" does demonstrate a certain mindset about the players. "bad habits" "pandering" ? Or, perhaps, a game that might benefit from meeting in the middle a little more since it appears to be something of an issue at the table.

 

[Sadras]

Well, there's always three stories, your story, their story and probably somewhere in between is closer to the truth.

True.

Do they have bad player habits or are you not quite as entertaining in your descriptions as you think you are?

It is their teasing that sometimes makes them miss important information. I'm not saying it happens for every encounter but misunderstandings can and do occur.

But, there's a pretty consistent pattern among DM's to blame the players for "bad habits" rather than stepping back and maybe adjusting to the group. The fact that you label it "pandering" does demonstrate a certain mindset about the players. "bad habits" "pandering" ? Or, perhaps, a game that might benefit from meeting in the middle a little more since it appears to be something of an issue at the table.

We recently had boardgamer join our table, who is quite enthusiastic about roleplaying having discovered it late in life. He has purchased a handful of books all at once, signed up on Enworld, backed a RPG kickstarter, devoured Critical Role and some other online podcasts - all within 6-8 months. He very much prefers the battle grid given his background which is understandable and so constantly asks for this, gaining support from some of the other players at the table, who rally behind him, but know better

His fiance has also joined the group, but what I have noticed is as the guys are quick to tease one another and jibber-jabber, invariably various bits of narration/description are missed, the fiance actually pays attention to all that I say and very much scolds them when misunderstandings occur either in or outside of combat.
I have three female players all in all, each in different groups and what I have noticed is that they are more attentive than their male counterparts. Is this a thing, I don't know. It is just my observation from my table.

So I'm comfortable with the word pandering, given the proven attentiveness of the female roleplayers where misunderstandings are less likely to occur.

EDIT: If I had to list, I'd say the 3 biggest desires from my players would be (a) play more often (b) battle-grid and (c) magical goodies.

 

[Tallifer]

There are plenty of things I don’t allow that are in the PHB.

Leomunds tiny hut!

Aye: that's a real party pooper when I try to run a wilderness adventure. I can get around it only by the most obviously intentional means which would also spoil the fun.

 

[cmad1977]

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 pretty much everything you’ve said.

 

[cmad1977]

I only ban things if they’re REALLY out of place thematically. I won’t ban anything because it’s ‘op’ because there isn’t a combo or feat that breaks the game thus far.