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

epithet

Explorer
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.

In fairness, if Bob's not pitching in for gas or expenses and he's being petulant, that does somewhat change the situation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

reelo

Hero
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.

Some people don't play like that. I like my PCs at first level to be only marginally above regular people. "Zero to Hero" not "Hero to Superhero".
But then again, what do I know, I'm finding OSR games vastly more interesting than 5E.
 

epithet

Explorer
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:

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

No, it is not the job of the DM to dictate the terms and conditions of the game. The DM creates or controls the world, and runs the game, but the terms and conditions of the game are agreed to by the group of people playing it, including the DM. Even if the DM makes an integrated pitch including the rules and setting, and the players just reply "ok," that's agreement. It is not the role of one member of the group to say to the others, "This is what we're going to play, and this is how we're going to play it," disregarding any input from the other members of the group (which is what "dictating the terms and conditions of the game" is.)

I get that you're probably frustrated with the fact that your arguments aren't as persuasive as you had hoped, but resorting to accusations of dishonesty on my part is unseemly and just seems desperate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Some people don't play like that. I like my PCs at first level to be only marginally above regular people. "Zero to Hero" not "Hero to Superhero".
But then again, what do I know, I'm finding OSR games vastly more interesting than 5E.

Okay that's your prerogative, but all I'm saying is since at least 3rd edition D&D assumes your character is some kind of exceptional person (personally, I don't see how "zero to hero" and "exceptional" are mutually exclusive, but I guess we have different ideas of what exceptional means).
 

TheSword

Legend
For me as a DM banning items like Leomunds Tiny Hut, Alertness, Lucky etc isn’t about not being able to come up with solutions for these things in game...

... it’s about picking my battles, and deciding where I want the tension in the game to be...

... do I want to argue about whether Leominster tiny hut shuts down the encounter or not. No. I’d prefer the tension to be on the story, the characters and creative solutions to the problems. I avoid any auto-shut-downs wherever they may be found.

That’s not cowardice. It’s just avoiding wasting time pandering to one player’s perception of their fun at the cost of the story/world/other players/own sanity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pemerton

Legend
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?

<snip>

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.
By "running" do you mean "pitching"? Or "planning to run"? Or that the campaign is already underway and someone wants to join in?

I'll leave the last one alone, as it raises some extra questions about fitting new fiction with established fiction. But as far as the first two are concerned, I think that Luke Crane's advice in Burning Wheel (Gold edition, p 82) is pretty good:

If the GM proposes a game without magic, there's always that one player who's got to play the last mage. And you know what? That's good. Before the game has even started, we have a spark of conflict - we have the player getting involved in shaping the situation. Discuss the situation as you present your character concept. Tie them both together - a dying world without magic, the last mage, the quest to restore the land. In one volley of discussion you've got an epic in the making. Start mixing in the other character concepts - they should all be toed to the background - and you have the makings of a Burning Wheel game.

The cult priestess sworn to aid the last mage . . . and then spill his blood so that the world can be reborn; the Lord High Inquisitor whose duty it is to hunt the Gifted, but whose own brother is the last hope. Now we're talking.​

The integrity of the setting is more important than catering to one player's desires.
I see assertions of sole-GM-authority-over-setting as a common manifestation of a broader idea of sole-GM-authority-over-the-fiction. I think that tends to undermine rather than foster what is fun and distinctive about RPGing.

not all DMs or campaigns give that level of narrative control to the players.
Sure, but you didn't ask Do you really think the GM will allow a player to make a pc that isn't human? You asked Do you really think the GM is obligated to allow a player to make a pc that isn't human? You asked a question about what's best or what's appropriate, not for a prediction of what is likely or going to happen.

As I said, I think that sole GM authority over fiction pushes against what is fun and distinctive about RPGing, which is the collective generation of a shared fiction.
 



Sadras

Legend
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.

According to this statement if he had considered it and then said no he would still be a good DM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sadras

Legend
I see assertions of sole-GM-authority-over-setting as a common manifestation of a broader idea of sole-GM-authority-over-the-fiction. I think that tends to undermine rather than foster what is fun and distinctive about RPGing.

Given that the 5e DMG is full of Master-of-the-Setting type advice, it might be seen that with comments such as these, you're implying that the WotC designers seem to be undermining the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top