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!

 

[Sadras]

I woudl say that they tend to undermine rather than fost what is fun and distinctive about RPGing, yes. I see a parallel to 2nd ed AD&D in this respect ...(snip)...

Putting to one side certain formal or semi-formal contexts (AL games, convention games, club games with a GMing roster, etc) we're talking about a social activity among friends. So the question of "where the line is drawn" is the same as "where is the line drawn on choosing a film or choosing a restaurant" - it's a matter of social negotiation among people who may have slightly divergent preferences, and almost certainly have divergent starting points, but who put a high priority on doing the thing together.

Yes it is a social activity, but who is playing the role of the DM when the group is selecting the film or restaurant?
Now in this example there might be a sole driver who will be picking everyone up and may determine what is the best route for him/her to the restaurant, which restaurant may be too far, and where to pick up everybody or the person who makes the reservations for the movie, asks everyone to pay them prior booking movie tickets and by a certain date and tells them to meet them outside the theatre at a particular time.

Can you not see, in both those examples there is a person that provides a particular set of restrictions in the shared social activity. Now you can be the guy who pays /pitches up late, throws everyone off course, but then you'd be the dick, right?

A further consideration in relation to RPGing, though - and the one that I was emphasising upthread in the post you replied to - is that integrating and combining preferences, and bleding divergent starting points to form a common destination, is part of what is good about RPGing. Because it's part of establishing a shared fiction together. So whereas, when it comes to films or restaurants, sometimes we have to compromise, with RPGing compromise often isn't the right notion at all: the GM who works with the player to integrate the "last mage" into the campaign about a world without magic isn't compromising, s/he is building something together with the player that integrates and follows on from their divergent starting points.

I'm not saying the compromising step should not exist, but besides setting restrictions the DM might abhor a certain feat, spell, race or class - should they not be allowed to say "Sorry guys, but I really dislike the concept of monks - so no monks."

Is that a bad DM in your books?

I'm not going to say that RPGers who don't want to do this are doing it wrong, but I don't think they're maximally exploring the potential of the activity.

Potential for fun? You saying every player has only one and only one playable possible concept for a campaign? I'm wondering now who is more inflexible.

 

[oreofox]

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

Why does every setting need to be Forgotten Realms or Golarion from Pathfinder? Sure, there are many people who enjoy the so-called "kitchen sink" settings, and I know at least Golarion was specifically designed in such a way (despite them nearly tunnel-visioning on Varisia, though not the degree that WotC tunnel-visions on the Sword Coast), and those types of settings can be fun (I personally enjoyed Golarion in the 2-ish years I played Pathfinder), but not everyone likes playing in them and not everyone likes running them.

Say you have a group of 6 people, and this group is lucky enough to have 3 people who enjoy DMing. One DM loves running the kitchen-sink setting, one prefers gritty realism low-magic settings (so no spellcasters and so on), and one prefers human-only. Now the kitchen-sink DM just finished up a campaign, and is a little burned out on being DM for a while. So, it falls on one of the other 2. Gritty DM says he will run one, but one player doesn't like to play anything but wizards, another prefers spellcasters as well but reluctantly will play a rogue, and another just doesn't really like the whole gritty realism type. The others don't care what they play, they just want to play. So, what happens? Does Gritty DM have to "suck it up" because 2 players don't want to play a gritty game (with one reluctant) and change his preferred DMing setting thus highly likely the game will suck because the DM is forced into running something he doesn't like? Does Kitchen-Sink DM get forced into DMing another campaign despite being burned out thus possibly tanking the fun of the campaign? Do you force one of the 3 non-DMs to DM something? Or do 2 players sit out this campaign, possibly still hanging out and playing video games or another activity while the other 4 play D&D? The other option is no one plays D&D until Kitchen-Sink DM recovers from his burn-out and starts up something else.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

People really, REALLY take ownership over their games. I think the reason I'm getting so tangled up in these arguments is that I don't. .

That is a good point.
I had a fantasy world that I ran from 77 through 2000 or so - used the same world, through multiple systems and campaigns - the events of previous games became the history of the next. So yeah, I had serious ownership of that world.

I have an uncommon situation where we have a stable gaming group - the core has been together for 25 years, and current make up is the same for 15 years. We have all been playing since '77 or '78. So when we run games, it tends to be limited in scope and with a specific theme (which can grow over time) - as we have all done "generic" games enough we don't want them. We also tend to run multiple campaigns at the same time, alternating every month or two, to let the various GMs rest (usually no more than 2 at a time). With that group make up - and we all know each other's styles and preferences, we do the whole "pitch" idea, and games or chosen or not, with modifications.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe. But no analogy is perfect*, because a DM is not a player. So while one person might say that it is like friends choosing a restaurant, another person might say it is like a chef cooking for people.

I'm not a chef, nor much of a gourmand - still, as I understand it, a chef produces something for others to enjoy by way of consumption (whether metaphorically - by enjoying the look of it, the smell of it, etc - or literally by eating it).

There is, in this respect, some resemblance between a chef and a painter. Or a chef and an author. The relationship between chef and those who enjoy the food is not collaborative in any but the most basic (production-consumption) sense. Likewise for those other modes of creativity.

As I've posted, my view is that those who approach RPGing in this way are not maximally exploring the distinctive potential of the activity, which is the collaborative generation of a shared fiction.

Potential for fun?

No. That's not distinctive to RPGing. The potential to collectively establish a fiction in a very distinctive way, via a "real time" largely unedited interplay of protagonism and antagonism.

Yes it is a social activity, but who is playing the role of the DM when the group is selecting the film or restaurant?
Now in this example there might be a sole driver who will be picking everyone up and may determine what is the best route for him/her to the restaurant, which restaurant may be too far, and where to pick up everybody or the person who makes the reservations for the movie, asks everyone to pay them prior booking movie tickets and by a certain date and tells them to meet them outside the theatre at a particular time.

There may be. Perhaps the game is at someone's house, and that person simply goes bananas every time the drow are mentioned. Or whatever. It seems these sorts of things can be accommodated by other reasonable people. But - and again I think here I overlap with [MENTION=59554]Panda-s1[/MENTION] - I don't see those as the typical sort of case.

The GM who wants to run a world with no magic is not like the driver who has to undertake the chore of dropping everyone off. If running the game is a chore then something has already gone badly wrong. (And of course if person X is the driver because they enjoy driving everyone aroundand don't find it a chore - I've known some people like that - then suddenly they don't get any special say on which restaurant we go to, do they?)

I'm not saying the compromising step should not exist

I'm suggesting that to frame it as compromise is already like framing GMing as a chore - something has misfired.

the DM might abhor a certain feat, spell, race or class - should they not be allowed to say "Sorry guys, but I really dislike the concept of monks - so no monks."

Is that a bad DM in your books?

Without more context, frankly that person sounds a bit precious. But if they have a good reason why a monk wouldn't work, then presumably they can explain and bring others into some sort of shared position - and likewise if they're amenable to reason then someone else can, in principle, explain why on this occasion this monk won't be a problem.

But if we're talking about nothing more than the collision of unalterable preferences, then I'll reiterate that the person who always insists on getting his/her way sounds a bit precious to me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

If I started talking to my group about shared fiction and whatnot I'd get looked at like I was crazy and probably get laughed at. Then again we are an example of old school and adversarial in our gaming.

 

[the Jester]

Man, so confrontational "Exactly where is the line?" Are you honestly that upset over me questioning how much authority a DM needs? Is it really wrong of me to assert the idea of working with your players to figure stuff out? Guess I shouldn't tell you about how I just go from game to game ruining DMs' settings by inserting my nonsense homebrew races without nary an argument. That is the power of my "player entitlement" lmao.

You dodged the question.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Players who think they should have input on how the game world is run, and what is included in that world are people who want the power of the DM but don't want to put in any of the work the DM does.

 

[the Jester]

As I've posted, my view is that those who approach RPGing in this way are not maximally exploring the distinctive potential of the activity, which is the collaborative generation of a shared fiction.

I couldn't disagree more.

While that is a fine way to approach D&D, it is not the way. It's not optimal for all groups. It's not optimal for all DMs.

What you call "precious", I call "a DM with strong playstyle preferences." You are strongly implying that it's badwrongfun. It simply isn't- it's just a form of fun that isn't your optimal playstyle. In fact, I'll go further, and say that you are evincing some strong playstyle preferences with your "let's all collaborate" style. And that's not badwrongfun either. But it isn't for everyone.

The collaborative generation of a shared fiction is far more inhibited by a strongly story-focused game. Do you insist that a sandbox is the one true way to D&D? Even though sandboxing is my preferred playstyle, I absolutely acknowledge that, to some, story is king. And that's okay. What isn't okay is for a group to demand that I run those games. I'm not interested. There are other DMs out there that can do it for them, or one of them can get behind the screen.

To me, the collaborative nature of the game comes from exploring the logical in-world consequences of the actions of the pcs as they affect the setting. The world changes in response to their actions. For that to work, the setting must be persistent, lasting, and logically consistent. And that doesn't work if it changes every time someone wants to play something that isn't in the setting as a pc option. No, you can't play a gunslinger if there are no guns. No, you can't play a Drow if it has been established that Drow are an unknown, mysterious, unheard of race. No, you don't get to insist that the world change to suit your character concept. Change your concept to suit the setting.

Not every friend must play in every game. It's not a slight for me to say, "I'm not interested in a spy game, I'll sit this one out." It's not a slight to say, "It sounds like you don't want to play in the game I want to run." No friend of mine gets to do every social activity I am involved in- not everyone wants to go watch a superhero movie, or to try a slice of ghost pepper with me, or to come over and get drunk. And that's okay.

 

[TheSword]

I’m sorry to say some of the comments about enabling player choices are a bit naive. When I remove or alter something in the game for balance reasons it is almost never because of a DM vs Player balance issue. Rather it’s because one player seeks to become substantially stronger than the rest of the party.

I’ve played in games when one player dominates the game: either deals more damage than the rest of the party combined, or elevates a stat (AC for example) to levels beyond all belief, or uses one spell as nauseum to shut down encounters (tiny hut).

It isn’t fun to me watching this happen and when I DM I believe I have a social contract with the players to referee the game to keep balance. It’s why I don’t allow lucky, some key spells, dipping for 1 or 2 levels etc.

The naïveté is to think that the player with the 38 AC started with the character concept and built around that rather than starting with gimmick and reverse engineering the character concept to attempt to justify the excess.

this imbalance is exemplified by the “last mage” trope that a previous poster used to justify breaking the campaign’s guidelines. It can easily make the game great for one player... and slightly annoying for the others