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!

 

[Fleetwood C. DeVille]

It is absolutely wonderful that your way works, for you, with the RPGs that you run (Prince Valiant, etc.). But that is not what everyone wants, enjoys, or is looking for.

Some people (BRAD!) just want to drink beer, eat pretzels, and roll some dice.

Some people like to play within the strictures of someone else's world. (Tennis with a net).

Some people prefer an old-school, adversarial approach (TOMB OF HORRORS FTW!).

Some people enjoy exploring someone else's creation.

I find it entertaining that players can change "Archetype" from game to game, and sometimes even session to session.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Re: the chef analogy, I think this is a much better analogy. Let's say you are a chef. A great chef specializing in vegetarian meals, working at your vegetation restaurant. A group of customers call in wanting catering and say, "Hey man, we really want you to make us some grilled steak and BBQ chicken." Your response is, "Well, I don't really cook that. Not only am I not good at cooking meat since I never use it, I really don't want to, because it doesn't fit with my vision of cooking. By all means, one of you can cook, or you can find someone else to cook for you." You're physically capable of cooking meat, but it's not anywhere near what you'd like to do, or what you're good at, and they knew beforehand what your limitations were because you were right up front with what kinds of things you do make.

According to some of the terms people have used in this thread, you are entitled, bad, a failed chef, a coward, and selfish.


And people wonder why there is almost always a shortage of DMs. Not many people want to DM if the group of players has an attitude that the DM is there to cater to their preferences and desires even if it runs counter to the ideas and type of game the DM wants to run, and if he or she doesn't, he or she is insulted for it. You shouldn't try to force a DM to run a game against what they want any more than you should force a restaurant to make things they don't make. And at least with a restaurant, you're paying them. The DM gets this grief and is doing it for free.

 

[TheSword]

+10 the post above by Sacrosanct.

I remember running a pirate campaign in pathfinder, it was a gritty real world, black sails style, with some magic added to spice things up but around a pirate theme - weather mage PC, cleric of the pirate patron etc. This was detailed in advance with a substantial campaign brief/players guide.

One of the players new to the group ignored the guide and wanted to play a ranger (fine), with twin cutlasses (also fine) but also wanted to be able to ride a giant wolf on board ship (I beg your pardon), yes a giant wolf in a tropical setting. He chose wolf because it was the option available at the earliest level that let him ride it with the best mechanical advantage. He justified this because of a character he’d seen in manga (one piece) and couldn’t understand why I asked him not to... to the point of really taking it personally and feeling victimized. This was all discussed session 0 before play had started and it always surprises me to this day. It’s a reminder that one persons sources and inspiration may be very different from another persons.

Key learning - select your players/dm carefully to avoid disappointment on both sides.

 

[ccs]

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.

(shrugs) I'm well old enough to know what I enjoy/don't enjoy in my hobby. And I'm not going to waste time/effort DMing stuff I dislike. What'd be the point? I'd waste my game time & not have any fun.
{of course if I were being paid ALOT of $.... I still wouldn't be having fun, but it wouldn't be a waste of time}

SO:
When I'm DMing I'll run the following (D&D) systems: 1e, PF or 5e. That's it, that's your only D&D choices.
In addition? I dislike psionics in D&D. They don't interest me & I've yet to read any set of their rules that I like. So they don't exist in games I run. This A) saves me from having to slog through rules for something I don't like B) saves YOU from me poorly DMing it.
I also don't like games full of monster races as PCs. So I will STRONGLY encourage you to save that concept for someone else's game and simply say no to a great # of such concepts.
I'm also not running political intrigue stuff. I'm not good at writing it, I won't enjoy running it, so it won't feature in what's to come (beyond as a general backdrop sometimes).
These things are not negotiable. These things are known up-front.
So if this is what the group wants? Then why are they asking me to DM?

 

[Mistwell]

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:

I think a lot of the objection to what you said is less to do with your ultimate position, and more to do with the over the top aggressive manner you took that position. For example, rather than saying, "You're concerned rule X will be unduly burdensome to keep track of in the game, or shift the balance of power in unexpected ways" you say, "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."

That's a pretty baseless claim to make, and also the least generous perspective on why DMs might be reluctant to use a rule. It sure seems like the phrasing of, "You're incapable of dealing with" is written like an intentional shot across the bow, challening people to rebut you in a similarly over the top aggressive manner.

So...maybe settle down, Beavis?

 

[Mistwell]

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).

I think this is correct, to a degree. "A 1st-level character is inexperienced in the adventuring world, although he or she might have been a soldier or a pirate and done dangerous things before. Starting off at 1st level marks your character’s entry into the adventuring life." hower "But even 1st-level characters are heroes, set apart from the common people by natural characteristics, learned skills, and the hint of a greater destiny that lies before them."

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] Every Dining out hussar votes steak, steak, steak, steak, steak, steak,. Some times Fried shrimp with steak. The rest of us vote on variety. Sooner or later Hussar is going lose the vote. So he has to learn to got along with reasonable demands. Or hit Steak and Shake alone this Taco Tuesday.

Sorry If I told the group the Convoy/Train/Plane leaves at 1600 hrs 2 times before the event, 2 times in the ride to the event. 2 times at the event. And at 1545 I tell you to be ready, you turn and run away deeper in the con. You are the one with problem.

So Matt Mercer must allow me to use my Vulcan with wolverine claws, phaser, and magical missile or he is a bad DM. Got it.

Why is it when I suggest that consensus is a better way to run a game, people automatically take things to ridiculous extremes and assume bad faith on the part of the player? I really don't get it.

 

[Hussar]

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 know right? What a terrible person I am for suggesting that DM's listen to their players and learn what their players want. Terrible. Just terrible. If we listen to the players, they'll as has been suggested in this thread, only want to break the game and twink out their characters. Much better if we, as DM's police their tastes and wants so that they play the game the right way.

Horrible. Just horrible.

Look, are there reasons for saying no to an idea? Sure. There's tons of them. But, "No because I'm the DM" just means that the DM is inflexible. Not a quality I'd aspire to as a DM. "I don't like X, so, when I run the game, no one gets X" is a failure of imagination on the part of the DM. And the only reason the DM gets to do that is out of this very outdated notion that the DM is somehow more important than anyone else at the table.

To put it another way, if you cannot explain to me why X is bad in any other terms than "I just don't like it", then I have no real issues with presenting a game to the group that appeals to everyone's tastes. You said it yourself, if I want X in the game, I should run the game. Ok. Fair enough. Not a problem. Being the DM is something I enjoy. Not a burden that I can use to guilt trip the players into doing whatever I want to do.

 

[pemerton]

Some people (BRAD!) just want to drink beer, eat pretzels, and roll some dice.

Some people like to play within the strictures of someone else's world. (Tennis with a net).

Some people prefer an old-school, adversarial approach (TOMB OF HORRORS FTW!).

Some people enjoy exploring someone else's creation.

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.

For those who are playing "beer and pretzels" or old school dungeoneering (a fine sort of RPGing though one I personally tend to suck at both as GM and player), the issue of GM banning things shouldn't even come up, unless there are balance issues. ToH is no less playable by a tiefling, dragonborn and drow than an elf, dwarf and hobbit.

I would say that there would be some hubris involved in saying that people who do not share your view "are not maximally exploring the distinctive potential of [RPGs]." That's .... kind of a dismissive point of view.

It may be hubristic (that's for others to judge). I don't agree that it's dismissive.

Other fields of human creative endeavour are also fields for the operation of aesthetic judgement. I don't see that RPGs should be inherently different.

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.

I am evincing a preference. I'm not saying that other preferences are wrong. I'm not even saying they're bad. I am saying that there is something that is lost in sole-GM-authored-fiction.

What isn't okay is for a group to demand that I run those games. I'm not interested.

<snip>

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.

I'm not insisting that anyone do anything. We're in the realm of hobby gaming. Talk about duties has got no work to do. I'm talking about aesthetic values.

So if this is what the group wants? Then why are they asking me to DM?

Sure. There are things I can and will do, and things I can't or won't do, too. I didn't post anything about what anyone should do.

 

[the Jester]

And the only reason the DM gets to do that is out of this very outdated notion that the DM is somehow more important than anyone else at the table.

The DM is more important than anyone else at the table. Without the DM, the game, or at least that game, doesn't run. With any other player missing a session, the game can go on. The DM also typically spends far more time and effort on the game, though there may be some rpgs for which this is an exception. The burden of knowing the rules almost always falls far more heavily on the DM, as well.