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!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

No doubt. I do so much more work on the game than anyone else, prep time, miniatures, terrain, etc. And most of that time is spent trying to make sure the game is fun for the table. I just have limits as to what I'm going to run.

 

[Hussar]

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.

In your view. To me, the group is the most important thing. The DM is just one member of that group. The fact that you do more work doesn't entitle you to any special treatment since, well, if you don't want to do it, there's five other people who do. As far as knowing the rules, that I do very much disagree with. I ran 3e for years knowing that at least one of my players knew the system far better than I did. In 5e, rules discussions are almost always a group thing in our group.

Saying that the DM is more important than anyone else at the table is like saying the umpire in baseball is the most important person on the field. After all, without an umpire, you can't play. But, I'm pretty sure that he or she is not the most important person on the field.

I do the work of being a DM because I like the work of being a DM. I don't do it so that I can guilt trip my players into accepting my preferences ahead of their own. I'm rather happy that my days of playing with DM's who think that way are long behind me. Makes for much, much better games when everyone is engaged.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

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.

I would phrase it differently: my house, my rules.

When I play Monopoly, fines will not go into the middle for people who land on Free Parking. When I watch movies, there will be no gorno. When I eat pizza there is no mushroom on it. When I play D&D, there are no evil PCs.

Everyone has deal-breakers - things they won't compromise on. These are some of mine. If you want to play the "fines to Free Parking" rule or allow evil PCs then all power to you. You can run your game at your house any way you like; I just won't be in it. At my house, I'm not willing to sit around and watch you play a game I'm not in, so we play by my rules.

For the GM role, replace "my house" with "my time and/or financial investment".

In other words, if I'm paying for the pizza, it won't have mushroom on it.

 

[Panda-s1]

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.

Man that's a lot to unpack. First of all are you expecting me to side with the 2 players and say that the DM needs to cater to their whims? Secondly, this runs counter to everything everyone has said about consensus and coming to an agreement with the players.

Let's pretend two of those people who don't care actually do care and suddenly we have 4 players who don't want to play in a gritty setting. Should the DM force their gritty setting game on all the players, even though he's outnumbered? Does he actually hate running a kitchen-sink setting to the point that him running it would actually be terrible? Or does he compromise and runs the game people would better enjoy and have a good time with his friends (uh, they're all friends, right??)? I get the want of playing a certain type of game, and there are all sorts of ideas I never got to run due to lack of interest, but that's just how it is sometimes, even as a DM.

You dodged the question.

D:

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.

"you are entitled, bad, a failed chef, a coward, and selfish" I mean yeah, these are ways that I've seen people describe vegetarians lol. Honestly, I don't know how well the chef analogy works under scrutiny, I mean first of all being a vegetarian (and especially a vegetarian chef) means having specific morals in regards to the use and consumption of animals. I doubt the DM who only runs scary viking land game would compromise their morals by running a different kind of game.

Also, I can very easily find a different chef to cook my meals. "I'm Bruce the DM I only run horror themed games" well have fun Bruce I'm gonna go join Michelle's airship campaign 'cause I like airships and I nope the away from horror. But I doubt Bruce is lacking in players, a lot of people like horror themed games, unless Bruce is a hardass then maybe not so much.

But let's revisit the vegetarian chef. Focusing on the vegetarian part is a bit too inflexible for this analogy, so we'll say Bob is a vegetarian chef who runs a vegetarian restaurant, but refuses to use any sort of meat substitute (well he uses tofu, but that only sorta counts). So Bob's restaurant does fairly well (though that's largely because he's the only game in town), but some customers are like "hey Bob why not have something with seitan that'll bring in more newer vegetarians" or "why not make something like this jackfruit I saw in a video" but Bob just refuses to cook with these things, maybe he thinks they aren't really "vegetarian" or maybe he just really doesn't want to put in the effort to learn new things. Eventually his restaurant runs out of steam, and while he has a few dedicated customers his business is going stagnant.

One of two things will happen here: Bob can finally come to terms with what his customers want and look into new ways of vegetarian cooking. He starts expanding his menu (and probably does a bit of rebranding) and suddenly gets new customers who love what he brings to these meat substitutes he refused to cook for so many years. OR Bob still refuses to innovate and his business suffers. Jo, who used to be a regular customer (again, only game in town) enjoys cooking vegetarian cuisine but has grown tired of Bob's restaurant. Jo decides that maybe she should start her own vegetarian restaurant. She has to ask for help online, and gets cooking tips from her friend who lives in a big city, but eventually she starts the restaurant and SURPRISE it's a huge success. Bob can't compete, and even if he tried doing what I said he could've done at this point he's gonna have a hard time getting back his share of customers.

(also, again, I don't know why you're saying "coward" applies in this scenario. I explained in very plain terms what I meant by coward and spelled it out even further. if you don't want to actually read what I said I guess that's your prerogative).

+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.

man that sounds cool, like maybe he brought the wolf with him from a more temperate place. or maybe he could have a different animal that was reskinned for a tropical setting? what exactly did he ignore in this guide, was there a "no wolves" rule that he missed?

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?

First of all, people are misapplying coward to themselves even though I explained exactly what I meant by coward. "I find it cowardly if you ban something without looking into it because you think it'll ruin your plans." "So if I ban a race because it doesn't fit my setting it makes me a coward? you buddy!"

But also you make it sound as if such DMs don't actually exist. There's already an example in this very thread; some people refuse to allow the Ceremony spell because in 3rd edition Atonement was a 5th level spell and therefore it's too overpowered. But as others already pointed out the Atonement part of Ceremony is not nearly as powerful as its 3rd edition counterpart, also alignment has little to no mechanical value in 5e. IIRC Atonement was mostly used in 3rd edition to help paladins who went against their alignment, but now paladins follow a very specific set of vows and no amount of changing your alignment is gonna help with that.

I also recall when 4e came out some people lost their over Eladrin getting Fey Step as a racial encounter action, making it a daily action instead or just outright removing it. They argued that getting a teleport at 1st level is just too powerful, and made things like pit traps functionally useless. People who actually put thought into it realized as an encounter power Fey Step wasn't all that powerful. Even if a character TP'd across a chasm, the rest of the party would be left behind with no really good way to get across themselves, and then the Eladrin character would have to hang out on the other side by themself for 5 minutes before they could regroup with the party. Also 4e had some pretty specific rules about teleportation, so it's possible that many scenarios these alarmist DMs were thinking of wouldn't even work the way they were afraid of. You could argue an entire party of Eladrin would be a problem, but at that point can you not think of different ways to challenge this party? Do you just love pits and chasms that goddamn much?

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.

Man with no players the game doesn't run either, and without enthusiastic players the game comes to a grinding halt pretty easily. I know that DM'ing is a lot of hard work, but to say that listening to your players should be optional goes against how a good game actually functions.

 

[the Jester]

The fact that you do more work doesn't entitle you to any special treatment since, well, if you don't want to do it, there's five other people who do.

I'm willing to bet that in most six person groups, not all six want to run the game. In my experience, that's a pretty rare table. As others have pointed out, a lot of gamers can't find DMs to run for them. Now, some tables are full of would-be DMs; but I think that's the exception to the rule.

 

[the Jester]

Man with no players the game doesn't run either, and without enthusiastic players the game comes to a grinding halt pretty easily. I know that DM'ing is a lot of hard work, but to say that listening to your players should be optional goes against how a good game actually functions.

First of all, who ever said that listening to your players should be optional?

Second of all, of course the game doesn't run with no players. But that's not what I said, either. What I said was that you can take any one player away other than the DM and the game will run (group policies of "everyone is here or no game" aside). But if you take the DM away, that game doesn't run.

The notion that all the players in an rpg are equally important is nice. But one guy is crucial to play, and- specific instances aside- the others are not, individually, crucial to the game running. It's like if you get together to play Risk with a bunch of friends and the guy who owns the game can't make it. There is no game. The DM may not own D&D or the group, but he absolutely owns his campaign. In fact, if a group got together without the DM and someone else said, "I'll just run this week's session"- meaning those characters and the current adventure- I'd reckon that most groups would find that violates their social contract, to put it mildly.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm willing to bet that in most six person groups, not all six want to run the game. In my experience, that's a pretty rare table. As others have pointed out, a lot of gamers can't find DMs to run for them. Now, some tables are full of would-be DMs; but I think that's the exception to the rule.

Agreed but if it is the case thst is yo me even more a case for freedom to run games that meet or cater to some but not others preferences.

Honestly, if there are other players that want to GM, great. In my case, the guy who was not in the Stargate could absolutely have GMed some other game with that time and its likely a few of us would have joined in. He chose not to although he had GMed several times in the past.

Other players willing to GM is not some "threat" or "opposition" that somehow keeps a GM in his place (seems to be an implication by some) but an even better opportunity for each to get to explore their own preferences that not everybody shares.

Whenever anyone at my table has wanted to GM their own games, i certainly encourage it.

 

[Hussar]

I'm willing to bet that in most six person groups, not all six want to run the game. In my experience, that's a pretty rare table. As others have pointed out, a lot of gamers can't find DMs to run for them. Now, some tables are full of would-be DMs; but I think that's the exception to the rule.

To be honest, that's probably the biggest shame of gaming. DM's would be a LOT less hard nosed if they suddenly lost the ability to hold games hostage.

And, IMO, games are much, MUCH better when it's "our" campaign, not your campaign. If the PC's are replaceable (Bob's not here this week? No problem, we'll just go on without him), then I really have to question how invested the group is in that game. If I can replace Bob at any point in time and nothing changes, well, that's not much of a game IMO.

 

[Hussar]

I would phrase it differently: my house, my rules.

When I play Monopoly, fines will not go into the middle for people who land on Free Parking. When I watch movies, there will be no gorno. When I eat pizza there is no mushroom on it. When I play D&D, there are no evil PCs.

Everyone has deal-breakers - things they won't compromise on. These are some of mine. If you want to play the "fines to Free Parking" rule or allow evil PCs then all power to you. You can run your game at your house any way you like; I just won't be in it. At my house, I'm not willing to sit around and watch you play a game I'm not in, so we play by my rules.

For the GM role, replace "my house" with "my time and/or financial investment".

In other words, if I'm paying for the pizza, it won't have mushroom on it.

So, we're back to the DM holding the game hostage if he or she doesn't get what he or she wants. No compromise, no just picking the mushrooms off your slice. Nope, it's your way or no way.

And people keep accusing me of hyperbole.

Funny, as a player if I say, "No, I don't want evil characters in the group", I'm a self entitled player who should either get with the program or GTFO, but, if I say the same thing as a DM, apparently I'm a great DM. It baffles me.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It seems that no one here has specifically banned the playing of Mimes...