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!

 

[5ekyu]

Where in that quote did I insinuate this?

Well you portrayed the GM determining the game he wants to run as **forcing it** on the others and then later went into detail about the GM being the one to compromise and yet did not apparently say anything about the players sticking to their guns being considered forcing the GM to run the game their way?

That seems to really be setting the preferences of indistances of the two sides on much different levels... or at least seems to insinuate it.

 

[Panda-s1]

Well you portrayed the GM determining the game he wants to run as **forcing it** on the others and then later went into detail about the GM being the one to compromise and yet did not apparently say anything about the players sticking to their guns being considered forcing the GM to run the game their way?

That seems to really be setting the preferences of indistances of the two sides on much different levels... or at least seems to insinuate it.

I said the DM should work together with players who want something specific in their game. Together. I'm not sure how "working together" somehow infers only the DM is compromising in this situation. I find it a little disconcerting that saying this has given people the impression that I believe if I came up to a DM demanding I play a half-dragon drow sorcerer with a +5 wand at first level they must agree to it otherwise they're a bad DM, especially when I've also said that the DM gets the final word and have agreed that extreme situations should not be allowed. Hell I know DMs that do this with all their players anyway to help them make sure their character can have a background that makes sense in their setting. Myself included, and believe me when I say I've had to make some players tone their character down lest they go on a rampage.

As another aside, I'm wondering why people are getting defensive at the idea of bad DMs. Like me and others in this thread have pointed out a lot of hyperbole gets thrown at any sort of criticism concerning how DMs deal with players' desires for their characters. I also see "player entitlement" being thrown around which to me sounds pretty silly given how D&D is set up.

EDIT: I suppose I should be more specific about that scenario, but I don't like thinking about it because I was handed a situation in which there's clearly a consensus for the DMs preferred style of game and asked what is correct resolution for this scenario, which is quite frankly a bit condescending. This is also why I flipped it around so that the DM was in the minority. At that point it feels unfair to the entire group to have to play that DMs game when most of them would rather not. The DM could talk with everyone else and come up with an idea that works for everyone; maybe the setting is gritty/realistic, but magic still exists, it's just rare and players who play a caster might warrant unwanted attention if they use their magic publicly. Or maybe they end up running a kitchen sink game but everything is just a lot more deadly. Realistically the third DM should probably step in and run a game that presumably everyone will want play, 'cause the scenario where the DM doubles down and runs the game exactly as they want will get only two players and that group would probably just fall apart as far as RPGs are concerned. Like I said, there's all sorts of games I wish I could run but could never get the players to play it, that's just how gaming is.

 

[oreofox]

When I was talking about "kitchen sink" DMing, it's the one that would have no problem running anything. Players want a Golarion/Forgotten Realms style game where anything and everything is possible? He's willing to run it. Players want a dark and gritty realistic "grimdark" setting? He's willing to run it. Players want a magical girl game? He's willing to run it. Players want to play an all goblin game? He's willing to run it. In my experience, he's the majority of DMs. However, there are DMs that only run "grimdark", or anything goes, or something else restrictive/narrow focused. Just like there are players out there with narrow-focused character concepts (I only play divination wizards, or I refuse to play anything but a dragonborn, or so on). It is what they are comfortable with. Anything outside of that and things get bad for everyone involved. Sure, getting out of your comfort zone could be beneficial sometimes, but some things people don't budge on.

In the case of what's been discussed in this thread: One or more people won't be playing D&D depending on who is unwilling to budge. And honestly, that's just fine. No one, neither DM nor player, should have to be forced to play or run anything if they don't want to. Because then it becomes "bad D&D" and no D&D is better than bad D&D.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I said the DM should work together with players who want something specific in their game. Together. I'm not sure how "working together" somehow infers only the DM is compromising in this situation. I find it a little disconcerting that saying this has given people the impression that I believe if I came up to a DM demanding I play a half-dragon drow sorcerer with a +5 wand at first level they must agree to it otherwise they're a bad DM, especially when I've also said that the DM gets the final word and have agreed that extreme situations should not be allowed.

No one is upset about you saying DMs should work with players. You keep trying to act like that's what people are taking issue with, and no one is. What people are taking issue with is when you say "DMs should work with players" with the meaning that DMs must do what the players want. That's not working with players. That's catering to players. And then insulting any DM who doesn't do what the player wants. Like earlier, when someone said tabaxi weren't allowed and then you said they should or the DM was bad. "The DM is the final authority, but if I don't get my way, they are a coward." That's the position you've been arguing this whole time. I.e., you can't say DMs are the final authority while at the same time insulting them every time a ruling is made that you don't agree with. Those are inherently contradictory positions. And many people keep pointing this out to you. Let's look at some of your comments:

"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."

You, making a strawman and an assumption about why DMs may ban things, and insulting the DM

"wow didn't realize you were an Official WotC sanctioned authority on what is allowed in a game.

really though, I'm a little perturbed at your "pay to win" comment. odds are if a player wants to be, say, a tabaxi their biggest motivation is to play as a cat people race, not toppling the DM's vision or campaign."

Again, insulting someone who bans something from their game, and rather than bother listening to the why, you assume it should be allowed because it wouldn't ruin the world (how would you know what their game world is like?)

"Okay so you missed something in "official material" (I'll get to that in a second) once and now you're afraid to ever have official supplements in your game. Yeah that sounds a little cowardly."

Again, calling people cowards who might not allow official supplements in their games.

"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"

Comparing these two things is abhorrent, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

"Should the DM force their gritty setting game on all the players, even though he's outnumbered?"

Here's you flat out saying the DM should do what the players want, directly countering your "But I keep saying the DM is the final word, what's your problem guys!"

"I don't believe saying "coward" was at all over the top."

Which makes me think you have serious problems with social skills if you think this was no problem.

As another aside, I'm wondering why people are getting defensive at the idea of bad DMs.
.

See, you're doing it AGAIN. Anyone who disagrees with you is a bad DM. People aren't upset about complaining about bad DMs. But in this entire thread you've said anyone who doesn't agree with you is a bad DM and coward by those statements I just posted above.

"I keep saying how DMs should have the final word and work with players. Unless you don't allow this. OR don't do what most players want. Then you're a bad DM and a coward."

 

[Panda-s1]

"The DM is the final authority, but if I don't get my way, they are a coward."
"I keep saying how DMs should have the final word and work with players. Unless you don't allow this. OR don't do what most players want. Then you're a bad DM and a coward."

I never said these DMs were cowards. Reread my original post. Quote specifically where I say DMs like this are cowards.

"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."

You, making a strawman and an assumption about why DMs may ban things, and insulting the DM

That's not a strawman, I've literally had to deal with DMs like that. Again, why are you getting defensive at the idea of a bad DM? Have you never met one before or are you honestly telling me there is no such thing?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I never said these DMs were cowards. Reread my original post. Quote specifically where I say DMs like this are cowards.

I did. In my post above.

"Okay so you missed something in "official material" (I'll get to that in a second) once and now you're afraid to ever have official supplements in your game. Yeah that sounds a little cowardly."

That's you calling another poster a coward who didn't want to put all official supplements in their game.

There is no way a person can be this deliberately obtuse to their own comments. I can only assume you're trolling at this point. A 10 year old account with almost all of your post count in this thread doesn't help change that feeling. Either way, clearly there is no point in continuing. Myself and others have literally pointed out where you're saying things you said you aren't, and you still deny them. That's...special.

 

[Panda-s1]

When I was talking about "kitchen sink" DMing, it's the one that would have no problem running anything. Players want a Golarion/Forgotten Realms style game where anything and everything is possible? He's willing to run it. Players want a dark and gritty realistic "grimdark" setting? He's willing to run it. Players want a magical girl game? He's willing to run it. Players want to play an all goblin game? He's willing to run it. In my experience, he's the majority of DMs. However, there are DMs that only run "grimdark", or anything goes, or something else restrictive/narrow focused. Just like there are players out there with narrow-focused character concepts (I only play divination wizards, or I refuse to play anything but a dragonborn, or so on). It is what they are comfortable with. Anything outside of that and things get bad for everyone involved. Sure, getting out of your comfort zone could be beneficial sometimes, but some things people don't budge on.

In the case of what's been discussed in this thread: One or more people won't be playing D&D depending on who is unwilling to budge. And honestly, that's just fine. No one, neither DM nor player, should have to be forced to play or run anything if they don't want to. Because then it becomes "bad D&D" and no D&D is better than bad D&D.

Man I get comfort zones, and there are certain genres I wouldn't really want to run in an RPG format. But there are a lot of DMs and a lot more players, and those DMs who only do a specific kind of game should find those players. I made up Bruce who only runs horror games, but he'll probably always have players who are looking to play in a horror game. There's also the case of gamers who only really play with friends. I'm more in the latter, and I've had to compromise the kinds of games I want to run and the kinds of characters I want to play because of it. So too have friends of mine have to do the same. However, if a DM is that unwilling to make any sort of compromise with the rest of their group then I don't see how long they can last as a DM unless they're really the only DM in town.

This isn't the scenario that has me saying "coward". I've known DMs who'll railroad, punish clever player decisions, make seemingly arbitrary choice in the middle of their game because things strayed off course; banning things they feel are "overpowered" is only part of it. This isn't concern over something not fitting in their setting, or having party imbalance, this is them concerned with their players being able to one-up them instead of going with the campaign as planned. Also they'll gleefully use whatever supplemental material they can get their hands on if it means making the PCs' lives difficult. These DMs do exist, and while we may not agree with a DM having consensus with players, I'm really not up to cutting DMs like this any slack. To me that's cowardly, especially in a tabletop RPG where player choices should be meaningful I've played "terrible D&D" because it was one of the few games available to me. Eventually I left because I also joined a game where the DM encouraged player ideas and the players were enthusiastic. I realized the DM of the other game was never gonna address what I wanted to do with my character in any meaningful way, nor was he interested in anything other than seeing his campaign to completion. I guess we can agree on no D&D is better than bad D&D.

Another aside (and boy do I love asides), I see this frustration of players not doing what the DM wants them to do as a popular meme idea. No not in the terrible I way described, but things like the PCs won't enter the tavern where the mysterious stranger is waiting for them. One of the more popular ones that got me upset was a drawing of the PCs way more interested in an NPC than the plot, and as someone who's struggled with player enthusiasm I was like "f*** you, just make the NPC important to the plot, have that NPC do what they can to lead the players where you want to go, you could lead them into the jaws of a terrasque if you wanted without having to entrap anyone". DMs have all the power. Which is why I find it weird that people will get upset over saying a DM should actually listen to their players, you still basically control everything in this game, use this power wisely.

 

[Panda-s1]

I did. In my post above.

"Okay so you missed something in "official material" (I'll get to that in a second) once and now you're afraid to ever have official supplements in your game. Yeah that sounds a little cowardly."

That's you calling another poster a coward who didn't want to put all official supplements in their game.

There is no way a person can be this deliberately obtuse to their own comments. I can only assume you're trolling at this point. A 10 year old account with almost all of your post count in this thread doesn't help change that feeling. Either way, clearly there is no point in continuing. Myself and others have literally pointed out where you're saying things you said you aren't, and you still deny them. That's...special.

It wasn't that he didn't want to put "all", it was he didn't want to put any official supplements. But fine I called one poster a coward, but he fit the bill of what I described in my first post. He also described a scenario that's incredibly suspect; there is no book with the title he described, and in the book that he probably meant there is no such ability to get a Holy Avenger at first level. Also given his statements in his other posts I find it hard to take him at all seriously.

If you want to believe that I'm saying that a DM who doesn't cater to their player is bad, that's your prerogative.

Also I don't know why I made this account 10 years ago, but I did, and I've only really commented here over the past year. I wasn't about to make a new account when the one I already have is fine. But okay, believe that I'm trolling if it makes you feel better.

 

[5ekyu]

I said the DM should work together with players who want something specific in their game. Together. I'm not sure how "working together" somehow infers only the DM is compromising in this situation. I find it a little disconcerting that saying this has given people the impression that I believe if I came up to a DM demanding I play a half-dragon drow sorcerer with a +5 wand at first level they must agree to it otherwise they're a bad DM, especially when I've also said that the DM gets the final word and have agreed that extreme situations should not be allowed. Hell I know DMs that do this with all their players anyway to help them make sure their character can have a background that makes sense in their setting. Myself included, and believe me when I say I've had to make some players tone their character down lest they go on a rampage.

As another aside, I'm wondering why people are getting defensive at the idea of bad DMs. Like me and others in this thread have pointed out a lot of hyperbole gets thrown at any sort of criticism concerning how DMs deal with players' desires for their characters. I also see "player entitlement" being thrown around which to me sounds pretty silly given how D&D is set up.

EDIT: I suppose I should be more specific about that scenario, but I don't like thinking about it because I was handed a situation in which there's clearly a consensus for the DMs preferred style of game and asked what is correct resolution for this scenario, which is quite frankly a bit condescending. This is also why I flipped it around so that the DM was in the minority. At that point it feels unfair to the entire group to have to play that DMs game when most of them would rather not. The DM could talk with everyone else and come up with an idea that works for everyone; maybe the setting is gritty/realistic, but magic still exists, it's just rare and players who play a caster might warrant unwanted attention if they use their magic publicly. Or maybe they end up running a kitchen sink game but everything is just a lot more deadly. Realistically the third DM should probably step in and run a game that presumably everyone will want play, 'cause the scenario where the DM doubles down and runs the game exactly as they want will get only two players and that group would probably just fall apart as far as RPGs are concerned. Like I said, there's all sorts of games I wish I could run but could never get the players to play it, that's just how gaming is.

Again you asked what in the quoted section could be seen as even insinuating the point and i pointed out the choices that did so - use of "forcing" from the Gm side only etc.

The fact that a lot of other stuff f was said about a whole lot of this or that...has no bearing on that question and response except to serve as distraction and smoke or mirrors.

But, its clear you know this so...

 

[Cobalt Meridian]

To answer the original question, in the campaign I am currently running I heavily restricted the number of races that players could, initially, choose from. This was by design as the campaign was going to start in a fairly isolated region and gradually move out to the wider world where more races would be encountered and "unlocked" (so to speak). The choice to limit was thematic and the "starting races" were partly chosen by my players so that they wouldn't feel as if their 'favoured' race choice wouldn't immediately be available. With the concept of the game setting agreed upon and sufficient buy-in from the players that I would add more options as we went along my decision to initially restrict official race choices was, in my mind, justified.

I find the ongoing discussion of "good" DMs and "bad" DMs somewhat odd - I have encountered bad DMs who included all official material and good DMs who have restricted official material. Their DMing ability was not a direct function of the material they allowed though.

Lastly, as with Panda-s1, my account is 10 years old as well and I post very rarely - I don't see why that should make my opinion on this any more or less valid but you're free to come to that conclusion if you wish