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!

 

[jasper]

You can play with my restrictions, or you can watch tv with the nonplayers, or you can go home. Choose one. And don't forget Sunday night is Taco Tuesday.

 

[Mistwell]

When it comes to the game rules, whether core or optional, choices should be made by consensus. If you have four or five players who want to play on a grid and use the related rules like flanking, but the DM wants to do all the combat as a "theater of the mind" narrative, well... suck it up, buttercup. If you can't run combat the way your players want to run it, you might need to let someone else DM.

I disagree. And...so do the rules. 5e is pretty clear in declaring the rules as the domain of the DM, and not as a factor of consensus of the group. Prior editions were more focused on consensus, but not this edition. Some examples:

"One rule overrides all others: the DM is the final authority on how the rules work in play."

"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

"The D&D rules help you snd the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you arein charge of the game."

Furthermore to your specific point about players demanding to play on a grid, that's a variant rule to begin with and specifically in the DMs realm for decisions. Shocked? Yup, grid play is a variant rule and not the standard rule for 5e. It's even listed that way in the Player's Handbook to make it clear to players it's not the standard: "Variant: Playing on a Grid" If you play out a combat using a square grid and miniatures or other tokens, follow these rules." The DMG gives instructions to the DM on how to handle theater of the mind play, and the variant grid play if they choose to use that.

So I disagree. What you're descriving sounds like it might be from a prior version of this game, and not from 5e. It's not "DM entitlement" it's "5e standardized play".

I presented an argument against multiclassing to the players along with a minor expansion in feat availability to cover the loss of flexibility in character development. Everyone agreed. If there had been players who really wanted to multiclass, and the group as a whole wanted to keep the rule in place, then I would have absolutely run the game that the players wanted to play.

You're free to do that of course...because you're the DM and you decide which optional and variant rules to use, or even your own houserules. But multiclassing is an optional rule and specifically called out as a DMs decision. It's fine that you make this a communal decision for your game, but what's with calling other people tyrants for choosing to simpy follow the book rules as they're called out, which specifies this is a DM decision?

 

[Sacrosanct]

You can play with my restrictions, or you can watch tv with the nonplayers, or you can go home. Choose one. And don't forget Sunday night is Taco Tuesday.

Pretty much. Don't get me wrong, if a DM has house rules or has banned things in the core books, this should absolutely be advised to the players beforehand. No one should be in for a shock. However, trying to make a DM do something they don't want to do will almost always end up with bad DMing because they just won't be in it. I don't DM because I want the "job". I do it because it's an outlet for my creativity and ideas I have in my head. And if I can't flesh out those ideas because the players voted to do something different, it's like a huge creative block and demotivator.

What usually happens is this, and it doesn't make me a coward, or a tyrant:

player 1: "We need to get together and start a gaming session. Rod, you wanna DM? You're pretty good."
me: "Sure, I'll DM. Just so you know though, no tiefling or dragonborn races. Just doesn't fit."
player 2: "Man, I really wanted to play a dragonborn."
player 3: "And I wanted to play a tiefling."
me: "Sorry, it just doesn't fit. But if you want to play those, feel free to DM and I'll play in your world."

...

<ends up playing with me DMing because no one wants to actually put in the work to DM themselves.

 

[Satyrn]

Our next campaign is going to feature a skeleton PC.

Ooh. Is it gonna be a druid that wildshapes into beast skeletons?

(The bones don't change shape at all, they just rearrange themselves)

 

[epithet]

...
*Edit* "Player choice" in the context you're talking about begins and ends when the player chooses to join the campaign. After that, after the player agrees to play in the DM's world, then that player agrees to play in the DM's world how the DM runs it, and does not have any entitlement to change how the DM runs his or her world. If the player doesn't agree, they can always find another group or DM themselves.

What's funny to me is that you accuse me of promoting "player entitlement" by having the audacity to suggest that choosing the rules of the game should be done collaboratively by the group, then go on to articulate one of the most over-the-top DM entitlement manifestos of the thread. Things like "the players play in the DM's world, how the DM wants it," and " if you as a player don't like it, then feel free to find another group" are indicative of the real attitude that needs to "die in a fire."

Where do you get off calling my attitude "entitled?" My post was all about the fact that I, as a DM, should observe restraint in imposing my will and whims upon my players... yeah, that's the very image of entitlement, isn't it? I'm the entitled one, not the person pitching a "my way or the highway" fit. You insist that I am "not entitled to change how a DM runs their game," like I'm coming to your house and auditing you, making you order extra pepperoni on your pizza, and correcting your grammar. I'm not trying to be your mom, dude. We're talking about why DMs do things in this thread, and part of that conversation involves whether they ought to, in certain circumstances. I'm no more trying to change your game than your are trying to change mine.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What's funny to me is that you accuse me of promoting "player entitlement" by having the audacity to suggest that choosing the rules of the game should be done collaboratively by the group, then go on to articulate one of the most over-the-top DM entitlement manifestos of the thread. Things like "the players play in the DM's world, how the DM wants it," and " if you as a player don't like it, then feel free to find another group" are indicative of the real attitude that needs to "die in a fire."

It's how the game is designed to be played. So no, it doesn't need to die in fire. The idea that DMs are badwrong, or cowards, for not catering to players' wills needs to. As I said, the DM puts in way more work than any of the players combined. There's a contract there. It's not throwing a fit, or being a jerk for the DM to say, "this is how I play, you can join if you like, or if you don't like it, move on."

Where do you get off calling my attitude "entitled?" My post was all about the fact that I, as a DM, should observe restraint in imposing my will and whims upon my players... yeah, that's the very image of entitlement, isn't it? I'm the entitled one, not the person pitching a "my way or the highway" fit. .

I'm not pitching a fit. I'm telling you how it is, not only for me personally, but how the game is actually designed. What is entitled is if the players want to override the default assumption and design of the game and feel like they are "entitled" to do so.

Sorry you don't like it, but those are the facts. Look at the other responses to your post and you'll see a consensus who disagrees with you.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Applying the term of coward to a DM who limits options is an odd way to put it IMO.

 

[epithet]

I disagree. And...so do the rules. 5e is pretty clear in declaring the rules as the domain of the DM, and not as a factor of consensus of the group. Prior editions were more focused on consensus, but not this edition. Some examples:

"One rule overrides all others: the DM is the final authority on how the rules work in play."

"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

"The D&D rules help you snd the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you arein charge of the game."

Furthermore to your specific point about players demanding to play on a grid, that's a variant rule to begin with and specifically in the DMs realm for decisions. Shocked? Yup, grid play is a variant rule and not the standard rule for 5e. It's even listed that way in the Player's Handbook to make it clear to players it's not the standard: "Variant: Playing on a Grid" If you play out a combat using a square grid and miniatures or other tokens, follow these rules." The DMG gives instructions to the DM on how to handle theater of the mind play, and the variant grid play if they choose to use that.

So I disagree. What you're descriving sounds like it might be from a prior version of this game, and not from 5e. It's not "DM entitlement" it's "5e standardized play".



You're free to do that of course...because you're the DM and you decide which optional and variant rules to use, or even your own houserules. But multiclassing is an optional rule and specifically called out as a DMs decision. It's fine that you make this a communal decision for your game, but what's with calling other people tyrants for choosing to simpy follow the book rules as they're called out, which specifies this is a DM decision?

The quotes you provide certainly support the position that the DM is responsible for interpreting and implementing the rules, and even willfully breaking them when the situation calls for it. I'm absolutely in favor of all of that, absolutely and without reservation. My point is that there should be consensus as to what the rules are in the first place. My position is that the group, collectively, should decide what game is being played. Then, of course, it is the DM's role to run it, including interpreting the rules and making rulings as to how things work.

Regarding "variant" rules, I don't see that as a meaningful distinction. When you have a set of rules published with variations and options, you chose the ruleset that will comprise your game. It is no different than choosing to run a "basic game by the pdf" or "sticking to the PHB." Those are choices, just as using the "Playing on a Grid" rules are. This really is the point I'm trying to make, perhaps inartfully: D&D according the the 5e Basic pdf is in many ways a different game than D&D according to the PHB and DMG, especially if you use some of the more divergent variations like Sanity or Honor. When you get a group of people together to play a game, that group of people should reach a consensus about the game that is going to be played. It might be that, in your situation, "whatever game ol' Mist wants to run for the rest of us," and that's fine. I think your player buy-in will be greater, though, if you invite the players to participate in deciding which of the variations and options in 5e D&D your game will include.

Once dice are rolling and the game is being played, we're pretty much all tyrants. There are certainly some variant rules in the DMG for running the game by committee, but I've never played in a group that had any interest in that style, and it doesn't appeal to me in the least. Tyranny is an essential part of the role of the Dungeon Master, in my opinion. Someone has to be the final word, the ultimate arbiter, and the wielder of the stopped buck. Before that point, though... before you play the game, I think it works better if you don't have one member of the group tell everyone else what they're going to be playing.

I suppose, in fairness, I should qualify my assertions. Each member of my primary group has been playing tabletop RPGs for decades, across many editions and systems. We've been playing together for more years than I can quickly remember. If I were to run a game for a bunch of new-to-the-game folks, or for a bunch of strangers, my attitude might be tempered. With all that said, though, if someone came to me saying "hey, I saw this on a live stream and I want to try it, it seems like fun" I would absolutely try to make it work rather than saying "no, furries are silly and you can't play that." It may be my world, my story, my monsters, and my treasure... but it's our game, players included.

 

[epithet]

It's how the game is designed to be played. So no, it doesn't need to die in fire. The idea that DMs are badwrong, or cowards, for not catering to players' wills needs to. As I said, the DM puts in way more work than any of the players combined. There's a contract there. It's not throwing a fit, or being a jerk for the DM to say, "this is how I play, you can join if you like, or if you don't like it, move on."

I'm not pitching a fit. I'm telling you how it is, not only for me personally, but how the game is actually designed. What is entitled is if the players want to override the default assumption and design of the game and feel like they are "entitled" to do so.

Sorry you don't like it, but those are the facts. Look at the other responses to your post and you'll see a consensus who disagrees with you.

To be clear, I'm not calling anyone a coward. That wasn't me, I'm not interested in pointless name-calling. I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea from you referring to that beneath a partial quote of one of my posts.

With that out of the way, I'm calling a bull's hit on your "my way or the highway" approach to the role of DM. You've been playing a long time, and if you have a "regular group" I'd bet that you have adapted to accommodate their play styles, their preferences, and even their whims when you can. Ultimately we all want to present an experience that is enjoyed by the players, so I'm not easily persuaded that your DM style is really "I don't care what you want, it's my game and you can leave." Because frankly, that is "being a jerk," and you don't really seem that abrasive.

You may ardently believe that you, as the DM, are entitled to disregard every single one of the player's wishes when it comes to how to play the game. That's not the same as actually doing it, and I doubt that you are that dismissive of your players in practice.

 

[Mistwell]

Where do you get off calling my attitude "entitled?"

Oh...I think I have a guess:

There seems to be a lot of DM entitlement here in this thread.