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?

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!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sean Hillman

Sean Hillman

[MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION] "We're talking about why DMs do things in this thread, and part of that conversation involves whether they ought to, in certain circumstances"
No We are just talking about Why DMs do things in this thread. Anything after your comma, is stuff you and others added. The "my way or the highway" is blunt but gets the point across in 5 words. It is nice if the DM explains his reasoning but he can just say "I hate x". You now have 3 choices. Don't Play with the DM. Play with the DM. Become the DM. You could also whine and scream/write about DM entitlement being bad. But the thread is about DM entitlement.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

... There's a contract there. ...
Perhaps you and I see the transaction in fundamentally different ways. You seem to be describing a circumstance wherein one party, the DM, prepares an "offer" consisting of the world, the game rules, and his time and effort to implement those elements. The other parties, the Players, can accept or reject the DM's offer. There may or may not be consideration in the form of, e.g., tacos.

My D&D experience is different. First, all parties agree that we want to spend time in the pursuit of mutual recreation. Then we agree among ourselves how we want to go about that pursuit, choosing from online games, tabletop games, fun with fire and alcohol (i.e. barbeque,) etc. When we agree on a tabletop game, we then choose roles (DM, players) and system (D&D, Pathfinder, etc.) and general theme (urban, dungeon crawl, etc.) If everyone wants to play a dungeon crawl D&D game, and I'm not inclined to run that, then I won't volunteer to DM it. If I want to run a "Conan vs. Cthulhu" campaign using elements of the Primeval Thule setting, but no one else is really keen to make that our next campaign (they tend to go on for years, mind you) then someone else might offer to run a Starfinder campaign.

I suppose it's like the difference between buying a share of SacroCorp Inc. and getting together to form Bad Dice LLC, a multi-member company.
 


If someone said that, they'd be wrong because the Gary was pretty explicit in the book from at least 1979 that it is NOT a competition. Just because the DM was defined as the referee doesn't imply it's DM vs the players. Despite fan protests, referees aren't actually against any of the teams in direct competition. The DM (referee) is there to be fair and interpret the rules, hence why DMs were called referees. Neither be against the players, nor go to great lengths to favor them either. The only time it was advised to be in favor of the players is if there was just incredibly bad luck with dice rolls and nothing to do with their actions.
...I'm not sure why you're calling this out, even though we basically agree on this point (I put the A in parentheses for a reason as people seem to treat the entirety of everything before 3rd edition as some sort of arbitrary morass). But even in the first DMG (1979) there are choice quotes such as "Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends." or "As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best."

Secondly, and more importantly, you yourself just woke up to the real issue here: intra-party balance. In my experience with the game the rogue doesn't give a crap how easily the wizard bypassed all the traps with one spell, because that's his area of expertise. Most players don't mind this in moderation, but when your character is completely eclipsed by another at every turn it quickly becomes stale. It was never about "winning", as you say, it's about communal enjoyment from both storytelling aspects and mechanical team-play. When your character is overridden in one or both categories things get unfun really fast.

[...]

For my part campaign flavor is still the most pressing issue when banning content (usually races or select classes), but I find the idea of maligning legitimate mechanical concerns because you have not seen or experienced its effects to be inane.

Okay I guess you decided to go with the nitpick everything route to replying to my post, but I'll address these two points specifically: 1) No, you don't get to claim this is the real issue everyone was getting at, because if that were the case the enjoyment of the players as a priority would have come up in people's arguments, but instead it's a sea of "I'm the final arbiter!" and "My game my rules!" There are DMs (actual DMs!) here being accused of "player entitlement" because they talk about working with their players in figuring out what is allowed in their campaign, so I can't say I'm surprised.

2) I'm not sure where you get off insinuating I've never had mechanical concerns over new material, or seen them be detrimental to the game. Of course I have. I still believe preemptively banning stuff because of a concern feels unnecessary. Things like this imagined scenario where a player can get a Holy Avenger at first level are obvious exceptions (I know someone's gonna say my exception of obvious and extreme cases is a "flaw" in my argument, so I'll just call it out here).

Applying the term of coward to a DM who limits options is an odd way to put it IMO.
If you actually read my original post you might not find it so odd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

@epithet "We're talking about why DMs do things in this thread, and part of that conversation involves whether they ought to, in certain circumstances"
No We are just talking about Why DMs do things in this thread. Anything after your comma, is stuff you and others added. The "my way or the highway" is blunt but gets the point across in 5 words. It is nice if the DM explains his reasoning but he can just say "I hate x". You now have 3 choices. Don't Play with the DM. Play with the DM. Become the DM. You could also whine and scream/write about DM entitlement being bad. But the thread is about DM entitlement.

I suppose, in your ranty little scenario, I chose the "become the DM" path. Still, I like your implication that I'm somehow whining because I don't agree with you. That's clever.

I don't see the option for "whine and scream/write about DM entitlement being right, good, and the One True Way." I guess you're keeping that one for yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kinda meant the exact opposite of what you seem to be implying, but hey... have fun with it.

Oh I know. We all know. You came into a thread and told everyone who disagreed with your view that they were entitled. And so people called you entitled back, and you acted all shocked that people would dare do back to you what you had just done to them.

giphy.gif
tumblr_mkbyozYhKw1qgvdf9o2_250.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oh I know. We all know. You came into a thread and told everyone who disagreed with your view that they were entitled. And so people called you entitled back, and you acted all shocked that people would dare do back to you what you had just done to them.

"You just stabbed that man with a knife and now he's dead, you're a murderer!"
"Um wow you sound like you're a murderer, I'm just killing people here."
Yeah I don't think you understand lol.
 



Okay, I like this.

Now everyone here is getting all mad at calling certain DMs "cowards", but let's talk in terms of this blog post. "4. Law of Plural Solutions" vs. "3. Law of Free Will" This is what I'm talking about when I talk about cowardice. Some DMs are so afraid of law 4 overriding law 3 that they rather outright ban something they're afraid will ruin their plans than actually see what happens in their game. While I might disagree (even strongly) over how things may or may not be allowed due to aesthetics, that's not what I'm talking about when I call certain DMs cowards.
 

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.

Dude, the players and I all saw The Lego Movie. We vote that Taco Tuesday is on Friday. Just like the movie says.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top