I'm always pretty flexible on what I let my players run from official sources. Homebrew has to be approved, third party stuff is generally no unless you can make a good character case for it. If I allow it, I reserve the right to tweak/change/retcon at my whim. AL has limits because its trying to facilitate a similar experience for those without home games, and that has to exist on both the DM and Player side. Having a character from 5 books is hard to adjudicate and when you're dealing with new players every single week? That is time consuming and ardous. Hopefully your game isn't cycling players nearly as often.
If you're using D&D Beyond, typically the character is going to work. Sure, we can talk about features that aren't there, but most everything has a fix or a workaround. It only gets really wonky when you start doing things like giving players extra spells known, stats above 20 etc. I've never run into an issue where having all the options was an issue for my players, and I run my games that all content is on always, but certain things might get banned because they don't make sense. We don't use Strixhaven backgrounds in my current game, because we're in a homebrew setting where magic is turning back on, so it doesn't make sense. Custom Lineage though? It gets used. Dark Gifts? It's been explored. Even Piety from Theros, though we didn't like it and said no. D&D Beyond does make playing the game easier because once the character is built, referencing the features is much easier. Now it isn't teaching someone how to find the information in the books, its teaching them how to use the interface, and if they suck with that? Have them use the PDF or print it out.
Limiting to what you actually own is 100% reasonable. D&D is not a cheap hobby, and it never has been. The fact that I can tell you as a fact I've spent $1,100+ on D&D Beyond for everything but the tactical maps is a testament to that fact.
I'm not against the idea of restricting content for a campaign, but if you're doing it because you're worried you won't be prepared for what your players bring to the table then I'm not sure this is going to solve that.
A large part of being a DM is dealing with stuff you weren't prepared to deal with. This is scary, and a lot of people will impose all kinds of rails and restrictions to avoid it, but players are gonna be players and do stuff you weren't ready for.
Embrace it. Go with your gut in the moment and don't feel any shame in walking back a hasty decision later after some thought. Once you get past the impostor syndrome and realize that basically all of us are flying by the seat of our pants, it can even be fun when your players surprise you.
First rule of GMing is that no plan survives contact with the PCs. They will do things you didn't expect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As others have said, I would talk with your players first, and since you are the GM, you can impose whatever restrictions you want.
If you want my personal opinion on it though, if I were a player, I do not like restrictions and I would hesitate to join a game that restricts official content. If the restriction is due to nobody having the book or is not willing to share, I am fine with that, but if the book is readily available, I do not really like the idea of restricting it.
As a GM myself, I allow anything by Wizards in my game, and that includes all official publications and UA (I do not mind old UA and old errata as long as I am not homebrewing it onto Beyond). I allow third party homebrew on a case by case basis, but generally speaking, if it is semi official and/or easily available on Beyond (Matt Mercer's homebrew; Darktides of Bilgewater; Lauren's Phoenix Domain; etc.), or if it is unofficial but heavily related to an official product (Exploring Eberron; Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting; etc.), I would not mind allowing it.
I am not too concerned with my players making super powerful builds, and I see that as a good thing in my opinion, since it means my players are engaged with the game and the mechanics. And as a GM, there is nothing they can build with official books that I cannot overcome with the power of homebrew.
Thanks for all your thoughts. You have given me lots of stuff to consider.
Having read all your posts, I think I might drop the PHB + 1 rule. I took that from AL to make it easier for my players not to have to juggle a character created from multiple books. I've DMed games before where players mixed and matched from four/five/six different books and then could not remember the specific mechanics of how one thing affected the other.
It was a nightmare. Instead of playing the game, players would argue over their interpretation of what each other's characters did and could do because they did not all have the same books. One book states something one way, while the other said the same thing slightly differently or retconned the other book, and the players would get Into arguments over which book was right.
It was also hard for me when players used a book that I didn't have and had not read. The players would stop in the middle of the game and say things like: “actually, on page 124 of this new book I just bought last week, it says my character is not affected by this because they have x, y, z ability.”
It was even worse when they used third party content, and I outright banned homebrew when I had a player turned up with some crazy unbalanced nonsense that made their character untouchable because they could blink in and out of existence at will and reappear anywhere they choose. I forget the name of the specific homebrew now. It was some wizard they'd taken off Reddit. I tried to let them have it by balancing their blink ability against needing super expensive components, but it still spoiled the game. It wasn't what that player wanted to play either, so they were less interested in the game as they then had to manage their inventory and make sure they had enough components to use their ability, while the other players did not.
The other players eventually got fed up with having to spend all their hard-earned gold to buy that characters spell components as well, and the game broke down entirely because of that one homebrew.
Since then, I have banned all homebrew in my games.
Until now, though, I've not banned high-quality third party content, and despite the struggles I've had with players using new books that I don't own to build their characters, I've still allowed them as long as they were official resources. It was fine when the new books didn't change much except maybe add a new class, make a formally unplayable race playable, or slightly change the wording of a spell here and there, but the books that have come out recently are making sweeping changes to a lot of mechanics. So much so that I would argue the changes represent a point increase in editions to 5.5e, even though wizards are not calling it that.
All in all, these and other things, like I'm trying to create a world setting that is more representative of old school d&d, where I can set my games against the metaplot of gods, kings and ancient evils, is what brought me to the idea of saying, “we use these books”.
You have all given me much to think about, however, and I thank you all for the time it took you to write such detailed replies.
Forge XD
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I think it's wise to limit options to what you have access to. As DM, you're there to arbitrate the rules, so you need access to them. Personally, I'd be open to allowing sources I don't own so long as they lend me the book for the duration of the campaign, but that may not be feasible in your situation or might not suit your learning style.
If having multiple sourcebooks has caused problems in the past, that's legitimate. Personally, I'd point out that DM gets the final say, and that once the DM casts a judgment, it's uncontestable in-session. We can chat about it afterwards, but I'll make snap judgements in the game and that needs to be accepted to keep the game flowing. As such, if there is a mechanic that isn't completely mainstream but is important to their decisions, they should discuss it with me first, or they run the risk of having the rug pulled out from under them when they do something that I don't allow (I'm not going to do it to punish them, they're just accepting the risk).
That allows them the options, but allows you to keep a lid on arguments. Again, it depends on your style, you may or may not be comfortable doing that either. These are my solutions - whether they're the best solutions for you is another matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thanks for all your thoughts. You have given me lots of stuff to consider.
Having read all your posts, I think I might drop the PHB + 1 rule. I took that from AL to make it easier for my players not to have to juggle a character created from multiple books. I've DMed games before where players mixed and matched from four/five/six different books and then could not remember the specific mechanics of how one thing affected the other.
It was a nightmare. Instead of playing the game, players would argue over their interpretation of what each other's characters did and could do because they did not all have the same books. One book states something one way, while the other said the same thing slightly differently or retconned the other book, and the players would get Into arguments over which book was right.
It was also hard for me when players used a book that I didn't have and had not read. The players would stop in the middle of the game and say things like: “actually, on page 124 of this new book I just bought last week, it says my character is not affected by this because they have x, y, z ability.”
It was even worse when they used third party content, and I outright banned homebrew when I had a player turned up with some crazy unbalanced nonsense that made their character untouchable because they could blink in and out of existence at will and reappear anywhere they choose. I forget the name of the specific homebrew now. It was some wizard they'd taken off Reddit. I tried to let them have it by balancing their blink ability against needing super expensive components, but it still spoiled the game. It wasn't what that player wanted to play either, so they were less interested in the game as they then had to manage their inventory and make sure they had enough components to use their ability, while the other players did not.
The other players eventually got fed up with having to spend all their hard-earned gold to buy that characters spell components as well, and the game broke down entirely because of that one homebrew.
Since then, I have banned all homebrew in my games.
Until now, though, I've not banned high-quality third party content, and despite the struggles I've had with players using new books that I don't own to build their characters, I've still allowed them as long as they were official resources. It was fine when the new books didn't change much except maybe add a new class, make a formally unplayable race playable, or slightly change the wording of a spell here and there, but the books that have come out recently are making sweeping changes to a lot of mechanics. So much so that I would argue the changes represent a point increase in editions to 5.5e, even though wizards are not calling it that.
All in all, these and other things, like I'm trying to create a world setting that is more representative of old school d&d, where I can set my games against the metaplot of gods, kings and ancient evils, is what brought me to the idea of saying, “we use these books”.
You have all given me much to think about, however, and I thank you all for the time it took you to write such detailed replies.
Forge XD
Given your handle and the description of the rules "discussions" and the descriptions of the rules sources... I am going to go out on a limb here and guess the system in question (for the poor experience) is Palladium and more specifically Rifts? If so... Yeah... 5e is a tad more consistent in its rules presentation from book to book. So that shouldn't be an issue as long as you restrict the players to sources you have readily available.
One of the rules should be that if a player is using a rule from one of the non-core books then THEY should know the rules that they are wanting to use.
This avoids the DM having to learn every single rule in every single book, just in case.
One of the rules should be that if a player is using a rule from one of the non-core books then THEY should know the rules that they are wanting to use.
With the exception of absolute beginners who are still just learning the game in the first place, all players should know the rules for whatever mechanics they chose for their character. I don't think that's necessarily the problem though - the real issue seems to be different people having different ideas about how a rule actually works, and if the DM doesn't know the rule they probably can't make an informed decision on how to proceed. The whole "+1" thing won't fix that though. If this sort of mishaps is the reason for restricting the allowed sources, allow only sources you own (and presumably are passingly familiar with) but let everyone use all of those.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
One of the rules should be that if a player is using a rule from one of the non-core books then THEY should know the rules that they are wanting to use.
This avoids the DM having to learn every single rule in every single book, just in case.
A long standing rule (30+ years) at my tables has been "Rules at the Table"... Meaning if I didn't bring the book to the table then you the player need to do so or it won't be permitted in the game.
1) Multiple books rephrasing rules: This needs to be agreed upon before game starts and can be a source of disagreement. Try stating before game starts that you will look over PC's and approve or disallow them based on questions the player provides and rules that you pick to enforce or rule interpretations that fit your game. A real world example that might cause you some mirth in the 90's I knew of some Palladium players and GM's that had binders full of house rules and rule interpretations for a specific book and how it would interact with other books and rules.
2) Heated Discussions: This can be a problem and making sure everyone is one the same page in terms of rules and rule interpretation is another thing for a GM to do. Stating what books or your house rules in a document before the game stars can often help as I have often found the statement "I use the standard rules for PC creation" to leave things out or have widely different interpretations.
Many new books have come out recently, and then there is the unofficial stuff. I don’t have all of these books, and I don’t want to buy them.
So, I thought I would limit the players to the following sourcebooks (I have more, but I was thinking of what books the players might have).
Basic Rules + PHB + 1 of the following:
Sword Coast Adventures Guide
Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes
Xanathar’s Guide to Everything.
Similar to AL, the players would only use one additional book. So if they used SCAG, they couldn’t use MToF as well. The players would have to build their characters from the basic rules + PHB + the additional book they choose from the allowed list.
I was also thinking of not allowing any of the alternate rules or lineage options from TCoE since that book wouldn’t be on my allowed list.
Can I have your thoughts on this, please?
Thanks
Forge.
Personally I tend to place restrictions on my players most campaigns even though I own all the official books either physically or online.
I have often found placing restrictions on race, sub class and even class can make players think differently and create some really interesting characters that are different to what they would normally take. As a rule of thumb I will take the number of races in the PHB and add 2 then I will usually swap out one or 2 races in the PHB with something different. As far as classes go that is world dependent but I have run campaigns with no clerics, no sorcerors, no rogues and no barbarians before now (different campaigns not all of them in one campaign lol). Sub classes I take a similar approach to the PHB so I will take as many as are in that and then swap out for alternatives maybe adding 1 or 2 as required.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm always pretty flexible on what I let my players run from official sources. Homebrew has to be approved, third party stuff is generally no unless you can make a good character case for it. If I allow it, I reserve the right to tweak/change/retcon at my whim. AL has limits because its trying to facilitate a similar experience for those without home games, and that has to exist on both the DM and Player side. Having a character from 5 books is hard to adjudicate and when you're dealing with new players every single week? That is time consuming and ardous. Hopefully your game isn't cycling players nearly as often.
If you're using D&D Beyond, typically the character is going to work. Sure, we can talk about features that aren't there, but most everything has a fix or a workaround. It only gets really wonky when you start doing things like giving players extra spells known, stats above 20 etc. I've never run into an issue where having all the options was an issue for my players, and I run my games that all content is on always, but certain things might get banned because they don't make sense. We don't use Strixhaven backgrounds in my current game, because we're in a homebrew setting where magic is turning back on, so it doesn't make sense. Custom Lineage though? It gets used. Dark Gifts? It's been explored. Even Piety from Theros, though we didn't like it and said no. D&D Beyond does make playing the game easier because once the character is built, referencing the features is much easier. Now it isn't teaching someone how to find the information in the books, its teaching them how to use the interface, and if they suck with that? Have them use the PDF or print it out.
Limiting to what you actually own is 100% reasonable. D&D is not a cheap hobby, and it never has been. The fact that I can tell you as a fact I've spent $1,100+ on D&D Beyond for everything but the tactical maps is a testament to that fact.
First rule of GMing is that no plan survives contact with the PCs. They will do things you didn't expect.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As others have said, I would talk with your players first, and since you are the GM, you can impose whatever restrictions you want.
If you want my personal opinion on it though, if I were a player, I do not like restrictions and I would hesitate to join a game that restricts official content. If the restriction is due to nobody having the book or is not willing to share, I am fine with that, but if the book is readily available, I do not really like the idea of restricting it.
As a GM myself, I allow anything by Wizards in my game, and that includes all official publications and UA (I do not mind old UA and old errata as long as I am not homebrewing it onto Beyond). I allow third party homebrew on a case by case basis, but generally speaking, if it is semi official and/or easily available on Beyond (Matt Mercer's homebrew; Darktides of Bilgewater; Lauren's Phoenix Domain; etc.), or if it is unofficial but heavily related to an official product (Exploring Eberron; Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting; etc.), I would not mind allowing it.
I am not too concerned with my players making super powerful builds, and I see that as a good thing in my opinion, since it means my players are engaged with the game and the mechanics. And as a GM, there is nothing they can build with official books that I cannot overcome with the power of homebrew.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Thanks for all your thoughts. You have given me lots of stuff to consider.
Having read all your posts, I think I might drop the PHB + 1 rule. I took that from AL to make it easier for my players not to have to juggle a character created from multiple books. I've DMed games before where players mixed and matched from four/five/six different books and then could not remember the specific mechanics of how one thing affected the other.
It was a nightmare. Instead of playing the game, players would argue over their interpretation of what each other's characters did and could do because they did not all have the same books. One book states something one way, while the other said the same thing slightly differently or retconned the other book, and the players would get Into arguments over which book was right.
It was also hard for me when players used a book that I didn't have and had not read. The players would stop in the middle of the game and say things like: “actually, on page 124 of this new book I just bought last week, it says my character is not affected by this because they have x, y, z ability.”
It was even worse when they used third party content, and I outright banned homebrew when I had a player turned up with some crazy unbalanced nonsense that made their character untouchable because they could blink in and out of existence at will and reappear anywhere they choose. I forget the name of the specific homebrew now. It was some wizard they'd taken off Reddit. I tried to let them have it by balancing their blink ability against needing super expensive components, but it still spoiled the game. It wasn't what that player wanted to play either, so they were less interested in the game as they then had to manage their inventory and make sure they had enough components to use their ability, while the other players did not.
The other players eventually got fed up with having to spend all their hard-earned gold to buy that characters spell components as well, and the game broke down entirely because of that one homebrew.
Since then, I have banned all homebrew in my games.
Until now, though, I've not banned high-quality third party content, and despite the struggles I've had with players using new books that I don't own to build their characters, I've still allowed them as long as they were official resources. It was fine when the new books didn't change much except maybe add a new class, make a formally unplayable race playable, or slightly change the wording of a spell here and there, but the books that have come out recently are making sweeping changes to a lot of mechanics. So much so that I would argue the changes represent a point increase in editions to 5.5e, even though wizards are not calling it that.
All in all, these and other things, like I'm trying to create a world setting that is more representative of old school d&d, where I can set my games against the metaplot of gods, kings and ancient evils, is what brought me to the idea of saying, “we use these books”.
You have all given me much to think about, however, and I thank you all for the time it took you to write such detailed replies.
Forge XD
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I think it's wise to limit options to what you have access to. As DM, you're there to arbitrate the rules, so you need access to them. Personally, I'd be open to allowing sources I don't own so long as they lend me the book for the duration of the campaign, but that may not be feasible in your situation or might not suit your learning style.
If having multiple sourcebooks has caused problems in the past, that's legitimate. Personally, I'd point out that DM gets the final say, and that once the DM casts a judgment, it's uncontestable in-session. We can chat about it afterwards, but I'll make snap judgements in the game and that needs to be accepted to keep the game flowing. As such, if there is a mechanic that isn't completely mainstream but is important to their decisions, they should discuss it with me first, or they run the risk of having the rug pulled out from under them when they do something that I don't allow (I'm not going to do it to punish them, they're just accepting the risk).
That allows them the options, but allows you to keep a lid on arguments. Again, it depends on your style, you may or may not be comfortable doing that either. These are my solutions - whether they're the best solutions for you is another matter.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Given your handle and the description of the rules "discussions" and the descriptions of the rules sources... I am going to go out on a limb here and guess the system in question (for the poor experience) is Palladium and more specifically Rifts? If so... Yeah... 5e is a tad more consistent in its rules presentation from book to book. So that shouldn't be an issue as long as you restrict the players to sources you have readily available.
One of the rules should be that if a player is using a rule from one of the non-core books then THEY should know the rules that they are wanting to use.
This avoids the DM having to learn every single rule in every single book, just in case.
With the exception of absolute beginners who are still just learning the game in the first place, all players should know the rules for whatever mechanics they chose for their character. I don't think that's necessarily the problem though - the real issue seems to be different people having different ideas about how a rule actually works, and if the DM doesn't know the rule they probably can't make an informed decision on how to proceed. The whole "+1" thing won't fix that though. If this sort of mishaps is the reason for restricting the allowed sources, allow only sources you own (and presumably are passingly familiar with) but let everyone use all of those.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A long standing rule (30+ years) at my tables has been "Rules at the Table"... Meaning if I didn't bring the book to the table then you the player need to do so or it won't be permitted in the game.
Thanks for explaining more,
1) Multiple books rephrasing rules: This needs to be agreed upon before game starts and can be a source of disagreement. Try stating before game starts that you will look over PC's and approve or disallow them based on questions the player provides and rules that you pick to enforce or rule interpretations that fit your game. A real world example that might cause you some mirth in the 90's I knew of some Palladium players and GM's that had binders full of house rules and rule interpretations for a specific book and how it would interact with other books and rules.
2) Heated Discussions: This can be a problem and making sure everyone is one the same page in terms of rules and rule interpretation is another thing for a GM to do. Stating what books or your house rules in a document before the game stars can often help as I have often found the statement "I use the standard rules for PC creation" to leave things out or have widely different interpretations.
MDC
Personally I tend to place restrictions on my players most campaigns even though I own all the official books either physically or online.
I have often found placing restrictions on race, sub class and even class can make players think differently and create some really interesting characters that are different to what they would normally take. As a rule of thumb I will take the number of races in the PHB and add 2 then I will usually swap out one or 2 races in the PHB with something different.
As far as classes go that is world dependent but I have run campaigns with no clerics, no sorcerors, no rogues and no barbarians before now (different campaigns not all of them in one campaign lol).
Sub classes I take a similar approach to the PHB so I will take as many as are in that and then swap out for alternatives maybe adding 1 or 2 as required.