I am a fairly forgiving DM. I have been playing for 30 years and I will allow players to go off book if it makes for an interesting character or backstory even if it bends the mechanics of the game some for an interesting story. I design items specific for each player based on their wants and needs during play with an occasional random item thrown in for flavor or just to see what happens or make things interesting. I see the books as guidelines on how the game should be played, more of a buffet, I take what I want and discard the rest. I design encounters based on the party tactics or lack thereof. If the enemy has been studying them it can be pretty tough, if its 6 guys with pitchforks it could be pretty easy, but pitchforks are vicious as one rogue discovered.
Now, that being said I understand each DM has their own style. I've tried out several games in the past few years at local gaming shops(Not AL) or through social media and I have noticed two trends with DM's. The first is the 'By the Book" game. By that I mean, rules are unbending, encounters are designed based on a strict CR requirement and treasure is 100% random and from the DMG only and if you cant point to a rule in the book you can't do it, mechanics over story if you get my meaning.
The second trend is the changing, removing, or banning of rules that the DM believes is too Overpowered for players and will give the player too much of an advantage over the DM. Here is a short list of a few examples I have come across.
Only 1 elf allowed at the table.
Warlocks can't take Devil's sight.
Hexblade's can't use two-handers ever.
Elf can only take cantrips from PHB.
No Great Weapon Fighting or Sharpshooting feats allowed.
Human's cannot use variant Human.
Variant Human's must use pre-arroved feat list.
No expertise in perception or stealth for rogues, bards.
Can't change the color or shape of spells for flavor.
Only 1 short rest per day is allowed.
This was a short list gathered from several tables and I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
I can understand the "By the Book" trend if you are new to being a DM or playing in general. It is good to have an understanding of the game before you go changing things or allow players to go on a tangent, and I'm not saying these games can't be fun. But one session made me feel like I was in a courtoom of lawyers rather than a dnd table and I was on trial for saying my Elf bladesinger shouldn't be paralyzed by the ghoul ( DM: "But it doesn't say that in the PHB, or the DMG, is it a class ability or racial?!!" Me: " Its in the description under ghoul touch in monster manual". DM:"You shouldn't know what that says, you are the player"). So ended the adventure career of Vander Tassarion, elven bladesinger at 3rd level. paralyzed and eaten by ghouls. Oh and BTW YES, elves are immune to a ghouls paralyzing touch, it's been that way since 2nd edition even 1st iirc.
What I don't understand is the trend of, "You can't do that because it is OP". As a DM you have full control over the game for the most part. Encounters, items, treasure, NPC's, monsters if your players are not being challenged step up and change stuff. Give the mob some more hps, have them be more tactical, throw a few casters or intellect devourer at them, exploding zombies, or an invisible rust monster or 2 if they get cocky!! MY point is, nothing the PC's can do will ever be Overpowered in my opinion, you as the DM can counter 99% of their shenanigans with a little thought and a cursed item or 2.
Anyway, I am curious what trends other DM's have noticed as players. I am ecstatic that DnD has had a resurgence in the past few years with 5th edition and I am truly happy to see new players and DM's alike experiencing this great game and would like to see this hobby as well as the community continue to grow. Like I have said before I understand every DM has their own style and what works for you and your group is great. I feel however that these two trends could drive new players away from the game or corrupt up and coming DM's in how they run a game. A bad game session tends to stick with you like a bad relationship experience. You just keep running things over and over in your mind calculating What ifs? and Whys? and screaming YES, elves are immune to ghoul touch!!
Yeah, a lot of these "trends" seem to just be anecdotes of inexperience. I've not encountered any of these among my various LGS locations or convention play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I don't think there are any shortcuts to gaining the experience necessary to become a good DM and I don't think you can "advise" someone to it. A really open minded person might be able to slim down the painful period of learning...
Again, this is true, you don't just wake up one day and start DMing like you're Tolkein and Weis's illegitimate love child.
So yeah, I have noticed and no there is nothing to do about it, we just need to be patient and let people discover all the pitfalls of running games on their own.
This is the part I disagree with; we can help as players and DMs.
---
Forums, YouTube, books, and other media is presented en masse to help DMs learn the trade. That's a good step but DM's are fickle and proud creatures, we don't like to admit we have faults and failings, we are in control of all the things!!! *cough* Sorry...
New DMs need clearly defined boundaries, easily understood actions, and well defined structure, even if they don't realize it. No new DM should start out by thinking they can just toss ideas on a paper an run a good adventure. Every DM should start their first games from a module, this will begin to teach them how an adventure is structured and what they like, or don't like, about adventure styles. As players we should suggest and help these new DMs accept that, as fellow DMs we should advocate this approach. Guidance is needed when a DM begins their journey, the chaos of home brew games is not a good learning tool.
New DMs need feedback on how they are doing, they need suggestions on what players want, and they need the views of other DMs on what could be handled in different ways. New Dms do not need to hear that they're doing something wrong, they do need to know that the rules may differ from their approach. DMs need to know that something they did was fun, they need to know that something they did was boring, they need to know that what they did was confusing, and they need to know why. They do not need to be attacked because something wasn't done the way you'd DM, they need their fellow DM to say that there are other ways to approach situations.
Players under a new DM need to respect their lack of knowledge, not abuse it. Players can focus their attention to a class and it's progression with all of their energy, DMs have an entire army of NPCs, villains, and story parts dividing their attention. A new DM shouldn't have to worry about a min/maxed tunnel fighter, sentinel, polearm master if they don't even understand how a basic Trickery Domain Cleric works beyond level 3. If a DM is still learning how the rules work, help them figure it out by explaining your actions when they seem confused. Choose your character creation to help the DM, and stick to books that they own; just because you have all the expansion books and pdfs of UA material doesn't mean they will.
---
New DMs become bad DMs because they don't have the proper input, help, and materials necessary to grow. It is our responsibility as players, fellow DMs, and D&D community to help teach them. There are the outliers, the DMs who will never grow past the narcissistic, arrogant, and power hungry stubbornness. They'll eventually fall out of the fold as they find maintainig and starting groups is difficult.
Having worked with several DMs of varying levels, I find that the mature DM is going to roll with the punches, just be sure you want to throw one, because he is going to send something back... especially if you broke something of his. With a newer DM, I find that asking questions about how something is going to work outside of the game is a good thing to do. You get to lay out what you think the ability / item is and does and by asking a question requiring input from them, you are not blindsiding them and making them stick to a ruling they made on the fly. Surprising a newer DM with ability and item combos in combat is not necessarily the best way to showcase your abilities. Most of the time when I've played with newer DMs, though, I've also been playing with newer players as well, so we didn't have the rules lawyer problem. IMHO, all rules lawyering should happen outside the game. Make your case, provide evidence and abide by the ruling... but don't do any of that at the table.
Newer DMs are more likely to see the rules as obstacles and try and bend the game to fit with their internal vision of how fantasy / magic works. Depending on what fantasy books they first read or whether they grew up with The Hobbit or Harry Potter etc. As you gain experience you are less concerned with the rules and more interested in the story arc, flow and pacing. Strangely there is less temptation to play with the rules when you focus on the story and the rules fade into the background. I hear people arguing about the “rules are just guidelines” and the story is more important. They seem to think that to focus on story you have to ignore the rules. But when you understand the rules and focus on the story there is little need to tweak and prod. Trying to tweak the rules into the perfect mirror of your internal vision will only send you down an unending spiral of diminishing returns. Trust that the rules are close enough and focus on the bigger picture.
This is an interesting topic, because I've had players come to me and ask if they can use such-n-such because it is deemed overpowered, which I found funny. Of course I was like, yeah use it if you want. In my view, as the DM, there is no such thing as overpowered. As a DM I have all the tools at my disposal to find ways to counter-act what is "over-powered". With that said, there are things that you don't expect to happen sometimes and like many of said a lot of the restrictions are based upon inexperience at DMing. Being 1 DM with 4-7 players can be tough for newer DMs and they're trying to find ways to keep some control and make sure they know what they're doing. On a side note, I've also used story reasons to restrict some races before, but it's nothing other than story reasons in my homebrew world. My players understand that and are cool with it. Ultimately, as a player, if you don't like the changes put in place you can always search elsewhere until you find one that fits what you want. I also do not think that changes that you've listed above make for a terrible game.
Players under a new DM need to respect their lack of knowledge, not abuse it. Players can focus their attention to a class and it's progression with all of their energy, DMs have an entire army of NPCs, villains, and story parts dividing their attention. A new DM shouldn't have to worry about a min/maxed tunnel fighter, sentinel, polearm master if they don't even understand how a basic Trickery Domain Cleric works beyond level 3. If a DM is still learning how the rules work, help them figure it out by explaining your actions when they seem confused. Choose your character creation to help the DM, and stick to books that they own; just because you have all the expansion books and pdfs of UA material doesn't mean they will.
Exactly. The worse thing that can happen is taking advantage of a new DM, then they seem lost and frustrated and give up. They should be helped along and over time they will improve. We always need more DMs, so help nurture them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
As a DM I like sit at other tables as a player to not only play, but learn tips and tricks that will help my when running my own games. While I agree that experience is the most prevalent reason for the two trends I mentioned, it is not the only reason. Several of the DM's whose tables I sat at mentioned they had years of experience running games, yet these DM's were the quickest to put restrictions on player choices. It is true that some of the 'blame' (if that is what you want to call it) falls on the players shoulders. Several players, newer and older alike, viewed some of these sessions as a 'me vs the table vs DM' exercise. They approached the table top game as they would a video game, boasting of their research online of the various 'overpowered' (there is that word again) combinations that would help them win.
Part of the issue is me as well, I run a game with players I know and trust, I encourage them to build characters with interesting backstories, plot armor with a chink or 5 in it, if you will. I want them to feel safe in their backstory, til they aren't. So my view is skewed, running a game with strangers you just met seems a daunting task, so perhaps they resort to 'by the book' or regulations to keep some semblance of control. This seems odd to me, since the DM has most of the control already.
Seems a bit sad if the wizard can't have iceball instead of fireball. I understand that fire is more resisted than ice, but if they are a winter-eladrin with a theme it seems a shame to spoil it when there's a chance for coolness and theme to shine through.
Honestly it sounds like a holdover from 3.X where it was a case of staple everything you can to a character to cheese out another +3 to hit. (my pixie half copper dragon paladin of mystra 1/sorcorer 10/red dragon disciple 6/chosen of jubliex 4 with +73 to hit and 93d12 fireballs that ignore fire resistance....)
5E has a huge amount of internal balance and playtesting. No assumptions are built into the system so I don't see in a fantasy world why no more than 1 elf is allowed. What about an underdark campaign - no drow? What about 4 dwarfs but only 1 elf? I understand if the world has no elves or there's reasons why (all elves are feral and not a PC race or something) but random 'interpretations' that are basically some idiots pet attempt to control a system for which they already have control by being a DM seems a bit pathetic imho.
Case in point - the spin off to our main game that I get to play in had a 'humans only' because we were the survivors of a human village. One person has a half-elf because it fit fluff wise. I daresay we could have squeezed in a halfling if we needed to but it was understood to be part of the setting and a legitimate reason. Also it was only temporary so we rolled with it. However if we were committing for 20 levels of epic campaign and there was a 'no druids because I don't like them' and one person really wants to play a druid you're going to have problems.
5E has a huge amount of internal balance and playtesting. No assumptions are built into the system so I don't see in a fantasy world why no more than 1 elf is allowed. What about an underdark campaign - no drow? What about 4 dwarfs but only 1 elf? I understand if the world has no elves or there's reasons why (all elves are feral and not a PC race or something) but random 'interpretations' that are basically some idiots pet attempt to control a system for which they already have control by being a DM seems a bit pathetic imho.
Case in point - the spin off to our main game that I get to play in had a 'humans only' because we were the survivors of a human village. One person has a half-elf because it fit fluff wise. I daresay we could have squeezed in a halfling if we needed to but it was understood to be part of the setting and a legitimate reason. Also it was only temporary so we rolled with it. However if we were committing for 20 levels of epic campaign and there was a 'no druids because I don't like them' and one person really wants to play a druid you're going to have problems.
If you knew upfront that there would be no druids then why would you join the game? Everything can be solved prior to the start of any campaign/one-shot/etc by asking questions of the DM. If it does not fit what you as the player want, then look elsewhere. You could certainly run an underdark campaign without drow or have an all dwarf and 1 elf group. If the DM points that out at the beginning you know what you're getting into. Now, if this is something that was never said at all, then yeah, I could see griping, but most of this stuff (race, class, feats, etc) get answered from the start.
When I saw this topic my first thought is assuming the DM is newer or inexperienced. Bad on my part. With those experienced DMs, Noobiwan, is the restriction based solely on them saying something is overpowered? Or is it story/world reasons? If it's the former, then maybe they aren't as experienced as they say. If it's the latter then perhaps that's how the world/story they built is. I can tell you in my own current world right now that I'm DMing, there are no tieflings or dragonborn on the continents; and warlocks are outlawed. No PC is of those two races or a warlock. I was upfront about that and that let the player decide whether or not they wanted to play.
The second trend is the changing, removing, or banning of rules that the DM believes is too Overpowered for players and will give the player too much of an advantage over the DM.
Personally, as a PSA for the DMs that are reading this and do perhaps restrict things, I just want to say that there are no advantages to the players. There is nothing that they can get or have that will be overpowered to you, the dm, because you hold ALL the cards! And secondly, this is not a you vs them game... unless it is and you tell them that upfront. Yes, you play the enemies and you should play them to their fullest extent, but in the end it's a cooperative game where you help tell the story of these HEROES (or villains if you run evil games). And you might read this and say "noble, you can't tell me how to play. I'll do what I want", and you're right. Play however the heck you want! You do you, but it's just something to consider.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
So my style of DM'ing would probably neither reflect A, nor B. I'm not a "by the book" DM at all.... well I am, except that the book I play out of is full of my own personal amendments and annotations that, I think makes the game better/easier to run. I keep my complete list of rule-changes in a word doc in a cloud drive that is available to my players, and aside from those changes, I try stick to the rules. Not because I really care about the rules, but because changing the rules every 5 minutes makes the game confusing/frustrating/aggrivating. That being said, I'm on your DM's side. Looking up monsters in the MM is bad game etiquette... If you are going to do it, at LEAST ask your DM to adjudicate what your character has access to, roll a die, and on a success, there is the possibility that you'll know something. Also, arguing with the DM AT THE TABLE is again, bad form...
And while I don't agree with many of the above rules changes, and I'm not afraid of breaking the game by allowing a character at the table to be "overpowered," I believe that a DM should have the lattitude to make literally any changes that he wants to make, so long as he communicates those changes to the players effectively. If a DM believes that Devil's sight trivializes the primary narrative of his campaign, then he CAN get rid of it, and i'm not about to declare him to be "bad" or "inexperienced" because he does it.
The next campaign I run, I'm starting every player at 8,8,8,8,8,8, despite all the rules in the PHB about point buy or rolling stats.... there were 10 people at my table last week. You tell me if I'm doing something wrong.
When I saw this topic my first thought is assuming the DM is newer or inexperienced. Bad on my part. With those experienced DMs, Noobiwan, is the restriction based solely on them saying something is overpowered? Or is it story/world reasons? If it's the former, then maybe they aren't as experienced as they say. If it's the latter then perhaps that's how the world/story they built is. I can tell you in my own current world right now that I'm DMing, there are no tieflings or dragonborn on the continents; and warlocks are outlawed. No PC is of those two races or a warlock. I was upfront about that and that let the player decide whether or not they wanted to play.
The second trend is the changing, removing, or banning of rules that the DM believes is too Overpowered for players and will give the player too much of an advantage over the DM.
Personally, as a PSA for the DMs that are reading this and do perhaps restrict things, I just want to say that there are no advantages to the players. There is nothing that they can get or have that will be overpowered to you, the dm, because you hold ALL the cards! And secondly, this is not a you vs them game... unless it is and you tell them that upfront. Yes, you play the enemies and you should play them to their fullest extent, but in the end it's a cooperative game where you help tell the story of these HEROES (or villains if you run evil games). And you might read this and say "noble, you can't tell me how to play. I'll do what I want", and you're right. Play however the heck you want! You do you, but it's just something to consider.
Almost all the reasons that were given had nothing to due with the world or lore, 99% of the sessions were Faerun, with a smidgen of Dark Sun which I totally understand restrictions there. One example, a Faerun campaign, was the one elf at the table rule. The reason given to me was that the DM saw "trance as too powerful allowing a long rest in 4 hours and he did not want multiple players able to get a long rest in such a short amount of time," which struck me as a very odd and off the wall reason, this is the same DM "that didn't like the fact that a hexblade could use charisma for his attack/damage stat so that is why he restricted two-handers. He felt it gave too much of an advantage over strength based warriors." All these were nonsensical restrictions that left me scratching my head as to why, even after the reason was given for their removal. All the reasons that were given for the items on my list were mechanical in nature or a 'I don't like that' reason. Either they had a bad experience with a player that abused it, or they read online that it was too powerful in theory.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your PSA. I could argue that players need all the advantages they can get. A few bad dice rolls or a crazy spur of the moment idea from the players is more dangerous to a campaign than any half dragon/vampire artificer of zeus with a hammer of thunderbolts character that the player dreamed up while getting his wisdom teeth pulled.
Bleh. There should only be one reason for banning something as being OP - not because it's going to overpower your precious encounters, but because it runs roughshod over other players (the reason I ban the last Mystic UA - it made other players playing other classes feel superfluous at lower levels).
That said, Feats are optional rules. If I'm running a game with new players, I'll disallow feats for the first ASI until the players have more of a basic grasp on their own class, racial abilities, and backgrounds.
Some people have baggage left over from past gaming experiences. One guy I game with talks about "role protection" being the most important aspect of character creation. I suspect it's because he rolled a Fighter in 3rd ed, had a bad experience when the Barbarian outpaced him in damage output, and now he gets a bit feisty when it's brought up. Another player doesn't like currency (of all things!) and wants to barter/honor system his way through the game's economics. Again, it's because of past experiences where his other group got caught up in the minutiae of it and wrecked his fun.
So, in cases where DMs have weird rulings that make no sense, I find it's often because they're trying to avoid a bad experience. If they're being ridiculous about it, well, you gotta talk it through with 'em. People aren't unreasonable. They just don't want to get burned twice by the same thing.
I think the 5E rules are well balanced and worth using. I'm happy to be corrected by a player if I forget a rule, and I always make folk read out the spell or feat they are using first time.
The one thing I try to discourage is repetitive use if the same tactic, using the same feat to knock an enemy prone every turn for example. I just tell them it's boring. I love it when the party works as a team and takes down a monster, can't abide it when one character is so overcranked they distort the encounters.
I also encourage players to try to operate at their character's IQ level, low IQ folk don't make clever plans.
And always remember Chris Perkin's advice, this is about friends getting together and enjoying the game.
My DM for one of the campaigns my group is playing( We are blessed to have 3 DMs and two prospective DMs in our group) has pretty much set an "anything goes" mindset at the table so long as it makes sense. I myself have continued that with my games, and if someone disagrees with me on something I'm willing to re-think it if they can give me a solid reason why I should. Since we don't have issues with respect at our table, I'm ok with changing my mind on something if someone can be creative enough to think of a way to use it logically. This means that all of us are really creative as players, and I love that my DM has inspired this setting at our table. Rules are all well and good, but it's exciting as a player when you manage to do something super cool with a weapon or a spell, and it wasn't the intended use.
One example would be , one of the characters my DM let me create, that is a half orc-half elf with wild magic who was raised by a dwarf. She is my favorite character I've played so far too! Another would be when my DM let me b*** slap a talking cat with my mage hand, since I wasn't intending on doing damage or anything, my character was just SUPER angry at it. Lastly, just recently we played a one-shot where we were shrunk to super tiny, and a raven was trying to eat us. I misty stepped up to the flying raven to save my companion, and cast shatter, which made us and quite a few feathers begin to fall towards the ground. My DM let me grab a feather and use it to surf down at a half falling rate, so it was still dangerous, but not as bad as full fall damage. In the end, I was able to use misty step to get down safely again, and my companion saved himself fall damage through epic, barbarian abilities. These sort of unique and fun, creative events make the BEST stories and we ALL enjoy them, so that's why I like to run and/or play loose with the rules.
Some people have baggage left over from past gaming experiences. One guy I game with talks about "role protection" being the most important aspect of character creation. I suspect it's because he rolled a Fighter in 3rd ed, had a bad experience when the Barbarian outpaced him in damage output, and now he gets a bit feisty when it's brought up. Another player doesn't like currency (of all things!) and wants to barter/honor system his way through the game's economics. Again, it's because of past experiences where his other group got caught up in the minutiae of it and wrecked his fun.
So, in cases where DMs have weird rulings that make no sense, I find it's often because they're trying to avoid a bad experience. If they're being ridiculous about it, well, you gotta talk it through with 'em. People aren't unreasonable. They just don't want to get burned twice by the same thing.
I think this is a very good point. I know that this is the case for myself. When I started playing Pathfinder for the first time with 4 other new players and one veteran, the veteran was a hard-core rules lawyer. This of course led us all to lean in that direction. This suited us just fine, we all had a lot of fun and got along very well. Now that I have run a few games of my own, I've noticed that I tend to get hung up on things like action economy (my player wanted to throw two javelins in a single round) and other relatively minor things like that. I've had to learn to make a ruling quickly and look up the rules after the session to keep things rolling.
Speaking to the original topic: I think a lot of the trends that Noobiwan is seeing are tied to trends that I've seen with the players themselves. I've noticed that because of resources like DnD Beyond, players are able to share their "overpowered" builds and ways that they have "broken" the game. I think every player at some point goes through the, "I want to make an OP character" phase, and I tend to see it with players who have played enough to understand the rules, but not enough to really find their own play style. This leads to your pole-arm master, sentinel, tunnel-fighter builds that DMs hate. Of course there are people who enjoy this style of play, and there are games for those players to min/max to their hearts content (as long as everyone is having fun then there's no problem with it.)
I used to fudge and wing it a lot when it comes to the rules, but the last campaign I started, I decided to go hard-core. No more fudging. No more hiding the dice rolls. Monsters, spells etc. exactly by the book and we started playing with a grid. I noticed that I started enjoying the game a lot more, but some players: not as much into it. I believe that those are the type of players who are more into the "make belief hero" aspects of the game, and to them, their characters WINNING is very important. Those players won't like their character being disintegrated by an eye-ray from a zombie beholder (this happened: they had to pay a ton of gold to have the elf reincarnated). I started to see the game more like a conflict between different forces in the make belief world. The conflict has to be on equal terms rules-wise to be truly interesting to me. So it became a matter of sacrificing a little bit of player enjoyment to enjoy the game a little bit more as DM. I believe that a lot of DMs burn out because they become like videogames or performing monkeys to their players -- they forget to have fun themselves, or they become detached, isolated manipulators of the players. And sometimes it IS fun to disintegrate a character, to roll a crit against a character... As long as its by the book and not some dark childish kind of deus ex machina. The challenge here is to give the players a fair go without being forced to push and pull them all the time towards encounters and situations you've prepared so as to not wipe them out by mistake. Perhaps I will learn how to do this correctly one day...
Besides, being a good DM is also about having a group with good chemistry between all the players, and this can take many, MANY sessions to develop even if its a game among old friends. This is as important to me as how the rules are used.
I've seen experienced and inexperienced DM's with a laundry list of do's and dont's. It's not just inexperienced DM's. Sometimes it is the grognards that can't wrap their head around the new edition.
I am a fairly forgiving DM. I have been playing for 30 years and I will allow players to go off book if it makes for an interesting character or backstory even if it bends the mechanics of the game some for an interesting story. I design items specific for each player based on their wants and needs during play with an occasional random item thrown in for flavor or just to see what happens or make things interesting. I see the books as guidelines on how the game should be played, more of a buffet, I take what I want and discard the rest. I design encounters based on the party tactics or lack thereof. If the enemy has been studying them it can be pretty tough, if its 6 guys with pitchforks it could be pretty easy, but pitchforks are vicious as one rogue discovered.
Now, that being said I understand each DM has their own style. I've tried out several games in the past few years at local gaming shops(Not AL) or through social media and I have noticed two trends with DM's. The first is the 'By the Book" game. By that I mean, rules are unbending, encounters are designed based on a strict CR requirement and treasure is 100% random and from the DMG only and if you cant point to a rule in the book you can't do it, mechanics over story if you get my meaning.
The second trend is the changing, removing, or banning of rules that the DM believes is too Overpowered for players and will give the player too much of an advantage over the DM. Here is a short list of a few examples I have come across.
This was a short list gathered from several tables and I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
I can understand the "By the Book" trend if you are new to being a DM or playing in general. It is good to have an understanding of the game before you go changing things or allow players to go on a tangent, and I'm not saying these games can't be fun. But one session made me feel like I was in a courtoom of lawyers rather than a dnd table and I was on trial for saying my Elf bladesinger shouldn't be paralyzed by the ghoul ( DM: "But it doesn't say that in the PHB, or the DMG, is it a class ability or racial?!!" Me: " Its in the description under ghoul touch in monster manual". DM:"You shouldn't know what that says, you are the player"). So ended the adventure career of Vander Tassarion, elven bladesinger at 3rd level. paralyzed and eaten by ghouls. Oh and BTW YES, elves are immune to a ghouls paralyzing touch, it's been that way since 2nd edition even 1st iirc.
What I don't understand is the trend of, "You can't do that because it is OP". As a DM you have full control over the game for the most part. Encounters, items, treasure, NPC's, monsters if your players are not being challenged step up and change stuff. Give the mob some more hps, have them be more tactical, throw a few casters or intellect devourer at them, exploding zombies, or an invisible rust monster or 2 if they get cocky!! MY point is, nothing the PC's can do will ever be Overpowered in my opinion, you as the DM can counter 99% of their shenanigans with a little thought and a cursed item or 2.
Anyway, I am curious what trends other DM's have noticed as players. I am ecstatic that DnD has had a resurgence in the past few years with 5th edition and I am truly happy to see new players and DM's alike experiencing this great game and would like to see this hobby as well as the community continue to grow. Like I have said before I understand every DM has their own style and what works for you and your group is great. I feel however that these two trends could drive new players away from the game or corrupt up and coming DM's in how they run a game. A bad game session tends to stick with you like a bad relationship experience. You just keep running things over and over in your mind calculating What ifs? and Whys? and screaming YES, elves are immune to ghoul touch!!
Thoughts?
Yeah, a lot of these "trends" seem to just be anecdotes of inexperience. I've not encountered any of these among my various LGS locations or convention play.
This is the truth of it. Experience is what allows a DM to just roll with the punches and take things as they come.
Again, this is true, you don't just wake up one day and start DMing like you're Tolkein and Weis's illegitimate love child.
This is the part I disagree with; we can help as players and DMs.
---
Forums, YouTube, books, and other media is presented en masse to help DMs learn the trade. That's a good step but DM's are fickle and proud creatures, we don't like to admit we have faults and failings, we are in control of all the things!!! *cough* Sorry...
New DMs need clearly defined boundaries, easily understood actions, and well defined structure, even if they don't realize it. No new DM should start out by thinking they can just toss ideas on a paper an run a good adventure. Every DM should start their first games from a module, this will begin to teach them how an adventure is structured and what they like, or don't like, about adventure styles. As players we should suggest and help these new DMs accept that, as fellow DMs we should advocate this approach. Guidance is needed when a DM begins their journey, the chaos of home brew games is not a good learning tool.
New DMs need feedback on how they are doing, they need suggestions on what players want, and they need the views of other DMs on what could be handled in different ways. New Dms do not need to hear that they're doing something wrong, they do need to know that the rules may differ from their approach. DMs need to know that something they did was fun, they need to know that something they did was boring, they need to know that what they did was confusing, and they need to know why. They do not need to be attacked because something wasn't done the way you'd DM, they need their fellow DM to say that there are other ways to approach situations.
Players under a new DM need to respect their lack of knowledge, not abuse it. Players can focus their attention to a class and it's progression with all of their energy, DMs have an entire army of NPCs, villains, and story parts dividing their attention. A new DM shouldn't have to worry about a min/maxed tunnel fighter, sentinel, polearm master if they don't even understand how a basic Trickery Domain Cleric works beyond level 3. If a DM is still learning how the rules work, help them figure it out by explaining your actions when they seem confused. Choose your character creation to help the DM, and stick to books that they own; just because you have all the expansion books and pdfs of UA material doesn't mean they will.
---
New DMs become bad DMs because they don't have the proper input, help, and materials necessary to grow. It is our responsibility as players, fellow DMs, and D&D community to help teach them. There are the outliers, the DMs who will never grow past the narcissistic, arrogant, and power hungry stubbornness. They'll eventually fall out of the fold as they find maintainig and starting groups is difficult.
Having worked with several DMs of varying levels, I find that the mature DM is going to roll with the punches, just be sure you want to throw one, because he is going to send something back... especially if you broke something of his. With a newer DM, I find that asking questions about how something is going to work outside of the game is a good thing to do. You get to lay out what you think the ability / item is and does and by asking a question requiring input from them, you are not blindsiding them and making them stick to a ruling they made on the fly. Surprising a newer DM with ability and item combos in combat is not necessarily the best way to showcase your abilities. Most of the time when I've played with newer DMs, though, I've also been playing with newer players as well, so we didn't have the rules lawyer problem. IMHO, all rules lawyering should happen outside the game. Make your case, provide evidence and abide by the ruling... but don't do any of that at the table.
Newer DMs are more likely to see the rules as obstacles and try and bend the game to fit with their internal vision of how fantasy / magic works. Depending on what fantasy books they first read or whether they grew up with The Hobbit or Harry Potter etc. As you gain experience you are less concerned with the rules and more interested in the story arc, flow and pacing. Strangely there is less temptation to play with the rules when you focus on the story and the rules fade into the background. I hear people arguing about the “rules are just guidelines” and the story is more important. They seem to think that to focus on story you have to ignore the rules. But when you understand the rules and focus on the story there is little need to tweak and prod. Trying to tweak the rules into the perfect mirror of your internal vision will only send you down an unending spiral of diminishing returns. Trust that the rules are close enough and focus on the bigger picture.
This is an interesting topic, because I've had players come to me and ask if they can use such-n-such because it is deemed overpowered, which I found funny. Of course I was like, yeah use it if you want. In my view, as the DM, there is no such thing as overpowered. As a DM I have all the tools at my disposal to find ways to counter-act what is "over-powered". With that said, there are things that you don't expect to happen sometimes and like many of said a lot of the restrictions are based upon inexperience at DMing. Being 1 DM with 4-7 players can be tough for newer DMs and they're trying to find ways to keep some control and make sure they know what they're doing. On a side note, I've also used story reasons to restrict some races before, but it's nothing other than story reasons in my homebrew world. My players understand that and are cool with it. Ultimately, as a player, if you don't like the changes put in place you can always search elsewhere until you find one that fits what you want. I also do not think that changes that you've listed above make for a terrible game.
Exactly. The worse thing that can happen is taking advantage of a new DM, then they seem lost and frustrated and give up. They should be helped along and over time they will improve. We always need more DMs, so help nurture them.
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
Follow my Campaign!
Ardanian Calendar
As a DM I like sit at other tables as a player to not only play, but learn tips and tricks that will help my when running my own games. While I agree that experience is the most prevalent reason for the two trends I mentioned, it is not the only reason. Several of the DM's whose tables I sat at mentioned they had years of experience running games, yet these DM's were the quickest to put restrictions on player choices. It is true that some of the 'blame' (if that is what you want to call it) falls on the players shoulders. Several players, newer and older alike, viewed some of these sessions as a 'me vs the table vs DM' exercise. They approached the table top game as they would a video game, boasting of their research online of the various 'overpowered' (there is that word again) combinations that would help them win.
Part of the issue is me as well, I run a game with players I know and trust, I encourage them to build characters with interesting backstories, plot armor with a chink or 5 in it, if you will. I want them to feel safe in their backstory, til they aren't. So my view is skewed, running a game with strangers you just met seems a daunting task, so perhaps they resort to 'by the book' or regulations to keep some semblance of control. This seems odd to me, since the DM has most of the control already.
Seems a bit sad if the wizard can't have iceball instead of fireball. I understand that fire is more resisted than ice, but if they are a winter-eladrin with a theme it seems a shame to spoil it when there's a chance for coolness and theme to shine through.
Honestly it sounds like a holdover from 3.X where it was a case of staple everything you can to a character to cheese out another +3 to hit. (my pixie half copper dragon paladin of mystra 1/sorcorer 10/red dragon disciple 6/chosen of jubliex 4 with +73 to hit and 93d12 fireballs that ignore fire resistance....)
5E has a huge amount of internal balance and playtesting. No assumptions are built into the system so I don't see in a fantasy world why no more than 1 elf is allowed. What about an underdark campaign - no drow? What about 4 dwarfs but only 1 elf? I understand if the world has no elves or there's reasons why (all elves are feral and not a PC race or something) but random 'interpretations' that are basically some idiots pet attempt to control a system for which they already have control by being a DM seems a bit pathetic imho.
Case in point - the spin off to our main game that I get to play in had a 'humans only' because we were the survivors of a human village. One person has a half-elf because it fit fluff wise. I daresay we could have squeezed in a halfling if we needed to but it was understood to be part of the setting and a legitimate reason. Also it was only temporary so we rolled with it. However if we were committing for 20 levels of epic campaign and there was a 'no druids because I don't like them' and one person really wants to play a druid you're going to have problems.
Southampton Guild of Roleplayers
My YouTube (C&C Welcome!)
If you knew upfront that there would be no druids then why would you join the game? Everything can be solved prior to the start of any campaign/one-shot/etc by asking questions of the DM. If it does not fit what you as the player want, then look elsewhere. You could certainly run an underdark campaign without drow or have an all dwarf and 1 elf group. If the DM points that out at the beginning you know what you're getting into. Now, if this is something that was never said at all, then yeah, I could see griping, but most of this stuff (race, class, feats, etc) get answered from the start.
When I saw this topic my first thought is assuming the DM is newer or inexperienced. Bad on my part. With those experienced DMs, Noobiwan, is the restriction based solely on them saying something is overpowered? Or is it story/world reasons? If it's the former, then maybe they aren't as experienced as they say. If it's the latter then perhaps that's how the world/story they built is. I can tell you in my own current world right now that I'm DMing, there are no tieflings or dragonborn on the continents; and warlocks are outlawed. No PC is of those two races or a warlock. I was upfront about that and that let the player decide whether or not they wanted to play.
Personally, as a PSA for the DMs that are reading this and do perhaps restrict things, I just want to say that there are no advantages to the players. There is nothing that they can get or have that will be overpowered to you, the dm, because you hold ALL the cards! And secondly, this is not a you vs them game... unless it is and you tell them that upfront. Yes, you play the enemies and you should play them to their fullest extent, but in the end it's a cooperative game where you help tell the story of these HEROES (or villains if you run evil games). And you might read this and say "noble, you can't tell me how to play. I'll do what I want", and you're right. Play however the heck you want! You do you, but it's just something to consider.
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
Follow my Campaign!
Ardanian Calendar
So my style of DM'ing would probably neither reflect A, nor B. I'm not a "by the book" DM at all.... well I am, except that the book I play out of is full of my own personal amendments and annotations that, I think makes the game better/easier to run. I keep my complete list of rule-changes in a word doc in a cloud drive that is available to my players, and aside from those changes, I try stick to the rules. Not because I really care about the rules, but because changing the rules every 5 minutes makes the game confusing/frustrating/aggrivating. That being said, I'm on your DM's side. Looking up monsters in the MM is bad game etiquette... If you are going to do it, at LEAST ask your DM to adjudicate what your character has access to, roll a die, and on a success, there is the possibility that you'll know something. Also, arguing with the DM AT THE TABLE is again, bad form...
And while I don't agree with many of the above rules changes, and I'm not afraid of breaking the game by allowing a character at the table to be "overpowered," I believe that a DM should have the lattitude to make literally any changes that he wants to make, so long as he communicates those changes to the players effectively. If a DM believes that Devil's sight trivializes the primary narrative of his campaign, then he CAN get rid of it, and i'm not about to declare him to be "bad" or "inexperienced" because he does it.
The next campaign I run, I'm starting every player at 8,8,8,8,8,8, despite all the rules in the PHB about point buy or rolling stats.... there were 10 people at my table last week. You tell me if I'm doing something wrong.
Almost all the reasons that were given had nothing to due with the world or lore, 99% of the sessions were Faerun, with a smidgen of Dark Sun which I totally understand restrictions there. One example, a Faerun campaign, was the one elf at the table rule. The reason given to me was that the DM saw "trance as too powerful allowing a long rest in 4 hours and he did not want multiple players able to get a long rest in such a short amount of time," which struck me as a very odd and off the wall reason, this is the same DM "that didn't like the fact that a hexblade could use charisma for his attack/damage stat so that is why he restricted two-handers. He felt it gave too much of an advantage over strength based warriors." All these were nonsensical restrictions that left me scratching my head as to why, even after the reason was given for their removal. All the reasons that were given for the items on my list were mechanical in nature or a 'I don't like that' reason. Either they had a bad experience with a player that abused it, or they read online that it was too powerful in theory.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your PSA. I could argue that players need all the advantages they can get. A few bad dice rolls or a crazy spur of the moment idea from the players is more dangerous to a campaign than any half dragon/vampire artificer of zeus with a hammer of thunderbolts character that the player dreamed up while getting his wisdom teeth pulled.
Bleh. There should only be one reason for banning something as being OP - not because it's going to overpower your precious encounters, but because it runs roughshod over other players (the reason I ban the last Mystic UA - it made other players playing other classes feel superfluous at lower levels).
That said, Feats are optional rules. If I'm running a game with new players, I'll disallow feats for the first ASI until the players have more of a basic grasp on their own class, racial abilities, and backgrounds.
Some people have baggage left over from past gaming experiences. One guy I game with talks about "role protection" being the most important aspect of character creation. I suspect it's because he rolled a Fighter in 3rd ed, had a bad experience when the Barbarian outpaced him in damage output, and now he gets a bit feisty when it's brought up. Another player doesn't like currency (of all things!) and wants to barter/honor system his way through the game's economics. Again, it's because of past experiences where his other group got caught up in the minutiae of it and wrecked his fun.
So, in cases where DMs have weird rulings that make no sense, I find it's often because they're trying to avoid a bad experience. If they're being ridiculous about it, well, you gotta talk it through with 'em. People aren't unreasonable. They just don't want to get burned twice by the same thing.
https://dreadweasel.blogspot.com/
I think the 5E rules are well balanced and worth using. I'm happy to be corrected by a player if I forget a rule, and I always make folk read out the spell or feat they are using first time.
The one thing I try to discourage is repetitive use if the same tactic, using the same feat to knock an enemy prone every turn for example. I just tell them it's boring. I love it when the party works as a team and takes down a monster, can't abide it when one character is so overcranked they distort the encounters.
I also encourage players to try to operate at their character's IQ level, low IQ folk don't make clever plans.
And always remember Chris Perkin's advice, this is about friends getting together and enjoying the game.
My DM for one of the campaigns my group is playing( We are blessed to have 3 DMs and two prospective DMs in our group) has pretty much set an "anything goes" mindset at the table so long as it makes sense. I myself have continued that with my games, and if someone disagrees with me on something I'm willing to re-think it if they can give me a solid reason why I should. Since we don't have issues with respect at our table, I'm ok with changing my mind on something if someone can be creative enough to think of a way to use it logically. This means that all of us are really creative as players, and I love that my DM has inspired this setting at our table. Rules are all well and good, but it's exciting as a player when you manage to do something super cool with a weapon or a spell, and it wasn't the intended use.
One example would be , one of the characters my DM let me create, that is a half orc-half elf with wild magic who was raised by a dwarf. She is my favorite character I've played so far too! Another would be when my DM let me b*** slap a talking cat with my mage hand, since I wasn't intending on doing damage or anything, my character was just SUPER angry at it. Lastly, just recently we played a one-shot where we were shrunk to super tiny, and a raven was trying to eat us. I misty stepped up to the flying raven to save my companion, and cast shatter, which made us and quite a few feathers begin to fall towards the ground. My DM let me grab a feather and use it to surf down at a half falling rate, so it was still dangerous, but not as bad as full fall damage. In the end, I was able to use misty step to get down safely again, and my companion saved himself fall damage through epic, barbarian abilities. These sort of unique and fun, creative events make the BEST stories and we ALL enjoy them, so that's why I like to run and/or play loose with the rules.
-thechimericalcookie
I think this is a very good point. I know that this is the case for myself. When I started playing Pathfinder for the first time with 4 other new players and one veteran, the veteran was a hard-core rules lawyer. This of course led us all to lean in that direction. This suited us just fine, we all had a lot of fun and got along very well. Now that I have run a few games of my own, I've noticed that I tend to get hung up on things like action economy (my player wanted to throw two javelins in a single round) and other relatively minor things like that. I've had to learn to make a ruling quickly and look up the rules after the session to keep things rolling.
Speaking to the original topic: I think a lot of the trends that Noobiwan is seeing are tied to trends that I've seen with the players themselves. I've noticed that because of resources like DnD Beyond, players are able to share their "overpowered" builds and ways that they have "broken" the game. I think every player at some point goes through the, "I want to make an OP character" phase, and I tend to see it with players who have played enough to understand the rules, but not enough to really find their own play style. This leads to your pole-arm master, sentinel, tunnel-fighter builds that DMs hate. Of course there are people who enjoy this style of play, and there are games for those players to min/max to their hearts content (as long as everyone is having fun then there's no problem with it.)
I used to fudge and wing it a lot when it comes to the rules, but the last campaign I started, I decided to go hard-core. No more fudging. No more hiding the dice rolls. Monsters, spells etc. exactly by the book and we started playing with a grid. I noticed that I started enjoying the game a lot more, but some players: not as much into it. I believe that those are the type of players who are more into the "make belief hero" aspects of the game, and to them, their characters WINNING is very important. Those players won't like their character being disintegrated by an eye-ray from a zombie beholder (this happened: they had to pay a ton of gold to have the elf reincarnated). I started to see the game more like a conflict between different forces in the make belief world. The conflict has to be on equal terms rules-wise to be truly interesting to me. So it became a matter of sacrificing a little bit of player enjoyment to enjoy the game a little bit more as DM. I believe that a lot of DMs burn out because they become like videogames or performing monkeys to their players -- they forget to have fun themselves, or they become detached, isolated manipulators of the players. And sometimes it IS fun to disintegrate a character, to roll a crit against a character... As long as its by the book and not some dark childish kind of deus ex machina. The challenge here is to give the players a fair go without being forced to push and pull them all the time towards encounters and situations you've prepared so as to not wipe them out by mistake. Perhaps I will learn how to do this correctly one day...
Besides, being a good DM is also about having a group with good chemistry between all the players, and this can take many, MANY sessions to develop even if its a game among old friends. This is as important to me as how the rules are used.
I've seen experienced and inexperienced DM's with a laundry list of do's and dont's. It's not just inexperienced DM's. Sometimes it is the grognards that can't wrap their head around the new edition.
This thread was descending into flame posts, which I have deleted.
Please stay on topic,thank you!
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊