Hi,

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. 

You don't need to allow the Basic Rules if you're allowing the Player's Handbook, as the PHB already contains all of the BR.

Are you limiting to these books because they're the only ones you own, or for another reason?

Not for us to decide.  Strictly between you and your players whether they think the rule is beneficial or not.  I know Adventurer's League chafed at PHB+1, but AL just kinda chafes in general so eh.

If your table is willing to play by those rules?  Doesn't matter what randos on the Internet think.  We're not sitting at your table.

If you have your reasons, you have your reasons. Without knowing them, it's hard to say anything about it. I have no idea what your goal is here.

I will say that the SCAG is pretty much good only for backgrounds, in terms of mechanics. I'm sure many players would feel it a bit of a waste to use their "+1" for that, especially if they don't understand what the point of this restriction is. 

I personally don't disallow books I don't know or own, but I will expect the players to be up to speed with what they can do - I trust them to manage their own abilities and if that means they have to juggle 5 books to do so, then that's on them. Whenever anyone casts a spell, I simply say "Okay, what do we need to do for that one?" and I expect them to have the spell to hand to reference.

If you want to disallow books, and you have players who are happy for that to be a part of the game, then by all means do so.

I am curious as to what you are trying to avoid by enforcing this - are you concerned that there will be features which you did not plan for? One option is to say "any additional books subject to DM approval", in the same way as you might do with homebrew.

It may be beneficial to you and your players to allow all the same material so that the entire table is on the same page with spells and abilities/feats. This then will not lead one character to have access to one spell and the other character not having access to the spell. 

It also means that the teamwork integration will mesh better between the party.

If you are having issues with a particular race/feat/spell, explain your concerns to the table as to the issue and perhaps ban/nerf that feature.

Discussion with the table is my first step in the process for transparency sake if nothing else.

Quote from Davyd >>

You don't need to allow the Basic Rules if you're allowing the Player's Handbook, as the PHB already contains all of the BR.

Are you limited to these books because they're the only ones you own, or for another reason?

I have more books than that and bits and pieces of books like Tashas and stuff, but not the entire book. That's why I picked those books because I have the whole book as a hardcover,  as well as online.  I was also thinking about what books I own that players might also own.  

The other books I have are more focused on being sourcebooks for the DM; although there are bits and pieces in there that are for players, I didn't want my players to use books that are more related to storytelling than being a PC.  

The rest of my books are prewritten modules and adventures like Storm Kings Thunder, Curse of Strad etc., not books that the players would use.  

I decided to include the BR because they are free, and not all players can afford a PHB.  Although I have one that I would be happy for them to look at, it's not something I would give them to take home or anything.  So, I thought if players can't afford to buy a PHB and only want to use the BR because they only have those, that'd be okay - so I included them in my allowed list.    

Is there a reason why only one of those? Like, why they can't pick a class from MToF and a background from SCAG?

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

I personally don't disallow books I don't know or own, but I will expect the players to be up to speed with what they can do - I trust them to manage their own abilities and if that means they have to juggle 5 books to do so, then that's on them. Whenever anyone casts a spell, I simply say "Okay, what do we need to do for that one?" and I expect them to have the spell to hand to reference.

If you want to disallow books, and you have players who are happy for that to be a part of the game, then by all means do so.

I am curious as to what you are trying to avoid by enforcing this - are you concerned that there will be features which you did not plan for? One option is to say "any additional books subject to DM approval", in the same way as you might do with homebrew.

That is the primary reason, yes. The newer books have changed a lot of things and introduced new mechanics, and the unofficial books often introduce new races/classes/spells that are exclusive to the worlds for which those books are written.   

They're not cheap either.  

If I were to buy all the new books and all the unofficial ones that have been released lately, it would cost me a fortune.  I don't want to buy them, and I'm not a fan of the Wildmout setting or other unofficial settings that have recently released books.  

So, I decided to choose some books from the books I have - which most players would also have, and then only use those books. 

Mostly it was to stop players from cobbling together some outlandishly powerful character by cherry-picking from five or six books, using Tashas and stuff like that and making a character that breaks my stories or my world.  Also, so that the players were using books that I know and own. 

I hope that makes sense.  

You keep using 'unofficial', do you mean third party books (like Kobold Press or Green Ronin)?

As for 'outlandishly powerful', if that's not something you want your players making, tell them. Because you can be incredibly powerful with just the options listed. For example a halfling divination wizards with the lucky feat can be very powerful. But even the most "outlandish" builds aren't that bad.

Quote from Davyd >>

You keep using 'unofficial', do you mean third party books (like Kobold Press or Green Ronin)?

As for 'outlandishly powerful', if that's not something you want your players making, tell them. Because you can be incredibly powerful with just the options listed. For example a halfling divination wizards with the lucky feat can be very powerful. But even the most "outlandish" builds aren't that bad.

Yes, basically by unofficial, I mean the stuff not available on DDB.  Third-party stand-alone books or books for third party settings not officially supported by WoTC.  

Even on DDB, though, there's stuff released by CR (which I don't consider official material - though I supposed it is), and which I don't like and have no intention of buying. 

I know you can be a powerful character with the books I've listed, but I know those books and have a decent idea of the various combinations one can make with them, which means I can be somewhat prepared for the characters my players might bring the table.  So players aren't making characters that I'm unprepared for and have to buy a whole new book to learn how this new race, mechanic or class, or this new spell works etc., and then think of how it might fit into my world.  

The reason I thought PHB + 1 (which I took from AL) was to make it easier for the players, not having to manage a character built from multiple books.

My worry, though, was whether or not I was being too restrictive.  

I pick and choose which books the players can use based on the campaign world. For example, Eberron material doesn’t fit in the Forgotten Realms and Theros doesn’t fit in Eberron. 

I do it for role playing and story reasons though, 

If you're going to restrict players to X books. Make it open to all of those books, not PHB+1. As stated above, SCAG is really only good for backgrounds. If you own them and know them, there's really no reason to restrict to PHB+1, when it could just be whatever is in those books.

As for the comment of "breaks my stories or world" that sounds more like you care about the story YOU'RE trying to tell/write, instead of what most view DND as, which is a co-operative story telling game. Not everything goes according to the DM's plan (read, the dice decide what happens) sometimes the dice are hot and players walk through an encounter you thought would be difficult. Other times the dice decide nah, you're going to get wrecked by kobolds even though you can squish them with your boot normally.

If you care more about the story you're trying to tell/weave, writing a book is always an option. 

But as already stated. Talk to your players on if they're okay with these restrictions. THEY'RE the ones who will be playing in this game/world. Not me, nor anyone else on this thread (most likely). 

They're the ones you need to get input from, not strangers.

Bring it up/discuss what your thoughts etc are in a session 0. They're your best bet for smoothing/talking things over. Especially any rules changes/mechanics you want to change/add to the game/world they're playing in.

Communication between players/DMs is the most important thing.

In general I let the setting I am running and the story define what rules I use and what rules I use in specific books. That means I make a list of stuff that is allowed or not allowed at the beginning of each game as well as add additional material as the game progresses if needed. So for example at the beginning of the game I might not allow any Blood Hunters but after 6th level if someone dies I would allow it because X,Y and Z happened in the story (game).

I have no problem disallowing things that are in basic rule books if they do not fit the story I am telling or find the rules problematic for some  other reason or another. 

A bigger issue I have had in the past is when; house rules, web rules and or 3rd party products having unintended consequences on the game and then require me to rebalance things later.  

But I would recommend you talk to you players and be clear on your intent and why you are doing things. I can say that I have had the experience of a GM saying we play by the basic rules only and then make a PC and show up to the game and find out their definition of basic and no optional rules meant something vastly different then mine.

Good Luck

MDC 

One practical/logistical thing to think about:  If you will be using DDB for character building—especially if content sharing will be used—it can be tricky to implement these restrictions, especially when it comes to spells.  There’s not a way to filter out (or in) spells from certain books within the character sheet itself.  The spell descriptions will tell you, but you have to know where to look and what the abbreviations mean, which might be a challenge for newbies.  

While I understand why AL used PHB+1 for so long, I found it frustrating back when I had access to AL games, in part for the logistical reasons I just mentioned and in part because it limited options I was interested in sometimes.  I’m more amenable to limiting what books can be used than I am to a PHB+1 type rule.  (I routinely rule out AI and Ravnica, for example.). But, as everyone said, it’s really a question for you table to sort out.

As DM you decide what is allowed and what is not. But as many have said, discuss it with your players so they know before character creation what to expect.

For example, in the game I am in, my DM doesn’t allow furry, feathery, scaly races so no bugbears, goblins, Yuan-Ti, Kenku, etc. also no multiclassing. But does allow feats and all official material outside those restrictions. We knew what we were getting into from the start and we’re cool with that. 

I agree with Inumiru and if you have the books you listed why not allow them access to all instead of just one. 

But you decide what you feel comfortable with and hopefully your players will be mature enough to be fine with that. 

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.

My advice is: write up the restrictions you want to use. Ask your players' opinion of those restrictions.

That said, you aren't really gaining much from your "+1 from SCAG, MToF, XGtE" as opposed to just saying "PBH, SCAG, MToF, XGtE", and the +1 model becomes confusing in play (wait, wizard A can scribe a spell but wizard B can't, because they chose different +1 books?).

I've had lots of DMs say, you can only use books I own, and here's the list. It's perfectly reasonable. Forbidding homebrew and other 3rd-party stuff is just good sense, since most of it is OP, poorly written to the point of being nonsensical, or both.

I always theorized the AL PHB+1 thing was to tamp down on weird game-breaking combos. They'd been a much bigger problem in earlier editions, and I figured the folks who run AL were trying to get ahead of it. Yes, there are some things that can get powerful, but there's nothing on the order of what there was in 3.5, for example. So, if that's the concern, I wouldn't worry too much, though I can certainly see why some people might.

But if it's just, you don't want to spend extra money, only a real jerk would hold that against you.

You're the DM, it's your call.  Like in a poker game where the dealer announces the wild cards and whatever other rules in play in your particular variant.

You are running a game based on your understanding of the rules and the player options you are aware of.  It's entirely reasonable, some would say even necessary/essential that the game you run is played by players using the options you know.  So no surprise characters who can tear a rift in reality at level 5 from DMBinder.  I'd say the same goes for more "legit" sources like Kobold or Hit Point Press (and we'll put MCDM in between those and DMBinder) because at the end of the day players are going to be frustrated if you can't entertain their character choice because you've never heard of it.  

So, by all means limit your game to what you know (this is also a quality not quantity game argument).  As mentioned, many DMs session zero or announce what's in or out of their game as far as player options go (this also is where you introduce DM options like gritty realism etc).  

What I'm unclear is why'd you go further than limiting the game to what you know and are comfortable with by setting this this AL style PHB+1 book thing.  I don't really see why you'd do that outside AL, and I don't even think AL is doing that anymore post Tashas.  I guess that might thwart some "optimization formula crib sheets", but folks can find those based on the resources you're permitting anyway.  Besides, optimization is nothing to be scared of.  It's not a contest, it's collaborative entertainment.