D&D 5E Humans Only

[Reynard]

On another note though, I'd almost certainly be against single class game.

Very tight themes can work if done right. I've seen all wizard, all rogue, and all cleric campaigns work, but they allowed multiclassing for variety. Generally I think a specific restrictions work better ie "no warlocks" because they are going to be the bad guys, etc.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Ironically I have no qualms with single-class games or having specific classes being unavailable depending on the lore reasons. Just doesn't bother me at all. Can't really identify a reason why besides classes being so varied with subclasses.

 

[Stattick]

I answered, "No."

But more explanation is needed than that. If a good GM I was familiar with was offering to run a typical DnD game that was "Humans Only", I'd probably say no. That's a big turn off for me, since I almost never run humans. I strongly prefer to play characters that are more unconventional, and that are outsiders in some fashion.

But if it was a good GM, and they had a really good pitch for a game, then I might buy in to it. For instance, if they were going for a bronze age, sword and sorcery vibe, where non-humans were rare and tended to be monstrous in some fashion, I'd probably play and stay within the bounds the GM was asking for. Or if a GM wanted to run a gritty mercenaries campaign reminiscent of Black Company, where there weren't any non-human races in the world, or something inspired by Game of Thrones, yeah, I'd go for that. But none of these concepts fit the idea of the "typical" DnD campaign.