Would you play in a campaign with racial/class limits of it fits the story?

[Thunderfoot]

So, I love DMing campaigns that focus on periods of time gone awry or fantasy/history as a background to gameplay.

So if a DM said I have a campaign idea, but you can't play elves or mages or wombats in drag or whatever, is that a deal breaker or do you accept that the game can be fun within set parameters?

No wrong answers, just opinions. Understand this isn't about writing the DM's next novel or railroading just there is a reason that these don't exist. (Like no samurai in a Norse setting).

Alternatively, what would keep you from playing a situational campaign and why?

 

[reelo]

I'm perfectly fine with that. I much prefer the DM having a strong thematic vision and enforcing some restrictions, than serving a bland mishmash of everything.

 

[Yora]

I always run campaigns with whitelists for what classes and races are available. My campaigns are never "play whatever you find in some D&D book". I can't even imagine how you'd make a somewhat plausible campaign setting in which anything goes.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I always run campaigns with whitelists for what classes and races are available. My campaigns are never "play whatever you find in some D&D book". I can't even imagine how you'd make a somewhat plausible campaign setting in which anything goes.

(you'd be surprised what happens at some tables. lol)

 

[amethal]

I'm happy to play in a game with restrictions, even if the logic of those restrictions might not immediately be apparent - I assume the GM has a reason for what they are doing.

I might get a bit wary if there is a sweeping restriction like "no classes with access to healing spells" - one of the games I'm currently playing has no healing (or none available to the PCs, anyway) other than resting for days or weeks, so I did check the GM was aware that if this was going to be a "you have 24 hours to save the world" campaign then the world would end up un-saved if we got too beat up to continue.

 

[Ulfgeir]

Perfectly fine with set parameters of what is allowed and not.

 

[amethal]

I always run campaigns with whitelists for what classes and races are available. My campaigns are never "play whatever you find in some D&D book". I can't even imagine how you'd make a somewhat plausible campaign setting in which anything goes.

In my case, just because one of the PCs is a half-fiendish ninja octopus doesn't mean that they are common. Player characters in my campaigns are not typical examples of society as a whole.

 

[TwoSix]

Totally fine if the DM is aiming to provide a specific experience. Not as fine if the DM is like "I just don't like gnomes, LOL".

 

[éxypnos]

So, I love DMing campaigns that focus on periods of time gone awry or fantasy/history as a background to gameplay.

So if a DM said I have a campaign idea, but you can't play elves or mages or wombats in drag or whatever, is that a deal breaker or do you accept that the game can be fun within set parameters?

For those that have experienced RPGs from the beginning this WAS the norm. As a player I have no problem with it. Different "worlds" have different "norms".

 

[Mallus]

I'm perfectly fine with limits. My group just spend nearly 2 years playing an OD&D clone with 4 PC races.

Of course my 5e successor campaign will have 28 (or so) playable races, so there's that.