D&D Setting Tolerances

[SSquirrel]

Like Der Fladermaus, I've run Eberron with no proof of Gods and alignment being guidelines rather than actual rules. However, once you remove Divine PCs and Core Races, it stops being D&D and starts into some realm of "other fantasy RPG" for me.

Arcana Evolved had both of those and that was part of the enjoyment. No arcane/divine split meant any caster could potentially heal. Some classes were even better at it.

 

[Ambush Bug]

I went for "all of the above." I'd rather play in a setting with all those changes than in the standard out-of-the-book D&D. Nuthin' wrong with the standard per se, but it's shopworn. I know how it feels and how it plays - it's comfortable. I'd rather have surprising.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Would you play in a world with:

* No alignment system.

* No proof of the existence of gods.

* No divine classes at all.

* An unconventional race selection.

* Significantly fewer intelligent civilized humanoid races.

* All of the above?

Yes to all of the above. In fact, not only would I do it, I'd prefer it!

Note that Dragon Age, the new CRPG from Bioware is pretty much "all of the above" (albeit it has what you have in your poll rather than post, race-wise).

 

[WayneLigon]

It seems there would be a market for this kind of alternative setting. Why, then, doesn't anyone attempt it commercially?

People have. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved has no divine/arcane split, no alignments and no gods you can point at and say 'you exist'. There is no real cleric class, either, and no races from the PHB other than humans. It did pretty darn well.


Iron Heroes has every single one of those elements, and I think it did fairly well.

Midnight has some of the same elements; the only god you can definately contact is an evil one, if I remember correctly, and the class mixture definately skews to non spell-casters.

 

[Riposte]

I was expecting something even semi-intolerable. Aside from maybe "No Divine Classes", I can't really imagine the general populous of Enworld having a problem considering how open-minded people are.

 

[Zsig]

Personally?

* No alignment system.

Yes

* No proof of the existence of gods.

Yes

* No divine classes at all.

Yes

* An unconventional race selection.

Yes, with a caveat, how unconventional?

* Significantly fewer intelligent civilized humanoid races.

Very unlikely.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I'd say no to all five. The more traditional a D&D game is, the more likely I want to play.

 

[Mouseferatu]

This is really interesting. 42 votes in, 69% of respondents saying they would accept a campaign with all of the above.

The problem is, you didn't include any option for "No, I wouldn't accept any of those changes." So your poll doesn't tell you what percentage of respondents like your changes; it only tells you, of the people who like at least one, what percentage do they like?

(Granted, this is all meaningless, since Internet polls have no value anyway. But my point is, it tells you that you're not alone, but it doesn't tell you by what percentage.)

 

[Gothmog]

Hell yeah I'd play in that kind of setting. Completely vanilla settings frankly bore me now. I have done #1, #4, and #5 in my campaigns for over 10 years now, and I never have used the gods as directly interfering in a campaing world (no avatars, aspects, etc). Never done the no clerics thing, but I'd be willing to give it a shot. Also, for the record, I'd be willing to try the ONLY casters being clerics, with no wizards or arcane magic.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I'll play D&D in any form. I just need my fix, I don't care from what setting, what rules and what the fluff or crunch dictates. Its D&D if it follows the PHB baseline to some degree.