D&D Setting Tolerances

[Lanefan]

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?

Ditto, and that's what I'd have voted for were it present.

Much of what you list helps make D+D what it is. To get as far adrift as you seem to want, I'd suggest looking at other systems entirely.

Lanefan

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Picked everything except no alignment. I'm one of the few who actually likes it, and I prefer games with it intact, though it can be put more in the background, with more greying (like in Eberron). I could do without divine classes, though I do like having them, and it feels weird having no religion based or nature worshipping class. I played in a game meant to simulate FF 1 and 8-bit theater, so i've already done the restricted races stuff (human, elf, dwarf, and half-elf were the only races villagers wouldn't attack with pitchforks on sight) and enjoyed it. AE has an unconventional race selection, and it doesn't bother me. I know it doesn't have alignment and tries really hard to work it into the setting, but I'd still prefer to have it if possible. Not sure if it's worth the work houseruling.

 

[jdrakeh]

Although, I checked the boxes next to the following choices, I was wondering if "With fewer conventional D&D races?" and "With fewer intelligent civilized humanoid races?" meant "D&D less Gnomes, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Tieflings, etc" or "D&D with weirdo new races in place of Gnomes, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Tieflings, etc".

I'm fully in favor of the former, really. I'd like D&D to actually be human-centric, rather than just say that it is and then make with the dozens of sourcebooks on non-human races as everyday fixtures of campaign settings. I always hear about how human-cenrtered D&D is, or I read claims about demi-humans being incredibly rare, but very little of the actual published D&D product catalog bears this out.

I am not in favor of the latter, being a big believer that players have to be able to identify with characters in order for play to transcend the level of "Beer & Pretzels" entertainment (or for players to be able to grasp a game at all). I own Mechanical Dream, for example, and think that's it very nice. It's also a game that most people I know can't work past charcter generation in because it's so utterly and unfathomably alien in nature.

 

[questing gm]

I would be 'willing' to play all of the above (which is what I picked for the poll) just to try something new but it would take a good DM to keep me comfortable and stay in the campaign.

 

[Wormwood]

While I'm not in the market for a new campaign setting, every one of the above points are fine with me.

More to the point, I prefer non-interventionist gods in my fantasy. And there are always a couple of races worth removing (check the ears. Dead giveaway).

 

[Mark Hope]

Sure. In fact, you've pretty much described my current homebrew.

No alignment system. We use allegiance instead.

No proof of the existence of gods. Lots of myths. No hard proof as yet.

No divine classes at all. Well, until a spirit shaman turned up at the end of last session. But none up until then.

An unconventional race selection. All PCs are human. Other races are non-standard, homebrew races, and players can't play them.

Significantly fewer intelligent civilized humanoid races. Yeah. Some roaming tribes, but no civilisations.

All of the above? And then some

 

[BryonD]

I voted yes to everything except "no divine classes".
I'd happily play a fantasy RPG with no divine classes. But I'd prefer they stay in my D&D. Take them out and my personal preference would just be to play in a different system.

 

[Wombat]

Been there and done that with all of the above under 3.Wombat

 

[Mallus]

I voted 'all of the above'. You can make just about anything into an interesting campaign. I speak from personal, and often deeply misguided, experience...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, if it was a sufficiently interesting setting and/or a DM I liked.

QFT.

And, for the record, I, too, would prefer that divine classes and proof of gods existed, but its not crucial to my enjoyment.

In fact, even 4E core says that once someone's ordained as a cleric, an alignment change won't strip them of their powers.

Ewwww!