D&D Setting Tolerances

[GreatLemur]

Not only would all of those options be acceptable to me--not only would they be, in fact, preferrable--but I actually wouldn't really want to play with people who'd object to any of 'em. I mean, I can understand people saying "It's not D&D without elves and clerics", but "I'm not playing without elves and clerics" is a great, big, blazing warning sign.

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

Would you play in a world with:

* No alignment system.

Sure, This one doesn’t change the game that much anyway.

* No proof of the existence of gods.

sure.

* No divine classes at all.

Depends on the system, because in some systems divine classes are the only healers. If it was anything before 4e I would say no.

* An unconventional race selection.

That would depend on the race selection. I think humans are a must, if for nothing else than to establish a baseline, but other than that I would be flexible.

* Significantly fewer intelligent civilized humanoid races.

That would depend on which ones were left.

 

[seusomon]

I voted yes for everything except "no divine classes at all", and I'd even be willing to give that a go if I thought the DM had a cool concept effectively worked out. The only reason I'd be hesitant is that I think the functionality of the cleric and related classes is a part of what makes D&D work as a system; taking it out means a serious overhaul, and it becomes less like D&D and more like a homebrew game system. I have no problem with the functionality of the cleric class being given a non-divine rationale in a D&D game, however.

I consider most of your suggestions to be improvements. One of the things I have always found irritating about D&D is the way PC races and monsters of every conceivable type are just tossed into the world in a jumbled heap, with no sense of coherent underlying world concept. As a DM, I tend to design worlds that are more low-fantasy, focused in on a few key PC races and monster types. I like unusual creatures to seem truly unusual.

I sometimes think that the mindboggling randomness of most D&D worlds evolved because the original rulebooks just pulled together everything that anybody had ever used in a campaign, and so new players reading the books just assumed if it was in there, they needed to use it.

I always give my worlds a narrower thematic focus.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I voted for all of them...

No alignment is fine with me, I basically ignore it as a DM already. What my players decide to do with it is their choice. I love 4e for making it so much less important...

No divine classes is something I thought about for my campaign, but I put in some of the gods I invented after all. They're not my favorite classes to play, but gods do add flavor to a campaign. Also, cutting 2 from the 3 classes with healing seemed like a bad idea...

Restricted race and class selections I have done many times in my campaigns if I wanted a specific flavor to it...
Of course restriction do have their limit. It's fine to say that several races are out, it's another to say that everybody has to play a dwarf...

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I voted for yes with all of them. I have done all those things in my D&D games.