Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dessert Nomad" data-source="post: 8309700" data-attributes="member: 6976536">Why would people mean something VERY different from a 'no' to what the original question asked? The original question postulated a campaign with "no other major limitations are presented, and it is going to otherwise be a "typical" D&D campaign of the sort you prefer," and so I (and probably a lot of other people) answered what was actually asked. Tacking 'human only' onto standard D&D is just taking away enjoyable options and variety, so I'd skip it even though IIRC about half of my characters are human. If the campaign had more distinction than 'humans only' I would make my decision on the campaign setup as a whole, though a lot of the ideas being floated don't sound like I'd be interested in them because they're too far from the heroic fantasy that D&D is well-suited for playing.Also note that the campaign that the OP is now talking about running is not the campaign he asked about initially - he's made it clear that there are going other significant limitations and deviations from anything I'd call standard D&D. If someone told me they were starting a campaign that was human-only but otherwise standard D&D with no other major limitations and then when I showed up they were gutting classes and subclasses and using weird (and more limited) stat options, I'd probably feel like I got hit with a bait and switch, not enthusiastic.</blockquote>