fuindordm
Hero
I think we have two camps arguing for two aspects of the game that are not actually in conflict.
As a fantasy game system capable of supporting a wide variety of setting and homebrew, D&D needs to provide a wide variety of options and very few restrictions. (Personally, I was upset when they removed the alignment restriction from the paladin class, but eventually I came around.)
To define the setting, the GM and players can restrict character choices, monsters, magic systems and many other things. You all want to play a Conan-style game? Perfectly OK to say that there are only two spellcasting classes, the Warlock and the Cleric, and that the other classes just don't get spells. You all want to play a D&D-adjacent campaign like Dragonlance? Perfectly OK to say there are no divine casters at all, that half-elves are almost unheard of, and that wizards must join a global guild before reaching 5th level. The people making characters accept the social contract to play concepts that support the restrictions and themes of the setting. If one player insists on making a kender cleric, with some half-assed explanation of how they can have spells without an actual god, then they are simply choosing not to collaborate with the other players (i.e. being a jerk).
The problem is that D&D evolved very slowly from a fantasy game that took place in a specific implied setting (Greyhawk) to a more generic fantasy game that could support many settings. 2E had great campaign worlds but had to twist the system into knots to support settings like Dark Sun and Al Qadim. 3E took big steps towards making the game system more flexible but still had a lot of legacy restrictions. 5E does a better job than 3E even but it is still not fantasy GURPS (nor do I want it to be). It's main problem as a game system is not the mechanics, it is that the baseline power level is too high and the system doesn't include any good "dials" to turn it up or down.
Anyway, some of you are talking game system and some are talking setting. You can have both. But the setting is an intentional choice made between GM and players, not to be confused with the system.
As a fantasy game system capable of supporting a wide variety of setting and homebrew, D&D needs to provide a wide variety of options and very few restrictions. (Personally, I was upset when they removed the alignment restriction from the paladin class, but eventually I came around.)
To define the setting, the GM and players can restrict character choices, monsters, magic systems and many other things. You all want to play a Conan-style game? Perfectly OK to say that there are only two spellcasting classes, the Warlock and the Cleric, and that the other classes just don't get spells. You all want to play a D&D-adjacent campaign like Dragonlance? Perfectly OK to say there are no divine casters at all, that half-elves are almost unheard of, and that wizards must join a global guild before reaching 5th level. The people making characters accept the social contract to play concepts that support the restrictions and themes of the setting. If one player insists on making a kender cleric, with some half-assed explanation of how they can have spells without an actual god, then they are simply choosing not to collaborate with the other players (i.e. being a jerk).
The problem is that D&D evolved very slowly from a fantasy game that took place in a specific implied setting (Greyhawk) to a more generic fantasy game that could support many settings. 2E had great campaign worlds but had to twist the system into knots to support settings like Dark Sun and Al Qadim. 3E took big steps towards making the game system more flexible but still had a lot of legacy restrictions. 5E does a better job than 3E even but it is still not fantasy GURPS (nor do I want it to be). It's main problem as a game system is not the mechanics, it is that the baseline power level is too high and the system doesn't include any good "dials" to turn it up or down.
Anyway, some of you are talking game system and some are talking setting. You can have both. But the setting is an intentional choice made between GM and players, not to be confused with the system.
