D&D 5E Players, would you play in a game that only used the 5.1 SRD?

[Oofta]

I don't have an issue with the race or class restrictions, but I voted no because I simply don't see the point. For a short term campaign, maybe. But I like a lot of the options we wouldn't have just using the SRD.

As others have stated, I don't see a reason for it. If the DM doesn't have access to books, I can create a campaign for them and add them as a "player" and they'll have access to most things.

 

[Quickleaf]

A fairly simple question.

As a player, would you play in a game that only used the 5.1 SRD?

Only the races and subraces in the SRD. Hill dwarf, high elf, lightfoot halfling, standard human, dragonborn, rock gnome, half-elf, half-orc, and tiefling. No others.

Only the classes and subclasses in the SRD. No artificer, only the base 12 classes. Only berserker barbarian, college of lore bard, life cleric, circle of land druid, champion fighter, open hand monk, devotion paladin, hunter ranger, thief rogue, draconic sorcerer, fiend warlock, and evocation wizard. None of the other subclasses.

One background or a custom build your own. One feat and no others. Only the spells from the SRD. Etc.

Would you play in a game that only used the 5.1 SRD?

It would depend on many factors.

Some have nothing to do with your question, so leaving those aside, it would depend how the game was framed / presented. My big question would be:

What's your goal? If the goal is emulating a more old school feel, why go this route with 5e (a big system embracing player options) when you have soooo many other better choices?

To me the SRD thing is less important than the GM's thought process.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I can think of some reasons. The SRD is free. It is in multiple languages. It will remain the only longterm "in print" version of the original 5e which is important for those who don't want to move on to the next not-edition. Plus, each of the subclasses is the most iconic.

Yep, many of those reasons I'd be happy to receive, because it tells me exactly why you've chosen said reason. You've thought about it and made an active choice, which is really all I want out of a DM that I'd be playing for-- DMs who actively work on their game to make it good.

The only one you gave that I'd perhaps raise an eyebrow on is the "most iconic" reason, as that doesn't tell me why having the "most iconic" subclass actually matters in the campaign you intend to run. Hopefully you do have a reason that matters to you, and if I was to ask what that was, your explanation would get me to go "Oh, right! Okay! Makes sense!" And then we're good to go!

 

[aco175]

This seems to be about 90% of how my group plays already so no problem with it.

 

[tetrasodium]

Personally I'm A-OK with a GM banning race/class/etc that don't fit the setting if they can give a quick why at the time that sates curiosity enough... It's important that the setting reason sates curiosity because I need to understand it enough -and- feel like it demonstrates an interesting setting I want to care about.

With that said "SRD5.1, only" sounds like a red flag because I'm not interested in playing a game so the GM can prove a point when it's so easy to borrow someone's book or whatever. Other than proving a point or some weird edge case issue of legality it's hard to imagine other reasons why such a restriction would be something I'd want to join for reasons other than making my friend bob feel good for a couple sessions as a new gm. I would have chosen "maybe" had it been an option

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure, as long as it sounded like an interesting campaign. Limited to just the SRD, the DM can't rely on interesting character options to hold my interest, so they'd need to bring their A game.

I've played in a few games where the campaign was kind of meh, but I was really excited about the character I was playing and that was enough. With just the SRD, I doubt I'd be super excited about my character. Frankly, even the full PHB is getting a little stale after 10ish years, and my group regularly homebrews new options to keep things fresh. But if the GM can run a really great campaign that I'm excited about, being limited to the SRD wouldn't stop me from playing.

 

[J.Quondam]

Yes. I don't play much as it is, so it would be fine with me, especially for a shortish game or one spanning higher levels I don't often play.
Tbh, my enthusiasm level is probably more tied to specifics of the campaign (and the people at the table) itself than to limitations on char creation.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think it all boils down to trust. Trust in the DM and table. I ran a twelve-session sandbox campaign over the summer. I requested that the players only use the 2014 PHB. No multiclassing, but we did use feats. This was to help them keep track of everything, especially since they were levelling every session. It helped keep things simple. This also helped with designing encounters, since it is easier to design encounters in a sandbox since I knew what their PCs were capable of.

It all worked just fine. And it also created a fluidity in character growth. In the end, they all enjoyed it, and I enjoyed running it.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I’d play as a player with just the SRD content, and in fact have played such a campaign before. It was a lot of fun. Played a High Elf Moon Druid in that campaign.

I’m not sure I’d care to DM a SRD campaign however, as I love using homebrew monsters and Magic items way too much.

I don't think the circle of the moon is in the SRD. There is only one subclass per class and Circle of the Land is it for druids.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I don't think the circle of the moon is in the SRD. There is only one subclass per class and Circle of the Land is it for druids.

I didn’t realize, the DM and I must have confused to two then. Guess that doesn’t count then.