D&D 5E Players, would you play in a multi-year campaign that used only the 5.1 SRD?

[Autumnal]

Yeah, I love the modern proliferation of species. I liked that cosmopolitan feeling in some fantasy when I was younger Mr and have only gotten fonder as I aged. The spread of classes is okay - as long as I can have a warlock, I’m good. I don’t like fears but I also know I don’t know them very well; I would yield to other participants feelings about that. But I’d really want to supplement with stuff in environments that interest me, creatures that inhabit them, genre-emphasizing mechanics, and other stuff like that.

I’d end up wanting to toss it all and go for Ironsworn or Fate Accelerated instead.

 

[Schmoe]

I voted no. I'm not sure I can play in a multi-year 5e game even with all the options. I've played it a sufficiently via tabletop and computer game, and I just don't find it that satisfying for some reason. I want to say it's the lack of options, but then I think I'd prefer a 1e or BECMI game to 5e, so I'm not really sure.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd want to know why. Like, if I was using those restrictions as a DM, it would be to create a vanilla baseline for the radical experimentation I would be doing with magic items, new magic systems, prestige classes, or something like that.

If the desire is just to have a "normal" game where we play through an adventure module for 2-3 years, that's a hard "no".

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would play in a multi-year campaign with a great group of players. Full stop.

D&D 5.1 (or any version) would not be my first...or second, or third....choice of system, but any system can result in a great campaign.

So....yes?

 

[KYRON45]

I use the rules that the DM tells me he wants used. Not that i would ever be able to tell the difference anyway.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yeah. This is directed at players and is about character creation restrictions only.

Maybe edit your original post to clarify, it seems more than one person thinks that the DM is restricted to SRD content

 

[CreamCloud0]

something that is occuring to me that players wanting to play the same class are going to loose one of the primary methods of distinguishing themselves from each other mechanically, your species and a single feat can only go so far to customise your character.

 

[Distracted DM]

something that is occuring to me that players wanting to play the same class are going to loose one of the primary methods of distinguishing themselves from each other mechanically, your species and a single feat can only go so far to customise your character.

To be fair, core book characters in 1e and 2e distinguished themselves just fine. Usually via stats, equipment choices, the characters themselves, what the characters did in-game, and magic items that they found.

 

[MNblockhead]

something that is occuring to me that players wanting to play the same class are going to loose one of the primary methods of distinguishing themselves from each other mechanically, your species and a single feat can only go so far to customise your character.

I guess, but I know a lot of people with the same career as me, and we are all (as far ask I know ) the same species. I feel we are pretty easy to distinguish. I think backgrounds could be used to give more individualization.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I guess, but I know a lot of people with the same career as me, and we are all (as far ask I know ) the same species. I feel we are pretty easy to distinguish. I think backgrounds could be used to give more individualization.

and i assume you all get your work skills from the same mostly predefined progression plan that you level up on at an equal rate?