Would you play in a campaign with racial/class limits of it fits the story?

[payn]

Im fine working within limits if the GM provides a good run down of what they are trying to do. I can, of course, always say no.

 

[Cadence]

62 recent pages on the issue of DMs limiting race choices in D&D at...

D&D General - The Tyranny of Rarity

This is something that I have seen cast about by various DMs over the years - sometimes even by myself. D&D is filled with a menagerie of races and creatures. Sometimes, too many. This can often lead to the DM’s knee-jerk reaction “Not in my campaign!” or “That doesn’t fit my world!”...

www.enworld.org

(until it veered off course and got locked)

 

[aco175]

I think likely. I tend to restrict to PHB for races and mostly for classes. I would like better if the group decided to play all X race or class. They would have the buy-in from the start and not feel it is forced on them.

 

[Jer]

If it was someone I knew and they were pitching a specific game they'd like to run and I know what they're like as a DM, then sure. For me a game is more about the people I'm playing with than the specifics of the world or the rules we're using. I prefer to play in a campaign where the worldbuilding is collaborative rather than the vision of one person, but if they have a cool idea and I trust them then I'm down for it.

If it's someone I know and I know that as a DM they like to just go on power trips and set arbitrary rules then I'll pass. The thing I absolutely hate is finding out I'm playing an NPC in someone else's campaign world after investing in a character for a few sessions. (Of course I'm forever DM now so I only tend to get to play in one-shots at conventions anyway).

 

[J.Quondam]

I have no problem with limits on class or race, just like I have no problem with limits on culture, magic, pantheons, etc. I prefer limitations, in fact, whether there are strong in-world reasons or just someone's aesthetic.
IMO, such limitations are the most fundamental way to establish setting atmosphere, especially if those limitations are atypical ones.

That said, I can understand why some players might be leery of limitations if the campaign promises to be a long time commitment. They fear getting locked in to set of unappealing character choices for he long haul. So, fair enough.
I greatly prefer short campaigns, though, and enjoy experimentation, so that's not an issue for me, personally.

 

[Hex08]

In general, for any D&D style game, I don't just allow any race or class but I would usually still give a broad range for what is allowed. For example, in Pathfinder I would only allow classes from the core book and about three other books. Some classes are immediately of the board; I hate pistols in my D&D so any class using them is an immediate non-starter. I've also run campaigns where certain races or classes wouldn't fit so I wouldn't allow them.

 

[Umbran]

So if a DM said I have a campaign idea, but you can't play elves or mages or wombats in drag or whatever, is that a deal breaker or do you accept that the game can be fun within set parameters?

I'm not a fan of absolute answers.

If the GM just doesn't think Warlocks and sorcerers fit in their campaign setting, and they've never liked halflings so they don't appear, I can deal with that. However, I can imagine parameters that are not acceptable - blatantly sexist limitations, for example.

 

[Grogg of the North]

As long as the GM is upfront about it before the game actually starts. A nice little email that says something like "Hey, I have an idea for a campaign. But there are no elves or druids for story reasons. Your characters will hopefully learn why as we play together".

That gives you some time to think about a character and maybe have a little back and forth with the GM about what you're playing. I would hate to show up at a table and five minutes before we're supposed to start find out that oh yeah, there are no elves. Redo your character.

 

[D1Tremere]

I always run campaigns with whitelists for what classes and races are available. My campaigns are never "play whatever you find in some D&D book". I can't even imagine how you'd make a somewhat plausible campaign setting in which anything goes.

The same way you play without them. It is a plausible campaign world because it is a fantasy campaign world.

 

[D1Tremere]

So, I love DMing campaigns that focus on periods of time gone awry or fantasy/history as a background to gameplay.

So if a DM said I have a campaign idea, but you can't play elves or mages or wombats in drag or whatever, is that a deal breaker or do you accept that the game can be fun within set parameters?

No wrong answers, just opinions. Understand this isn't about writing the DM's next novel or railroading just there is a reason that these don't exist. (Like no samurai in a Norse setting).

Alternatively, what would keep you from playing a situational campaign and why?

This question greatly depends on individual circumstance. Generally I wouldn't play in a campaign that restricted content unless there was a very compelling reason. I like diverse options and not limiting possibilities in my fantasy. That said, I could understand why someone would limit such things if they were doing a historic fantasy or what have you. Those types of games are not my cup of tea though. If the DM/GM is enforcing limitations that impact player fun arbitrarily then I take that as a red flag.