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

[MGibster]

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.

Come on! It's totally fair that women in my campaign start with a minimum 15 Charisma and have a maximum Strength of 15. Please read the third volume of my 23 volume treatise entitled The Evolutionary Psychology & Physiology of the Female Gamer for more information.

 

[Cadence]

As a player, I want a set-up that sounds fun to adventure in. If it sounds fun but has limits built in that go along with that fun theme, then that sounds fine. (It's fantasy take on a real country, it's a riff on this novel, it's a riff on this novel but I swapped races, it's a 5e version of this 1e setting, it's a land that has gates to many worlds, whatever....). Once I hear the pitch, I'll start thinking of characters that sound fun to use in that setting.

As a DM, if I have an idea for what I'd like to do then I make a pitch and the group is either good with the pitch, has some suggestions, or isn't interested. Once a pitch is accepted I'm always happy to work with a player who has an idea that doesn't exactly fit but is in the spirit of the set-up. Similarly, as a player, I like it when a DM is open to modifying a class or race a bit to allow something that seems to fit the world they've described - but if I've agreed to the pitch I wouldn't ask for something that went against the spirit of it.

---

I always wonder if folks who don't like any restrictions on race or class or whatnot would be fine if I showed up playing an arbitrary level too. I mean, the rule book has rules for starting at any level, why is my being 15th when everyone else is 1st any worse than my being a wizard in the non-magic world? (One of the first big game I played in had lots of deaths, always started new characters at 1st and had a wide range of character levels -- so it's not like the game can't work in that case.)

On the other hand, the "I just don't like <insert race here>" kind of restriction does make me want to play that race a bit... even if I wouldn't push for it.

 

[Mind of tempest]

really depends on if I like the limitations?

 

[billd91]

I have nothing against a particular campaign that has restrictions on the broad D&D palette. If the premise appeals to me, I'll play.

 

[Blue]

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 know you said no wrong answers, just opinion, but this is a settled question. There's fact here, which overrides opinion.

Kitchen sink settings like Forgotten Realms are republished in multiple editions and sell well.

Theme restricted settings like Dark Sun are republished in multiple editions and sell well.

Both wide-open and restricted are completely valid, as shown by hobbiest voting with their wallets.

Individual gamers and tables can have preferences, but there is no opinion to the fact that both are good and appeal to wide audiences.

 

[Hex08]

I know you said no wrong answers, just opinion, but this is a settled question. There's fact here, which overrides opinion.

Kitchen sink settings like Forgotten Realms are republished in multiple editions and sell well.

Theme restricted settings like Dark Sun are republished in multiple editions and sell well.

Both wide-open and restricted are completely valid, as shown by hobbiest voting with their wallets.

Individual gamers and tables can have preferences, but there is no opinion to the fact that both are good and appeal to wide audiences.

Have to disagree with you here. Yes, what you say about published settings is true (various types sell well) but none of that has any bearing on the opinions people hold. The question is "Would you play in a campaign with racial/class limits of it fits the story?" and that is completely personal preference/opinion. Some players may be happy to play in both Forgotten Realms (anything goes) and Dark Sun (more restrictive) and others will have a preference. Back when I was still playing D&D the vast majority of my campaigns took place in either the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk and I have never once played in Dark Sun and that decision was based on my personal preference.

Assuming that the buying habits of the hobby as a whole is indicative of any individual player's preferences is, without trying to be insulting, flawed reasoning.

 

[Blue]

Assuming that the buying habits of the hobby as a whole is indicative of any individual player's preferences is, without trying to be insulting, flawed reasoning.

Luckily I didn't make that flawed reasoning. "Individual gamers and tables can have preferences, but there is no opinion to the fact that both are good and appeal to wide audiences" was my conclusion. Funny how in your haste to call it out you didn't bother to read the whole thing.

 

[Umbran]

Funny how in your haste to call it out you didn't bother to read the whole thing.

Please. Don't make it personal, or this will end badly....

 

[éxypnos]

Please. Don't make it personal, or this will end badly....

"flawed reasoning" was the first personal stone thrown there.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I'm completely fine with these and many other sorts of restrictions just so long as (1) everyone is informed of this from the outset, and (2) everyone else buys in without any hidden sullen facial expressions. I'm even fine with scenarios like MGibster joked about so long as its purpose is to enhance the campaign's intended storyline (in my group, the actual storyline habitually diverges from the intended one).

What I would not be fine with is doing all of this while assuming everyone else is cool with it simply because no one openly objected when the DM floated the idea. Resentment and feeling demeaned rarely start at the mouth.