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

[aramis erak]

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?

Depends upon whether such limits serve a legitimate purpose...
If the "no elves" and "no mages" are because the game is about curing the spell-plague before all magic is gone? Sure.
If they're because the world is low mana? sure.
If it's simply "I don't like wizards, and only allow sorcerers, and all elves are NPCs" I'm likely to walk.

It is about why, more than what.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Depends upon whether such limits serve a legitimate purpose...
If the "no elves" and "no mages" are because the game is about curing the spell-plague before all magic is gone? Sure.
If they're because the world is low mana? sure.
If it's simply "I don't like wizards, and only allow sorcerers, and all elves are NPCs" I'm likely to walk.

It is about why, more than what.

I don't really see the problem here. Some players might prefer certain kinds of characters and campaigns, and some DMs might prefer certain kinds of campaigns or restrictions. If your preferences doesn't match, just don't play with each other?

If I present a campaign concept (as always with some restrictive frames, otherwise it ain't a campaign concept), I don't force anyone to play. The only important thing is communication to avoid mismatches.

I still am curious though. If a DM has a world where scholary magic is lost since the god of magic went mad during the 47th cataclysm, then it's fine? But if the god of magics madness is an excuse for the DMs loathing of the wizard class, then it's a no go?

 

[FrogReaver]

I still am curious though. If a DM has a world where scholary magic is lost since the god of magic went mad during the 47th cataclysm, then it's fine? But if the god of magics madness is an excuse for the DMs loathing of the wizard class, then it's a no go?

Presumably if the DM just hates Wizards he isn't going to just ban them from this campaign. Makes sense avoiding that DM to me, especially if you'd like to play a wizard every once in a while.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Presumably if the DM just hates Wizards he isn't going to just ban them from this campaign. Makes sense avoiding that DM to me, especially if you'd like to play a wizard every once in a while.

And once again I don't see a problem here. If a DM never allow wizards, and you have the itch to play a wizard, or play in a world where wizards exist, then don't play with that DM. Not every DM fit every players wishes and style preferences, and vice versa. It's been that way forever, at least in my gaming community.

That the DM communicate the restrictions in a campaign may be even more important nowadays, with an influx of new young players that may have very different expectations from the game than for example a grog DM like myself, especially with WotC putting most of the games lore and in-game restrictions in the garbage can.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't really see the problem here. Some players might prefer certain kinds of characters and campaigns, and some DMs might prefer certain kinds of campaigns or restrictions. If your preferences doesn't match, just don't play with each other?

If I present a campaign concept (as always with some restrictive frames, otherwise it ain't a campaign concept), I don't force anyone to play. The only important thing is communication to avoid mismatches.

I still am curious though. If a DM has a world where scholary magic is lost since the god of magic went mad during the 47th cataclysm, then it's fine? But if the god of magics madness is an excuse for the DMs loathing of the wizard class, then it's a no go?

The difference is that the GM who hates wizards enough to ban them without making the effort to have an insetting justification and without banning similar casters is also often prone to other capriciousness.

A GM banning them because arcane magic doesn't work? Sure, makes sense. Takes out the Wizards, Sorcerers, and certain semi-caster subclasses. Oh, he's still got those others? Now it's inconsistent. That will bug me.

And, without a setting element, it's possible I'm going to, as a player, wind up facing wizards...

 

[FrogReaver]

And once again I don't see a problem here. If a DM never allow wizards, and you have the itch to play a wizard, or play in a world where wizards exist, then don't play with that DM. Not every DM fit every players wishes and style preferences, and vice versa. It's been that way forever, at least in my gaming community.

That the DM communicate the restrictions in a campaign may be even more important nowadays, with an influx of new young players that may have very different expectations from the game than for example a grog DM like myself, especially with WotC putting most of the games lore and in-game restrictions in the garbage can.

My preferred playstyle would include finding a group and continuing to play with them for a long time. I don't think I'm alone. For me a DM that banned Wizards in all campaigns wouldn't be something I'd want to start getting involved in.

 

[Cadence]

The difference is that the GM who hates wizards enough to ban them without making the effort to have an insetting justification and without banning similar casters is also often prone to other capriciousness.

A GM banning them because arcane magic doesn't work? Sure, makes sense. Takes out the Wizards, Sorcerers, and certain semi-caster subclasses. Oh, he's still got those others? Now it's inconsistent. That will bug me.

And, without a setting element, it's possible I'm going to, as a player, wind up facing wizards...

Not just to you, but your post gave me a post to ask it...

Is the DM who always has the same restriction when running D&D cutting out a lot less playing opportunity than the GM who only runs fantasy games and never does any other genres (supers, post-apoc, space opera, western, steam punk, urban fantasy, etc...)?

How is not having casters less internally consistent than this plethora of x,000 year old civilizations always being stuck in the late medieval/early renaissance and never having developed (possibly partially magical) steam engines, firearms, airships, printing presses, etc ... ?

 

[John Dallman]

The only time I've declared limitations as a GM was at the start of a campaign set in the police force of a rationalised fantasy city. It got run twice a year, as a light-hearted Sunday game at a twice-yearly convention. Exotic classes and races probably would not get recruited by the force, and would certainly detract from the campaign theme of exploring the weird kinds of crime possible in the environment.

One of the potential players was a bit compulsive about playing weird and over-powerful classes and races, and took some talking down before he'd play a fairly normal human magic-user. However, I was thoroughly prepared to go ahead without him to get the campaign to work right, and it has been a considerable success. The party (AD&D1e) is a dwarven fighter who's the squad leader and five humans: a ranger, a druid, the magic-user, a cleric/thief and a cleric/detective (an old White Dwarf character class by Marcus Rowland).

Most of what I play nowadays is GURPS set in semi-historical settings, where the concept of race or class limits is irrelevant.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not just to you, but your post gave me a post to ask it...

Is the DM who always has the same restriction when running D&D cutting out a lot less playing opportunity than the GM who only runs fantasy games and never does any other genres (supers, post-apoc, space opera, western, steam punk, urban fantasy, etc...)?

How is not having casters less internally consistent than this plethora of x,000 year old civilizations always being stuck in the late medieval/early renaissance and never having developed (possibly partially magical) steam engines, firearms, airships, printing presses, etc ... ?

IMO that doesn't really seem apples to apples to me. Classes are a different beast than genre's and time periods. (Also there is Eberron and Spelljammer...)

 

[Cadence]

IMO that doesn't really seem apples to apples to me. Classes are a different beast than genre's and time periods. (Also there is Eberron and Spelljammer...)

Doesn't the equivalent of what spell using classes are available vary widely in different fantasy literary/TV/movie series?

And classes always that different from changing genre and tech level? Are the artificer and gunslinger (that often eventually get added) just a different class, or are they different tech levels? Why is gun knowledge or printing knowledge different than some new kind of magic knowledge?

And for internal consistency/realism, how many years have Greyhawk and Faerun and Krynn pretty much not had any notable tech advances? How does that compare to IRL?