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

Cap'n Kobold · Saturday at 12:10 AM

overgeeked said:
A fairly simple follow-up question.

As a player, would you play in a multi-year campaign 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 multi-year campaign that only used the 5.1 SRD?

It would be a disincentive for certain, but provided everything else with the group was good, not a dealbreaker.

My concern would be that this sort of restriction is generally symptomatic of a deeper issue with the DM, so I would probably want to know the reason behind why the game is so restrictive before committing to it.
I wouldn't be willing to play some of the options available within those restrictions, but I know I could come up with some that I would be fine with.

Laurefindel · Saturday at 2:21 AM

Cap'n Kobold said:
It would be a disincentive for certain, but provided everything else with the group was good, not a dealbreaker.

My concern would be that this sort of restriction is generally symptomatic of a deeper issue with the DM, so I would probably want to know the reason behind why the game is so restrictive before committing to it.
I wouldn't be willing to play some of the options available within those restrictions, but I know I could come up with some that I would be fine with.

When I choose to keep a narrow or restricted number of available options, it’s because I seek more focus, usually about themes.

But bloat is a real thing: there is a point when adding more becomes too much. We all reach this point at one point, some earlier than others, and then you need to put limits somewhere. The SRD is as good a place as any other (if a bit on the restrictive side)

CreamCloud0 · Saturday at 11:50 AM

A thought: id be much more willing to play in a campaign with exactly as many options as the PHB but which were picked by the GM than a campaign that’s just ‘the PHB’ because then I know at least some level of intentional deliberation has gone into those options, even if the motivation behind it may or may not have the best intentions, at least there were intentions.

Neonchameleon · Saturday at 12:53 PM

I might (so not saying no) but this is a very hard sell.

Strike 1 is the character restrictions. This isn't a deal-breaker but is bad. You're showing up with old and bad versions of many of the classes and in the process gratuitously nerfing the fighter, and forcing the ranger into the bad version. This doesn't feel like a curated list to make a better game and fit the setting better to me. It feels like a lazy "I don't want my PCs to have that much to surprise me and I don't want to to bother doing more than the minimum".

Strike 2 is the "multi year campaign" part. You've certainly got grand ambitions there. And an assumption that life won't happen and everyone will prioritise your game and has that much time to spare.

You are on two strikes and I really don't like the combination of "I'm going to restrict you guys in the laziest way possible but you are going to sign up for my grand multi-year plan". You're going to have to knock it out of the park with the rest on your actual skills and with the rest of the group.

And so far everything you have given me is a negative.

Neonchameleon · Saturday at 12:55 PM

Laurefindel said:
When I choose to keep a narrow or restricted number of available options, it’s because I seek more focus, usually about themes.

But clearly the OP isn't doing that. They're lazily restricting things to the PHB with all 12 classes showing up, not e.g. banning full spellcasting classes.

Laurefindel · Saturday at 5:10 PM

Neonchameleon said:
But clearly the OP isn't doing that. They're lazily restricting things to the PHB with all 12 classes showing up, not e.g. banning full spellcasting classes.

I think the OP’s post is a bit on the theorical side but even then, there is a certain beauty to the simplicity of using a single book or document as source. And to be fair, the SRD alone is still more comprehensive than many RPGs.

I don’t think it’s lazy to consider it « complete enough » for one that has tastes for a RPG that isn’t as exhaustive as the full corpus of D&D. Personally, I prefer a bit more breadth than what the SRD offers, but I like to limit my play to 12th level in stead of going all the way to 20 for similar reason. Is it lazy? I don’t think so - it’s what I prefer.

And yes, the OP could play another RPG altogether… or they could just play with the SRD.

Scott Christian · Saturday at 5:41 PM

I ran one last summer. Only the PHB - that's it. I also only used the MM. It is amazing how many things I dug up, and the players dug up, that we found entertaining.

And for the record, the restriction came because we were levelling each session, and we only had ten sessions to complete the campaign. So I wanted to narrow down the likelihood of class disparity, complications for players, and focus on the events and set pieces.

Lanefan · Saturday at 9:30 PM

Neonchameleon said:
Strike 2 is the "multi year campaign" part. You've certainly got grand ambitions there. And an assumption that life won't happen and everyone will prioritise your game and has that much time to spare.

The DM has to make that assumption for self, certainly; as if the DM's not committed to the long haul then why is a long-haul game being pitched in the first place?

But for the players the assumption may well instead be that life will happen, and that if-when a player has to leave the campaign a replacement may be found.

There's nothing written anywhere that says the players who start a campaign have to still be there at the end or that other players can't come in part-way along.

Reynard · Saturday at 9:41 PM

Neonchameleon said:
Strike 2 is the "multi year campaign" part. You've certainly got grand ambitions there. And an assumption that life won't happen and everyone will prioritise your game and has that much time to spare.

You are on two strikes and I really don't like the combination of "I'm going to restrict you guys in the laziest way possible but you are going to sign up for my grand multi-year plan".

I don't think there is anything wrong with setting up a campaign with the hope that it lasts a long time.

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

Would you play in a multi-year campaign that only used the 5.1 SRD?

Yes.

No.

Cap'n Kobold

Hero

Laurefindel

Legend

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.

Neonchameleon

Legend

Neonchameleon

Legend

Laurefindel

Legend

Scott Christian

Hero

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Reynard

Legend

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex