D&D 5E Group Rule Deal-Breakers

[cbwjm]

Maybe too many house rules or restrictions would be a deal breaker, however, if they had restricted races and classes because they wanted to run something like Dark Sun or a Victorian style gothic horror game with only human protagonists, I'd be fine with it. They could even have an interesting homebrew setting where elves are the bad guys or the group is made up of dwarves exploring the underdark for the clan. If however they decided not to include some races just because they didn't like them then I might not be so inclined to play. It does depend on the group though. If the group is otherwise fun to play with though then I might stay with it.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Were these house rules added to the game gradually as your group was playing along, letting the players get used to the changes one at a time?

Gradually but I've abandoned them all now. It was getting too hard to balance everything since a lot of it had a reciprocal relationship which meant tweaking things constantly to get it right. Plus most of the players were confused and/or didn't bother knowing them. I've gone back to mostly core rules and use DDB instead.

By the way, your format of presentation is really nice. Can you tell what word processor, graphical effects and fonts did you use?

It's Homebrewery.

As for my deal-breakers, racism, sexism, homophobia are my big three triggers. But I'll also avoid any groups that use rolled stats, UA or DNDwiki (or any crappy homebrew really) content, or have bad house rules.

 

[Lanefan]

Deal-breakers before the game starts:

System being used - is this a rule-set I'm willing to play? If it's 3e-4e-PF or a story-first system e.g. Burning Wheel I'm out
Realism or gamism - if fireballs aren't at least vaguely spherical instead of cubic, I'm out
People - do these seem like people I want to get to know, or get to know better - if no, I'm out

Deal-breakers as the game starts:

Are evil PCs banned? If yes, I'm out
Are PCs not of the player's own gender banned? If yes, I'm out (though rare, there's actually DMs who enforce this)
Is romance, attachment, jealousy, sex, etc. allowed between PCs? If no, I'm out (and there's DMs who enforce this too)
What's the advancement rate going to be like? If it's fast enough that I won't have time to learn one level's abilities before another lot get piled on, I'm out
Are the players allowed to quaff a few beer during the game? If no, what's the point - I'm out

Deal-breakers after the game starts:

Inconsistent DMing - a ruling made once is or should be a ruling made for all time
Favoritist DMing - is the DM blatantly favouring a player or character, or blatantly picking on a player or character? If yes, I'm out
Can the DM handle curveballs - if the players can't choose what to do next or the DM falls apart when the players do unexpected things and isn't willing to improve, I'm out
Player meta-gaming - if the other players insist on using player knowledge for things instead of character knowledge, there'll be a loud argument which if I lose, I'm out
Are the in-game threats real or fake - if for example the PCs turn out to be effectively immortal or plot-protected because the DM won't let them die, I won't be there long
Is the party run like a military unit where everyone has to follow orders and everything is planned down to the nth degree? If yes, I'll get bored quickly and then be out
Does the DM allow time for things to happen between encounters and between adventures? If no, see ya.

Lan-"this long list probably makes me seem somewhat fussier than I really am"-efan

 

[pming]

Hiya!

(1) People who are more interested as using D&D as a reason to toke up and get [beep]faced drunk. I'm here to play a nerdy game with other's who want to play make-believe. If I want to be surrounded by idiots who make it a contest to see who can get drunk the fastest I'll go to a bar.

(2) Religious folks who can't keep their faith to themselves. Look. You're a [whatever], great...*I don't care*! I'm not interested in how you are rationalizing something in-character as being 'good' or 'bad' because of how your *actual* religious beliefs are oriented. If you have no problem pretending you're a female (or male) elf who can cast magic spells, you should have no problem pretending that you are a devout cleric of [insert deity/religion]. (as a sub to this one...replace "religion" with "politics" and extrapolate)

(3) Players and DM's who don't put any (or very little) effort into actually trying to make the game better. In particular DM's. I usually DM, so I know how much work can/does go into making a decent game session and campaign. I do it because I like it. I actually DO take the time to look up information that might be relevant. In other words, researching types of boats, typical nautical terms, etc when a waterborne adventure may be at hand next session...notice I said may! Even if it's not likely that it will happen, I *still* do the "leg work". I make notes, draw maps, print pictures, etc. When I get to play and someone else DM's, and after 5 minutes it's painfully obvious that they haven't thought any farther than "This sounds like a cool adventure, I'll run that"...I instantly loose about 80% interest. I don't bother asking "So this town is at the base of a mountain and the have mines? What do they mine?"...because if it's not mentioned in the adventure, chances of the DM actually THINKING about it for a few seconds is virtually nil. And nothing kills a players "suspension of disbelief" faster than a DM replying "Uuhhh...I don't know. Um...stuff. Mine stuff. Metals. I don't know. Silver. Ok? Good enough? Right...". To me it shows the DM just doesn't care about running a believable session. Disappointing.

(4) Related to #3, The same thing, but in regards to rules of the game in stead of the campaign/setting. A 5e DM that comes to me and says "Optional Rules? I don't know. Whatever you want I guess...whatever official books, lets say". Basically says "I'm a DM but don't give a flying F about consistency or this game world as a whole...if you guys are walking over everything, I'll just cheat and add more monsters, HP's and stuff to balance it when it needs to be". (On a side note, this is the SINGLE MOST ANNOYING THING ABOUT GURPS GM'S! I have yet to play in a GURPS game where the GM actually took time and effort into going through 'the books' to pick out what is/isn't used, and why. It's always been 'This is a Fantasy campaign, so 100 point characters using the Fantasy book. Go! That has a 100% chance of making the campaign live up to the G part of the systems name.)

(5) Excessive swearing/cursing. Just crude and obnoxious. Annoys me to no end. Swear/curse when it's appropriate...not every sentence you say.

(6) (all the other social reasons you wouldn't hang out with someone)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[schnee]

If the house rules are extensive, disjointed, and mostly saying 'No. Not this. No, not that either.' Like a list of pet peeves to avoid, rather than a set of goals they're trying to achieve as a game.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I generally don't like house rules or custom campaigns. I actually prefer games of the strictness of AL.

 

[GameOgre]

If playing a Evil PC is banned is on your list of auto Outs about a game. I think it's a great thing for both you and whoevers game that was lol.

Like I get that some people like and maybe even can handle playing evil alignments, theoretically, because in 40 years of playing I have not seen this mythical player yet. At least not in a group full of good pc's.

I think it's right up there with the player who rolled all 18's with 3d6,honest! You hear a lot of claims but somehow you still have doubts.

 

[iserith]

Generally speaking, I'm fine with rules and requirements as I see D&D 5e as a game system from which to build a game. What I will do is imagine what sort of game those rules and requirements will incentivize and, if it doesn't match the theme or play experience the DM says he or she wants or may trend toward problematic issues during play, then I will probably take a pass. If there are a lot of them, I may also take a pass since I don't want to put a lot of time into reading a new rules book or campaign world document.

If the DM fudges during play, I will take my leave. I want to earn my victories. If I was fairly presented a challenge and I've gotten in over my head with some poor decisions and bad luck, saving my character is not the way to keep me at the table.

If the DM says how the PCs act or what they think or say, I'm also out.

Purposeful "gotchas" are similarly distasteful and generally indicative of some other issues with the way the DM thinks about the game in my view. I'll jump ship if I see too much of this.

If there are players in the group that are looking for conflict among the PCs instead of with all the practically infinite monsters and NPC antagonists in the world or needs to be convinced to find a reason to go adventuring all the time, I will very quickly leave that group. I'm not down with defective adventurers. I was once in a group with a player on whom I had to use reverse psychology to get their character to do ANYTHING, so desirous of conflict and lack of adventuring was he. "I'd prefer we not go into that dungeon to kill monsters and take their stuff..." I'd say to which he'd respond "We should get into that dungeon straight away!" If I said the opposite, we'd still be in the tavern. I got out of that group after two sessions of that nonsense.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The thing I hate the most is false sales pitch from the DM when he decides to run a campaign. If you tell me its gonna be a game about pirates and waterborn exploration, dont make us stranded in on an arctic continent for 10 games then have us go back on foot to the south. One of my players is DMing OotA for us for a month now. He told us: ''this game is an horror survival where I'll keep tract of everything in your backpack; you'll have to earn everyday of sustenance. Think Lovecraft meets Alice in Wonderland.'' In 4 games now, we havent roll for anything related to our survival: we never had to check our rations or waterskins, nobody ever heard of exhaustion. Some of us have been knock-out for 5 hours and we taken long rests and still no pursuers caught up on us, even if we're still in the same one way, no-junction corridor since our escape!

 

[Sunseeker]

Too many rules. And I don't mean "fixes" or "here's my consistent solution to ruling on Hide checks". I mean finnicky things that are clearly personal preference for how the game should be run. I get that everyone has some, but there's a point where it's too many.

Unnecessary or excessive game restrictions. My bare minimum is usually "PHB only". But unless you're running some sort of specialty campaign, I'm not really interested in human only/no casters/funky caster rules/etc.

Most of the stuff that'll make me walk I won't really see until I hit the table though, like:

Racism, bigotry, hatred, soapboxing and generally making other players uncomfortable.

Hitting on other players at the game. Don't care if you're gay, straight, flexible or whatever. Not the time or place.
-This includes PC/PC romance if it's clearly a front to hit on the player.
-Also people who don't understand "no".

Chaotic jerkhole gameplay aka: trolling, alignment doesn't matter but being party-antagonistic questions why you're with the party at all, why you're playing a group game if you don't want to be part of a group.

Total pet peeve: when DMs or other players have personal, known only to them, variations of pronunciation, alternate mythologies to very common fantasy creatures that they want to keep correcting you on.