D&D 5E Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much

[Uchawi]

A DM that does not want to put any effort into a campaign, or makes up rules ad hoc on the fly. Adding house rules to a game without any thought on how it impacts classes or player choices. And finally, a DM the forces the table to play how he or she envisions the characters should act or story should go and down plays any player input.

 

[Celtavian]

Hmmm. Walk out? I don't know that I would walk out of nearly any game. So I'll use not come back again after a single session.

The DM didn't allow me to play tactically. He tried defeat every tactic with DM caveat. That would get annoying quickly. I wouldn't return to that game. I'm a tactical player. I expect the DM to run a game using the rules when playing a monster in a tactical manner that counters my tactical play. If the DM is defeating everything by saying, "It doesn't work" or other such rubbish without a good reason, I'm out.

Goofy games. Games with strange worlds that don't have fantasy tropes I enjoy or excessive magic items or strange character powers that are only allowed to particular characters due to DM-player relationships. This one is hard to explain. I've walked into established games that were outright goofy with characters with bags full of magic items or characters with strange powers that made them ridiculously overpowered. It seemed like they were playing superhero fantasy and I'm not into that.

DMs that don't make interesting adventures. They toss some encounters out there with no real story or interesting role-playing involved. They're winging it and their prep time consisted of thinking up the encounter before we arrived. A DM that doesn't take the time to prepare interesting encounters is one I don't want to play with. If the DM isn't even trying to challenge the players, there is no point to playing as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't care, so neither do I.

Boring players that don't want to role-play. If I'm playing with people that only want to play the numbers and see their character like a video game character, I don't want to play with them. They're wasting my time trying to turn a game capable of creating an interesting story and character experience into a video game of numbers. I hate that type of player. Ruins my experience as a DM and I don't want to continue DMing them.

 

[strider13x]

I only play in point-buy games, or pre-gens. Keeps everyone even and honest.
Other than that I'm open as long as the type of game is agreed on in advance. PvP and house rules are fine if I'm aware of it.

 

[Halivar]

I think I would walk from a game with advantage on flanking. I would probably also walk from magic item shops.

The only game I actually walked out on was where the DM fudged and wholesale decided what was occuring, thus ignoring player agency. Either of those things would make me walk.

...

Excessive drinking and rude behaviour is a given as well.

It's like you cast clairvoyance/clairaudience on my gaming table and took notes.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why the point buy stats? Is it the non-random nature or that they are too low, a bit of both, or something else?

No feats is also interesting to me. I like most feats but would be perfectly content playing in such a game if I liked everything else.

Feats are important to me because I like fighters, even if I choose to play something else, and feats are central to the Fighter's utility. It's 5E's equivalent of weapon specialization--the Fighter's main shtick in 2nd edition.

Point buy turns me off because it narrows the space of characters down to a tiny little window of what's possible. To me that makes point buy stultifying.

I do also enjoy the higher stats of 4d6 drop lowest, but I'd also play in a campaign that was 3d6 in order, so it's not just that. And it's not the randomization per se, because you obviously could do your point buy with randomized rolls. It really is the fact that point buy is narrowly centered on a small region of the possibility space: you will never have an Int 18 Con 4 wizard with point buy, nor a Moon Druid with no stat over 11, and you'll have to struggle mightily with the inherent tension between mechanically-useful stats and stats that you want to roleplay. For example, it's hard to justify "purchasing" a high Int, but I hate playing PCs with Int under 11, or better yet 13-14, unless I have an excellent reason*. Either way, point buy is going to ruin part of my fun, but with rolled stats I can usually find a character concept that works for me.

* I don't mind sticking an Int 9/Cha 6 in a Moon Druid for example, if that Moon Druid is based on Jayne Cobb from Firefly. And when I rolled an Int 7/Wis 4 Necromancer using 3d6 in order I decided to play him as a rage-filled grievance-monger against the world, and named him Giuseppe Zangara. But those characters are very much not my normal style.

 

[Halivar]

I have never and will never walk out of a game. I don't know how I would feel if I ever saw someone else do it. Now, not coming back after the first session? There are a few things that will make me do that:

1. The DM can't let go of their story. D&D is, primarily, a story about the players. The DM provides the conflict, the PC's provide the protagonists and conflict resolution. If a DM tries to mold these in such a way to fit their vision, you're on rails. Pass.
2. The DM won't let me speak. I LOVE a descriptive DM. But there have been occasions where the describing never ends. We sit there for five minutes of description when we are itching to get to action. Don't describe the stucco walls, the dark brass fixings and the antique globe on the dark wooden desk unless it's important. Say it's decorated in Spanish Colonial and let's get moving. Pass.
3. Heavy house-rules. This is a big red warning sign pointing me back to #1. They've got a "vision" for how this is supposed to turn out, and they are changing the rules to enforce it. Solid pass. In fact, I probably will have "something" come up to prevent my attendance.
4. DM incapable of thinking outside the rules. This may sound like a conflict with #3, but it's not. Sometimes a DM needs to rule a certain way contrary to RAW, or even RAI, based on common sense and context. Game rules are not the physics of the game world; they are a rough model for adjudicating how those physics result. I am not playing in a game where stupid and/or unbelievable things happen because of strict adherence to RAW. Pass.

 

[Pickles III]

For me a lot of these points are quite specific and not deal breakers in themselves though an accumulation of them might be

I think I would walk from a game with advantage on flanking. I would probably also walk from magic item shops.

Like these. While I have no issues with either of them (I DMed magic item shops well exchanges) I can't see why advantage on flanking would get you so exercised that you would not want to play the game?

The only game I actually walked out on was where the DM fudged and wholesale decided what was occurring, thus ignoring player agency. Either of those things would make me walk.

This on the other hand is a very broad point & one made by several other people in slightly different ways. It is pretty much a deal breaker on its own. I want to play a game that involves partaking in a story telling exercise not being told someone else's story
I can't think of any one other thing that would stop me playing.

Excessive drinking and rude behaviour is a given as well. Unfortunately I had one player not return after being made uncomfortable by another player. I wish they would have spoken up, as we talked to the troublesome player after the session. I have learned since then that it is better to address those matters head on.

These are kind of outside the game & more relate to the general social situation but I would not want to play with people I did not get on with or in a smoky room etc.

Any game where the primary focus is on the numbers, where it's played as a wargame or tactical exercise above all other considerations. Nothing wrong with that if it's what everyone wants, but it's not for me. I'm in it for the story and the RP; the numbers are important, but--for me--they're in service to story/RP, not for their own sake.

Flip side of that, if a game is too railroady. (I give railroading more leeway than some, if it's a cool enough campaign, but there are still limits.)

I'd probably leave most games that are focused on PvP, too.

I on the other hand am playing a game which involves some RP. In the spectrum of RP games I play D&D is at the mechanical & combat heavy extreme (because it is the most robust & fun or at least 4e was) so I don't care about this.

Raliroading is an aspect of DMs telling their story as covered above. It's not popular.

PVP has its place & that place is one shot Paranoia games

I have never and will never walk out of a game. I don't know how I would feel if I ever saw someone else do it. Now, not coming back after the first session? There are a few things that will make me do that:

1. The DM can't let go of their story. D&D is, primarily, a story about the players. The DM provides the conflict, the PC's provide the protagonists and conflict resolution. If a DM tries to mold these in such a way to fit their vision, you're on rails. Pass.
2. The DM won't let me speak. I LOVE a descriptive DM. But there have been occasions where the describing never ends. We sit there for five minutes of description when we are itching to get to action. Don't describe the stucco walls, the dark brass fixings and the antique globe on the dark wooden desk unless it's important. Say it's decorated in Spanish Colonial and let's get moving. Pass.
3. Heavy house-rules. This is a big red warning sign pointing me back to #1. They've got a "vision" for how this is supposed to turn out, and they are changing the rules to enforce it. Solid pass. In fact, I probably will have "something" come up to prevent my attendance.

Common themes. I am not in theory averse to house rules though I pretty much never use them myself. (Though I think people who use them tend to forget they made the house rule so I expect I do too - things like summon natures ally summoning 1-2 creatures of your choice not 8 of the DM's)

[*]DM incapable of thinking outside the rules. This may sound like a conflict with #3, but it's not. Sometimes a DM needs to rule a certain way contrary to RAW, or even RAI, based on common sense and context. Game rules are not the physics of the game world; they are a rough model for adjudicating how those physics result. I am not playing in a game where stupid and/or unbelievable things happen because of strict adherence to RAW. Pass.

Interesting. For me this is one of those incremental rules that I can live with is small quantities.

One friend described a DM we play with of being unable to let go of the rules even when it would lead to a better game. Mind you this same friend gets agitated by this same DM making narrative based rulings, ignoring the rules, when he feels it will enrich the game.

I like how 5e has empowered DMs to do this - I used to get caught up in RAW bizarreness in 3e.

The important part IMO is being careful with precedent. Sometimes you have to flag a special case so as not to set precedent but mostly you have to be consistent. hmm side track.

 

[TwoSix]

Players and DMs who aren't fun will make me leave.

A play style that's too focused on problem-solving over conflict will definitely drive me away. I play for conflict.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh, and I might seriously consider walking from a campaign that didn't bring in new/replacement characters at the same level--or at least very close--as the rest of the party. Again, more power to those who prefer it that way, but I've no interest in playing a sidekick, or making anyone else do so, unless that's how we've all agreed the campaign's structured from the get-go.

And I'll walk from games where the DM grants XP for out-of-game bribes like gifts of miniatures or the like. I've seen it before, and it wasn't fun.

Both these are about the same thing: have all the heroes be the same level.

And I agree.

I would still not mind being bribed as the DM, though

Seriously, I've experimented with replacement characters starting off at lower level, but then getting, say, twice the advancement speed with the express intent for the character to catch up in a couple of sessions.

The intent is not to have the new guy play the sidekick, but to add a bit of emphasis on his green status. To let him play the fragile newcomer for a (short) while - before that gets old, he should have grown into a fully-fledged party member. I'd say three sessions, tops.

(I would never consider starting off a new PC at level 1 once the rest have reached the next tier of play. In fact, I would never start off a new guy at a lower tier than the rest. So, if the party is level 13, say, then any "greenhorn" would start at level 11. And each time the party levels, the newbie would gain two. At level 15 they would all be the same level.)

 

[Nagol]

It somewhat depends on the game, but here are a few I think are pretty universal for me.

GM qualities I strongly dislike:

• excessive fudging (for D&D that means either the DM admits to fudging or I detect it)
• unexpected railroading -- playing an AP is fine so long as I know that what the group is agreeing to do
• excessively powerful DMPCs

System qualities I strongly dislike

• systems where if you like the character, you should retire before the first adventure since it's all downhill from here (CoC is an example)
• systems with dissonance between the rational (if daring/risky) approach and the adventuring approach (classic Traveller starting with a merchant vessel and no other motivation is an example)

Campaign qualities I strongly dislike

• games where actual play is very different from the original pitch aka bait and switch