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

[DEFCON 1]

For me the game is a secondary concern. The real question for me is "Do I enjoy hanging around these guys/girls once a week or every two weeks?" If I do, then I'll play whatever games in whatever styles they want. But if I don't buy in to who they are as people and we just don't click, then I'll leave the group.

Thankfully, my circle of RPGer friends is now sufficiently large that I haven't had to find a "new group" in almost a decade, and can always create a game and easily fill it with people who I enjoy hanging with (and who wish to play in my type of game). As well as play in the occasional other game that one of them might put together (whether it's D&D or something else.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Li Shenron]

Would walk out from the middle of a game only for serious social issues (e.g. racism, harassment, drunkenness...).

Would not likely return after the first sessions if:

- the DM allows PvP or uses mature content when not everybody is comfortable with that
- there are so many HR that invalidate PC design or actions expectations
- powergamers dominate and trump other PCs
- rules lawyers regularly interrupt the game

 

[CapnZapp]

[*]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)

I would have thought it best you go in with open eyes here, and create a character fully aware the journey, not the end, is the goal for Lovecraftian play.

 

[Valador]

Things that are deal breakers for me -

DM Deal Breakers -
* Control freaks who take options away from players by rail roading them the entire time or force feed their story, whether the players want to go that route or not.
* DM's who house rule the entire game, for no reason, and their end product ends up being almost totally different than D&D. Why house rule things that are fine in the book?
* DM's who place too many limits on their game. "You can only play this race or class, these races and classes don't exist." So you basically only want to use 30% of the PHB? Lame...

Player Deal Breakers -
* People who show up impaired from drugs or alcohol is a no go.
* Thieves. Have had players try to steal from my house before.
* People who smell.
* Drama queens.
* Overly rules lawyery.
* Blue Falcons. People who try to screw over the other players.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's funny how many people equate "DM has a story to tell" with "railroading or not letting the PCs have any impact." I don't think those necessarily go together, though they very easily can.

As I said in my original post, part of the reason I'm there is the story. If the DM has a basic idea of a story he wants to tell--his own "adventure path," as it were--I'm down with that, as long as it's understood from the get-go. In fact, I prefer that to sandbox. It's when the DM tries to control the details--exactly how the PCs move through that story--that it becomes railroady, to me. But just as I consider it part of the DM's job not to railroad, I consider it part of the players' job to buy in to the core concept of the campaign, including the overall/basic plot, if any. So if I'm running or playing in a story-heavy campaign and one of the players shows up wanting a sandbox, that probably should be a deal-breaker for that player.

Know your preferences as a PC but don't try to force them on the group, IOW.

 

[steeldragons]

Can't think of a circumstance in which I would "walk out." I'm not a child and have a fairly high level of patience. I can wait until the session is over and not come back...or I can have some inkling about what I'm about to get into and "take a pass" on an offer (as few and far between, to play, they are).

So, things that will click on the "Thanks, but no thanks. Maybe next time." for me would include, in no particular order, for 5e:

• Using Multiclassing.
• Using Feats.
• Any inkling of a "powergaming" focus/preference by more than...I guess, a single other player. Coming from the DM is an immediate, "no thanks."
• Any tactical/miniature/grid game focus/preference.
• Evil campaigns.
• "Snowflake campaigns." Here's the story of a dragonborn, tiefling, drow -paladin of the sun god of course!, and a couple of gnoll siblings...in the heart of the human kingdom capitol...or better yet...entering a simple [human] farming village. "This is great! I was hoping for a thri-keen PC in there! You can be one of those!" Uhhhh, no. No, I can't. Thanks.
• Evil characters within a non-evil/alleged-to-be-"heroic" campaign. Automatically disruptive to the group dynamic. I've seen it attempted several times. I've never seen it pulled off well (or the player basically just forgets they're "evil" most of the time until it's convenient). Yu can be edgy and emo and all "anti-hero." Oooo, you're sooooo unique and counter-culture. *eye roll* Pass.
• Abundant or obsessive "Rules-lawyering," from the DM or more than a player or two, on the regular. If every damned combat or plan or RP opportunity devolves into debates (or arguments) over what someone should/should NOT be allowed to do "because page XX says..." Fools who want to intentionally warp the meaning or deliberately "not understand" what's written to break common sense, disrupt plot flow, and/or pull the whole group out of immersion. Not fun. No thanks.
  
  I recall one group, long time ago, every damned initiative (or shortly thereafter) the same player opened his mouth and the rest of the group would just, collectively, groan because we knew a half-hour [minimum!] was just shot as he would obsess over minutia or a slight slant (or blatant stretch) of definitions to "prove" his way was the "right" way to rule and he was GOING to make the DM (and everyone else) agree with him and his [perceived/subjective] "logic." [Eventually, his myriad social and psychological disorders kept him from returning. Thank gods.]
  
  Somewhat related, I suppose:
• "Entitled Players" More than one or two players who are going to whine about everything. "You have to let me X." "I deserve to get Z." Whining and whinging about things not being "fair" or an unhealthy focus on "balance" ("Well, you're letting the half-orc paladin do it! Why can't my halfling thief with a 6 Str?!" I'm too old/not dealing with that noise. If not known/immediately given a pass, would shortly not be returned to.

Ummm...there's probably more.

OH!

• A game with firearms. Gun violence is a scourge on our society. I don't need/want any of that mess in my game of make-believe magic gumdrop elves. Immediate pass.
• A steam-punk setting or mixed/advanced technologies. Immediate pass. There are games/settings that do that fine and I'll play those. If I'm sitting down for "Dungeons" and "Dragons" I'm not interested in cars and missile-launchers or ray guns and warp drives. And before anyone starts, yes, I am aware of Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Even own a copy. Not interested in a whole world/campaign about/around/including that.
• "No Magic" games. Along the same lines as above. Games that are SO gritty/low magic that there is no magic allowed for the PCs. No thanks. I'm playing a fantasy game. I want magic -or psionics or alchemy or something that is supernatural/magical going on and accessible to players- in the world.

[EDIT TO ADD] I would think it was self-evident, but I see it appearing on a number of people's lists, so I'll include/add it...

• Yes, excessive Fudging or outright Cheating/Lying is an obvious no-no. I'm not interested in playing with cheaters.

[/EDIT]

I guess that's the bulk of the biggies.

Now get off my lawn, all'a ya!

 

[rlor]

#1 A game that is inconsistent in scheduling and the cancellation notices are all last minute, especially if I had other stuff I could be doing. So if the game is set for every Sunday morning and the DM commonly cancels games the day of, then I'm going to find something else to do.

Most of the other things fall under stuff I'd rather not see (anything that makes me feel like I'm being told a story rather than a participant in making one) but won't cause me to quit if the rest of the game makes up for it. I might end up having a bit of fun at the GM's expense in engineering situations where their standard practice takes the game in the opposite direction they envisioned. Nothing campaign destroying, just enough to leave the GM scratching their head a bit.

I will add though that I have no problem voicing my concerns to a GM and having a discussion on it. I'd rather find a compromise than just quit in frustration.

 

[Sunseeker]

In my dotage, I find that it's better to just roll with it (heh).

I do have preferences. But my preferences tend to moderation. For example, I dislike games that are just one combat after another, because I prefer role-playing. But I would also be sad if there wasn't combat, because I enjoy playing "hit them, then hit them again" characters.

It's been my experience that if I relax and try to enjoy a group for what it is when I'm playing*, instead of carrying in my own expectations, I have fun.

That said, I don't have fun if a group is excessively rude, mean to each other, or is just about PvP (in terms of killing each other- some friction from roleplaying is fun).

*Necessary disclaimer- I have spent the vast majority of my time DMing. So, really, any time I play is a bonus.

I'm not very old, but I've often lives in areas with low levels of gamers, so much like you, I'll usually take what I can get.

Almost any system for building characters is acceptable. Okay so I can't make a half-dragon, half-vampire, half-wendiigo in this game, and we all have to be humans, eh, whatever. Very rules heavy, not-very-rules-heavy doesn't bother me. As long as I understand that from the outset, I'm good.

Here's some things that just bother me, but aren't deal breakers.
Unknown advancement system. Bob just earned a level for killing the princess? Joe just earned half a level for killing a demon, Sue just got 10 XP for routing the theives guild? I'm confused guys. I like there being a clear metric for achievements, or at least a regular advancement over time (in or out of game) if we're not using XP.
Overly-talkative DMs. I get telling a story, I do, but sometimes a DM just goes on and on about all the little details. I get it, it's pretty. But if it's not really relevant, just tell us "it's very beautiful".
Games that don't encourage us to be a party. It's fine that every character has an agenda, and it's fine to allow everyone time when available to advance their agenda. But the DM should make some effort to tie those agendas together in the background.

I do have a few deal breakers, but they're more to do with the people than the game.
Rude/Mean people. Should be obvious. I can tolerate a little gruffness, it happens. But I have no desire to play with jerks.
People with unclear schedules. If you let me/the DM know in advance you can't make it, or need to leave early tonight, that's fine. But I hate finding out half-way through the game that your mom called and you need to go feed the goats RIGHT NOW. We're all here to play and you're an adult, even if you're living at home.
Encouraging PVP. I don't like fighting with the party. I will if I have no choice, but typically I'm not interested in doing so. It never works out well.
Non-con. Rape happens, bad sexual things happen. It doesn't need to not exist to make me happy, but it doesn't need to be front and center either and I will walk the moment you non-con a player and I do mean that moment.

 

[Pickles III]

It's funny how many people equate "DM has a story to tell" with "railroading or not letting the PCs have any impact." I don't think those necessarily go together, though they very easily can.

As I said in my original post, part of the reason I'm there is the story. If the DM has a basic idea of a story he wants to tell--his own "adventure path," as it were--I'm down with that, as long as it's understood from the get-go. In fact, I prefer that to sandbox. It's when the DM tries to control the details--exactly how the PCs move through that story--that it becomes railroady, to me. But just as I consider it part of the DM's job not to railroad, I consider it part of the players' job to buy in to the core concept of the campaign, including the overall/basic plot, if any. So if I'm running or playing in a story-heavy campaign and one of the players shows up wanting a sandbox, that probably should be a deal-breaker for that player.

Know your preferences as a PC but don't try to force them on the group, IOW.

Well put. I didn't mean to contradict you but "excessive" railroading would be where the dm is determining outcomes not just putting the PCs into situations.

I too am not averse to the scene setting / dm pc plot side of railroading. As you say you have to buy into DM running adventure paths etc or be prepared to put your money where where your mouth is.