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

[Magil]

Heh. Whereas I seriously dislike campaigns that focus too heavily on dungeon crawls and adventuring days. They're not deal-breakers, which is why I didn't mention them, but they could potentially drive me from a campaign over the long term, depending on how else the game was going.

And that's a perfectly legitimate approach, but we're talking about Dungeons and Dragons here--presumably (this is the DnD 5E forum). I have a certain expectation when it comes to a game that uses the Dungeons and Dragons rules, just as I have a certain expectation for games that follow, say, the Call of Cthulhu rules.

We no longer live in a time where one needs to bend a ruleset over backwards to fit a particular playstyle, instead, there's probably a set of rules out there that doesn't outline the game constructs of "short rest" and "long rest", and then goes on to mention those things (or details game elements that directly depend on those constructs) over and over again for hundreds of pages. And hey, I get that every table plays their own version of DnD, but there is certainly a line that can be crossed where it would be more beneficial to use another game system.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My only deal breakers are things which I know I can't maintain the same level of enjoyment of a game if they are going on, because it is the reduction of fun that gets me out the door.

The only things guaranteed to mess with my fun are DM fudging, and someone at the table being intentionally irritating to the group (i.e. they've been asked not to make jokes on a particular topic, and then that seems like the only jokes they want to make). Everything else is either something I'm okay adapting to, or that I've never actually encountered so I'm not sure how I'd react to it.

 

[Satyrn]

I've only ever left groups that I didn't have fun playing with.

 

[Jediking]

It would be more about the players and how they acted rather than the characters that would make me walk. There are lots of different ways, and everyone likes different stuff. But it's a lot easier dealing with a well-meaning player with a low moral character than a hostile player with a Lawful Good character.

Mostly it's about communication. It's a rope-playing game for everyone. If everyone can talk, it will be tough to not find any solid solutions. If someone(s) is overriding others, then either them or I will be gone.

 

[seebs]

I don't even ...

I suppose people play the games they play, but I've never even contemplated that occurring in a D&D game. I wouldn't even walk out the door - I'd be running, after I picked my jaw up off the floor.

Huh. Thinking about it, that does make it into the category of "discuss with player beforehand", but I have absolutely known players who would be fine with that happening to their characters if it fit the plot and circumstances. I guess it's a question of what kinds of stories and characters you are interested in.

The sole relevant bit I recall in a recentish game was a question of whether, given a unicorn which can only be seen by "virgins", non-con counts.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Any game where they allow PCs ultra specialized character classes has annoyed me. Or one with PCs with "Psionics", always bothered me not sure why. I have never walked out of a game, but I have opted to not return to some tables for some of the following:

- claiming to play by the RAW, then when i get there they have umpteen "house rules" that made little to no sense to me
- too much drinking and/or disrespect between players, especially if it escalates to name calling or raised voices
- players who don't respect the DM calls or who get mopey if things don't go their way
- players who seem to antagonize other players and force the rest of the party to be wary of them as well as the monsters/foes, not into PVP in my D&D!
- DMs who can't "go with the flow" and figure out how to run a group with both role-players as well as mechanics based players. This is rare though in my experience.

That's pretty much it. Although to be honest I have been playing almost exclusively with the same people for the last 30 years or so. Just hit 40 years old and my group is some friends I met in 3rd grade. D&D has been the glue that has kept us all in touch

 

[Mouseferatu]

And that's a perfectly legitimate approach, but we're talking about Dungeons and Dragons here--presumably (this is the DnD 5E forum).

Yep. I'm talking about D&D. I like D&D, as does everyone in my group. None of us want to go find a new system, as we are not just content with, but actively enjoy, this one--just tweaked to our preferences.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I like a lot of different systems, and I don't see anything sacred about the rules that happen to be printed in the book, but there are a couple of things that will get to me:

1) If there are too many undeclared house rules, then I can't make any decisions because it feels like I'm guessing blindly. I need to know how the world works, if player choice is to have any meaning at all. As long as the house rules are declared ahead of time, and they aren't blatantly ridiculous, then I'll usually be fine.

2) Any sort of mechanic which operates on a player level, rather than the character level, is entirely missing the point of a role-playing game. Don't try to introduce Bennies or Fate points into the game, and don't ask me to play a game that features such mechanics.

3) Any sort of protagonization is bad. Nothing is allowed to happen to the PCs because they're PCs.

4) Likewise, mistreatment of NPCs is highly distasteful, and there's only so much of that I can tolerate. You can't just decide that an NPC dies because a player rolls badly on a check. That NPC is every bit as real of a person as my PC, and it's only fair that they receive their due process.

 

[Awesome Adam]

Ooh, Ooh, I forgot one.

Players who don't break character when dealing with other players.

Barbarian get's knocked out and he has the only magical weapon in the party, while we are fighting a creature that requires magical weapons to harm. Another character picks up the enchanted axe, defeats the monster, and we tend to the Barbarian's wounds.

The Barbarian's player has been quiet the whole time, until his character regains consciousness. He then flies into a rage, because someone else took his axe. Not "my character flies into a rage when he discovers his axe missing", he stood up shaking his fists and started yelling about his axe, looking like the Ultimate Warrior psyching himself up for a match. He would not break character, and did not calm down until he got his axe back.

We 'forgot' to call him and let him know when future gaming sessions were after that incident.

 

[Lehrbuch]

So what are things that go beyond preferences for you that would be deal breakers? That would make you say 'thanks but no thanks' to a game

I struggle to understand the idea of "deal breakers". I can't really think of anything rules-wise, play-style, or setting related that would trouble me enough to not play, or to stop playing.

The only "deal breaker" I can think of is obnoxious behaviour from the players/DM unrelated to the game itself. Even then, if one or two people are being problems, IME it is more usual for the majority to complain to the problem player, give her an opportunity to reform, and then dis-invite her from the game if the problems continue. That is, no-one walks, in my experience, but rarely somebody is pushed. And if you think that the majority of players are causing problems, and you're the minority --- then in reality it is probably you who is the problem!