ccs
41st lv DM
So what was the point of the rest of your statement?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much
- Thread starter ad_hoc
- Start date
So what was the point of the rest of your statement?
Arial Black
Adventurer
Forgive me if I got the wrong person, but somebody (I thought it was you) started a conversation about 'paladorcs'. Most assumed that this was a portmanteau of 'paladin' and 'orc', but it was made clear that it was 'paladin' and 'sorcerer', with more P than S.
Then they said that this wasn't allowed.
If it wasn't you, I apologise.
So, to whom it may concern: why are paladin/sorcerers 'not allowed'?
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I faintly remember that side conversation, but I think it was about orcish paladins. In 2nd edition, orcish paladins were not allowed, because only humans could be paladins.
Too many deal breakers.
I like to get artistic and run many strange and varied games. I am happy to work with people who have a couple of big trigger issues they want me to avoid, but I'm not going to walk on eggshells for anyone.
Too many deal breakers throws up some major red flags.
I like to get artistic and run many strange and varied games. I am happy to work with people who have a couple of big trigger issues they want me to avoid, but I'm not going to walk on eggshells for anyone.
Too many deal breakers throws up some major red flags.
Space Jockey
Villager
My biggest deal breaker is probably playing in a setting like the Realms or Dragonlance. Nothing makes me snore more than vanilla, Tolkein-esque fantasy. That being said, I do like interesting or cool stories, so I can overlook the standard heroic fantasy cliches if the campaign hook or premise is appealing enough. Some parts of Forgotten Realms are cool like Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim, Mulhorand, Netheril...basically anywhere that isn't cliche "Western European medieval society", so those are excluded.
The rest are not really deal breakers. I won't walk from games if they happen, but just things that make my appendix twist:
-DMs who try to go out of their way to make us feel bad for certain villains. There's a difference between making them complex, multi-faceted individuals, and dramatically revealing that the lich had a puppy orphanage all along and we just killed him. Also, sometimes I do want two-dimensional villains dag nabbit. Sometimes I want the mummy lord to be an evil bastard who I want to kill, not feel sorry for.
-Not only do I not mind firearms or technology that is more advanced than the European Middle Ages in my fantasy, I prefer them, even if they're merely an emerging force. That being said, you should probably say that those elements exist before the horde of hobgoblins all suddenly pull out blackpowder weapons. Or at least give a good in-game reason why our characters wouldn't know about them.
...Yes, that last one was suspiciously specific. I will never trust a hobgoblin again.
The rest are not really deal breakers. I won't walk from games if they happen, but just things that make my appendix twist:
-DMs who try to go out of their way to make us feel bad for certain villains. There's a difference between making them complex, multi-faceted individuals, and dramatically revealing that the lich had a puppy orphanage all along and we just killed him. Also, sometimes I do want two-dimensional villains dag nabbit. Sometimes I want the mummy lord to be an evil bastard who I want to kill, not feel sorry for.
-Not only do I not mind firearms or technology that is more advanced than the European Middle Ages in my fantasy, I prefer them, even if they're merely an emerging force. That being said, you should probably say that those elements exist before the horde of hobgoblins all suddenly pull out blackpowder weapons. Or at least give a good in-game reason why our characters wouldn't know about them.
...Yes, that last one was suspiciously specific. I will never trust a hobgoblin again.
Douchbaggery can be funny and diet-coke-evil can be dramatic. I have actually played a character based on Captain Hammer before, funny you mention that. He was a favored soul, so figured he was good by birth and above all of the none-name nothings of this world. Because he was good by birth, then everything he did was good, right? I've played cynical, ruthless bastards before too, but played up their evil sides for either comedy or drama at any one time. They were all on the side of good though, in the end.
There are groups out there though that will burn down towns, rape and pillage and make sacrifices to demon lords. These games come in two varieties, the beer and pretzels type where it plays a bit like a particularly sick game of "cards against humanity"where people just try and up the level of perversity and have a laugh about it. That's not my thing, but doesn't creep me out. The other variety seems to be made up of people acting out some dark fantasies, often all of the characters are diabolical rather than just insane murderhobos.
In my limited experience, games like most of the White Wolf catalog tend to attract the latter, at least around here. I don't want to make dispersions about fans of the systems, I'm just saying locally. I can see how Vampire could be an interesting inter-house political drama, so its a shame it ends up so grim-dark.
Hussar
Legend
Heh, funnily enough, the groups I've found that were the most cooperative were the evil PC groups. In a good group, you can be as much of a dick as you want, and you know that paladin isn't going to kill you in your sleep. Mouthing off to the fantasy RPG version of Tony Soprano, OTOH, is a very bad idea. So, everyone works together extremely well and everyone is very polite and treats each other with a great deal of respect because they know that if they don't, it will come around and bite them on the petoot.
Honestly, our evil groups were far, far more effective "heroes" than our good groups.
I wonder if that says something about us.
Anyway, deal breakers.
I guess my only deal breaker now, other than the standard stuff like the DM being a douche, is pacing. My free time is extremely limited and I have to fight for my gaming time because of so many competing priorities. Which means that when it's time to game, it's game time. I have a fairly low tolerance of futzing about on non-gaming stuff (fortunately, my group generally doesn't really do that very often - game start time is pretty well respected) but, also, a somewhat lower than maybe is typical tolerance for spending gaming time on stuff in game that isn't really necessary.
For example, spending an hour of game time futzing about in the tavern, just talking to NPC's and generally not really doing anything. An example that always sticks in my mind was during one session, we had decided to hire half a dozen first level warrior (3e game) spear carriers. Nothing too serious, just a bit of extra firepower and someone to carry the torches. This took darn near TWO HOURS at the table as we had to interview each and every one of the twenty or so applicants in order to find the six that we wanted. A scene that could have taken all of ten minutes (at most) wound up eating up most of a session. And, additionally, after all that futzing about, the DM insisted that we equip our troopies and play out the scene in the outfitter buying all the equipment, one at a time.
I play online using VTT's. If I find that I'm multitasking during a session, I'll politely drop out of the game. Used to be one group (the same one above) that I actually timed myself a few sessions and realised I was spending about 2/3 of my time not participating in the game and the worst part was, I wasn't actually missing anything. I dropped out shortly after that.
Honestly, our evil groups were far, far more effective "heroes" than our good groups.
I wonder if that says something about us. Anyway, deal breakers.
I guess my only deal breaker now, other than the standard stuff like the DM being a douche, is pacing. My free time is extremely limited and I have to fight for my gaming time because of so many competing priorities. Which means that when it's time to game, it's game time. I have a fairly low tolerance of futzing about on non-gaming stuff (fortunately, my group generally doesn't really do that very often - game start time is pretty well respected) but, also, a somewhat lower than maybe is typical tolerance for spending gaming time on stuff in game that isn't really necessary.
For example, spending an hour of game time futzing about in the tavern, just talking to NPC's and generally not really doing anything. An example that always sticks in my mind was during one session, we had decided to hire half a dozen first level warrior (3e game) spear carriers. Nothing too serious, just a bit of extra firepower and someone to carry the torches. This took darn near TWO HOURS at the table as we had to interview each and every one of the twenty or so applicants in order to find the six that we wanted. A scene that could have taken all of ten minutes (at most) wound up eating up most of a session. And, additionally, after all that futzing about, the DM insisted that we equip our troopies and play out the scene in the outfitter buying all the equipment, one at a time.
I play online using VTT's. If I find that I'm multitasking during a session, I'll politely drop out of the game. Used to be one group (the same one above) that I actually timed myself a few sessions and realised I was spending about 2/3 of my time not participating in the game and the worst part was, I wasn't actually missing anything. I dropped out shortly after that.
Arial Black
Adventurer
Fumbles.
I hate them.
I have recently persuaded my AL DM to drop them.
Also, my Pathfinder DM loves to use a Crit Deck and a Fumble Deck. He thinks they are great fun! I suppose that a friends head falling off at an awkward moment could be seen as 'fun' by some, but not by me.
To his credit, after we talked about it he said that each of use could make our own decision: if we choose to use the Crit Deck then we must use (be victims of!) the Fumble Deck too, but if we don't use the Crit Deck we don't suffer the Crit Deck.
I will never use either.
I hate them.
I have recently persuaded my AL DM to drop them.
Also, my Pathfinder DM loves to use a Crit Deck and a Fumble Deck. He thinks they are great fun! I suppose that a friends head falling off at an awkward moment could be seen as 'fun' by some, but not by me.
To his credit, after we talked about it he said that each of use could make our own decision: if we choose to use the Crit Deck then we must use (be victims of!) the Fumble Deck too, but if we don't use the Crit Deck we don't suffer the Crit Deck.
I will never use either.
KahlessNestor
Adventurer
Fumbles aren't allowed in AL anyway, so good thing he stopped
Salamandyr
Adventurer
Explanation. Why I don't like playing clerics.
One of the things I really liked that 4e did, was make divine powers inherent. It opened up all sorts of opportunities for villains and heroes both; the rebel who turns against his orders and now uses the divine power of the gods against them.
Does a couple things...takes away the veto hammer from the DM (or rather, makes the veto hammer no larger on the cleric than on the fighter), and lets a player come up with his own motivations.
Plus, I just love the "backsliding priest" and "Chosen against their will" storytelling tropes, so it's fun for that.
When I dm games, I let the players make up their deity themselves. In ancient times, often each village, hamlet, city, and so forth, would have their own tutelary deity. No reason why we can't have the same sort of thing in D&D. So choosing a Deity becomes no more important to the campaign world than choosing the name of the village where one was raised.
Last edited:
