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

[JonnyP71]

I'm probably in the minority nowadays, but I like the alignment system, as it can encourage consistent play and help form character ideals. In my opinion it aids and focuses roleplaying - plus it helps the DM! It's very hard to prepare and run a decent game if a party who had previously been heroically helping the peasants suddenly gets greedy and decides to murder them and steal their money! Players can be unpredictable at the best of times, so it's not too much to ask for at least their characters' motives to be fairly consistent.

Equally though I agree with having a few restrictions on it. If a player insists on their character doing what the hell they want, whenever they want it... then they would become Neutral Evil in my game - selfish, controlled by only their own motives, do whatever they feel benefits them. And that would potentially come with whatever penalties seem most apt... if their attitude became common knowledge they might struggle to get good deals with shopkeepers, or get a hard time from town guardsmen, and it will certainly affect their relationship with a deity if applicable.

 

[dewderino]

I honestly think this is because players are very leery of giving the DM any "hooks" into how they portray their characters. If I'm chaotic, I can do whatever I want and the DM can't step in.

Otoh I have seen chaotic characters played as totally reliable, always sticking to plans and completely cooperating with each other. If your chaotic character never acts impulsively, is he really chaotic?

The game I walked away from dealt with this very subject. My character was CN and he wanted me to play him in a LG manner. That wasn't my characters personality and would have changed the whole group dynamic. I agree if you don't play your character true to the alignment you chose then you need called out. But when you're trying to manipulate a person's character into the role you see fit then you've broken the 3 rules of dm'ing.

 

[delericho]

The game I walked away from dealt with this very subject. My character was CN and he wanted me to play him in a LG manner. That wasn't my characters personality and would have changed the whole group dynamic.

Ouch. If the DM had wanted you to play an LG character, he should have said as much. 'Allowing' CN but then expecting LG is... not so good.

But, really, I just wanted to ask:

But when you're trying to manipulate a person's character into the role you see fit then you've broken the 3 rules of dm'ing.

The 3 rules of DM'ing? Care to elaborate?

 

[dewderino]

Ouch. If the DM had wanted you to play an LG character, he should have said as much. 'Allowing' CN but then expecting LG is... not so good.

But, really, I just wanted to ask:



The 3 rules of DM'ing? Care to elaborate?

Even when it wasn't his turn to DM he was trying to mold the group in his image constantly changing back stories and character's that weren't his. But the 3 rules are simple.

Rule #1 Don't be a fun sucker
Rule #2 Don't be a control freak
Rule #3 Have fun and enjoy the game

 

[Greg K]

We as a group decided to rotate dm's every level

Add this to my list of deal breakers. I have been in groups that did something similar and it was not fun for me as either a player or a DM.

 

[dewderino]

Add this to my list of deal breakers. I have been in groups that did something similar and it was not fun for me as either a player or a DM.

It was fun because we were helping each other balance a quality game with our family lives. We played weekly and this helped keep 1 guy from carrying the load.

 

[Hussar]

I'm probably in the minority nowadays, but I like the alignment system, as it can encourage consistent play and help form character ideals. In my opinion it aids and focuses roleplaying - plus it helps the DM! It's very hard to prepare and run a decent game if a party who had previously been heroically helping the peasants suddenly gets greedy and decides to murder them and steal their money! Players can be unpredictable at the best of times, so it's not too much to ask for at least their characters' motives to be fairly consistent.

Equally though I agree with having a few restrictions on it. If a player insists on their character doing what the hell they want, whenever they want it... then they would become Neutral Evil in my game - selfish, controlled by only their own motives, do whatever they feel benefits them. And that would potentially come with whatever penalties seem most apt... if their attitude became common knowledge they might struggle to get good deals with shopkeepers, or get a hard time from town guardsmen, and it will certainly affect their relationship with a deity if applicable.

"What?!?! My character isn't evil. How dare you declare me evil. My character hasn't done anything evil. Who the heck are you to tell me what my character is!!!" is pretty much the exact conversation and reaction I would expect from the player. :/ Unfortunately.

I've told this story before, but, I remember having a player who insisted on his character being CN. I wasn't thrilled with the idea, but, I decided to let it slide. Three or four levels into the campaign, I came back to the player and asked him why his character was CN. His character was entirely reliable, planned extensively, never impulsive, and was always on the side of good.

"Your character is LG isn't he?" I asked.
"Absolutely not. No offing way. There is no way my character is LG," was the reply.

This went back and forth for a while and then I had a bit of an epiphany. The player had zero interest in the actual alignment on his character sheet, he just didn't want me stepping in and telling him how he should or should not act. He really believed in the "golden fence" around his character where the DM has control of everything on the other side of the fence, but, within that fence, that belongs 100% to the player.

In the end, I just let it go, and, now, quite a lot later, I tend to completely forget about alignment.

 

[Flamestrike]

My DM dealbreakers:

1) Too railroady (those games where it doesnt matter what the players do, nothing ever changes). Where you actually vibe from the DM that your characters involvement in the story is just slowing things down. Games where you can literally sit on your backside and the plot just... advances and there is nothing you can do to affect it. Not every game has to be a sandbox and you can accept the fact that your characters are bound to a plot to a certain degree, but you need to feel like its the players advancing it, and having an impact on it, and not just mere passengers. 9/10 these are the same DMs that force Mary Sue DMPCS on the players also so its a double whammy.

2) Rules incompetence. Know the rules if you're going to DM. Read the DMG and PHB and have a good knowledge of the black and white rules, and also the 'meta' considerations behind them (the 6-8 encounter 2 short rest AD in 5E for example). Im constantly shocked at the number of DMs who havent read (and absorbed) the DMG.

3) No planning. Any DM that doesnt devote at least an hour or so of planning to every 6 hour session isnt fit to be a DM. Even if youre a guru at improvisation, there is no session or campaign that doesnt go better with planning. If you cant be bothered putting in the legwork to run a game, dont get behind the screen.

4) DMs who start campaigns only for them to fizzle out within a few sessions thanks to the DM losing motivation. It happens from time to time, but some DMs are worse than others and are repeat offenders. I had one DM that this happened several times over the course of a year (with many systems) and I ended up just (politely) refusing to create characters for his 'campaigns'. Saved me a ton of time as none of his attempts afterwards ever lasted more than a session or two either. It's a pity as well, as he was an otherwise good DM.

My player deabreakers:

1) Players who invest zero time and effort into their characters. No backstory, no reason for adventuring, no engagement with the campaign world or the adventure plot. The dudes that rock up to roll dice with two dimensional 'characters' and nothing else. Theyre just bunches of numbers on a sheet and zero personality.

2) Immature players. The kind of murderhobos that break into an NPCs house and murder him in his sleep for ripping them off 5 silver the night before, or for kicking them out of the bar or something equally trivial. The kind of players that will attempt to justify acts of genocide on a LG paladin, or the most metagame actions with convoluted (and clearly rubbish) real world reasoning, or who insist on playing joke characters all the time. Also: players that overly sook about stuff fall into this category as well.

3) Constant no-shows. Obviously I expect players and DMs to put some effort into their characters and campaigns. We all have lives to lead, but the blokes that constantly text you 5 minutes before the session starts to inform you 'something came up' or whatever get my goat.

4) Players that dont understand how their characters abilities work, constantly forget the abilities they do have, and need the same rule explained to them every single session, despite playing the character for several months.

Oddly most groups tend to have a player from each one of those 4 categories in them.

 

[dewderino]

Why can't we play together? I couldn't have said it better.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I'm kind of similar. I really don't care what alignment people are since it rarely comes up in game. Players can use it as a tool if they want (for instance, the LG paladin was against torture), but otherwise, it's not really a major component of the PCs.

I'm not so sure "alignment doesn't matter ". I remember my first time as DM (4E). The second or third session, after the second little adventure to rescue some villagers from a mini dungeon, on character goes up to the mother of the six year old they had just rescued:

Player: "How much for your little girl?" Me(DM) What?!
P: I want a little girl for a slave.
DM: WHAT?!
P: I'm Chaotic Evil.
DM: You're....evil?
Other players: So am I....Me too...I'm Unaligned...
DM: *facepalm*

Lesson learned.