D&D 5E Group Rule Deal-Breakers

epithet said:

I think that any house rule .......

Everything else, I'm pretty flexible.

Click to expand...

Replace coffee with tea and you are me....

Lanefan said:

This one here means you and I would likely not be a good fit at the same table

Click to expand...

Well then we will have to meet up at some large convention, and play at adjacent tables.
Afterwards we can tell each other exaggerated stories about how 'my' playstyle was perfect for the adventure but 'your' playstyle would have had nothing but problems.

*Deleted by user*

epithet said:

Your cleric can go on all day about the light of Pelor, but I don't even want to see your pamphlet in the real world.

Click to expand...

But it took me hours to craft these 'Go To The Light!" handouts. Show some appreciation, man.

Warmaster Horus said:

I like a DM who sees their role as supporting the PCs to be heroes in a tough but fair kind of way and allows players a say in elements of how the world works. Too many house rules usually means that's not the case. This often points to a DM who wants the players to know their PCs are hemmed in by restrictions to all sides and to just sit back and let the DM lead them onwards in his/her glorious story.

Click to expand...

To me those are two different things. Yes, some of our rules are restrictive, but that’s because they are helping to define the world.

The rules are the framework. But the players write their story. My job as the DM is to provide an interesting setting with various plot threads, events, schemes, rumors, and places to explore and engage as they wish. If they decide somebody’s criminal activities need further investigation, then off they go. I certainly have no idea what will happen, although I do have a sense of where some of these threads end up if they don’t intervene.

But my job is not to provide the story overall. That’s primarily the players job.

That extends to rules too. I happen to be the guy that loves tweaking the rules, have 35+ years of experience doing it, know the history of the game and the world, so I’m usually the one tweaking the rules. Or at least designing the tweaks my players request. But if there’s something they don’t like, then we address it. Maybe they just don’t understand the why.

One asked if they’ll gain an ability when they get to higher level to step between shadows. The answer was no, because I think the ability for a significant portion of the population to be able to teleport 30’ at will changes the world too much. But, he might find a magic item that allows it. Perhaps it’s something that a secret society has learned and he can join that group with very limited ranks.

Restrictions aren’t always bad, nor do they always mean no. For world-changing abilities, like being able to sprout dragon wings, that character may be the exception-the one person in the world that has developed a means to do it. Not just because he reached a certain level.

Hygiene issues and would I want to hangout with these people outside of gaming aside, some of mine for D&D, specifically,

1. The DM allowing anything and everything official, UA and/or third party, because "I will fit in".
2. Cooperative world building
3. The DM not taking the time to build a setting to present to the players. If you can't know your deities, the races of the world, the nations and their cultures, major organizations and NPCs that players might know about based on their country/culture or origin, which classes/subclasses and which are culturally appropriate/inappropriate, etc. I don't have time. I want to know about your setting so I can decide if it is one that interests me.

4. The DM not having their house rules and setting rules pre-defined. Yes, stuff may come up in play that needs to be addressed, but I want to see your standard house rules and any special setting rules printed up front so I can decide if they are house rules that I would enjoy. I don't want to have them fed to me as the game goes on.

5. Running "canned" adventures or adventure paths.

6. A game set in Planescape, Spelljammer, Eberron, or a game with a lot of dimensional travel. I prefer a game that is more Tolkien or Sword and Sorcery but I also like Dark Sun (original boxed set), Ravenloft (original boxed set), Al Qadim, and Asian settings.

7. The focus is on butt-kicking (i.e. combat): I have no interest in a game that is kick down the door and kill stuff and the players are optimized for combat with little no interest outside of combat or interacting with NPCs and the rest of the world.

8. Long drawn out battles that take up half the session or more (actually anything more than 15 minutes is generally to much).

9. There is a heavy focus on power gaming (being powerful or the accumulation of levels to gain more power). This includes a heavy emphasis on optimizing for character power.

10. Basing the game or characters around superhero comics (why are we not just playing something else such as Icons, Mutants and Masterminds, Champions, Marvel Heroic, BASH? There are so many good superhero games out there)?

11. Basing the game around most anime. A game inspired around Record Of the Lodoss War might be fine. But for many others, I am thinking, why not Mutants and Masterminds 2e Mecha and Manga, Big Eyes Small Mouth, or OVA?

12. Evil PCs
13. Everyone reaching for Complete Book of Humanoids (2e), Savage Species (3e), or Volo's Guide to monsters (5e). Available non-human PC races, in my opinion, should be carefully thought out by the DM as part of the world building stage.
14. Drow, Elan, Shadar-Kai, Dragonborn, Tieflings and many other races as PCs. This just is isn't the fantasy that interests me. On the other hand, I am fine with Hengoyaki, Yuan Ti PCs in an Asian style fantasy. I am fine with gnoll PCs in an Egyptian themed setting.

15. Spiked chains, sunrods, tanglefoot bags, etc.
16. Puzzles based on player skill. They strike me as metagamey
17. Running the game as PCs as player avatars rather than as characters
18.Player knowledge as opposed to "character" knowledge (based upon the setting and the character's own culture, background, class, past experience).
19. Edit: Dm Favoritism
20 Edit: DM "bribery" for XP
21 Edit: Leveling to fast
22 Edit: Playing above level 10-12 for WOTC D&D.

[MENTION=5038]Greg K[/MENTION], I'm wondering if you and all the others out there with such long lists have ever had to find a group. I don't just mean gone looking for another group for some variety, but just to be able to play the game.

Ilbranteloth said:

To me those are two different things. Yes, some of our rules are restrictive, but that’s because they are helping to define the world.

The rules are the framework. But the players write their story. My job as the DM is to provide an interesting setting with various plot threads, events, schemes, rumors, and places to explore and engage as they wish. If they decide somebody’s criminal activities need further investigation, then off they go. I certainly have no idea what will happen, although I do have a sense of where some of these threads end up if they don’t intervene.

But my job is not to provide the story overall. That’s primarily the players job.

That extends to rules too. I happen to be the guy that loves tweaking the rules, have 35+ years of experience doing it, know the history of the game and the world, so I’m usually the one tweaking the rules. Or at least designing the tweaks my players request. But if there’s something they don’t like, then we address it. Maybe they just don’t understand the why.

One asked if they’ll gain an ability when they get to higher level to step between shadows. The answer was no, because I think the ability for a significant portion of the population to be able to teleport 30’ at will changes the world too much. But, he might find a magic item that allows it. Perhaps it’s something that a secret society has learned and he can join that group with very limited ranks.

Restrictions aren’t always bad, nor do they always mean no. For world-changing abilities, like being able to sprout dragon wings, that character may be the exception-the one person in the world that has developed a means to do it. Not just because he reached a certain level.

Click to expand...

That's cool with me as long as the players know this up front and are on board. It could be this player was really looking forward to shadowstepping and is now being nerfed because of how you see your world as not a place they can do what they were thinking would be cool. As a DM I will usually think about why something is 'too powerful' when the game is filled with powers, abilities and creatures that defy credulity. Why can't the players have a bit of that power, too, and what can I do to measure it in a way that gives them that freedom but keeps key elements of my story in play? The PH provides an image of what a character may grow to be capable of. Why should the DM become the gatekeeper to those abilities beyond ensuring the players 'earn' that right via xp?

Now some folks see this as DM-crafting that takes their players abilities into consideration when setting the world and that this breaks the DM's 'impartiality' in how a world should be a sandbox independent from the PCs and what they bring to it. I disagree with that. Did Chris Claremont not take the X-Men's powers into consideration when writing the comic? Or were they at times critical to the narrative? The difference in D&D is that there are two perspectives on the story - the DM presenting it and the players reacting & shaping it with their decisions and abilities to do so.

There are some lists of "deal breakers" here that are mind blowing. I can't imagine being that inflexible.

Here are my deal-breakers.
-Re-writing the rules extensively. There's no reason to rewrite every page of the book. I'd much rather a DM pitch playtesting a pure homebrew rule system then pitch D&D with 90% of the existing rules modified.

-Allowing all alignments when that doesn't match the tone of the campaign. Alignment restrictions are vital to tone and setting. If the campaign you are prepping is a wide open tale of exploration and adventure, allow all alignments. But if your adventure hooks are in the vein of the "hero's journey" with appeals to virtue and the greater good, don't let Jimmy roll up "Darkclaw Knifescar, CE Assassin". (FWIW I'm playing in an all-evil group currently, and enjoying it. But the campaign matches up with the alignments, which is why it works.)

-Not allowing character creation. Pre-gens are fine for one shots, but if this is a long term campaign, I want control over who I am playing.

-Must remain in character. This is more an issue with me. 100% in-character? I just can't do it. I'm going to make the Monty Python reference every time.

-Grotesque favoritism. This includes a DM or DM friend super-characters. It also includes starting new PCs at a much lower level than existing characters (to where the math doesn't work and the new player cannot feel that their PC is useful/cool/contributing). As in "Sorry I didn't know you when the campaign started 6 months ago, but why are you punishing me for that?"

Greg K said:

5. Running "canned" adventures or adventure paths.

Click to expand...

Not quite sure I get the rationale behind this preference, unless you're referring specifically to modules or APs that one or more players have been through before. (something a DM should always ask about before running a canned module if dealing with players she doesn't know)

8. Long drawn out battles that take up half the session or more (actually anything more than 15 minutes is generally to much).

Click to expand...

This one can't be helped. Even in rules-lighter 0e or 1e it's still easy to have combats go on all session once the PCs get to mid-to-high level, partcularly if there's numerous opponents who also each have loads of abilities and options to choose from. (the worst to run, believe me, are when one adventuring party fights another!) 3e-4e-5e are even worse in that by mid-high level both the PCs and the opponents have boatloads of h.p. to plow through and - in 4e-5e - very limited means of bypassing h.p. and going straight to the kill.

Mouseferatu said:

Oh! Any campaign in which out-of-game actions (like buying the DM miniatures) grants in-game XP. I have no interest in micro-transactions in my tabletop gaming, thanks. Been there once, didn't like seeing it happen, won't be there for it again.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll get behind this one. Xp should be earned by what the character does, not the player.

Lan-"though we often joke about bribing the DM, experience tells us it never works"-efan