What way of playing D&D is completely incompatible with your way?

[Libramarian]

So, obviously this is a fundamentally negative thread and has the potential to become heated.

But it also could be interesting and relevant to the purported goal of D&D Next to allow anybody who plays D&D to play the same game, maybe even at the same table.

I will suggest a simple rule: don't argue with what other people say. At least not much. Just say your thing.

So, in a sentence, what method or approach or play style (that you are reasonably certain is a real thing and does have adherents) is truly completely incompatible with your preferences?

Mine is: "I don't use XP. I just give out levels whenever I feel like it." Doesn't work for me. I can't do my thing at the same table as people doing that.

 

[Kingreaper]

"I want to win at D&D" is the worst one for me.

Others include "Everything should be 100% by the book" rules-lawyers, and worse "Everything should be 100% realistic" reality-lawyers.

 

[TwinBahamut]

"Prepackaged" D&D. Basically, any form of D&D in which the DM makes no particular effort to sculpt the adventures, setting, or campaign to the players. Running characters through adventures without concern for what players actually want out of the game.

People might be tempted to label this "railroading", but I'm fine with a certain degree of railroading. After all, a railroad can still be custom-fit to the players' desires and characters' stories. A "prepackaged" game doesn't do that, even if it allows some degree of player freedom and choice.

I'm not really complaining about the use of published adventures, though I suppose they're not really to my taste because they lean towards that type of gameplay. A DM has to fight against an adventure in order to make it fit a group of players, which can be a problem.

 

[GreyLord]

Extreme Munchkins, Powergamers, and rule abusers.

Luckily don't have to deal with these much.

Otherwise, I think any other playstyle usually works well. Even a little of the above isn't that bothersome, it's those that take it to the extreme or insist they have to have this and this and this so they can be uber monster man...that's when I typically might draw the line and motion for them to get out before I shoot them with a shotgun.

PS: for those who are overly worried...NO, I wouldn't actually shoot them with a shotgun...it's figurative speech...so stop your worrying.

 

[Oni]

"The DM is a dirty cheater if they dare step outside the rules as written one iota even to avoid a completely illogical outcome, if they can't perfectly account for every feat and skill point in a monster stat block, or if they haven't met the exact guidelines in the rules for wealth and items."

If other people enjoy it, that's cool. I can't.

 

[CM]

What I don't like:

"Gritty" games. I want the players to become invested in their characters and therefore death will be rare unless catastrophically bad decisions are made. It would seem pointless to flesh out a character's background and design storyline quests for them if character death is common.

Randomization in character creation (including hit points per level, ability scores, and random race (???) tables). Everybody should start on a level playing field.

Characters whose goals, attitude, or alignment are disruptive to the cohesiveness of the party (unless I, as DM, am in on it and it's all for a greater, quest/adventure-related purpose). I once had a friend join a game as a spy working for the party's nemesis. Ultimately he was revealed and the group took great pleasure in killing him, and everyone had fun.

I don't think any of those are particularly onerous requirements, but I suppose they are part and parcel of some peoples' playstyles.

 

[Hassassin]

Rules lawyers and powergamers are annoying, but I can game with them. The only style that's incompatible with the way I like to play is strongly railroaded story. I can play those kind of campaigns, too, every once in a while and it can be fun. However, it's incompatible with the more free form style I prefer.

 

[Dykstrav]

"I want to win at D&D" is the worst one for me.

The attitude that there is or should be a way to "win" at a tabletop RPG is probably the single biggest thing that I just can't adapt to. The way I see it, you win if you have a cool story to tell after the session, regardless of what happens in the narrative or to your characters.

I'd also say that a big deal-breaker for me is the idea of balance as a holy grail of game design. Over the past few years, I've seen attitudes shift toward "balance" equaling "quality." It's gotten to the point where I don't want to play with people that complain about balance any more... So I'd say that this everything-must-be-balanced attitude is definitely incompatible with my own play style.

 

[Jiggawatts]

The 4E way.

Admin here. I know there's a smiley face, but this is still edition warring, as you try to bait people into an argument. It's not something we're tolerating. Don't do it, please. -- Piratecat

 

[FireLance]

The kind where a DMPC swoops in at the last minute to save the day. Swooping is bad.

Of only slightly lesser dislike are games where the DM puts the PCs in a situation where they have little to no chance of succeeding at any reasonable task, as they are seldom more than an excuse for the DM to power-trip, and they can sometimes lead to the above anyway.