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

[Sunseeker]

... So, I take it you wouldn't enjoy a game set in Middle Earth, where Tolkien depicted the heroes as behaving honorably, even towards the enemy (i.e not killing Gollum, and Faramir's comment that he would not lie even to an Orc)? Nowhere in his LOTR series is an enemy killed in cold blood, only in combat. (P.S. Peter Jackson should be sued by Faramir for his outrageous portrayal of the character, having him act completely out of character with the real Faramir depicted in Tolkien's original books.)

Anyway, in Zakhara (the Al-Quadim campaign setting), Orcs, Ogres, etc. are treated exactly the same as any other race... and that's an OFFICIAL campaign setting created by TSR, so my idea that Orcs are people too isn't as radical as some here think, since it's an idea officially embraced by TSR in at least one campaign world.

My experience is that people who ask for an unequal, politically incorrect, "brutal" setting really don't know what they're asking for. Dying because of a cut or the flu. living in real squalor. Getting doors slammed in your face because you're the wrong race, getting lynched because you're the wrong color. Getting raped because you're a woman outside of the home. Not being protected by the law because your skin color/gender/species mean the law doesn't apply to the way others treat you. Kangaroo courts for "undesirables" or just plain old executions in the street. Public lynchings, actual torture. Nobility having you incarcerated when they don't like you.

That's not fun. I don't want to DM that. I don't want to play in that.

 

[JonnyP71]

... So, I take it you wouldn't enjoy a game set in Middle Earth, where Tolkien depicted the heroes as behaving honorably, even towards the enemy (i.e not killing Gollum, and Faramir's comment that he would not lie even to an Orc)? Nowhere in his LOTR series is an enemy killed in cold blood, only in combat. (P.S. Peter Jackson should be sued by Faramir for his outrageous portrayal of the character, having him act completely out of character with the real Faramir depicted in Tolkien's original books.)

Anyway, in Zakhara (the Al-Quadim campaign setting), Orcs, Ogres, etc. are treated exactly the same as any other race... and that's an OFFICIAL campaign setting created by TSR, so my idea that Orcs are people too isn't as radical as some here think, since it's an idea officially embraced by TSR in at least one campaign world.

Yes the heroes were honourable.. but that's pretty much where it ended.. there's very much a distinction between races and stereotypes, and they don't all get on!
- antipathy between elves and dwarfs
- dwarfs are gruff, and brutish
- elves are pure, pale, cultured
- the dark skinned Haradrim are on the side of the bad guys
- Dunedain and Black Numenoreans hate each other
- the Rohirrim hunted the 'lesser' Dunlendings for sport!

 

[Shasarak]

Player: Nat 20 to charm the pretty lady!
DM: Okay, you sound really suave and sexy, and she's very flattered but you just met and she has the free will to say "no".
Player: But I rolled a nat 20!
DM: Yeah so? She's a sentient creature capable of making her own choices. She declined.

Why even get the Player to roll if there is no chance of success? I hate DMs like that but I dont know if it would be a deal breaker or not.

 

[Giant2005]

Why even get the Player to roll if there is no chance of success? I hate DMs like that but I dont know if it would be a deal breaker or not.

It is better than the alternative. A natural 20 should not equate to mind control.

 

[Shasarak]

It is better than the alternative. A natural 20 should not equate to mind control.

I would rather the alternative then the DM going Na-ah.

If you asked for a roll and the Player got a 20 then just put on your big boy pants.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's kind of awkward though. You're basically RPing romantic interactions with the DM which can be...weird. Otherwise you're rolling checks which is also sort of...weird. I don't particularly want to RP romantic interactions with my players and I don't want to RP romantic interactions with my DMs (who are also my players in other games). Rolling checks to "impress them" or "seduce them" also seems weird.

Player: Nat 20 to charm the pretty lady!
DM: Okay, you sound really suave and sexy, and she's very flattered but you just met and she has the free will to say "no".
Player: But I rolled a nat 20!
DM: Yeah so? She's a sentient creature capable of making her own choices. She declined.

I agree that having NO NPCs romantically involved is a little weird, but I do agree that romance between players and NPCs can be awkward, even between two PCs.

Our party swashbuckler has as his Bond he casnt say no to a pretty face.

He's already bedded our PC Druid (both played by heterosexual men) and two NPCs (Im the DM and also a dude). We're all mature enough to deal with it.

If youre not comfortable with it, you can always RP it in the third person, or just describe the action 'She flirts back with you, and you get the impression that she's attracted to you' and later 'You wake up with a warm body next to yours'

Its been pretty amazing in our campaign so far. Weve had love triangles, petty jealosy and other complications introduced, along with benefits (obviously I award him inspiration when he is succesful)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why even get the Player to roll if there is no chance of success? I hate DMs like that but I dont know if it would be a deal breaker or not.

A high result is still better than a low result, even if the desired outcome cannot be achieved. The fact that the character made the attempt at all changes the narrative, and the fact that they performed well at the attempt changes the narrative further.

The only thing the die roll determines is how well you perform the task at hand, but some things are just out of your control.

 

[KahlessNestor]

A 20 isn't an auto success on skill checks anyway, is it?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A 20 isn't an auto success on skill checks anyway, is it?

Never has been, never will be. Nor is 1 an automatic failure. Granted, given the range of modifiers in 5E, a roll of 20 is usually a success and a roll of 1 is usually a failure.

I'm not entirely convinced that a sufficiently high skill check is the answer, though. Free will should probably persist, regardless of how skilled the other person is.

 

[Giant2005]

I would rather the alternative then the DM going Na-ah.

If you asked for a roll and the Player got a 20 then just put on your big boy pants.

In my experience, most such rolls tend to be because the player is the one asking for them (often because they are hoping to mind control others). Rather than simply telling them no, you can't roll, the DM let's them roll and describes the outcome in the exact same manner as they would with any other roll.