D&D 5E Group Rule Deal-Breakers

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
At least if they're goal-oriented evil parties.
There is a Sith Sourcebook for one of the Star Wars game systems that discusses how to run an all-Evil party without self-disintegrating.

Very short version: have the PCs answer to a Sith Master who can blow all of them away at once. The PCs run missions for him. He PROBABLY will punish them if they fail the mission; he WILL punish them if they screw up his purposes..
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Croesus

Adventurer
I like my gaming to be PG or PG-13, with a light dash of rated-R material.

That used to be my table, until one of the players started bringing his teenage kids. So now we're strictly PG, with a dash of PG-13 when the bad guys are being really bad.

On the plus side, gaming with teenagers reminds me of the early days. They tend to be a lot more creative and interesting with their characters than us old fogies, and their enthusiasm is contagious.
 

thorgrit

Explorer
The idea that, if they have house rules or alterations to the game, they're actually willing to write them down and present them in a document prior to a new player joining is something I give major kudos for. I often find out about weird house rules or alterations in the middle of play, when it invalidates a build I'm going for, despite me asking very specifically about house rules at the beginning of play.

(And I'm not talking munchkinny weird builds, either. My go-to example was a gaming group I had just joined with a dwarf rogue, figuring darkvision would help sneak around, only to find out during the first major combat they houserule anyone with darkvision to have disadvantage on all perception checks and attack rolls when there's any light source nearby.)

Exactly what I'd accept or run away from in a document would vary greatly depending on how desperate for a game I am. I think I've averaged maybe six RPG sessions a year for the past couple years, so I'm pretty desperate. Fumble rules where I could accidentally decapitate myself on a nat 1? Sure, I can go with that; knowing it ahead of time means I can play a spellcaster that forces saving throws instead of using attack rolls. 300-page setting info that describes what's happened in the last 100 years that's required reading? I can skim the first couple pages and play an elf who's been on vacation for most of that time and just got back.

But like a lot of others some racism, sexism, the other -isms can make me question, really, you're still doing that in this day and age? If it's too severe that's a walk-out moment right there, otherwise I'm willing to give a chance to fix it. Politics and religion I'm willing to suppress for a while, and hope others are too, but if not and they're not already close friends, or even if they are and they get pushy about it, I'm gone.
 

Severite

First Post
I am big believer in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I have no tolerance for squiky rated r material, and for clarity, you CAN do rated r material that isn't squiky, I specifically mean the stuff that isn't, and, a surprising new one, telling me that you believe in balance, before fun, is a massive turn off for your game.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
I am big believer in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I have no tolerance for squiky rated r material, and for clarity, you CAN do rated r material that isn't squiky, I specifically mean the stuff that isn't, and, a surprising new one, telling me that you believe in balance, before fun, is a massive turn off for your game.

Okay, I'm curious, what the heck is "Squiky"? My Google-fu is failing me.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
There is a Sith Sourcebook for one of the Star Wars game systems that discusses how to run an all-Evil party without self-disintegrating.

Very short version: have the PCs answer to a Sith Master who can blow all of them away at once. The PCs run missions for him. He PROBABLY will punish them if they fail the mission; he WILL punish them if they screw up his purposes..

Yeah, that's more or less what I've got set up. Party gets to work for a House, so there's a command structure and unlike the Surfacers, it's well known that Drow have a disproportionate number of high-level casters and assassins and if nothing else, Lolth takes an active roll in Drow life.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I will decline to join (or bow out after session ends) if...

-Chaotic characters who cannot be relied upon to follow the general plan and keep the goal of the operation in mind.
This one here means you and I would likely not be a good fit at the same table - while I don't mind a bit of planning I'll get bored if it goes on too long; and I'll not often stay bound to a plan if a better option presents itself.

What I find in these all-planning parties is that it's usually only one or two players doing all the planning (either in or out of character) with everyone else mostly expected to just follow along and do what they're told stick to the plan.

Screw that.
 

Inchoroi

Adventurer
Deal-breakers before the game starts:

System being used - is this a rule-set I'm willing to play? If it's 3e-4e-PF or a story-first system e.g. Burning Wheel I'm out
Realism or gamism - if fireballs aren't at least vaguely spherical instead of cubic, I'm out
People - do these seem like people I want to get to know, or get to know better - if no, I'm out

Deal-breakers as the game starts:

Are evil PCs banned? If yes, I'm out
Are PCs not of the player's own gender banned? If yes, I'm out (though rare, there's actually DMs who enforce this)
Is romance, attachment, jealousy, sex, etc. allowed between PCs? If no, I'm out (and there's DMs who enforce this too)
What's the advancement rate going to be like? If it's fast enough that I won't have time to learn one level's abilities before another lot get piled on, I'm out
Are the players allowed to quaff a few beer during the game? If no, what's the point - I'm out

Deal-breakers after the game starts:

Inconsistent DMing - a ruling made once is or should be a ruling made for all time
Favoritist DMing - is the DM blatantly favouring a player or character, or blatantly picking on a player or character? If yes, I'm out
Can the DM handle curveballs - if the players can't choose what to do next or the DM falls apart when the players do unexpected things and isn't willing to improve, I'm out
Player meta-gaming - if the other players insist on using player knowledge for things instead of character knowledge, there'll be a loud argument which if I lose, I'm out
Are the in-game threats real or fake - if for example the PCs turn out to be effectively immortal or plot-protected because the DM won't let them die, I won't be there long
Is the party run like a military unit where everyone has to follow orders and everything is planned down to the nth degree? If yes, I'll get bored quickly and then be out
Does the DM allow time for things to happen between encounters and between adventures? If no, see ya.

Lan-"this long list probably makes me seem somewhat fussier than I really am"-efan

The only thing I would disagree with is the "evil PCs" thing, but I have not once been in a game where there was one evil PC and it turned out even halfway decent for all involved; I banned evil PCs entirely for my home games for this reason. In the decade+ of DMing, it's never turned out well. >.<



That being said, I'm fine with an all-evil PC game, as long as they're not stupid evil psychopaths...which, unfortunately, is exactly what happens.

My own dealbreakers are a bit idiosyncratic, because in the last decade, I've only been a player for about 4 months. As a player, though, my requirements are:

1. No DMpcs. It's never turned out well. I also don't like it when DMs head-drag an absent PC; blame the last time I was a player.

2. The DM has to actually prepare his adventures and at least have a little bit of consistency in his world. This stems more from my last abortive time as a player; the DM refused to understand that everyone wanted to quit from day one because the DM could not understand that no one had a clue about his setting.

3. The DM's fun is more important than the Player's fun. It should be about equal, but it's important for DMs to know what kind of thing the players would enjoy, and to find the happy medium between them. This also stems from the last time I was a player; the DM had this story, and cared nothing at all for what we as players wanted to do for their characters or at all.

4. I'll echo the no-favoritism thing, as well.

5. Plot armor. I hate plot armor. Every PC should be able to die. No deus-ex-machina. If the players are clever, they should be able to save the PC that died via magic (usually).

6. If a DM has houserules, they should be laid out long before making characters. In addition, if a DM houserules something because it harms their plot or story but doesn't harm the player's fun, then that's bad, too.


As a DM, my dealbreakers for players:

1. When players don't bother to at least read the small things that I give them. Sure, I might hand out a decent amount of info before a game starts, but out of that info, I'll ask the Players to read maybe 15% of it when making their characters. There have been several instances where a player will complain about something that I haven't addressed, where I will then have to pull out the stuff I wrote for the campaign and point at it and go, "Your answer is here. It's been here for months." I got two games going; one, I never have this problem. The other, I can't get a couple players to read two pages, ffs. I hate that game, and I'm struggling to find a reason to keep running it.

2. No side crap. Don't be talking on your phone, on Imgur at the table, etc. Contribute. Have fun with the other players and go do stuff. Don't be a stick in the mud and don't wait for adventure to come to you; I prefer active players to passive players.

3. No loners or dickhead characters; the argument "It's what my character would do!" isn't an excuse because you made a character that was anti-social.

4. Make a character who is not a super-person. I hate characters that are, "Oh, I have all these abilities and I don't want any flaws so I have to multiclass into everything!" It bothers the crap out of me; characters should be flawed, they should have hard times sometimes. There should also be times where you get to shine as characters, but the struggle should always be there.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, which should go up at #1 on both lists: ARRIVE ON TIME FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! God, I hate that. Be there at the time we start ready to play. We all have lives, and I am there constantly early just to make sure that everything is ready. You can do the same.

No, I'm not angry. Just disappointed in my last DM, who couldn't figure out that arriving 10-45 minutes late every session was not okay.
 
Last edited:

Severite

First Post
Okay, I'm curious, what the heck is "Squiky"? My Google-fu is failing me.


Sure! "Squiky" is a term I picked up from some other forum some time ago, and basically describes a thing that makes you uncomfortable, without having to call out by name the horrific nature of humanity, and the things that they do to one another. As a less extreme example, having two pc's get it on, voyeur style, in graphic detail, would be "squiky", for me, but I also have no real aversion to puting that in print. There are other activities that I do have an aversion to putting out there, in long form.
 

Oofta

Legend
Sure! "Squiky" is a term I picked up from some other forum some time ago, and basically describes a thing that makes you uncomfortable, without having to call out by name the horrific nature of humanity, and the things that they do to one another. As a less extreme example, having two pc's get it on, voyeur style, in graphic detail, would be "squiky", for me, but I also have no real aversion to puting that in print. There are other activities that I do have an aversion to putting out there, in long form.

I suspect it wasn't found in urban dictionary because most people spell it "squicky".
 

Remove ads

Top