D&D 5E Group Rule Deal-Breakers

I won't play in an evil campaign (i.e. where the characters are expected to be evil)

A little mutually agreed upon romance, light innuendo is ok, but I'm not comfortable with role playing more detailed/explicit at the table, nor will I willingly participate in a table where role playing or implying sexual harassment/coerced sex is acceptable. (references to a villain who commits such are o.k., but I don't want graphic details or lurid descriptions)

I have a pretty low tolerance for swearing; I won't deny others' right to use that kind of language, but being around it isn't fun for me. So a table that swears a lot isn't a table I'll stay part of.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


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".

Well, I learned a new word today!

The worst part is that it doesn't bother me, like, at all as a person. What bothers me the most is when a DM is clearly trying to "shock" you by just racheting up the shock factor.
Yeah, I get it, pile of dead babies.
DM: Burned alive dead babies!
Yeah...gross but w/e.
DM: Burning zombie dead babies possessed by demons *wiggles fingers to make it scarier*.
Dude I grew up in the 90's.

As a writer, it bothers me because you don't even need any of that to be shocking. And its just kinda pathetic when DMs try it.
 

It's not that bad... part of the system changes are related to stuff that doesn't come up often, changes to races & feats can be seen as basically setting-specific, and with regard to classes it's likely that each PC is affected only by a couple of house rules anyway.

The question is how do you manage with your players? Were these house rules added to the game gradually as your group was playing along, letting the players get used to the changes one at a time? Or did you design your set of house rules on your own, and then delivered them at once for your players to read? The latter is often disorienting, because new players won't know the reason behind your house rules, and may thus see them as pointless.

By the way, your format of presentation is really nice. Can you tell what word processor, graphical effects and fonts did you use? I wrote some fantasy setting conversion material that I would like to share on ENWorld but I would like to improve the look of it. (Feel free to PM me so that we don't get out of topic from your thread)

I basically rewrite the entire PHB. And I've done it multiple times...

It goes back to the '80s when at the time I owned everything that had released for D&D, including magazines, 3rd-party stuff, etc., not to mention a lot of non-D&D stuff. If we found a rule, class, whatever that we liked then it was fair game. So initially it was just to compile it all in one place, and correct blatant issues, contradictions, overpowered or poorly designed things, and also to incorporate rules into a coherent set. It was really the only way to make it usable for the group, which did change a bit over time. Even if it was printed on a dot-matrix printer.

The campaign continued through 2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5 (with an attempt at 4e), and so I had to constantly update and redo it.

With D&D Next and 5e I started with RAW. But the problem here became the drastic changes from the feel and rules of the past campaign. The rules are always modified with an eye toward campaign consistency, what makes sense in the game world, and being able to create the scenes that we want to be able to ("I am not left handed," the NPC who is too injured to help, and many other examples). I use existing 5e mechanics almost exclusively, borrowing things like the exhaustion track and death saves for other purposes. There are other drastically changed things (like sorcerers) that are specifically based on what we think they should be.

All of the rules (RAW or house rules) are always up for discussion, and the players often take an active part. If something's not working, we change it. If we change something that would alter a character, it's up to the player to decide if we grandfather in their character or change it. While it may seem excessive, the goal is really for the rules to intrude on the game as little as possible. So I initiate most of them (the current group is almost all new players), and they are based on 35+ years of tweaking and about 30 years for this campaign itself. I'm also always looking at whether a change is needed, or even if the rule itself is needed.

An example is (yet another) modification to hit points/injuries sparked by a new player that didn't like the fact that there aren't any consequences for having low hit points. I have rules for injuries which have long-term effects, but hadn't addressed the fact that if you don't suffer any of those types of things, then 1 hp is the same as 100 hp in terms of the state of the character. So I provided a new alternative that shifts to the exhaustion track at 0 hp instead of dying. The exhaustion track is already engaged if you're wounded, and in both cases you make a save each turn, with failure worsening by 1 level, and 3 non-consecutive successes "stopping the bleeding." You don't get better but you stop getting worse. There's no more dying rule, since this is essentially 3 successful saves before 6 failed saves.

So the question is what DC do we want to use for the saves? Do you want a 40%, 35%, or 25% chance of survival if you don't receive any assistance through mundane or magical healing? The answer came back at...25%. Unanimously. If you're reduced to 0 hp, or you suffer a wound via a critical hit (you get a saving throw to avoid it), then you should have only a 25% chance to survive unless you stop what you're doing and deal with it.

In other threads, I've had people say they'd walk away from my table if we used the core rules with the simple addition of 1 level of exhaustion each time you are dropped to 0 hp.

And while in discussions like that, I've had a number of people stating that they'd walk away from a table with this rule or that, I've yet to have one walk away from mine. But I think that has far more to do with talking with people and setting expectations than it does anything else.

As for how they are introduced, it's pretty much as the game plays. I have the material available for them to access online, and I am also happy to print materials too. Most of the time I don't address specific rules until we have to. So they come up via play initially, and I'll explain what the rule is at the time, and if there are objections we'll deal with it then, or go with it and address changes we want to make outside of the game. For example, for the last few years we haven't used initiative at all (except as an occasional opposed check). The intention for this campaign was a new variant, but we haven't used it at all yet. It hasn't seemed like it was needed, and even the experienced players didn't even question it. The combats continue to evolve logically - for example, one of the halflings startled a flock of cockatrices, and so they scattered, attacking whatever was between them and escape. The characters were fairly well spread out, so obviously we resolved attacks as the flock spread and the characters closed toward the halfling. No initiative, and no rounds, just actions occurring naturally.

I'm hanging onto the combat rules, because they have worked well, and it's really difficult to write-up what we do for somebody else to use, although the version using initiative and incremental segments is basically the same thing with a mechanical way to keep track of things.
 

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 basically my method, although I've always used the mob as an example. There are people that are bigger than you, and will hold you accountable. You might be forced to work with these characters, for example. On the other hand, there's still a lot of subterfuge (the mob boss playing the characters against each other behind the scenes) but those missions must remain secret from the others.

Essentially, evil still needs teamwork to survive.

Really, it's always come down to whether the group itself is capable of playing evil characters intelligently. And that is far less common than designing a workable evil campaign. For a variety of reasons. First on the list should always be identifying the limits of the players themselves - what are they comfortable with, or not. So it's only happened a couple of times.

Outside of that, evil characters are not allowed in my campaigns.
 

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.



I agree with most of these.

I'm ambivalent about plot armor. I can adjust to the player's style, and if their expectation is that they will be playing this character for the whole campaign, I won't get uptight about it. It's rare that I end up having to "plot" a campaign, but I've had a few groups that preferred a more epic story feel than my usual approach, and every once and a while it's fun to run that type of thing. Now everybody has at least 3 characters, and I fully expect that death will be a common occurrence in such a dangerous occupation.

The same ends up applying to the players reading/taking notes, etc. I've never really had a problem with them reading, actually. It's more that they don't take notes. So I provide more written things, and there will be more knowledge checks and such to determine how much to fill in their memory gaps. Otherwise they just have to stumble along. It's not usually a problem, but it has come up.

I agree with the loners, but go a bit farther. It's very important to me that the characters are grounded in the world. They can be orphans, but everybody has things they care about, goals, etc. There's still a few "my family is dead and I moved hundreds of miles from home" characters, but for the most part those don't exist in my campaign much anymore. But because of the nature of the campaign, the players like to be tied to things more than that anyway.
 

I think that any house rule regarding the world or setting should obviously be DM fiat. If your world is one in which the children of elves and humans are humans (like Dragon Age) then "no half-elves" is a perfectly reasonable DM edict. For house rules regarding gameplay, however, I have a low regard for unilateral DM decrees. These are rules that should be agreed upon by the group, not forced upon the group by one of its members. If I were to play with a group and the DM presented me with a bunch of rules that were his own personal demands, I would be unlikely to return.

I have very little interest in sitting for hours in a folding chair under fluorescent lights for a D&D game. I'll play in your living room, my living room, online using Fantasy Grounds, whatever... I just don't want it to be like a continuing education seminar.

I use some salty language. Not a consistent barrage, but about as much as John Oliver does on Last Week Tonight. If the situation calls for my character to seduce an NPC, I'll do it. If it leads somewhere, it leads there. I won't describe it in lurid detail, but I really don't see a reason for my character to be chaste. I don't see what's wrong with a "fade to black" type situation when the chamber door closes. As far as anything between PCs, I wouldn't do anything that would make me, the other player, or my wife feel weird about it, so I probably wouldn't go there at all. I did play in a game where my character had known another character in the past, and it just kind of developed that they had known each other very well indeed. It was in the past, it didn't get weird, but I can certainly see how it could have.

I'm not religious, at all. I don't want to be preached at in the real world, and I include in that secular matters that have become "doctrines of faith." That said, I'll argue about your higher power or your stance on gun control as much as you like, but not at the D&D game. 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.

Beer is better than no beer, but no beer isn't a problem. No coffee, on the other hand... I'm out.

Everything else, I'm pretty flexible.
 

Most of the things that would turn me from a group you can't really advertise for. I would have to discover them once we started getting together. Poor attitudes, hygiene, morals, etc I would discover as we play and address it or leave the group.

I don't want really restrictive rule sets that eliminate much from the game.

21 and older at a minimum. I may play later on with my kids if they are interested, but for myself and my wife we want an adult game with a certain level of maturity.

Player consistency. Show up at least most of the time. IF you can't show, give a heads up.

Know your character. You don't have to know all the rules, but at least know how your own character works.
 

Just off the top of my head...

Allowing evil characters unless both of the following are true: 1) Everyone in the group knows each other well, and 2) There's a discussion in advance in which the entire group agrees on where the limits are (particularly involving intra-party conflict). And even then, I'm leery of it unless it's a short campaign, though I'll give it a shot with people I trust not to be jackasses.

What else...

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.
 

A deal breaker for me - if when we sit down to make characters, everyone else reaches for Volo's Guide to Monsters instead of the Players Handbook.

That would force me to make my excuses and leave...
 

Remove ads

Top