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

[abirdcall]

A lot of talk about preferences lately.

We are all disparate people who love the game and want to get together to have good times playing it.

So what are things that go beyond preferences for you that would be deal breakers? That would make you say 'thanks but no thanks' to a game.

These can be rules.

I have seen people say that no multiclassing would be a deal breaker. We don't have multiclassing in my game, and I don't think we would add it if someone asked but I would play a game that did. I prefer lower starting stats, and I would make a case but I wouldn't walk from a game that used 4d6-L.

I think I would walk from a game with advantage on flanking. I would probably also walk from magic item shops.

The only game I actually walked out on was where the DM fudged and wholesale decided what was occuring, thus ignoring player agency. Either of those things would make me walk.

I have seen new players walk in my home game over the years. Usually it is hard to tell if the game just wasn't for them or if it was something specific. The most recent case was where someone didn't like that we used the longer narrative time of short and long rests variant. He complained that they didn't want a gritty game and was quite upset about it. We don't use the rule for a grittier game, we just use it to justify more encounters per rest in the narrative.

Excessive drinking and rude behaviour is a given as well. Unfortunately I had one player not return after being made uncomfortable by another player. I wish they would have spoken up, as we talked to the troublesome player after the session. I have learned since then that it is better to address those matters head on.

I am wondering how divisive certain rules and playstyles really are. Going beyond preferences, what would make you discontinue playing a game? It doesn't have to be something upsetting, just whatever is enough to make you not want to continue playing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Any game where the primary focus is on the numbers, where it's played as a wargame or tactical exercise above all other considerations. Nothing wrong with that if it's what everyone wants, but it's not for me. I'm in it for the story and the RP; the numbers are important, but--for me--they're in service to story/RP, not for their own sake.

Flip side of that, if a game is too railroady. (I give railroading more leeway than some, if it's a cool enough campaign, but there are still limits.)

I'd probably leave most games that are focused on PvP, too.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Oh, and I might seriously consider walking from a campaign that didn't bring in new/replacement characters at the same level--or at least very close--as the rest of the party. Again, more power to those who prefer it that way, but I've no interest in playing a sidekick, or making anyone else do so, unless that's how we've all agreed the campaign's structured from the get-go.

And I'll walk from games where the DM grants XP for out-of-game bribes like gifts of miniatures or the like. I've seen it before, and it wasn't fun.

 

[wedgeski]

I don't have that many. Evil parties. PvP. Excessive house rules. Inappropriate behaviour. Anything but complete respect for other players and their PC's.

I've also learned that what people *say* about their games is often far from what their games actually are, but this always seems to work in the right direction. A DM might tell me "We're playing a hard-nosed, gritty sandbox where death can be around any corner, and I expect PC's to know when to run", a phrase which will often raise the red flag with me, and then I play the first session to find he's running a by-the-book, level-appropriate, beer-and-pretzels off-the-shelf dungeon crawl.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I personally dislike too much talking and too little combat. So if a GM would tell me he prefers roleplay-focused games without combat, that would be pretty much a deal breaker. I want my dungeon exploration and combat.

Also, houserules are something I can't stand. Anything in the PHB is perfectly fine, though. Including multiclassing.

Oh yeah and DMs that ignore Sage Advice and nerf good strategies just because they think they are OP. Like DMs that don't allow Disciple of Life stack with Goodberry even after Sage Advice clarified that works.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Things that would make me walk away from a game, in approximate order of how quickly I'd walk:

* DM wants to tell a story instead of letting me experience my choices
* Cheating players, DM doesn't handle it so I have to either make a scene or put up with it
* Stupid players who make poor decisions and steal everything that isn't nailed down and keep secrets from the party
* Point-buy stats
* No feats

Oh yeah and DMs that ignore Sage Advice and nerf good strategies just because they think they are OP. Like DMs that don't allow Disciple of Life stack with Goodberry even after Sage Advice clarified that works.

That might not be the best example, since there exist DMs who don't think that is overpowered (Aura of Vitality is still better) but do think it is ludicrous, against the rules as written in the PHB (no matter what Crawford says about RAI), and leads inexorably to Necromancers claiming Grim Harvest healing for 21 HP every time their Finger of Death zombie scores a kill, which would be OP. And ludicrous.

 

[abirdcall]

Any game where the primary focus is on the numbers, where it's played as a wargame or tactical exercise above all other considerations. Nothing wrong with that if it's what everyone wants, but it's not for me. I'm in it for the story and the RP; the numbers are important, but--for me--they're in service to story/RP, not for their own sake.

Yeah, I assume an even split of the 3 pillars. The base assumptions of 5e are right in line with what I want which is probably why I am so happy with it. I would walk from a game that was heavily weighted toward combat.

Flip side of that, if a game is too railroady. (I give railroading more leeway than some, if it's a cool enough campaign, but there are still limits.)

It depends on how it is done for me. If it is a series of mini-adventures, but the mini-adventures themselves can be tackled however we want then I will still play. Not the preference but not enough to walk.

I'd probably leave most games that are focused on PvP, too.

Oh I forgot about this one and it is huge. I am gone if there is any internal party conflict.

Oh, and I might seriously consider walking from a campaign that didn't bring in new/replacement characters at the same level--or at least very close--as the rest of the party. Again, more power to those who prefer it that way, but I've no interest in playing a sidekick, or making anyone else do so, unless that's how we've all agreed the campaign's structured from the get-go.

This is what I prefer as I don't feel lower level characters need to be sidekicks in 5e, but then I don't think I would walk from a campaign that keeps the characters even in level.

And I'll walk from games where the DM grants XP for out-of-game bribes like gifts of miniatures or the like. I've seen it before, and it wasn't fun.

This is new. I have never seen this, but I believe it. I would be out of there in a hearbeat.

I've also learned that what people *say* about their games is often far from what their games actually are, but this always seems to work in the right direction. A DM might tell me "We're playing a hard-nosed, gritty sandbox where death can be around any corner, and I expect PC's to know when to run", a phrase which will often raise the red flag with me, and then I play the first session to find he's running a by-the-book, level-appropriate, beer-and-pretzels off-the-shelf dungeon crawl.

Funny, because that is exactly what I say about my games and exactly how my games go. I say that, because there are people who expect the DM to ensure the survival of PCs and the party, and go on to say that the DM has done a terrible job if there are deaths or a TPK.

So I let people know that their characters can die and things are tailored to them. Then I play premade modules.

I personally dislike too much talking and too little combat. So if a GM would tell me he prefers roleplay-focused games without combat, that would be pretty much a deal breaker. I want my dungeon exploration and combat.

Also, houserules are something I can't stand. Anything in the PHB is perfectly fine, though. Including multiclassing.

Oh yeah and DMs that ignore Sage Advice and nerf good strategies just because they think they are OP. Like DMs that don't allow Disciple of Life stack with Goodberry even after Sage Advice clarified that works.

Interesting. This is a completely different perspective to mine, and one that is not the default in 5e.

Are people in your area matching this playstyle enough that it isn't usually a problem?

Do you play 5e because other games are harder to find? Do you find the combat in 5e to be superior to other games? I am quite curious as to why play the game, not judging. I played 3.x for years despite the fundamental premise going against the kind of games I like.

 

[abirdcall]

Things that would make me walk away from a game, in approximate order of how quickly I'd walk:

* DM wants to tell a story instead of letting me experience my choices
* Cheating players, DM doesn't handle it so I have to either make a scene or put up with it
* Stupid players who make poor decisions and steal everything that isn't nailed down and keep secrets from the party
* Point-buy stats
* No feats

Why the point buy stats? Is it the non-random nature or that they are too low, a bit of both, or something else?

No feats is also interesting to me. I like most feats but would be perfectly content playing in such a game if I liked everything else.

That might not be the best example, since there exist DMs who don't think that is overpowered (Aura of Vitality is still better) but do think it is ludicrous, against the rules as written in the PHB (no matter what Crawford says about RAI), and leads inexorably to Necromancers claiming Grim Harvest healing for 21 HP every time their Finger of Death zombie scores a kill, which would be OP. And ludicrous.

I would probably be in the camp that just thinks it is silly and doesn't make sense if there was multiclassing in our games. I wouldn't walk from a table that interpreted Goodberry that way though.

 

[Iry]

* Level Differences. I don't mind being a few games behind another player, but more than one level difference and it stops being fun.
* Super Paranoid Dungeon Crawls. I don't mind going through a dungeon and tackling a few traps, but if a GM makes us go 5' by 5' checking traps the entire way it stops being fun.
* Balance Nazi. Happens to a lot of long time GMs who have few opportunities to be a player. They are more concerned with a 'Balanced' game than a 'Fun' game and their first reaction to interesting ideas is "No."

 

[JohnLynch]

These aren't so much rules as styles of players or DMs:

• Fudging.
• The DM consistently not preparing and being unable to create an entertaining game (I had a DM who was really good when he put the effort in. I'd go to his table any day of the week. Unfortunately he typically ran out of steam after the first couple of sessions).
• A DM that punishes the players when they don't do what he wants them to do (or is consistently unable to cope with some of the most basic reactions to events in game but doesn't give us direction as to what we should be doing instead).
• A game with a heavy amount of optimisation required for a ruleset that I'm unfamiliar with.
• A game where fights become the sole focus of the game and take hours to resolve.

That's pretty much it. I will give almost any game a chance regardless of what rules are being used. I don't care what houserules you're using, I will give them a chance so long as they do not fit into the above categories. A game that emulates basic, 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3rd ed, 3.5e, Pathfinder, low level 4th ed, whatever. Roll ability scores, point buy or attributes I'll happily use just tell me which. I don't care.

But the above is enough to make me so "no thank you." Although funnily enough, many of the posts in this thread are sentiments I disagree with wholeheartedly. They wouldn't be enough to make me walk away, although they are definitely not within my preferences.