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

[SubDude]

I think my only rules-based deal-breaker is if the DM insists on rolled hit points. I had a very long spell where I never rolled anything above a '1', and while playing a character with a weakness can be fun once, it very quickly ceases to be.

I have them roll, but set a minimum. My current campaign has the minimum at half, which I denote as something like "1d10(min5)" If you roll a 1-4, it gets bumped up to a 5. If you roll 5-10, your roll stands. They're all mostly newbies, so I set the minimum at half. In a future campaign with more experienced players (or these same players with more experience), it might be "1d10(min3)" and "1d6(min2)".

 

[SubDude]

I don't see it as any different from playing cards or engaging in a board game with your significant other. Some couples handle it perfectly fine, and some over compensate in one direction or another (either helping each other or hurting each other).

While I've never walked out of a game because of this, I might in something as long-term as D&D. I guess it would depend on how the couple handled it.

I've seen two ends of the spectrum here. In a game of Settlers of Catan, the husband was told he would be sleeping on the couch because he didn't make a certain trade or some such P-whipped nonsense. That was mostly humorous to the rest of us, but we could also tell it was pretty sincere on the wife's part. If it ever comes up again, I'll probably poke fun at both of them for taking the game too seriously.

In another game (campaign, actually) of Risk: Legacy, the girlfriend is apparently playing to spend time with the boyfriend, has never played even ordinary Risk, and really doesn't seem to be picking up the fundamentals of the game. I think she is trying, but maybe just not getting it yet. And they have attacked each other sometimes, so it isn't like they're an automatic team. I've noticed it, but I can't say it is really bothering me.

On reflection, I would probably grow to resent a fellow player that received / DM that gave unfair advantages or disadvantages to their significant other. And much like the Catan game, I'd probably start to poke fun at them both long before I up and quit.

 

[delericho]

I'd also point out that playing a divine character tied to a specific god hasn't been true since at least 3e. In 3e, in the PHB, you could play a divine character of a philosophy, no interfering NPC at all.

Clerics empowered by Forces and Philosophies are also mentioned in the 2nd Ed PHB, and expanded on in the Complete Priest's Handbook for that edition. And, of course, are standard in Dark Sun.

I wonder how many DM's who force clerics and paladins to follow their mandates and enforce this, also do so for all alignment restricted classes. I've heard all sorts of anecdotes of fallen paladins and even clerics stripped of their powers, but, I cannot recall a single instance of a barbarian losing his rage powers for being too lawful. :/

I applied the restrictions... but never once encountered a Barbarian who acted "too lawful". Indeed, almost the only time I ever saw a Lawful PC of any sort was when there was an alignment restriction in place.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Indeed, almost the only time I ever saw a Lawful PC of any sort was when there was an alignment restriction in place.

In my most recent campaign, the only alignment restrictions I put forth were that every character had to be either Lawful or Good (so they'd be able to trust each other). Without fail, each player independently decided to be Chaotic Good. Except for the monk, who missed the memo and instead wanted to be Chaotic Neutral.

That's why we don't play with alignments anymore - because nobody uses them.

 

[JonnyP71]

I play and DM roughly equally, so from both sides of the screen, starting with as a DM:

- players who care too much about their numbers - just roll the dice and let the results help define your character
- players who think everything is there to be killed or looted
- players who moan about someone else being weaker/stronger having better/worse items
- players who constantly interrupt - a bit of chatter is fine, but sometimes you need to be willing to keep mouth closed and listen to what someone else has to say.

(though I would not walk away from these type of players immediately, I would try to change their attitudes 1st)


And as a player - and yes I am old, grumpy and more than a little fussy:

- playing with precise measurements on a grid, this is a big no-no for me and I would not even start in any game with a GM who insisted on it. I don't mind tokens/minis being used to give a general feel of where everyone is, but that's as far as it goes.
- enforced, unrealistic balance. I've played a 1st level PC in a 5th level party and I don't have a problem with it, if I survive 4-5 sessions I will mostly have caught up anyway!
- point buy - just let me roll
- standard array - even worse than point buy
- a DM who changes core rules because he believes he knows better - you DON'T.
- other players who try to munchkin as much crap as possible - just play official races and classes, RAW, and be done with it.
- a DM who wants me to play an Elf

And other things which I dislike, but which by themselves would probably not drive me away:

- technology at the table - pencil, paper, eraser, dice - you don't need any more
- Paladins - just because
- everyone else picks Elves - sorry, that makes you all powergamers.

 

[delericho]

In my most recent campaign, the only alignment restrictions I put forth were that every character had to be either Lawful or Good (so they'd be able to trust each other). Without fail, each player independently decided to be Chaotic Good.

With my group it was always Neutral Good. But, yeah, I know what you mean.

 

[Hussar]

I honestly think this is because players are very leery of giving the DM any "hooks" into how they portray their characters. If I'm chaotic, I can do whatever I want and the DM can't step in.

Otoh I have seen chaotic characters played as totally reliable, always sticking to plans and completely cooperating with each other. If your chaotic character never acts impulsively, is he really chaotic?

 

[delericho]

I honestly think this is because players are very leery of giving the DM any "hooks" into how they portray their characters. If I'm chaotic, I can do whatever I want and the DM can't step in.

Yep. There was always very definitely a hunt for the "I can do anything I want" alignment. Oddly, it didn't matter how many times I told them that alignment was descriptive rather than restrictive (IMC), they still persisted.

Otoh I have seen chaotic characters played as totally reliable, always sticking to plans and completely cooperating with each other. If your chaotic character never acts impulsively, is he really chaotic?

That's probably why my players went for NG rather than CG - because chaos still had some implications attached to it, where neutrality meant they could just not care.

 

[Azurewraith]

I honestly think this is because players are very leery of giving the DM any "hooks" into how they portray their characters. If I'm chaotic, I can do whatever I want and the DM can't step in.

Otoh I have seen chaotic characters played as totally reliable, always sticking to plans and completely cooperating with each other. If your chaotic character never acts impulsively, is he really chaotic?

If a man speaks and no women is around to hear it is he wrong?

I think the morality system is just a relic and there's no need for it just play your character as you see fit. I mean even the goodest of the good could find a reason to justify killing a particularly bad person,I'm talking genocidal evil meglanaiacs here though.

 

[Hussar]

One thing I wish they had kept from 4e was Unaligned. It just fits so well in the alignment system. Basically tells the DM that I'm not interested in dealing with morality in the game without forcing the players to "pick a side".

One of the better ideas from 4e.