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

[jhingelshod]

Forgive me if I got the wrong person, but somebody (I thought it was you) started a conversation about 'paladorcs'. Most assumed that this was a portmanteau of 'paladin' and 'orc', but it was made clear that it was 'paladin' and 'sorcerer', with more P than S.

Then they said that this wasn't allowed.

If it wasn't you, I apologise.

So, to whom it may concern: why are paladin/sorcerers 'not allowed'?

Apologies if this has been answered down-thread (I haven't got to the end of it yet!).

The person who made the comment about paladin/sorcerers not being allowed was referring specifically to a table where multiclassing is banned.

 

[Kite474]

So far for me the only true deal breaker for me is when the GM is not being clear on how their campaign will be done. I know some people that knowing this would ruin the suspense or surprise, but I like to prepare and be able to gauge my expectations properly

Another small one are GM's that make you roll for EVERYTHING. It can be fun for the first session or so, but any after that and it just gets unbearably annoying.

 

[Azurewraith]

Another small one are GM's that make you roll for EVERYTHING. It can be fun for the first session or so, but any after that and it just gets unbearably annoying.

Omg so this played with a GM like this
Dmk roll perception
Me:5
Dm:roll again
Me:7
Dm: omg roll again and do it right
Me:11
Dm:.....

Jesus just ing tell me what I need to know

 

[Sunseeker]

Had a big discussion with couple of the other players in one of my current games after some serious disenchantment with the way the DM was handling things.

To sum it up what it came down to is a violation of player agency. Basically, we only operate under the illusion that we have any real control over our situation. When the DM tells us "you can go anywhere" and we try, we're met with impossible odds in every direction. When we finally set our minds to something and complete a goal, that goal is undermined by the DM usurping our control of the issue via the classic "oh the princess is in another castle" or it turning out to have been nothing more than a wild goose chase. We do nothing and get nowhere. We do everything right and still get nowhere. Minor screwups have resulted in disastrous world-altering events, which typically kill our allies. We have no real idea on if doing anything at all is even worth the energy. We spent a 7 hour session accomplishing a goal last week, only to have the carpet pulled out from under us.

I'm DMing next week and given the chance, I'm not going to stop and do our usual trade-off every two weeks. *sigh* I so rarely get to play these days.

That's sort of another group-based deal-breaker. Noone else willing to DM for an extended period of time. Joe wants to run a module for a week? Okay sure. But if the burden is always on me to develop, plan or read-through and thus, DM the big games, after a while I'm gonna say "no" and quit.

 

[MostlyDm]

It's only just now occured to me that there's one thing I (somewhat amazingly) haven't seen mentioned at all in this thread as a deal-breaker either way:

Level of seriousness and-or whimsy in a campaign.

Me, if it were a 1-10 scale where 1 is all serious all the time and 10 is endless farcical slapstick, I'd prefer a game be around '6' and would probably bail on a 1, 2 or 10 once I realized that's what I'd signed on for.

Lan-"I hit you with a salmon for 1d4 damage"-efan

Excellent point.

I think anything from 8-10 is probably out for me. My preference is for maybe... 4?

I don't mind a fair amount of humor but in nearly all cases I really prefer to to be humor borne of "real" characters in a "real" world cracking jokes when appropriate.

An example would be that in A Song of Ice and Fire, Tyrion is a hilarious generator of quips and witticisms. But the setting is fundamentally serious.

Contrast to say Discworld where the setting itself is intended to be humorous.

For me to enjoy a game that has a lot of intrinsic silliness, I need to be in a very particular mood. I sometimes do it for new players and kids. e.g. I have a gang of thieves in a current newbie game that are called the Lifters... As in lifting goods, but they are also known to be brawny dim-witted thugs that settle disputes through brawls and feats of strength. At least one of them has asked the rogue member if they "even lift."

Funny sometimes, but... Most of the time that'd be a deal breaker for me, I think. Such games are the exception.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Sounds like [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] is also playing a game in A Song of Ice & Fire

 

[Sunseeker]

Sounds like @shidaku is also playing a game in A Song of Ice & Fire

But the trick is, the pointless brutality of life is obvious to the reader, not necessarily the character. That's fine and all and I'd gladly play in that sort of game, heck I've run that sort of game. But the players know that going in, I'm totally cool with that. We we not sold on that buy in, we were sold on a more high-magic, epic fantasy sort of game that yes, was dangerous, but was not by any means the sort of Hobbesian "life is cruel, brutish and short" that Game of Thrones is.

I'm actually very lucky with my current group of friends. One is a player new to DnD and he wanted to have a go at DMing so he ran the last session and will be doing the next couple as well. Another player had started a campaign back in 4e which we never completed (group disintegrated) so he is planning on dusting that off and taking over for a few sessions. It should be a good rotation of DMs.

Fortunately we have 3 people willing to DM. Unfortunately one of them is the guy I talked about in that post so I really don't want to play in his games anymore, and the other tends to run much shorter (2-3 months max and he's bad at being fully prepped), much less in-depth games than I do, which is fun for a crash course in insanity, but is not my particular flavor.

Going back a few posts I typically favor a 4-5 on the seriousness scale. I like focus. I like commitment. I like occasionally hitting someone with a fish.

 

[Flamestrike]

Another small one are GM's that make you roll for EVERYTHING. It can be fun for the first session or so, but any after that and it just gets unbearably annoying.

I LOATHE compounded skill checks - you know the ones where the DM has you make 5 rolls to do something (making it an utterly impossible task in 5E) that can and should be resolved without even a single roll.

Things like climing a rope, or jumping a 5' pit and so forth. Barring any extreme outliers (the PC is heavily encumbered) it should just... happen.

Most things dont require a roll. And even then if one is called for, it should be one roll at most.

So many DMs dont get this.

On the flip side when DMing im constantly annoyed by players rolling for a skill sans any description of action. 'I look in the room' (rolls perception) or 'I disarm the trap' (rolls thieves tools) can get annoying. If I describe the room or the trap, tell me what youre searching or how youre disarming the trap (and where you are standing or any other precautions taken). It may remove the need for a roll at all, or give you advantage to the roll or whatever.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]. I was joking BTW, but your distinction is very good. I could not agree more with your sentiments. (Oh and going by some of the reactions to the deaths, it seems it is not obvious to all viewers ). I love it though, but yes for games, your distinction is very important

 

[Arial Black]

Apologies if this has been answered down-thread (I haven't got to the end of it yet!).

No, no-one answered it yet. Thanks for trying.

The person who made the comment about paladin/sorcerers not being allowed was referring specifically to a table where multiclassing is banned.

This is what confused me. If multi-classing itself is not allowed, then the 'paladorc' isn't a specific problem, the lack of multi-classing is the problem.

It seemed to me that the only way that it would be a problem is if 'paladorcs' were not allowed in 5E even if multi-classing is allowed. I was trying (and failing) to understand why?