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

I tend not to have an issue with dark games or adult themes, but my biggest deal breaker is the presence of certain non-consensual content in the game. I've been in a game where that stuff came up when the party was captured. No one warned me ahead of time that such content was allowed in that game (I would have declined to join if I had known), and the DM was insistent that the scene be RP'd despite my being very obviously embarrassed and uncomfortable with the situation.

Now that I think about it, most of my dealbreakers are not rules related. I'm generally willing to try different things with regard to rules: sometimes they work out to be fun for me, sometimes they don't. However, players (or DMs) who are disrespectful of others, who let out-of-game matters influence how they run/play the game (I recall playing with a pair of siblings who used to bring their fights into the game so often that virtually every session that they played in together resulted in PvP. This also covers DM favoritism toward girlfriends and such, or when a DM/player thinks he can get something out of me out of game by giving me things in game).

As far as rules-based dealbreakers go, the only ones that immediately come to mind are rules that result in permanent losses (especially as a result of dumb luck). I don't like level, xp, or ability drains. Xp drain is the least offensive to me as long as it can't result in level loss, but it's just not fun for me to lose things that I've worked for to a roll of the dice (that's probably the same reason why I don't find gambling to be fun). And ability drain is probably the most offensive to me of those three. It would be different if you could train to increase your ability scores instead of having to spend systemic resources on them, at least then you could regain what you lost, but the cascade effect that ability reduction has on feats and other things (especially in prior editions) just means it's not worth the extra bookkeeping (and I'm a tax accountant saying this).

This last one is not a dealbreaker for me, but it is a MAJOR pet peeve: attribute requirements for things like feats and MC'ing. I have never seen any legitimate justification for these. Being allowed to take those feats or class levels while failing to meet those requirements never results in being more powerful than when you meet or exceed the requirements. Now sometimes people try to throw "realism" in there by saying that those attribute requirements are there because only someone who excels at certain things can pick up that feat or level in that class while also adventuring. That argument never holds much water with me since most of the DMs that I've played under require no period of training before a feat or class level kicks in. No. Instead, they usually gain the class level during whatever interval when people normally level up (often during an adventure). In several cases, I've been in groups who have ended sessions by resting at an inn for the night with the DM telling the players to level up their character before the next session. Those players who opted to MC end up gaining an entirely new class after just eight hours of sleep, without having ever studied magic or whatever during the gaming sessions or in their downtime.

Sorry about the rant. Like I said, it's a MAJOR pet peeve of mine.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I don't even ...

I suppose people play the games they play, but I've never even contemplated that occurring in a D&D game. I wouldn't even walk out the door - I'd be running, after I picked my jaw up off the floor.

Trust me, it happens (see my previous comment) and it's creepy as heck.
 

Now, for some of these that have to do with how DM's run the game, is any dispensation given to newby-DM's? I will endure a terrible game for the sake of a new DM. If he or she has potential, they'll ask for constructive criticism, and I will be in a position to give it.

As long as a DM takes politely phrased constructive criticism, they get some leeway in some areas. Not the Non-Con area though. After going through that once, and very nearly leaving the hobby for good, I'm not inclined to ever do that again or give anyone any leeway on that.
 

And this is why, in nearly all of the campaigns I run, I demand non-evil PCs, and why in many of them, I go so far as to demand only good PCs. And yes, I know that, in and of itself, is a deal-breaker for some. I'm okay with that. We wouldn't enjoy having each other at the table.

As someone who genuinely enjoys playing well-developed evil characters, I think your demand is sensible. I have seen far to many people who want to play evil characters just to be jerks, or who play evil characters as chaotic stupid, to disagree with those who don't allow evil PCs.
 

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

I think it may not have been mentioned because it's generally something that's decided as the general theme for a caompaign. I recall playing in a humorous game where I was a monk who pillow-fought enemies in her pajamas while the dwarf invoker was inspired by the gross mystic from the Golden Child (the dwarf would pass fireballs from his behind and snot rocket magic missiles at his foes) and the fighter was essentially a bully (giving our foes pink-bellies, indian sunburns, wet-willies, and twisting their nipples).
 

As someone who genuinely enjoys playing well-developed evil characters, I think your demand is sensible. I have seen far to many people who want to play evil characters just to be jerks, or who play evil characters as chaotic stupid, to disagree with those who don't allow evil PCs.

For mine the problem here isnt with Evil alignments; its a problem with jerk players. And jerk players gonna jerk no matter what alignment they are.

With good mature players, evil campaigns or characters can be a hoot.
 

For mine the problem here isnt with Evil alignments; its a problem with jerk players. And jerk players gonna jerk no matter what alignment they are.

With good mature players, evil campaigns or characters can be a hoot.

In general, I agree. However, I think some people who would otherwise simply be a jerk in attitude with a good-aligned character feel like they have permission to be more extreme with it as an evil character.
 

Deal breakers for me:

. . .

- a ban on romance/sex/etc. between PCs (yes, I've seen this)


I've seen that happen as well. I've also seen an even stricter version where one DM said no romance/sex/etc. even between a PC and an NPC. In fact, he also never showed any pair of NPCs being seemingly romantically involved. That was a very strange game as it ripped a fundamental aspect of human social interaction out of the world and made everything feel much more artificial.
 

Call me old fashioned but I believe the modern day obsession with equality and political correctness has no place in a fantasy world.

Fantasy intrigue and conflicts are driven by racism, brutality, and hatred. Elves and dwarfs should have issues getting along, halflings are fat, orcs are scum, drow are worse. Barmaids are buxom and blacksmiths are burly blokes. The Barbarian tribes of the north are brutal and illiterate, and their society is driven by male supremacy.

Give me the stereotypical fantasy realm and I'll be happy.

... So, I take it you wouldn't enjoy a game set in Middle Earth, where Tolkien depicted the heroes as behaving honorably, even towards the enemy (i.e not killing Gollum, and Faramir's comment that he would not lie even to an Orc)? Nowhere in his LOTR series is an enemy killed in cold blood, only in combat. (P.S. Peter Jackson should be sued by Faramir for his outrageous portrayal of the character, having him act completely out of character with the real Faramir depicted in Tolkien's original books.)

Anyway, in Zakhara (the Al-Quadim campaign setting), Orcs, Ogres, etc. are treated exactly the same as any other race... and that's an OFFICIAL campaign setting created by TSR, so my idea that Orcs are people too isn't as radical as some here think, since it's an idea officially embraced by TSR in at least one campaign world.
 
Last edited:

I've seen that happen as well. I've also seen an even stricter version where one DM said no romance/sex/etc. even between a PC and an NPC. In fact, he also never showed any pair of NPCs being seemingly romantically involved. That was a very strange game as it ripped a fundamental aspect of human social interaction out of the world and made everything feel much more artificial.

It's kind of awkward though. You're basically RPing romantic interactions with the DM which can be...weird. Otherwise you're rolling checks which is also sort of...weird. I don't particularly want to RP romantic interactions with my players and I don't want to RP romantic interactions with my DMs (who are also my players in other games). Rolling checks to "impress them" or "seduce them" also seems weird.

Player: Nat 20 to charm the pretty lady!
DM: Okay, you sound really suave and sexy, and she's very flattered but you just met and she has the free will to say "no".
Player: But I rolled a nat 20!
DM: Yeah so? She's a sentient creature capable of making her own choices. She declined.

I agree that having NO NPCs romantically involved is a little weird, but I do agree that romance between players and NPCs can be awkward, even between two PCs.
 

Remove ads

Top