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

[delericho]

I've recently been reminded of another of my deal-breakers: most fumble systems. There are some exceptions, but most such systems I've seen make them both too common and too extreme... and my dice really don't like me.

I don't have a problem with them in most one-shots, since I'm pretty happy to play anything once. However, I won't join a campaign using a system that includes them, and if I really want to run a campaign in a system that uses them then I'll house rule them out.

(Also, if the GM has house ruled them in to a system that otherwise doesn't have them, then I won't join even a one-shot - in that case, he's deliberately moved the game in a direction I won't like, which indicates our tastes diverge significantly.)

I should note that that's not a claim that such systems are objectively bad. If you like them, I hope you have fun with them. They're just not for me.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I've recently been reminded of another of my deal-breakers: most fumble systems. There are some exceptions, but most such systems I've seen make them both too common and too extreme... and my dice really don't like me.

I don't have a problem with them in most one-shots, since I'm pretty happy to play anything once. However, I won't join a campaign using a system that includes them, and if I really want to run a campaign in a system that uses them then I'll house rule them out.

(Also, if the GM has house ruled them in to a system that otherwise doesn't have them, then I won't join even a one-shot - in that case, he's deliberately moved the game in a direction I won't like, which indicates our tastes diverge significantly.)

I should note that that's not a claim that such systems are objectively bad. If you like them, I hope you have fun with them. They're just not for me.

I agree some can get pretty outrageous amd deadly, but what about something mild, like granting Advantage against an opponent to represent being off balance or out of position to defend oneself?

 

[delericho]

I agree some can get pretty outrageous amd deadly, but what about something mild, like granting Advantage against an opponent to represent being off balance or out of position to defend oneself?

Aye, that's why I made sure to say most critical fumble systems, not all. I personally wouldn't use something like that as DM, but as a player I wouldn't consider that a deal-breaker.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I am considering it, which is why I asked

 

[MechaPilot]

It's kind of awkward though. You're basically RPing romantic interactions with the DM which can be...weird.

I'll definitely grant you that. I just look at as more of thespian kind of thing than actually trying to be romantic with the DM. For some people that can be difficult to separate, and it can lead to awkwardness. That's one of the reasons why it's not a dealbreaker for me. I especially understand it if the DM just wants to run a dungeon crawl campaign with very little socialization outside of bargaining with the dragon not to eat you, or trying to lie your way past a guard.

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.

Some people definitely take the rolling checks thing too far. And some people also don't get that you may need multiple good checks to get the desired result. Not every NPC is going to hop in the sack with you because you were really charming once. It might get her to pay more attention to you from then on, but I definitely agree with you that a Charisma check is NOT mind control.

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.

It was just a persistent, nagging thing to me in that one instance where a DM ran a game where NPCs weren't even romantic with each other. When one NPC who was otherwise a gregarious, overflowing type of person introduced his wife to the party and didn't even put his arm around her waist I was mentally just sort of blinking in disbelief, like Wily Coyote after an Acme gadget blows up in his face.

 

[MechaPilot]

To be fair, I'm not very comfortable with ... detailed descriptions of romance in the game. I'm better off with letting that stuff occur off screen.

While I don't share it, that's certainly a valid preference.

 

[Azurewraith]

Wait so you mean I DONT rp sleeping with the dm every time my womanizer pirate sleeps with some one... now I feel like I have been used

 

[Sunseeker]

I'll definitely grant you that. I just look at as more of thespian kind of thing than actually trying to be romantic with the DM. For some people that can be difficult to separate, and it can lead to awkwardness. That's one of the reasons why it's not a dealbreaker for me. I especially understand it if the DM just wants to run a dungeon crawl campaign with very little socialization outside of bargaining with the dragon not to eat you, or trying to lie your way past a guard.

Sure, but that's another thing: typically actions taken in a D&D game are means to an end, the end being: furthering the game. Romancing an NPC to gain information, sure I'll RP that with you, because it serves a larger purpose than mindless fluff and filler. I feel that if players are more interested in romancing NPCs for no real reason, then there's something missing from my game. I'd probably give mad props to a player that attempted to romance some important NPCs, and then decided that their character actually started to fall for said NPC.

I'm not hard and fast against RPing romance, I just don't want to do it because silly-willy fun-times.

Some people definitely take the rolling checks thing too far. And some people also don't get that you may need multiple good checks to get the desired result. Not every NPC is going to hop in the sack with you because you were really charming once. It might get her to pay more attention to you from then on, but I definitely agree with you that a Charisma check is NOT mind control.

Just like real life, real romance takes time.

It was just a persistent, nagging thing to me in that one instance where a DM ran a game where NPCs weren't even romantic with each other. When one NPC who was otherwise a gregarious, overflowing type of person introduced his wife to the party and didn't even put his arm around her waist I was mentally just sort of blinking in disbelief, like Wily Coyote after an Acme gadget blows up in his face.

Yeah, I mean I show NPC relationships, but honestly if they're not super important I may not bother describing minor movements of affection.

 

[Arial Black]

I am considering it, which is why I asked

If you grant advantage every time an attack roll is a natural 1, you run into a couple of problems.

People get one attack per round, unless they are really skilled/high level. There is an equal chance of rolling a 1 on every attack, therefore the more attacks you get, the more likely you are to grant advantage to your opponents.

See the problem there? The better you are, the more likely you are to mess up! That's backwards!

Meanwhile, those who Mess With Knowledge Man Was Not Meant To Know (cast spells) have no problems casting spells perfectly every time, so long as no attack roll is involved. That's also backwards!

This is why so many fumble systems fail: they are based on rolling a 1 on an attack roll, and that only leads to nonsensical consequences where mundane is risky and magic isn't, and more skillful fighters are more prone to mess up than unskilled fighters.

 

[Flamestrike]

But the player succeeded. He was incredibly charming. But she spurned his advance. Why is this complicated? You're rolling to see how well you perform. You're NOT rolling to see how well the target is effected by it.

This comes down to a fundamental difference in ruling social skills more than anything else.

I certainly allow social skills to influence NPCs (and expect PCs to roleplay social skill use on them - awarding inspiration if they do it well). I'm just selective about when I allow a roll (a DM is only to allow a roll when the result is in doubt - otherwise the attempt either auto fails or auto succeeds).

If my wealthy and charming (Cha 16, expertise in persuasion) heroic Swashbuckler wants to charm a tavern wench who isnt important to the story, then he gets to make a persuasion check to charm her. If I determine that she's dead broke and he is being ostentatious with money, or shes sick of the dull town in the middle of nowhere and he's promising her a life of luxury and glamor (or something similar), then I might give him advantage on the check, or just grant automatic success. Might also call for a deception check (knowing our swashbuckler) also! If (OTOH) I the DM know that she's not intrested and never will be for whatever reason, no amount of rolling is going to change her mind.

I read from your post above that you always let players roll, and they dictate to you when they roll a skill. I take a different approach personally; players only roll for skills when called for by the DM. I either allow the roll if there is a chance of success, forbid the roll if there is none, grant auto success if its something the player should be able to do automatically, or occasionally roll the check myself (ar let the player do a blind roll) behind the screen when I want the result to be a secret.

If you roll at my table, it means something - and affects the narrative if you succeed.