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

[Skyscraper]

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.

Yeah, if a player doesn't drink (preferably excessively), he's out of my group as well.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Greg Benage]

I prefer "old-school" location-based, exploration-focused, dungeon-survival games with simple, stripped-down rules (no codified skills, no feats, etc.), no railroading, "story" determined by what the PCs actually do and accomplish (if anything), no fudging, no PC plot armor, new PCs start at 1st level, etc.

So of course my current weekly game is story-focused, heroic fantasy 5e with feats included, magic shops, railroading (more of the 'dramatic' "you're captured" variety than the "here's what you have to do/where you have to go next" variety), rampant fudging (both for and against the players, including outright divine intervention to prolong a "boss fight"), and super-high-AC plot armor, to name just a few of the atrocities.

In other words, when I run a game, I can dictate all the details and then try to find players who fit the campaign, or if I already have players, I can run the kind of game they want. When I'm playing, I care more about people than game preferences.

 

[Shendorion]

If it starts to seem to me that the GM is inflexible in his thinking or more inclined to say "no, because" than "yes, and then," I shop elsewhere. I also like a campaign in which encounters are optional affairs with more than one solution and a clear purpose beyond collecting loot and levels, so if the campaign starts to feel like arbitrary murder hobo, I lose interest.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think there's a whole lot of dealbreakers I have. There are annoyances, but most annoyances I can easily live with for a few hours a week. I don't tend to be a princess with regards to peas in my mattress. Most any dealbreaker I think would be more a social thing than a game-based thing - anyone who made other players uncomfortable, for example.

One thing that does ping on my radar is someone with a lot of dealbreakers. If you can only have fun with D&D in some specific, narrow way, I'm cautious to play with you, because I don't know that I won't get bored with what you think is fun within a few months. I want folks that try new things, who are resilient when it comes to hanging out with dorks and pretending to be a magical elf, who take their fun more seriously than the game.

 

[Endur]

It comes down to "Is this game a fun-maximizing use of my time"? Or do I have better alternatives?

I've seen players upset about railroads, upset about table size, upset about PVP, and many other topics.

I've seen players stop playing because their character was perceived as less useful in combat as other players (due to level, race, build, curse, or whatever).

 

[ad_hoc]

Good responses to the thread. Interesting to see what would make a game not fun for someone. Seems like feats and stat generation are fairly big for rules. I am surprised multiclassing didn't come up.

One thing that does ping on my radar is someone with a lot of dealbreakers. If you can only have fun with D&D in some specific, narrow way, I'm cautious to play with you, because I don't know that I won't get bored with what you think is fun within a few months. I want folks that try new things, who are resilient when it comes to hanging out with dorks and pretending to be a magical elf, who take their fun more seriously than the game.

I wonder if these people feel like they have a lot or a little.

Sometimes rules are indicative of overall playstyle. So I can see where people, myself included, might pick out a couple rules being used as indicators that the game is not for them.

Take advantage on flanking for instance. To me that indicates that the group wants more tactical combat, so a higher focus on combat. Okay, that is not my thing but not a deal breaker. Only, it removes tactics from combat by invalidating creative ways to get advantage. It also invalidates many character's abilities. So yeah, don't think I would play in that game as there are probably going to be other areas that I also find invalidate my choices.

 

[Endur]

Some people claim that going against Sage Advice isn't a houserule, but yeah, I hate them this much.

Sage advice is a house rule. The ruling on lucky isn't even following the text of the PHB. Several other sage advice rulings are just as bad.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'm not too picky. However I hate groups that get off on interparty conflict and DMs that don't respect your characters and their place in the story.

 

[ccs]

Some people claim that going against Sage Advice isn't a houserule, but yeah, I hate them this much.

I don't even READ Sage Advice, let alone follow it. Or if I am following some of it, I assure you that's accidental....