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

[rlor]

It seems that this argument is just going round and round in circles. The simple answer is - the game provides the basics, the rest is up to the DM.

In a recent combat our rogue player decided he wanted to try to intimidate a Chain Devil... he portrays the rogue as a slightly built human aged 19 who looks younger than he is. The party refer to him as 'The Boy'.

So 'The Boy' wanted to try to Intimidate a Chain Devil... on a battlefield, brimstone heavy in the air, with squadrons of Manes advancing on a city. I guess he was going to try to make it nervous and back down from combat, but I immediately ruled that would never happen. I allowed him to roll though, a dismal result. Next round he tried again. And again, and again. Then he got a natural 20.

This only succeeded in making the Chain Devil perceive him as a threat and go straight for him. Not the outcome he wanted. The player pulled a face - should I have warned him that might happen - no of course not. Should I have told him the creature could not be intimidated, again, no of course not. Should I have let him continue to roll - of course - he can choose to attempt whatever he wants.

Normally in these situations I think that the scene the DM is picturing is different than the one the player is picturing. Perhaps the player keyed into a particular sentence of your description and was erroneously thinking the chain devil was surrounded by the party and was at a disadvantage or whatever.

In general I assume my players and their characters are not complete morons and have a general idea of the likelihood of something happening. So when they propose something completely idiotic I first check to make sure that we're both on the same page as opposed to grinning at their ineptness. The vast majority of the time it is a misunderstanding that is at least partly my fault in how I choose to convey some bit of information. Continuing to ask for rolls just feeds that misunderstanding in my opinion.

 

[innerdude]

Most of the standard dealbreakers have been covered for me already, but here's one that's very specific to me:

Plane-hopping. If the "end game" of a campaign involves plane-hopping, or there will be significant focus in taking the the party to the Abyss, the Ethereal plane, the Elemental planes, the Astral plane, the Whatever-the-crap-else plane, I will walk. There's more than enough conflict, drama, and interesting stories to be told on good 'ole planet earth (or wherever else you live in the Prime Material) without having to do all that crap. I find the very notion of plane-hopping absurd and completely immersion-breaking.

A campaign being pitched as, "We're starting at 12th level, and your first quest will be tracing a djinn across the elemental plane of air," would cause me to politely say "no thanks, not interested."

Which also kind of brings up a second deal-breaker for me---starting at "high level" from the get-go. The absolute limit of starting level for me would be 5, and even then I'd push HARD to have the GM and group go back to level 3 or earlier. High-level play has never interested me generally---maybe because it goes hand-in-hand with plane-hopping? --- in large part because the fun, formative "party bond" experiences at low level are some of the highlights of playing RPGs for me.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree with this, with the caveat that if there's no chance of success and the character would know there's no chance of success, I'll flat out tell the player that. (As in your "picking a lock with Handle Animal and a chicken" example.) However, if the player insists on rolling the dice anyway, that's his call - but he'll still fail even on a '20'.

I won't disagree. If it's reasonable to know you couldn't succeed at a given task, I'll tell you. I won't stop you from trying, because failures at a task (not nat 1's here) can have consequences. So if you know you will fail and since your party members now know too, I'll leave the burden on them to attempt to stop you, for face the consequences.

 

[Dire Bare]

Couldn't get through the entire thread, so hopefully I'm not being repetitious.

My basic rule is, if I'm not having fun I'm gone . . . but there is one circumstance that came up like half-a-dozen times in my 20s and early 30s when trying to join new groups (with minor variations):

DM: Roll up any kind of character you want. 7th level.
ME: Can I use character bits from splatbooks?
DM: Sure! Whatever you want. Use the general guidelines to purchase gear for higher level characters.

Later, show up for game . . .

DM: Sorry, I don't have that rulebook, so you can't play that character. Why don't you make a cleric, the party needs one.
ME: Oooookay, give me a few minutes . . .

Group begins to play while I roll a new character . . .

DM: Okay, ah, your character wakes up naked, without any gear, in a prison cell.
ME: What!?! Why did I waste all that time purchasing gear?
DM: You might get it back!
DM (to party): Ah, you're not near the prison in the dungeon yet, so continue on . . .

Minutes to hours later . . .

DM (to party): You find a naked half-elf in the prison cell who claims he's a cleric of a just god. But you don't know anything about him, so . . . . Oh, and there is a pile of clericly gear in the next room.
PARTY: We take the gear and divide it up amongst ourselves. We now argue about whether we should release the naked half-elf from the cell and trust him not to stab us.
PARTY (to me): Okay, we'll let you out, give you this loincloth for decency, and this old rusty sword to defend yourself. We don't trust you, so step wrong and you're gutted. You have to walk in front. Maybe we'll let you earn "your" gear back, if it's even yours . . . .

GAH, this basic scenario happened to me a bunch of times and it got so ridiculous! Each time, never went back. Sheesh.

 

[Arial Black]

Which also kind of brings up a second deal-breaker for me---starting at "high level" from the get-go. The absolute limit of starting level for me would be 5, and even then I'd push HARD to have the GM and group go back to level 3 or earlier. High-level play has never interested me generally---maybe because it goes hand-in-hand with plane-hopping? --- in large part because the fun, formative "party bond" experiences at low level are some of the highlights of playing RPGs for me.

Funny, I absolutely hate having to start at 1st level, again(!), for yet another adventure!

With all the myriad possibilities of character that we can conceive using these rules, why does every single one have to be about someone fresh off the farm? Yet, in nearly all the fiction we read which inspires this hobby, the protagonists are usually the best thief/duellist/adventurer in the city/country/business?

 

[Shasarak]

My job is to present challenges. You job is to solve them. If every challenge was resolved by me giving you the answer, it wouldn't be a challenge. The fact that you don't know something about what's going on behind the scenes is par for the course for every single D&D game ever. You're not entitled to know. You have to earn it by overcoming the challenge of not-knowing.

Tough. Sometimes success is beyond you and you will never know until you try. Welcome to life: sometimes you do your best and still fail.

But again: I DONT ASK. Players tell me what they want to do and then they do it. I don't play "mother may I" games and I'm not in charge of their actions. You never know how hard something is, or even if you have a chance at all, but if you want to pick the lock using Handle Animals and a chicken, you are welcome to try.

The whole point is that if I, using your example, try to pick the lock using Handle Animals and a chicken then it is not if I am allowed to try or not it is if I need to actually make a roll or not.

Because it is not as if I will be almost able to open the lock or partially able to open the lock - it will either be open or not.

 

[Sunseeker]

The whole point is that if I, using your example, try to pick the lock using Handle Animals and a chicken then it is not if I am allowed to try or not it is if I need to actually make a roll or not.

Because it is not as if I will be almost able to open the lock or partially able to open the lock - it will either be open or not.

Who said that? You keep saying a lot of things I never said. Attempting to open the lock with a chicken and your Handle Animal skill may result in a partial failure, making the next attempt more difficult because you got feathers jammed in the lock. It may also result in a partial success, because the chicken blood greased the lock.

Sorry your world is so black and white, mine isn't. I'd really appreciate it if you stop setting up these false dichotomies.

 

[Shasarak]

It seems that this argument is just going round and round in circles. The simple answer is - the game provides the basics, the rest is up to the DM.

In a recent combat our rogue player decided he wanted to try to intimidate a Chain Devil... he portrays the rogue as a slightly built human aged 19 who looks younger than he is. The party refer to him as 'The Boy'.

So 'The Boy' wanted to try to Intimidate a Chain Devil... on a battlefield, brimstone heavy in the air, with squadrons of Manes advancing on a city. I guess he was going to try to make it nervous and back down from combat, but I immediately ruled that would never happen. I allowed him to roll though, a dismal result. Next round he tried again. And again, and again. Then he got a natural 20.

This only succeeded in making the Chain Devil perceive him as a threat and go straight for him. Not the outcome he wanted. The player pulled a face - should I have warned him that might happen - no of course not. Should I have told him the creature could not be intimidated, again, no of course not. Should I have let him continue to roll - of course - he can choose to attempt whatever he wants.

Or you could look at it another way - on a battlefield, brimstone heavy in the air, with squadrons of Manes advancing on a city a slightly build "human" boy who shows no fear faces down a Chain Devil.

Now the Chain Devil has got to be wondering what edge the obviously out classed "human" has that it does not know about. Now this devil would be no dumb brute and it would definitely know that apparently harmless creatures thrive in the hierarchy of the hells, so yeah a nat 20 Intimidate should at least have made it look for an easier target.

 

[Shasarak]

Who said that? You keep saying a lot of things I never said. Attempting to open the lock with a chicken and your Handle Animal skill may result in a partial failure, making the next attempt more difficult because you got feathers jammed in the lock. It may also result in a partial success, because the chicken blood greased the lock.

Sorry your world is so black and white, mine isn't. I'd really appreciate it if you stop setting up these false dichotomies.

Your players must love playing the "guess what the DM wants game" but at this point I have got no idea which goal post you are even aiming for any more.

 

[Sunseeker]

Your players must love playing the "guess what the DM wants game" but at this point I have got no idea which goal post you are even aiming for any more.

The DM wants one thing: the players to solve the puzzle. If I tell them how to solve it, then they don't do that now do they? So they tell me how they intend to approach the problem and then make their attempt. I adjudicate how well their attempt worked out.

You seem to want a game that is completely different from mine. THATS FINE. I'd appreciate if you would stop passive-aggressively attacking how I run things. My group enjoys my games and that's the only thing I care about.