D&D 5E Group Rule Deal-Breakers

[Sunseeker]

Yeah maybe, except I didn't say it mattered if dice are involved, right?

Then if dice don't matter to the equation then there is literally no distinction, besides whatever one you're making up in your head.

 

[Campbell]

As a spin-off of this, I found I do not like playing with DMs who reward role-play without some kind of "once per session" limit or "spread the love" sort of like the timer on XP on this forum. This is often exacerbated by your final point, as these DMs will often have a buddy who is a theater major or just really comfortable with and will role-play like there's no tomorrow.

I will go one further. I am not a fan of generic "Good Roleplaying" rewards because they essentially boil down to favoritism points, do not provide any direction into how to go after them, and assume that good roleplaying means the same thing across games. I am a fan of specific xp rewards that thematically reflect what the given game is all about. I am talking about stuff like Dungeon World alignment and Blades in the Dark xp triggers here. I do think limits on this stuff can be useful because you do not necessarily want people driving hard for this stuff all session.

 

[iserith]

Then if dice don't matter to the equation then there is literally no distinction, besides whatever one you're making up in your head.

I don't think so. In D&D 5e, "roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." The rules then go on to say there are different approaches to roleplaying which basically amounts to first- or third-person. That's the acting bit - how you go about communicating your roleplaying.

Your "deal breaker" appears to center around limitations to rewards related to the DM rewarding acting, seeing as how you mentioned the DM's buddy who is a theater major. Because whether you just state a simple goal and approach or whether you give some kind of Shakespearean reading of what you do this round, both of those are roleplaying. The latter is, perhaps, better acting.

You may not think this is an important distinction, but I do. Especially since, at least in the case of your objection, it will inform you as to how you might behave in such a game to get the greatest reward.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't think so. In D&D 5e, "roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." The rules then go on to say there are different approaches to roleplaying which basically amounts to first- or third-person. That's the acting bit - how you go about communicating your roleplaying.

Your "deal breaker" appears to center around limitations to rewards related to the DM rewarding acting, seeing as how you mentioned the DM's buddy who is a theater major. Because whether you just state a simple goal and approach or whether you give some kind of Shakespearean reading of what you do this round, both of those are roleplaying. The latter is, perhaps, better acting.

You may not think this is an important distinction, but I do. Especially since, at least in the case of your objection, it will inform you as to how you might behave in such a game to get the greatest reward.

I agree with you, I think your definitions break it down nicely.

As an example, I think role-playing your character could be as simple as stating your character will or won't do something because they have a flaw on their character sheet that informs them of what they will do. Acting could mean getting into the character and actually acting out what they do.

Boop!

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think so. In D&D 5e, "roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." The rules then go on to say there are different approaches to roleplaying which basically amounts to first- or third-person. That's the acting bit - how you go about communicating your roleplaying.

Your "deal breaker" appears to center around limitations to rewards related to the DM rewarding acting, seeing as how you mentioned the DM's buddy who is a theater major. Because whether you just state a simple goal and approach or whether you give some kind of Shakespearean reading of what you do this round, both of those are roleplaying. The latter is, perhaps, better acting.

You may not think this is an important distinction, but I do. Especially since, at least in the case of your objection, it will inform you as to how you might behave in such a game to get the greatest reward.

Okay, I sort of get that.

 

[Greg K]

Not quite sure I get the rationale behind this preference, unless you're referring specifically to modules or APs that one or more players have been through before. (something a DM should always ask about before running a canned module if dealing with players she doesn't know)

No, I mean I have not interest in going through a published module or AP and having some shared experience with other groups. I am interested in creating a character that fits into the DM's world and its cultures and being able to explore the world, and seek out adventures that a) are created in response to the backgrounds and goals of the various party members and b) hooks that the party decides to follow or abandon as they see fit.

This one can't be helped. Even in rules-lighter 0e or 1e it's still easy to have combats go on all session once the PCs get to mid-to-high level, partcularly if there's numerous opponents who also each have loads of abilities and options to choose from. (the worst to run, believe me, are when one adventuring party fights another!) 3e-4e-5e are even worse in that by mid-high level both the PCs and the opponents have boatloads of h.p. to plow through and - in 4e-5e - very limited means of bypassing h.p. and going straight to the kill.

In AD&D, I have only experienced a combat last an entire session with the possible exception of G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or with a group that was all about Hack in Slash and the DM had created some huge battle designed to last a long time. With most groups with whom I have gamed, a major fight took 30 minutes tops and only if it was a final battle with the "big boss". Also, the groups with whom I have played have never used other adventuring parties so that has never been an issue.

 

[dave2008]

Lan-"this long list probably makes me seem somewhat fussier than I really am"-efan

I was beginning to wonder if you ever find a group with that list of restrictions!

 

[Lanefan]

No, I mean I have not interest in going through a published module or AP and having some shared experience with other groups. I am interested in creating a character that fits into the DM's world and its cultures and being able to explore the world, and seek out adventures that a) are created in response to the backgrounds and goals of the various party members and b) hooks that the party decides to follow or abandon as they see fit.

OK, but sometimes from the DM side a canned module will fit - or can easily be made to fit - both those criteria; just file off the pre-written backstory and replace with your own. I do this all the time.

Example: let's say it's a seacoast setting. The characters' backgrounds and goals differ somewhat but generally average out at "let's do what we can to clean up this coast and make it safe again". DM plants a few adventure seeds and hooks including what might be lizardpeople raiding a village twenty miles down the coast. Party decide to start their clean-up operations with that. Boom - you're set to run U1-U3 series.

In AD&D, I have only experienced a combat last an entire session with the possible exception of G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or with a group that was all about Hack in Slash and the DM had created some huge battle designed to last a long time. With most groups with whom I have gamed, a major fight took 30 minutes tops and only if it was a final battle with the "big boss".

Ever run or played in WG4 Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun? There's an all-session battle just to get into that thing, and it's great!

Also, the groups with whom I have played have never used other adventuring parties so that has never been an issue.

Didn't mean another PC party - though that can be fun too. More like the PC party are trying to do or get something and their main opposition is a second NPC party trying to do or get the same thing for different (and nefarious) reasons. Sooner or later the parties are going to collide...

I was beginning to wonder if you ever find a group with that list of restrictions!

Fortunately, I'm lucky enough to have a stable long-term crew here thus there's always known players and-or DMs available.

And though it looks like a long list of restrictions, if I was looking for a game all someone would need to tell me is "old school, gonzo, and anything goes" and my name goes down on the sign-up sheet. If you look at my list you'll see most if not all of my objections are to new-school attitudes/ways of play and-or to things that restrict gonzo/anything goes.

Lanefan

 

[Greg K]

Ever run or played in WG4 Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun? There's an all-session battle just to get into that thing, and it's great!

Nope. I stopped running both published modules and dungeon crawls by that point. Also, it has a lot of monsters from the 1e Fiend Folio which is a book that I do not like and was, therefore, another strike against it.
As for all session battles, I don't find them a great thing. Combat bores me at some point between the 15 to 30 minute mark- often sooner (unless it is the big bad in which case the 15-30 minute tends to be my limit). Then again, when I run and other DMs with whom I play may go a session or two with no fighting at all.

Didn't mean another PC party - though that can be fun too. More like the PC party are trying to do or get something and their main opposition is a second NPC party trying to do or get the same thing for different (and nefarious) reasons. Sooner or later the parties are going to collide...

I know what you meant. NPC parties equal to the party don't get used. The closest thing we had were reoccurring wizard guild members in a campaign that I ran. They would show up on occasion in a group of 2 or 3 and might harass/annoy the party (by harass, I mean they could cause some damage (but were never a serious threat as the party could kill them within a few rounds) or, if they got the drop on the party, they might take an item from the party (kind of like the bad guys taking an item from Indie as he emerges from a tomb with the item. This went on for months before the rogue went though pouch and found a ring that he had removed off a dead guild wizard during the first adventure, stuck in the pouch, and forgot he had in his possession.

 

[Greg K]

OK, but sometimes from the DM side a canned module will fit - or can easily be made to fit - both those criteria; just file off the pre-written backstory and replace with your own. I do this all the time.

Example: let's say it's a seacoast setting. The characters' backgrounds and goals differ somewhat but generally average out at "let's do what we can to clean up this coast and make it safe again". DM plants a few adventure seeds and hooks including what might be lizardpeople raiding a village twenty miles down the coast. Party decide to start their clean-up operations with that. Boom - you're set to run U1-U3 series.

If the party chooses and can walk away at any time to pursue other interests and explore the larger setting, that might be fine. If it is the DM saying, I am limiting to this seacoast or I am running this adventure so make up characters that fit and have a reason to adventure, not interested.