People have the strangest deal-breakers

[BryonD]

I'm going to play the best system out there for making the kind of games I enjoy.
Every game is going to have some strong points and some flaws.
Best total scorecard wins.

It is true that some potential flaws carry really big negative scores with them.

But in the end there is nothing closed minded about not switching to the new shiny if you already have something great.

I also don't buy the "if I can play with my friends..." point.
I will be playing with my friends two years from now and nothing is going to change that. We will be chatting over the table, killing orcs, and telling stories.
It won't make a bit of difference to that whether 5E sucks or 5E is brain melting awesome.

 

[Halivar]

My only deal breaker would be if WotC replaced Mike and Monte with Raven c.s. McCracken halfway through the design process.

 

[avin]

I also don't buy the "if I can play with my friends..." point.

Maybe because your group is made only by people who love Pathfinder (or whatever system it is). Lucky yours.

I got friends who love 4E, I got friends who love PF/3.5, I got at least two friends that think 2E D&D is the best system ever... if 5E is elastic enough to please them all, even if it's not their perfect system, I'm sure they will be playing together again.

 

[Piratecat]

I've always said, if I can't play my CG dual scimitar wielding drow ranger then I'M OUT!

Bad news: someone leaked that purple eyes are broken, and there isn't a single magic scimitar named "Twinkle." You may be in trouble.

 

[BryonD]

Maybe because your group is made only by people who love Pathfinder (or whatever system it is). Lucky yours.

I got friends who love 4E, I got friends who love PF/3.5, I got at least two friends that think 2E D&D is the best system ever... if 5E is elastic enough to please them all, even if it's not their perfect system, I'm sure they will be playing together again.

I've never had trouble getting people to play. I don't have a huge group, but not counting my wife I've got one player who is still in my group from Day 1. But I've never had trouble keeping a table going.

It is fair to say that there is a clear trend of not liking 4E in my current group. But there are systems other than PF that would be more than acceptable.
So I don't see random luck of everyone loving the same system as the root here.

 

[avin]

I've never had trouble getting people to play. I don't have a huge group, but not counting my wife I've got one player who is still in my group from Day 1. But I've never had trouble keeping a table going.

I have no trouble keeping tables going, except there's people who don't play D&D with each other anymore. At this moment I got one GURPS, one PF and one 4E moving.

It is fair to say that there is a clear trend of not liking 4E in my current group.

Exactly.

If you had friends, fans of 4E, your chances of put everybody at same table would probably be smaller.

But there are systems other than PF that would be more than acceptable.

I have no trouble bringing everybody together to play GURPS, Deadlands or Mage games. D&D is a problem.

So I don't see random luck of everyone loving the same system as the root here.

Seems clear, IMO, that you don't see that because your friends play Pathfinder with you.

I think if your friends were split between 4E and PF you would "buy" that argument.

As long you have friends who only dislike 4E you won't have a problem.

 

[Greg K]

5th edition deal-breakers? I'll give Monte three strikes.

3) Monster stat-blocks taking up more than about a line of text on a two-column page. Monster, AC, hp, HD, #AT, Dmg, SV.

If it reverts to this, it would be my deal breaker
I want AC break down (e.g., natural Armor, Dex bonus, etc.) and ability scores

 

[BryonD]

As long you have friends who only dislike 4E you won't have a problem.

I don't buy that logic because it presumes some significance to 4E. The point is that there are lots of games that we like so picking one is easy.

If I had friends who would ONLY play any one game then THAT would be a problem.

You seem to be suggesting you have a problem because some people won't play 4E and some people won't play unless it is 4E. I don't get that.

 

[Greg K]

I have my deal breakers. It is why I will not play/run most editions of D&D. However, there are also elements from many of those editions that I hope make it into 5e.

There are deal breakers if certain non-core elements of my favorite edition become core.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I don't have any mechanics, class, race etc that is a deal breaker. I can always house rule the way I want.

Balance, linear/quadratic - I can deal with it. Vancian or not, fine.

The only thing close to a deal breaker for me, and it is just because of how I play...

That it is capable (with minor house ruling*) to be playable as a 1 player game who runs two characters, in and out of combat - especially using published modules.

Basically if the mechanics of the game are so focused on group play, and is rigid enough that making changes to it as to make solo play possible then I won't play it.


I love 4E, I love the balance, I love the classes, I like the power choices - but it is designed so well to the type of game it plays, I couldn't play any prepublished adventure with only 2 characters, even when I tried making everyone multiclass for free, lots of extra action points and such.

I was able to do that in 3rd, I did it for 15 years with 1st. Couldn't with 4E.

This isn't a dig at the system, in the environment it was made for, I find it very fun. But our weekly game group plays a different system. I still like D&D, and so D&D is played solo (me and the wife) sometimes I GM, sometimes she does. But as we play in group in another system, have jobs and such, we don't have the time to make our own adventures. We rely on published ones.

So that is the only thing that would be a "deal breaker" for me.

Based on the scant information we have, I think it is going to be.