People have the strangest deal-breakers

[Mokona]

Sign the pledge: I have no dealbreakers.*

* Or at least no dealbreakers that aren't so unlikely as to be irrelevant. D&D must use dice? Check. Must have classes? Check.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm willing to say that most D&D players play MMO's.

I don't mind you (I hate fetch/kill 10 of quests), but pretty much everyone I know does.

Ehh. That's kind of a stretch.

Most people I game with have played MMOs and found them wanting.

 

[ferratus]

Most people I game with have played MMOs and found them wanting.

Most people I game with have played MMOs, found them wanting, but still play them.

 

[Incenjucar]

Most people I game with have played MMOs, found them wanting, but still play them.

Such is the creepy power of social online gaming. Most of the folks I know online are like this, but most of the folks I game with would much rather hang out at the very Friendly LGS or enjoy the really great city we all live in.

 

[SensoryThought]

To answer Reynard, I don't know many of my role playing friend who have never tried an mmo. These were pursued to varying levels of obsession.

I chose it as an example of a successful subscription model that many people have no problems paying a lot more for. I have had both, but I don't mind paying ongoing fees for an ongoing service/hobby.

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

I like the online DDI tools and lack of online support would be a major hurdle for me to implement 5e.

Oh - I'm not saying there should be no online support. I'm just saying that they shouldn't try to tie you into it to get a complete game. Any online stuff should be an optional extra, not a necessary part of the game.

But I don't understand people paying $17/m for a mmo subscription grumping about coming up with $5/m for a character builder, monster archive, virtual table, access to every rule ever printed, and every back issue of dragon/dungeon.

I don't play subscription based MMOs either. I may be a cheapskate but at least I'm a consistent one!

 

[Oni]

It's not really a deal breaker for me (I don't have any that are very likely to actually happen, it would be an accumulation of small things that would prevent me from buying) but something that really bothered me in the previous edition and would greatly annoy me once more would the reservation of very core elements, that should IMHO appear in the three core books, for later publications, like Bards and Druids and Gnomes et c.

At this point that appears unlikely to occur again, though we shall have to see what happens if the limitations of space start rearing their ugly heads.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Right now not undoing the 4e hit point inflation is the closest to a deal breaker, and it looks like I'm going to be pleased based on the description of fireball.

I reserve the right to invent future deal breakers.

 

[delchrys]

agreed, Jack--feats are the reason i stopped buying dnd books once 2E was supplanted by 3.0. "hey, i just got a 'level'! suddenly i am able to do XYZ amazing ability without any rational explanation, even given the 'physics' of the dnd world and the magic therein! and of course, i will choose one that will allow me to choose a later one than will allow me to choose a LATER one that will make me all-powerful! yay for powergaming!"

ugh.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It just seems to be that so many people simply just don't like D&D and would be happier playing a different game, but instead they want D&D to become that other game.

Which then ironically, forces those that actually like D&D, to go to clones of past editions. And in this case, Pathfinder is doing well enough that it is taking significant market share away from D&D.

I agree, and this has puzzled me to no end.