What are the no-goes for you?

[Hussar]

Gamer stench. This is definitely a no go for me. I've only run into it a couple of times, and the worst offender surprisingly enough (to me anyway) was a woman. Gack, talk about rancid. Worst thing was, we were playing on a Sunday morning. I mean, it's not like you're coming home from work and didn't have time to take a shower. Sheesh.

Other than some of the ones on the list above, I think the only other one I would add is a game about nothing. A game where nothing really happens other than week after week of frustration. Every step forward is followed by two steps back, and not interesting steps either, but mindless repetition of what came before. That one I can do without.

Thinking about it, really, the biggest deal breaker for me boils down to, after the session, can I look at it and say I had a good time. If the answer is yes most of the time, then I'm groovy. If the answer becomes no in a majority position? Ok, time to look for a new group.

 

[loki8481]

as a DM, I can't stand rules lawyers... I go as much by the book as possible, and if I'm wrong, certainly feel free to correct me, but I'd prefer doing it after the game and not derailing an entire encounter right in the middle of it to have an argument over minutia.

I also can't stand lone wolf stereotypes and players who deliberately try to sidestep whatever their DM might have had planned... if I've got an amazing storyline all mapped out and you refuse to leave the inn without me railroading you out the door, don't blame me if it's a less than exciting session.

 

[amysrevenge]

Some of my things have already been mentioned.

1) Evil campaign. I've heard of this working, in a "my friend's cousin's co-worker ran an evil campaign that worked out fine" kind of way, but I've never seen this work myself. About half of high school was this type of game for me, and I hated it the whole time.

2) Any sort of PvP sub-element to games. This one can more certainly be made to work, with PCs in competing factions with divergent goals. I just don't like it myself, that's all.

3) What I think of as "old school" (which is almost certainly NOT what other people consider to be "old school") gaming where the atmosphere is GM vs Players. I prefer Scenario vs. Characters, with the GM as neutral arbiter. I don't enjoy games where Player skill is tested preferentially over Character skill (although the odd anachronistic puzzle is OK, I tend to not really enjoy them), and I would abandon this sort of game as soon as possible. I don't expect that this dislike is universal, or even prevalent. It's just true for me.

4) Any game that takes itself too seriously. This is a friggin hobby. I'm here to have fun, which for me involves laughing a lot. I want to play in a group where fart jokes are always appropriate.

 

[maddman75]

Here's mine:

1. DM's who want to run "fast and loose" which usually translates, "I've never taken the time to read the rules, so I'm just going to wing it." Read the rules for the game you're going to run or break out a boardgame. While I won't rule lawyer a game, I want to be able to do some things that are normal for a game, like roll the appropriate dice for iniative, do the range of allowed actions, etc. For example, we had a DM at a con who did it "fast and loose" on D&D 3.0. So we all know that init is d20, put it order, and then standard action/move action. The DM wouldn't pay attention and would cut a player's action out as he switched gears. The same player would declare a normal action like retrieve an item from pack (move action), but the DM ruled he couldn't do it in while there was a combat going on, etc., etc.

I tend to play fast and loose with the rules, but then my rule of thumb is whenever you do that, do it in the player's favor. If you ignore some fiddly bits to let someone do something cool, that makes the game More Fun. If you ignore the rules because you want to keep the players from doing something you don't expect, or just to be restrictive, that is Less Fun. IMO.

2. DM's who make up adventures on the fly. Sure, there are DM's who claim that they are awesome story tellers, have created interwoven plots, and have made their players have their characters to feel rage, anger, a sense of justice, loss, etc. far better than any movie or book. That's great, but all the DM's I've played with would blow 2 hours to role play buying a suit of armor, encounters are random and don't make any sense, there's no sense of plot, and just wandering around lost. Write some notes, create a plot, pick encounters that make sense and get going.

I consider being able to run on the fly to be an important skill for any GM. If an adventure finishes up too quickly, or players decide to go in an unexpected direction, it can really save your bacon. But it should be a backup, not your primary. One of the best tricks is to reskin scenes so they work with players going off in a new direction. Maybe you plan to have the goblins in the forest ambush the PCs with a pit trap and logs on ropes, but they decide to head up to the mountains to hunt orcs. Fine, they can go hunt some orcs and they get ambushed by a pit trap and some rolling boulders that have the same game effect. Just reuse and recycle!

Well, for me, it's not a matter of wanting to do it, but a matter of experience with them making it one of the things I feel necessary to change. Including one case where one person slept around with several persons involved in the group. Not good. (And no, I wasn't involved myself, I was just at the table and didn't want any part of it.)

I suppose I should have clarified that I would consider a marriage (or other such committed relationship)to be slightly different (though still a concern, as it can go poorly) than what I was talking about when I said "romantic relationships", but I didn't want to go into exhaustive detail and list all my reasons. Heck, I might even make an exception for a short-term deal to let somebody's partner try the game. But I wouldn't want it in a long term campaign.

I'll also pass on an ERPG session, though that may be a case of walking away for a break rather than leaving for good. Or it might be the prelude to the kind of thing I'd rather avoid.

If you amended it to 'keep your personal drama out of the game', then we might get on the same page.

I also can't stand lone wolf stereotypes and players who deliberately try to sidestep whatever their DM might have had planned... if I've got an amazing storyline all mapped out and you refuse to leave the inn without me railroading you out the door, don't blame me if it's a less than exciting session.

Argh, we've got one of these in our oWoD game. I keep threatening to get four dots in Presence, which will let me summon anyone I know to me no matter where they're at, just to make him participate with the rest of us.

 

[Bumbles]

If you amended it to 'keep your personal drama out of the game', then we might get on the same page.

Well, if you like, you can think of it that way, it's the same principle involved. I just find that far too often, sadly, they can't. So for my own sanity and enjoyment I let them know folks know, there's no hard feelings, but it just won't work with me. Sometimes one of them leaves, sometimes both, sometimes it's me. It's all good, but I'd rather regret a possible save than an actual disaster.

 

[Mallus]

It's all good, but I'd rather regret a possible save than an actual disaster.

I'm not a big fan of other people's drama (OPD??) either. It's embarrassing.

But how can you judge a person's character before you actually judge their character?

 

[Halivar]

I enjoy a good ale with my game, but I have often played in games where the DM has a strict no alcohol rule. While I miss my brew, it's not a non-starter.

I have no real non-starters. But I have got some pet-peeves that drive me absolutely batty:

1) Cross-talk, side conversations, and leaving the room to take phone calls. I do not accept calls when I am at the table, and I wish others felt the same way. Then again, I also don't take calls when I am eating with folks, watching a movie, or otherwise engaged in hang-out time with friends. I can call whoever it is back when it's not disruptive.

2) Chaotic-neutral characters who don't give a damn about anything. I prefer heroic campaigns. This is not usually an issue when I'm a player, because I can always "force the issue" through my character's actions (placing fellow players in a position where the "path of least resistance" involves doing some heroic plan I've cooked up). This is most irritating when I'm a DM, though, because I actually have less control over the decisions of the players.

3.a) People in the room, that aren't in the game, who keep interrupting to make "funny" comments.

3.b) People in the room, that aren't in the game, watching TV. For some reason, this is not nearly as annoying when it's in a public venue, like the comic book shop.

4) Any game where another player, by means of character ability, can consistently control the actions of my character without my consent. While completely in the rules, it is endlessly frustrating. The last time this occurred (player using psychic domination in a sci-fi game), I handed my character sheet over to the offender (since it's really his character now, anyway), and told the DM I was bringing in a new character with all the proper immunities. The group almost broke up over this.

 

[Mallus]

About half of high school was this type of game for me, and I hated it the whole time.

I think the problem was high school, not evil PC's!

Any sort of PvP sub-element to games.

You know, this might be my one true no-go. I'm not fond of PvP. The only way I like to compete against my fellow players is to see who can be the most entertaining.

I'm here to have fun, which for me involves laughing a lot.

Ditto this. Every good D&D campaign I've participated in had scads of laughter.

 

[Bumbles]

But how can you judge a person's character before you actually judge their character?

Except the thing is, I don't want to judge someone's character. That's what my no-goes are about, avoiding such decisions, since I'd rather not spend my time evaluating folks to determine their degree of personal responsibility, I'll just avoid those things that I have found tend to lead to issues.

 

[The Ghost]

What I think of as "old school" (which is almost certainly NOT what other people consider to be "old school") gaming where the atmosphere is GM vs Players. I prefer Scenario vs. Characters, with the GM as neutral arbiter.

This is a borderline non-starter for me. I am willing to overlook it if the DM at least keeps the characters on equal footing with the encounters. It becomes very annoying though, when the DM stacks the deck against the party and then says something like "DMs need to win one from time-to-time." Or DMs that take pleasure in TPKs; that frustrates me as well.