What are the no-goes for you?

[Olaf the Stout]

At the risk of going off topic, having enough of a story outline planned out to have villains ready 12 levels ahead is not automatically railroading. There's plenty of room between "complete sandbox" and "linear railroad" for a good, plot-intensive campaign that still allows substantial player choice.

Back to topic...

There are certain games I'm not interested in playing, but if a group of good friends really wanted to, I might at least give them a shot.

I won't play in a game where role-playing (things like "speaking in character") is forbidden. I'm not interested in a minis tactical game masquerading as an RPG.

I won't play with people smoking inside. I used to, and I can't tolerate it anymore.

I won't play with people who are drunk or stoned. A beer or two is one thing, but if it starts impeding your ability to take the game seriously--or, alternatively, causes you to take it too seriously--then it's impeding my ability to enjoy the game.

I won't play with people whose only goal in playing is power-trip fantasies, or venting socially repugnant fantasies. If you want to run an evil campaign as a change of pace, that's fine. If you want to do it so you can linger over your description of rape, I'm gone.

There are probably others, but those are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

I was going to post mine but this comes pretty close to what I was going to post.

I hate smoking but if one of my players wanted to smoke they could do so as long it was outside. Thankfully none of my players smoke so this is a non-issue.

Drinking during a game and being drunk during a game are two very different things. I have one player that occasionally brings a couple of pre-mixed bourbons to the game. Another player has had a couple of beers during the game when we had a full game session. None of the players have ever gotten drunk though. I don't imagine that would make for a very good game.

Drugs are a no-go for me.

The last point that Mouse brings up is thankfully one that I've never come across. I would be out of the game (or booting players out) if it did ever occur.

A couple of others that I would add are:

DM's playing favourites.

That's great that you're friends or boyfriend/girlfriend outside of the game. I can deal with that. However, if friendships/relationships outside of the game lead to favourtism in the actual game I'm outta here. I have been the DM for basically the last 3-4 years so this hasn't really come up.

Players that want the DM to change the rules to how they are used to playing.

I had one player that didn't like some of the 3.xE rules and wanted me to change them. Some things, like moving spells back to their 3.0E durations, I allowed. Others, like not allowing bad guys to have critical hits, I denied. However, once I allowed a couple of changes I was constantly bombarded with his gripes about the 3.5E rules and how if I let him change X the game would be better.

Playing D&D is fun. Constantly wasting time arguing about changes to the rules is not. Never again for me.

Players that constantly argue with the DM over rules interpretations during session.

I admit that I'm not always right. Sometimes DM's make mistakes on rules during sessions. I'm happy to have a brief discussion about a rule during the session but once that discussion is had and I make a decision, it is done. I'll happily discuss it out of session but for now you'll just have to abide by decision, even if you think it's wrong. I've wasted too much time arguing rules interpretations during sessions to put up with it any more.

Those last 2 no-goes are just due to one bad experience I had with a player. However I won't be making the same mistake twice.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Lanefan]

Because in 22 years of gaming I can think of maybe only 1 or 2 people who didn't take PvP way too personally.

Getting back to a point I just made in another thread about not taking the game so seriously...

It has never, as far as I recall, actually contributed to a game. PvP has however led to hurt feelings and broken groups.

Well, let's see...

The campaign I'm currently running has been going about a year and a quarter, slightly over 100 sessions, two interlinked parties, same players throughout except one came in partway along and another decided the game in general wasn't for her after about 2 sessions.

In that time there's been:
- at least 4 PCs intentionally and directly killed by the party,
- nigh-countless instances of indirect attempted murder (usually via hanging a character out to dry against a superior foe or poor conditions, or by accidental-on-purpose friendly fire),
- 2 PCs given over to slavery by the party,
- nigh-countless in-party arguments that came to non-lethal blows.

Keep in mind that, while their intentions may have at one time been pure, these are not exactly Good-aligned groups.

And the same crew of players just keep coming back, laughing all the way.

If your agenda involves getting one of the other PCs killed then (in all likelihood) you are having fun at the expense of one of the other players and to me that's a firm no-go.

Depends on the story. In a situation where various secret organizations are trying to wipe each other out and-or establish their own agendas, and each PC may or may not be a member of at least one such (nobody knows who is allied with who), then the cloak-and-dagger stuff can quickly become more dagger than cloak.

Corollary question: though it's nigh impossible in the more recent editions, in older editions it was quite possible to hide one's true class. A Thief, for instance, could pretend to be an archer. An Assassin could pretend to be a Fighter. A Cleric could pretend to be whatever simply by hiding her faith. What's your take on that?

Lan-"I'm a Fighter pretending to be a Fighter"-efan

 

[Bumbles]

And the same crew of players just keep coming back, laughing all the way.

Well, kudos to you! I'm glad your group is having fun. Others have not had fun with that sort of thing, and it's busted them apart. So it goes, so it goes.

There's a lot of it going around, some more apparent than others.

Corollary question: though it's nigh impossible in the more recent editions, in older editions it was quite possible to hide one's true class. A Thief, for instance, could pretend to be an archer. An Assassin could pretend to be a Fighter. A Cleric could pretend to be whatever simply by hiding her faith. What's your take on that?

Personally, in past editions, I was never that convinced that a group could have somebody hide who they were without a group consensus. Wearing Leather? Duh, you're a Thief dude. But in an RP-heavy group, you might be able to do that, since you wouldn't even necessarily have to describe your attacks in game terms. Another way to do it would be for the players to be separated, but I think this would only work long-term in a PBP format, as otherwise it's just too much of a headache to be anything but a novelty.

 

[amysrevenge]

Why all the PvP hate?

A lot of it for me comes down to the fact that I'm a big wuss. I don't care for PvP/competitiveness in any setting, really. I think it is a problem with empathy - in order for me to win, someone else has to lose. I know how much I hate to lose, and I don't like making someone else feel that (even if they don't feel about it the same way as me).

I don't play online games that are really competitive (beyond competing for highest kill count or something innocuous like that). I played DDO for a few years, and there was no PvP in my life.

I get uncomfortable playing even board games and card games if someone is playing who really wants to win (I enjoy these games when the players are all having a good time and generally trying to win and play well, but not when the desire to win goes to that next level).

Hell, I even feel bad competing for research grants (but I have to do that).

In the end, I have a very hard time not taking PvP personally when I get involved in it. Rather than face this and grow as a person, or even to just grin and bear it, I choose to avoid it.

 

[MichaelK]

When I'm gaming with friends there are no deal-breakers. Even if I despise the game, I'll still enjoy the hang-out time and just try to avoid letting the game get to me. I've done that plenty of times in the past.

However if I'm gaming with a group of strangers then there are a few things that will be no-goes.

A ban on smoking. I'm a smoker and I'm not going to be comfortable holding off from smoking for a 4-5 hour session. I don't mind going outside, that's what I'd do at my own house.

Miniatures. I don't mind a game-grid with a checkers counter in the square or drawing a map and writing your character name's first letter down in the square they're standing, but I won't play with miniatures that look like a human figure. It distracts me from my imagination and instead of the cool dragon I'd normally imagine I start seeing a bit of molded plastic.

An entire session occurring and nothing actually happening in the game. I've had this happen before where we're at the house for an hour or two and the game doesn't get going because we're all organizing dinner. Then we handle some book-keeping, levelling up, etc. We might handle some shopping for the characters and then the session is over. If it happens once, fine. If it happens every second week don't expect me to turn up.

Playing an utterly mundane character. I'm not really interested in playing a supermarket cashier or grimy peasant. I'll usually end up playing the fantasy element present in the gaming system. I play wizards in D&D, netrunners in cyberpunk and jedi in star-wars. (Banning these classes is a good way of stopping me playing). A game set in the modern real world won't interest me, except maybe for a really exciting profession, like a soldier, spy, firefighter, etc.

Anything that breaks my suspension of disbelief. I can willingly suspend a lot of disbelief and justify a whole lot more by invoking "Genre assumptions", so this takes a fair bit. However if I find it impossible to ignore that it's just a game, then I'm going to lose interest.

Someone who considers me a ruleslawyer because I ask them about the rules they're using. I expect to know the rules of the game I'm playing, this is easy if we're playing the D&D written in the books, but if we keep deviating from the book then I'll have to ask questions. I don't mind a change in the rules, I just need to know when it's occurring so that we're clear on the rules for the game I'm playing.

 

[CleverNickName]

So I was thinking, what things cause people not to play in some games?

My personals include:

Drinking alcoholic beverages or smoking at games.
Having romantic relationships between players/GMs
Playing longer than scheduled.

I'm sure there's others, but those are my three. Try not to make anything personal in your responses, there's no need to be derogatory.

Wow, I guess I'm a pretty liberal gamer (comparitively speaking, anyway.) We don't have any rules like this.

We drink alcohol. We take smoke breaks. Our games typically run into the wee hours of the morning, and I (the DM) ended up marrying the girl who plays the half-orc fighter.

I guess a deal-breaker for me would be someone who misses too many gaming sessions. Missing a game every now and then is inevitable, but if a player misses more games than he attends, I can see how that would become an issue.

 

[Ecce]

There's no sobriety, heroism, or clothing allowed at my table. That's the rules, deal with it.

 

[Ambrus]

There are games like that? Wow, never heard of banning roleplaying at a roleplaying game. Yeah, that would deal be a deal breaker for me.

My ex-girlfriend and I once played briefly in a game with a comically stereotypical German guy as DM who banned talking out of turn at the game table. He'd put himself in charge of deciding whose turn it was to speak and would cut anyone off who he deemed was speaking "out of turn". It made discussing things between characters very stilted and awkward. At one point he seemed to ease up somewhat and allowed the group to discuss a topic freely and I thought "okay, this isn't so bad". But at the end of the session he told us that he was dismayed by how "chaotic" our dialogue had grown and that we "need discipline". His final words before I and my girlfriend walked out were "you will like my discipline!". When recounting this gaming horror story to others we took to referring to him as the Führer.

 

[Gothmog]

At the risk of going off topic, having enough of a story outline planned out to have villains ready 12 levels ahead is not automatically railroading. There's plenty of room between "complete sandbox" and "linear railroad" for a good, plot-intensive campaign that still allows substantial player choice.

Back to topic...

There are certain games I'm not interested in playing, but if a group of good friends really wanted to, I might at least give them a shot.

I won't play in a game where role-playing (things like "speaking in character") is forbidden. I'm not interested in a minis tactical game masquerading as an RPG.

I won't play with people smoking inside. I used to, and I can't tolerate it anymore.

I won't play with people who are drunk or stoned. A beer or two is one thing, but if it starts impeding your ability to take the game seriously--or, alternatively, causes you to take it too seriously--then it's impeding my ability to enjoy the game.

I won't play with people whose only goal in playing is power-trip fantasies, or venting socially repugnant fantasies. If you want to run an evil campaign as a change of pace, that's fine. If you want to do it so you can linger over your description of rape, I'm gone.

There are probably others, but those are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

Once again, I find myself in complete agreement with Ari. Those are exactly the same dealbreakers I have when gaming. The only two I'd add to this list is a rules/canon lawyer, or an excessive powergamer/optomizer (done to an annoying or disruptive degree). Pull that crap, and you're done.

 

[aboyd]

For me, the bad stuff is somewhat opposite of those here.

• If you expect my character to be heroic, screw it, I'm leaving.
• If players speak in character, I'm walking out.

Of course, I should be careful about that. I'm not actually opposed to speaking in character. That happens sometimes at one of the games I attend. However, some people go too far. We had a player who showed up to the first game with a hobo stick -- an actual stick with a bandanna sack tied to the end. In the middle of play, he unties it (the player in real life, not the character), takes out a small totem-pole made of skulls, shakes it like a rattle and starts talking to the enemy (the DM) in a creepy "shaman voice." We all sat there watching him speak in this horrible hybrid of cockney, french accent, and Louisiana drawl, and we just stared & stared as it got worse & worse. He was quickly excused from the game.

Another time, a guy was playing a wizard with a frog familiar. We were fine with it through some initial combat encounters, where he was quite useful. But then we got to our first social encounter, and when an NPC directed a comment to him, we all looked over the table at this new player, and he had a plastic bullfrog perched on his shoulder and began speaking in a possessed-demon voice. I guess he thought it made his character seem scary or threatening, but I mostly just thought, "Who is this loon with the plastic toad? Is he drunk? Is he OK to drive home? Does he own a car? Does he have a home? Maybe he lives under a bridge?"

So yeah, speaking in character is maybe OK if you're sane and use your God-given voice to do it. But showing up with props and a terrible accent? Please, leave.

Here are some other objections which are more in line with what other people have said:

• I DM a group of Chaotic Neutral/Evil players who PvP all the time. As a DM, I frankly find it to be just fine. However, I recently swapped roles with one of the players so that I could take a temporary break, and I have to tell you that as a player, it pissed me right off. It's annoying because I immediately thought, "This person sucks for initiating PvP." I didn't know I would think that way until it happened. But also, it was annoying because the guy had a crap monk, and he was picking fights with the older guys who come here to do character optimization. So I grew more annoyed because he didn't even seem good at what he was doing. So I'm pretty sure PvP is a big no-go for me as a player.
• Belching, farting, eating with your mouth open. I played with a guy who did all those things many times over the course of a single game session. He didn't apologize, didn't say "pardon me," didn't even try to stop it. We were all like, "You sure you want another Coke? Maybe water instead? No? Shoot." I was so happy to leave that game. I would leave new games if similar types showed up.
• Railroading. Our party was ambushed, and the DM put about 15 enemies on the battlemat. We were very low-level and the time, and seeing all those enemies was surprising. I said something like, "Really? Fifteen?" And he confirmed it. So we wanted to run. The DM told us we were cornered and would have to fight our way out. But I could see on the battlemat that he hadn't drawn it that way, which I pointed out, and which he immediately corrected by sort of slashing at the mat with a pen, which left a long black line down the middle. "IT'S A WALL," he tells us. OK, so as we got slaughtered, he started pulling pieces off the battlemat. I said, "Wait, where's that guy going?" And he told me that it wasn't a bad guy. I knew it most certainly was -- he confirmed it at the start. Then he did it again, and suddenly I really started disrespecting the DM's style. He forced us into an unfair fight and then wouldn't allow the natural, obvious TPK that should have come of it. It began to feel like he was just incompetent, so I left.