-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
I'm really surprised at the number of people who are saying that they flat-out won't play in an otherwise tolerable game if the DM dares to make them roll dice for stats and HP. It's almost like the DM expects them to play some kind of largely luck-based dice rolling game!
My biggest dealbreaker is obvious inflexibility in a DM, and I don't mean in a railroading sense. In fact, I think the DM's story is pretty important, and if the DM has an overarching plot then I'm fine with letting them set things up as they please (so long as they aren't restricting the characters.) But no DM has every facet of their world in place and every race's cultural history set in stone. So long as it doesn't interfere with the DM's story, I would hate to hear "No, your Elf Barbarian can't be the sole survivor in a great war because I don't have any Elf wars planned in my background's history." (Again, if the pacifism of the Elves is a key point in the DM's story that's valid, but if this is a werewolf-hunting campaign then it shouldn't come up at all.) Similarly, I see absolutely no reason that a Faerun-inspired setting should be disallowed Changelings or Warforged or Shifters, or an Eberron setting should lack Sun Elves and Deep Imaskari. I would be wary of playing in a campaign where generalizations like setting are so absolute that it takes away from the enjoyment of the players.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jedipotter
Max hit points every level. This just says ''no death'' in the game
It says nothing of the sort.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheIronGolem
It says nothing of the sort.
{Scrubbed}
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Houserules that aren't all clearly spelled out in a big neon sign before the game starts.
I'm a by the book, rules lawyer type of guy. So if something doesn't work as the book writes it should, then I need to know so I can plan around that -- not find out mid-session that my Grease spell doesn't work because your CR 1/2 Orcs suddenly grew angel's wings.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ComaVision
{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}
Good point, I'll leave it alone.
I'll also echo the sentiment regarding "realism" as rationale for screwing over character types who already lag behind the balance curve. If you want realism, you're playing the wrong game, and that's not just because of the wizards and elves.
As for rolling for stats and HP, D&D may be a game where luck and dice play a large role, but the proper place for that role is in the gameplay, not in the preparation phase. I shouldn't do better (or worse) playing the game simply because of the results of a purely luck-based minigame I had to play before I was allowed access to the game I came to play.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
- Gender based stats unless the race is very non-human. That just does not end well in 99% of cases
- DMs limiting things for players, but not for minor NPC use. No, I am not going to travel with your damnable dragon DMPC. No, I am not okay with every form of magic not being available to players without good reason.
- DMs being too limiting. Having 2 races and 4 classes is a bit much unless they can really sell me on it.
- Tables with PvP, or no communication to prevent a Orc and a Orc-Hunter in the same dang party, or an evil assassin and a LG cleric of the god of nobility. I don't mind compromise, but I'd like it if other people had the same idea so we don't want to kill each other in the first five minutes.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
I can handle pretty much anything, but for me, it's a dealbreaker when I feel like the players are completely irrelevant to the happenings of the game. If I can ask myself "What would have been different had we not been here?" and the answer is "Nothing" for the majority of the time, then I can't justify even being there.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crake
I can handle pretty much anything, but for me, it's a dealbreaker when I feel like the players are completely irrelevant to the happenings of the game. If I can ask myself "What would have been different had we not been here?" and the answer is "Nothing" for the majority of the time, then I can't justify even being there.
So basically you don't want to play Indiana Jones...?
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
fumble rules.
nothing communicates quicker or more clearly that a DM does not understand that casters are more powerful than mundies than something so idiotic as a fumble rule. watch in amazement as you explain that a mundy kicking a scarecrow is more likely to knock his own teeth out as he levels up and get more iteratives.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Venger
fumble rules.
nothing communicates quicker or more clearly that a DM does not understand that casters are more powerful than mundies than something so idiotic as a fumble rule. watch in amazement as you explain that a mundy kicking a scarecrow is more likely to knock his own teeth out as he levels up and get more iteratives.
A lot of people enjoy them because they add diversity to the game. If you're using a fumble table, something interesting happens. It's not about balance. 3.5 is not about balance. It's fine if you don't like it but it doesn't mean the DM or other players don't understand that casters are already superior.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ComaVision
A lot of people enjoy them because they add diversity to the game. If you're using a fumble table, something interesting happens. It's not about balance. 3.5 is not about balance. It's fine if you don't like it but it doesn't mean the DM or other players don't understand that casters are already superior.
Sometimes it is though.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ComaVision
A lot of people enjoy them because they add diversity to the game. If you're using a fumble table, something interesting happens. It's not about balance. 3.5 is not about balance. It's fine if you don't like it but it doesn't mean the DM or other players don't understand that casters are already superior.
it's problematic because it penalizes what are already the weakest classes (those who have to make attack rolls) and leaves the ones that don't untouched. DMs who use these rules do not understand this and think that because the fighter deals some HP damage in a round when the wizard "only" debuffs with glitterdust, that clearly the fighter needs to be nerfed so he slices his fingers off every ~5% of the time.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
The biggest deal breaker for me is poor attendance. I understand that people are busy but sometimes all it takes it's a little effort. The rest of us are let with the choice to leave your character behind or play it or selves.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Wow, this thread really took off. I'd have to add PvP that wasn't in the advertisement to my list - it's one thing if we all know it could happen, and another when it's because one person makes so many plans the DM needs a flowchart to keep up and you don't know why you just ate a Sudden Maximized Fireball OOC *or* IC.
As for Stat/HP rolling, the idea of having less HP than the Wizard as a Fighter really puts me on edge. Aegis013, your rule actually provides higher-than-average HP (a Fighter would do 5+CON/6+CON in average), so I like it. :smallbiggrin: Stats are a bit different because I don't always have a concept beforehand - having an array thrown at me can help me figure that out sometimes, but I'll always be happy to take a Point Buy alternative.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphetryon
The DM citing 'realism' as a reason for house-rules is generally pretty close to a dealbreaker for me.
This generally for me as well, because those sorts of houserules always end up being overly complicated and in my opinion a waste of time.
PVP is a deal breaker for me, and so are DM's with a DM Vs PC style of running the game.
DM's that ban things without any good reason.
Players who are patronizing, cheat on their rolls/sheets, are control freakish, and/or are constantly talking over and arguing with everyone (including the GM). Also depending on how strong they smell it may also be a deal breaker. (I have a very sensitive nose...although I haven't met anyone yet who's so stinky that I need to vacate or get sick).
It's not really a "deal breaker" but I do also avoid high op games because I'd just irritate everyone involved since I'm no good at optimizing and am still having trouble with the rules, despite having gotten back into the game for several months now.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
A DM who actually gets ticked in real life when I interrupt his BBEG's arrogant, overly melodramatic speech with even more arrogant smart remarks.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Krobar
A DM who actually gets ticked in real life when I interrupt his BBEG's arrogant, overly melodramatic speech with even more arrogant smart remarks.
Villain monologues at all. I mean... why are we even here?
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
1. Having a game where there is a "high likelihood" of PCs dying, multiple times, in a low-level game. No, thank you, I do not want to roll up my fifth new character for this campaign. And you wonder why people have stopped giving you backstories to work with...
2. Ex post facto fixes. I understand most people do not like the way diplomacy works as written. But if you wait to fix it until the first time my character with a maxed-out diplomacy score tries to use his defining ability, I will not be happy.
2b. Along the same lines: forcing a roleplaying of a diplomacy or bluff check. I appreciate the possibility for a bonus due to a well-phrased request, but do not force me to try to phrase the request appropriately. We are role-playing. You don't force the fighter to actually jump up and down every time he makes a Jump check "for realism's sake," so don't force me to actually try to bluff or negotiate. The reason I'm role-playing a character like this is because I'm terrible at it IRL, and I want to fulfill a fantasy of being a smoothtalking person. :smallmad:
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Venger
Villain monologues at all. I mean... why are we even here?
Eh, I like them. Granted, I play mostly PbP where they work and in face-to-face games I like them because they're fun to subvert.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Players who try to join a game that just doesn't the thematically fit what they want to play, then argue with me when I veto their character. If the game tone wasn't something you wanted, why did you try to join?
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Railroading GMs who only play to fulfill some power fantasy or to tell their story no matter what the players do. That **** will not be tolerated.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jeff the Green
Eh, I like them. Granted, I play mostly PbP where they work and in face-to-face games I like them because they're fun to subvert.
Additionally, they are good when Hannibal has a point or Jerkass has a point.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Anyway, talking is a free action, so I would feel free to monologue right back at them, the hammier the better.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheIronGolem
It says nothing of the sort.
Sure it does.
So what is the point of more HP? So the characters never die. What else could be the reason? A high hit point character can take hit after hit after hit after hit after hit and still be fine. That is the whole point of high hit points.
And Max Hit Points is a red flag for the type of play style where you won't lose hit points much anyway. It's the style where a beholder uses ''inflict wounds for like seven points of damage'' and not distengrate.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fax Celestis
So basically you don't want to play Indiana Jones...?
While Indy never changed the overall outcome, he did have an effect on the story and would've, if he'd been more successful/focused, thwarted the villains' plans himself.
Also in Temple of Doom.. HE DID! :smallbiggrin:
Granted, it was only because he mentioned that one thing in front of that one guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jedipotter
Sure it does.
So what is the point of more HP? So the characters never die. What else could be the reason? A high hit point character can take hit after hit after hit after hit after hit and still be fine. That is the whole point of high hit points.
And Max Hit Points is a red flag for the type of play style where you won't lose hit points much anyway. It's the style where a beholder uses ''inflict wounds for like seven points of damage'' and not distengrate.
Actually, that may be a useful one to use when pitting players against every single Elder Evil at once. If I'm going to constantly try to make them reroll characters, I might as well give them a fighting chance. Making characters takes a lot of time.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jedipotter
Sure it does.
So what is the point of more HP? So the characters never die. What else could be the reason? A high hit point character can take hit after hit after hit after hit after hit and still be fine. That is the whole point of high hit points.
And Max Hit Points is a red flag for the type of play style where you won't lose hit points much anyway. It's the style where a beholder uses ''inflict wounds for like seven points of damage'' and not distengrate.
What's the point of not playing minimum HP on every hit die? Maybe with a modifier for larger HD, like d4 and d6 get +0, d8 and d10 get +1, and d12 gets a +2.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Houserules that aren't in writing. If they aren't in writing they should be short, unless you rewrote spells instead of banning them. This isn't counting stuff like blocking drown healing or unwritten houserules you can tell me verbally in under a minute. Double points against your game, if you spring bans on me rapid fire as I point out potential issues your existing houserules may raise.
Ludicrous DMPC's.
The game not being what it says on the tin. If I make a dirty cop Deputy for an Old West game; I have no interest in getting Rip Van Winkled to a modern setting. I know good games can come from curveball like this, but I had my fill in my teens/early twenties. At this point I feel I'm a mature enough roleplayer to play a fish out of water without being surprised OOC.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Actually, I like the idea of a Beholder casting Inflict Wounds at my players. As long as there are other Beholders and possibly a Daelkyr nearby, ready to use Disintegrate when the players decide to chase it when it "retreats".
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raven777
Anyway, talking is a free action, so I would feel free to monologue right back at them, the hammier the better.
Exactly. Only in the case I'm talking about it was more arrogant hubris than ham.
Red Dragons don't like to be told to cease their tedious prattling, pit fiends don't like being called tawdry, unimportant little jackanapes, and High Priests of evil gods don't like when you sarcastically mimic and mock their gods to their faces. My bard did all of those things. He was a fun character.
-
Re: Biggest Dealbreaker for a Game?
DMs who violate the rules of the setting. Even if it's a "cutscene", I won't game with someone who breaks the rules of the setting.