Red Flags for DMs? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Zanos

2017-04-21, 03:28 PM

I dunno. I think there are reasonable arguments for flat banning evil characters. What can you do as an evil PC that is simultaneously something you couldn't do as a neutral PC and not something that should make the other PCs declare you an enemy?

Y'know, the assumption from the player that an Evil character will jive with a campaign is a Player Red Flag in the other thread.
I can certainly see banning Evil characters in certain campaign formats, but it doesn't take a lot to be Evil, just a willingness to hurt innocents or torture the less innocent for pretty much any reason. That includes "because it was for the greater Good" reasons. Or because you wanted to accumulate power and wealth. Or for any other myriad reasons. The nice thing about Evil characters is that they're usually self-motivated.

I just have a restriction that I assume the party will work together. So Evil characters are totally kosher, with the restriction that you aren't actually some secret agent for the BBEG that's going to stab the party in the back at the most opportune moment.

On that note, the DM encouraging inter-party conflict to that degree is a huge red flag.

Yeah, I don't really get "Succubi" as a red flag. Like yes, sex stuff will definitely be uncomfortable for everyone involved in most if not all games, but the Succubus is also a totally respectable option as a caster-type encounter at 7th level. Also, the DM is just as capable of having uncomfortable sex stuff happen with Elves or Humans.
There's a difference between "there is a Succubus here, it is an Evil demon and you should destroy it" and Succubi being a prevalent fixture of the campaign setting. There's a very clear point where they stop being enemies and exist for an entirely OOC reason.

"I'm running a game that I plan to turn into a novel when it's done.""
Ugh.

DEMON

2017-04-21, 03:34 PM

Me, oftentimes, since I tend to get too railroady sometimes and use DMPCs to fill the gaps in smaller groups (1 at a time, of course).

But my all time best on the DM red flags I ever experienced was a DM that brought a Frenzied Berserker DMPC and never ever fudged rolls for the sake of... well, anything. No malicious intent, he just didn't see the TPK coming.

Cosi

2017-04-21, 03:43 PM

I can certainly see banning Evil characters in certain campaign formats, but it doesn't take a lot to be Evil, just a willingness to hurt innocents or torture the less innocent for pretty much any reason. That includes "because it was for the greater Good" reasons. Or because you wanted to accumulate power and wealth.

Setting aside the obvious question of how that is at all different from the standard adventuring goal of "kill whatever lives in this dungeon and take its stuff" which Good people are totally allowed to have -- how is "I want to torture people for personal power" not something that makes you kill on sight for most parties?

I can totally understand being self-interested in a Han Solo type way. That's compatible with being part of an adventuring party, but its a neutral character. If your character starts torturing people and eating babies, how is the appropriate response from the party anything other than "stop them, probably violently"? Characters that are meaningfully Evil are either a non-starter in any campaign that is not explicitly tailored towards them, or they water down the meaning of "Evil" to something like "wears a darker hat".

Of course, this all goes to the broader problem of alignment being really stupid. "Good" and "Evil" are not terms people agree on the definitions of in the real world. There are moral systems where it is okay to torture people for the Greater Good. There are moral systems where that is not okay. Saying that one of those is "right" and the other is "wrong" is not something a tabletop roleplaying game should be doing. Plus, it makes the concept of "anti-hero" very hard to do (I think this is what most acceptable "Evil" character concepts boil down to), because while there is a great deal of debate as to what things are "Evil" most people agree that "Evil" broadly means "things you shouldn't do". D&D should use something like MTG's color wheel for alignments.

ross

2017-04-21, 03:45 PM

Railroading for one, the party IS going to deviate from your initial plan, learn to improvise or stop DMing.

Banning a race just because they don't like it.

Banning evil alignment, if you cant take the heat get out of the fire.

Banning Tome of Battle, seriously?

Evil characters are always trash, and yours are no exception.

The nice thing about Evil characters is that they're usually self-motivated.

Just like good characters.

If you can't come up with motivations for good characters as easily as for evil, that is neither a failing of the DM nor the system. It is yours.

digiman619

2017-04-21, 03:45 PM

Pathfinder
Banning DSP content (Path of War, Ultimate Psionics, etc) because "too OP"
Banning Spheres of Power because "cannot take the time to learn a new system (which is literally only 2 pages long)"

Ugh. I cannot second these hard enough. I don't understand anyone who has a Pathfinder game on these boards who ignores these rulesets, but includes "everything Paizo". Because apparently Stalkers and Elemetalists are broken, but Summoners and Arcanists are A-OK.

Lazymancer

2017-04-21, 03:53 PM

I dunno. I think there are reasonable arguments for flat banning evil characters. What can you do as an evil PC that is simultaneously something you couldn't do as a neutral PC and not something that should make the other PCs declare you an enemy?
What arguments? It depends on specific campaign and interpretations of alignment.

For example, if necromancer considers murdering some of the PCs and resurrecting them as his undead lieutenants radical optimization of the party to be an option (even potentially; with explicit agreement of players - if not characters), it would be somewhat dishonest to pretend that it is Neutral behaviour. Similarly enough, I would prefer Drow characters to be Evil, even if they aren't actively behaving as such due to necessity to conform to the surface morals.

And then there are quite a few options that require you RAW to be specific alignment. Assassins are Evil, so are Ur-Priests. Vile feats (Blessing of the Godless, for example) also require you to be Evil.

There are moral systems where it is okay to torture people for the Greater Good. There are moral systems where that is not okay. Saying that one of those is "right" and the other is "wrong" is not something a tabletop roleplaying game should be doing.

You do realize that you don't have to pretend that your interpretation of D&D Good and D&D Evil is true IRL, right? Because that's kinda weird thing to do.

Firechanter

2017-04-21, 03:54 PM

When the DM announces any of the following:
- "Low Magic" / Low Wealth
- low Point Buy, or rolling stats
- Fumble rules. Yes, even then.
- nerfing Mundanes while leaving Casters untouched

There's certainly more but these are the first few that spring to mind.
Generally I will listen to their philosophy and look at their houserules, and if the evidence indicates that the DM doesn't understand the system, I will pass.

Lazymancer

2017-04-21, 03:56 PM

Zanos

2017-04-21, 03:57 PM

What arguments? It depends on specific campaign and interpretations of alignment.

For example, if necromancer considers murdering some of the PCs and resurrecting them as his undead lieutenants radical optimization of the party to be an option (even potentially; with explicit agreement of players - if not characters), it would be somewhat dishonest to pretend that it is Neutral behaviour. Similarly enough, I would prefer Drow characters to be Evil, even if they aren't actively behaving as such due to necessity to conform to the surface morals.
Well, animating undead creatures is specifically Evil, so even if the grand scheme isn't to brutally murder the PCs, most necromancer characters are Evil by default. That sort of applies in general to any sort of "black magic" or whatever your equivalent of the setting is. The guy that binds devils to topple the BBEG is probably Evil, even if he works towards the same goals as the Good or Neutral PCs, the method is kind of abhorrent.

Zombulian

2017-04-21, 03:59 PM

But my all time best on the DM red flags I ever experienced was a DM that brought a Frenzied Berserker DMPC and never ever fudged rolls for the sake of... well, anything. No malicious intent, he just didn't see the TPK coming.

Got me to LOL.

I can certainly see banning Evil characters in certain campaign formats, but it doesn't take a lot to be Evil, just a willingness to hurt innocents or torture the less innocent for pretty much any reason. That includes "because it was for the greater Good" reasons. Or because you wanted to accumulate power and wealth. Or for any other myriad reasons. The nice thing about Evil characters is that they're usually self-motivated.

I just have a restriction that I assume the party will work together. So Evil characters are totally kosher, with the restriction that you aren't actually some secret agent for the BBEG that's going to stab the party in the back at the most opportune moment.

Again, my own play experience taints my ideals. I love evil characters. They're some of the most compelling characters that someone could bring to a table. But... my usual play group often times seems allergic to nuance. If someone in my party is playing an Evil character, 9 times out of 10 it's a sociopath who really has no justification to be hanging around with people trying to save the world and is given to bursting into maniacal laughter.

Zanos

2017-04-21, 04:02 PM

Again, my own play experience taints my ideals. I love evil characters. They're some of the most compelling characters that someone could bring to a table. But... my usual play group often times seems allergic to nuance. If someone in my party is playing an Evil character, 9 times out of 10 it's a sociopath who really has no justification to be hanging around with people trying to save the world and is given to bursting into maniacal laughter.
Yeah, some of my favorite characters I've played are Evil. It's interesting to explore what kinds of things could drive a person to abandon their moral integrity. Sometimes it's just because they're a greedy jerk, but it can also be a lot more than that.

I have also seen Evil as an excuse to just troll the other characters though, which is why I have restrictions.

Zombulian

2017-04-21, 04:06 PM

I have also seen Evil as an excuse to just troll the other characters though, which is why I have restrictions.

My posts could prett much be summed up like this.
Essentially most of my opinions are founded around restricting trolling as much as possible in a party composed of trolls.

Rynjin

2017-04-21, 04:08 PM

Ugh. I cannot second these hard enough. I don't understand anyone who has a Pathfinder game on these boards who ignores these rulesets, but includes "everything Paizo". Because apparently Stalkers and Elemetalists are broken, but Summoners and Arcanists are A-OK.

Hey, if somebody wants to buy me the Spheres of Power rulebooks I'll be willing to run them more often. Using just their wikidot is too much of a pain in the ass though for learning how the system actually works.

More on topic:

-Critical Fumbles (and super successes, for that matter).
--Fumbles and crits on skill checks.

-Too many on the fly houserules. Not rulings, but houserules. "Sorry your Feat is too strong so I'm nerfing it but you're not allowed to respec away from it either" style in particular.

-Yeah, always banning evil alignments is generally one. It shows one of three things: The GM either doesn't trust the players (in a long standing group, this leads me to think I'm not going to enjoy playing with these people), the GM is unwilling to leave their comfort zone, or the GM cannot conceive how that kind of conflict can add to the dynamic of the game. It speaks to a lack of imagination in other areas of the game.

ComaVision

2017-04-21, 04:10 PM

Yeah, I don't really get "Succubi" as a red flag. Like yes, sex stuff will definitely be uncomfortable for everyone involved in most if not all games, but the Succubus is also a totally respectable option as a caster-type encounter at 7th level. Also, the DM is just as capable of having uncomfortable sex stuff happen with Elves or Humans.

It's not a deal-breaker. It's a red flag. The DMs that gravitate towards Succubi also tend to gravitate towards other, more distasteful things in my experience. Elves and humans don't have the automatic sexual implications that Succubi do.

I have personally put several Succubi in the games I have DMed.

digiman619

2017-04-21, 04:15 PM

Let me explain: some people don't have time to read through all the stuff, nor do they want to try to wing it with unknown ruleset mid-game.

That's a valid point, but it falls apart a) if they're starting a new game (hence posting about in in the PbP section) or b) when they include new spells, feats, archetypes and magic items from later Paizo releases, as they had to take time to read the dozens-if-not-hundreds-of-pages of the next sourcebook. If you can read the novel-sized splatbook (and, depending on the length of the game, multiple novel-length splatbooks), you can read the two pages on how SoP works.

Doctor Awkward

2017-04-21, 04:29 PM

"I've been playing D&D since first edition, and honestly, Pathfinder is just the best one they've put out so far."

ComaVision

2017-04-21, 04:30 PM

"I've been playing D&D since first edition, and honestly, Pathfinder is just the best one they've put out so far."

Please explain?

Doctor Awkward

2017-04-21, 04:32 PM

It implies not only that 3.5 is superior to all other editions of D&D in every way (it's not), but also that Pathfinder is a marked improvement over 3.5 in every way (not even close).

Deophaun

2017-04-21, 04:33 PM

"My girlfriend's going to join us."

Crake

2017-04-21, 04:57 PM

It implies not only that 3.5 is superior to all other editions of D&D in every way (it's not), but also that Pathfinder is a marked improvement over 3.5 in every way (not even close).

It's almost like people have opinions and preferences..... Also, posting this in the 3.PF section of the form feels like intentionally trolling :smalltongue:

It's not a deal-breaker. It's a red flag. The DMs that gravitate towards Succubi also tend to gravitate towards other, more distasteful things in my experience. Elves and humans don't have the automatic sexual implications that Succubi do.

I have personally put several Succubi in the games I have DMed.

I like to include succubi because they're by far the most grounded and relatable fiend in my opinion, so you can get a much more compelling character out of them. And the succubi's sex appeal can just easily be directed at NPCs which she then uses against the players, rather than directly at the players themselves. But that's only if fiends are going to be playing a heavy role in the game I'm running, otherwise, I'm just as happy to use an attractive human beguiler instead, or even an ugly one that uses magical disguises, like a hag or something.

Karl Aegis

2017-04-21, 05:00 PM

"The paladin falls."

"What? We were just served dinner and started eating."

"It was veal."

TheTeaMustFlow

2017-04-21, 05:05 PM

Banning a particular option for players, then throwing it at them all the time.

Seems fairly common in star wars games, for whatever reason. "No force users" seems to translate to "force users for me, but not for thee".

Lazymancer

2017-04-21, 05:08 PM

That's a valid point, but it falls apart a) if they're starting a new game (hence posting about in in the PbP section) or b) when they include new spells, feats, archetypes and magic items from later Paizo releases, as they had to take time to read the dozens-if-not-hundreds-of-pages of the next sourcebook. If you can read the novel-sized splatbook (and, depending on the length of the game, multiple novel-length splatbooks), you can read the two pages on how SoP works.
I'm not sure I got this "new game", but people might think SoP is similar to DSP stuff (Path of War), which currently has 7 classes (4-5 archetypes each) with special snowflake fiddly mechanics and 750+ maneuvers. Or regular Pathfinder nonsense, which manages to be much worse. So they don't even attempt to look into it, not being aware that Spheres of Power are an exception in PF.

It implies not only that 3.5 is superior to all other editions of D&D in every way (it's not), but also that Pathfinder is a marked improvement over 3.5 in every way (not even close).
I'd say only BD&D is better than 3.5 and Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5 (provided you limit yourself to core mechanics).

It's almost like people have opinions and preferences..... Also, posting this in the 3.PF section of the form feels like intentionally trolling :smalltongue:
Red flag means that your preferences might differ from GMs preferences.

Arael666

2017-04-21, 05:18 PM

[...] Generally I will listen to their philosophy and look at their houserules, and if the evidence indicates that the DM doesn't understand the system, I will pass.

This is the dealbreaker for me, I can tolerate a lot of meddling with houserules when the DM actually knows what he is doing, even all the previously red flag mentioned would be tolerated by me (as I did before), the only thing that makes me walk out on a table is the DM not having system mastery.

Piedmon_Sama

2017-04-21, 05:39 PM

If they talk about having numerous bad/problem players, ESPECIALLY if they brag about how they got one over on said bad player(s), "taught them a lesson" etc. In my experience, jerks tend to believe they constantly run into jerks so that kind of talk would make me wary about playing in someone's game.

WarKitty

2017-04-21, 05:52 PM

"My girlfriend's going to join us."

Technically, I resemble that one too.
Well, aside from the genders involved.

Graysire

2017-04-21, 05:57 PM

"You're level 1, you were just pitted against the other half of the party and won? It was only a dream they woke up when you beat them, sure you can make an Arcana check to wake up, oh sorry, you rolled a 27, too low, you can't take 20, it was a one time DC 30 thing that you could've only gotten on a Nat 20, so you're stuck in the dream forever"

Giving the same DM a second chance:
One of the sessions was just GMod Deathrun, that was it
"You didn't build this other player's character sheet, so I gave them magic missile as their only spell, castable at-will, at 3 missiles, at level 1, until you make it"
"Yeah the Commoner 1 farmers each have scythes dealing 1d10+4 damage and they have bugbear slaves dealing 2d10+10"

xkroku

2017-04-21, 06:11 PM

ATHATH

2017-04-21, 06:19 PM

Evil characters are always trash, and yours are no exception.

I believe that Red Fel begs demands or subtly influences you to differ.

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

AnimeTheCat

2017-04-21, 06:24 PM

+1 to the low PB/rolled stats. Actually, I can tolerate low PBs, but WHY IN NINE HELLS would you ever do dice-rolled stats?

I hate the ultimately low fantasy settings. And bad houseruling. Especially combined. Once a DM at the characer creation told us that it will be low-fantasy (dice rolled stats ofc). I thought it was ok at first, but when he gave EVERYONE in the group (fighter, barbarian, wizard and monk) 1d20 gp at the start, it was just too much. He offered the fighter a broken greatsword that seals 1d8-2 dmg. It was the first time I ragequitted from a session.

I used to be upset when my old DM would use rolled stats, but it ultimately didn't make a difference in gameplay for us. She was lenient with the rolls, basically letting us re-roll if we rolled below an 8, and it kept it a little more balanced. Sure, I prefer the PB, but I can't shake how awesome it felt when I rolled two 18s on a dice rolled game. Require dice rolls wouldn't be a red flag for me. as far as the 1d20 gold at the start, I could see not giving the PC's anything at all, if they were going to be prisoners on a ship or something being transported to another prison, now clearly since you wrote what you did that was not the case and I'm not trying to start a fight, but that seems like it may be fun to play (as a player or DM) to me.

I've never been a fan of a DM that says things along the lines of "oh, you want to play a [insert tier 3 or lower class here]... i'm going to have to make things easier for you". That to me shows a DM that can't adapt adventures easily or make changes on the fly. Personally, I prefer the "low fantasy" or limited magic settings because it lets the mundanes shine a little more, but basically requiring full casters in a game is not my cup of tea and is a red flag if I'm ever about to be a player.

J-H

2017-04-21, 06:40 PM

I like to roll for stats, with 32 point buy as a backup if you don't like your rolls.

If the DM's intro post has a bunch of grammar or spelling errors in it, I am out. If a DM (or the OP requesting a game) has a history of ghosting, or of being a problem-causer, I'm out.

If a game is posted as 3.5 and the DM says "But we're using my revamps of the classes, skill system, and spells. Here are 40 links to look at when you're building your character." I am out. Sure, 3.5 has some issues. I already have 30 rulebooks to look through, an SRD, and the internet. I don't want to add an extra forty forum-hosted links that I have to remember to refer to instead.

I don't mind race/class/alignment restrictions. I do prefer that the DM says why.

Cosi

2017-04-21, 06:46 PM

Similarly enough, I would prefer Drow characters to be Evil, even if they aren't actively behaving as such due to necessity to conform to the surface morals.

But if you don't behave in any way that is observably Evil, how are you still Evil? That's kind of my point. Either you do things that are genuinely bad, in which case that's disruptive to the party, or you don't and writing Evil on your character sheet didn't do anything.

And then there are quite a few options that require you RAW to be specific alignment. Assassins are Evil, so are Ur-Priests. Vile feats (Blessing of the Godless, for example) also require you to be Evil.

Sure, those exist, but they're mostly stupid.

The only real difference between Assassins and Rogues is Poison Use. Ninjas get that without having to be evil, and that frankly seems like a really weird brightline in any case.

Ur-Priests are Evil because they steal power from the gods. In a world that operates off Christian theology (where God is Good), that is Evil. But D&D doesn't operate off of Christian theology. There are gods of Evil out there, running around being Evil. If draining the power of Pelor is Evil, draining the power of Vecna is presumably Good.

You do realize that you don't have to pretend that your interpretation of D&D Good and D&D Evil is true IRL, right? Because that's kinda weird thing to do.

First, it's still a judgment the game is making that it shouldn't be.

Second, the terminology is inherently unhelpful. Saying that someone is "Good" doesn't tell people much, because people have different definitions of "Good". The game should either use terminology that people do know (for example, these people are utilitarians), or make up some terminology and assign meanings to it (like MTG's color wheel).

EvulOne

2017-04-21, 07:00 PM

DMs who run adventures that are nothing but constant fighting the whole time, it's a Role Playing Game.

When you have a fight and the first round takes literally 3 hours of real time to get done.

When they pull ideas from a sci-fi movie they love. (Someone threw Aliens at us once)

Arbane

2017-04-21, 07:02 PM

-Yeah, always banning evil alignments is generally one. It shows one of three things: The GM either doesn't trust the players (in a long standing group, this leads me to think I'm not going to enjoy playing with these people), the GM is unwilling to leave their comfort zone, or the GM cannot conceive how that kind of conflict can add to the dynamic of the game. It speaks to a lack of imagination in other areas of the game.

2edgy4me.

(My current group has one evil character in a group of otherwise good-to-neutral PCs. He's a jackass to NPCs and then insists he's Just Playing His Character. It's annoying.)

Other red flags:

(In a White Wolf game) "This is going to be a low-combat, high-roleplaying Chronicle..." experienced WW players hearing this will expect every NPC to be a psychohosebeast combat monster who can kill a social-optimized PC by sneezing on them.

"I've been working in this campaign for 20 years..." This will be a guided tour. Keep your hands and feet inside the ride at all time, enjoy the scenery, and don't feed the uberNPCs.

"So, I'm using the Book of Erotic Fantasy in this campaign...." :smalleek:

Actually happened to me: "We're going to be continuing my campaign, all but one player quit...." It took me one session to figure out why they did.

icefractal

2017-04-21, 07:08 PM

Setting aside the obvious question of how that is at all different from the standard adventuring goal of "kill whatever lives in this dungeon and take its stuff" which Good people are totally allowed to have -- how is "I want to torture people for personal power" not something that makes you kill on sight for most parties?Exactly. My issue with evil characters is that a lot of people will make one who does things like this, then say "but I won't do it to the other PCs!" and expect that to be problem solved. :smallannoyed:

I still don't want to travel around with Hannibal Lector, helping him to gain more power in the process, unless I'm playing an evil character myself. :smallyuk:

And a lot of commonly suggested workarounds are basically forms of "the non-evil characters get to be chumps", like the evil character being smarter/stealthier than anyone else and doing this all unseen, or "there is a greater evil so you have to work with torture dude." No thanks.

And yes, to be fair, bringing a Paladin into an evil campaign and expecting everyone to just roll with that would suck also. I don't think either "no evil characters" or "no good characters" is inherently a red flag.

Rynjin

2017-04-21, 07:15 PM

2edgy4me.

(My current group has one evil character in a group of otherwise good-to-neutral PCs. He's a jackass to NPCs and then insists he's Just Playing His Character. It's annoying.)

Notice how all stories like this have two things in common.

1.) An Evil alignment.

2.) A jackass.

Why people always assume #1 is the problem is beyond me.

Arbane

2017-04-21, 07:17 PM

Notice how all stories like this have two things in common.

1.) An Evil alignment.

2.) A jackass.

Why people always assume #1 is the problem is beyond me.

It's kinda hard to be both Evil AND kind and considerate, in my thankfully limited experience.

+1 to the low PB/rolled stats. Actually, I can tolerate low PBs, but WHY IN NINE HELLS would you ever do dice-rolled stats?

Misplaced nostalgia for AD&D?
(I'm pretty sure one old-time player in my current PF game insisted on rolling his character's stats, despite the GM offering a very generous stat-array. Said character is useless in most fights. Being a Rogue probably doesn't help.)

martixy

2017-04-21, 07:24 PM

From this thread I have learned that I am a bad DM.

- Got the fairly significant list of house rules
- Use fumbles
- Love succubi as a monster
- No problem with this so called "sex stuff"
- Love rolling stats

What I do vehemently hate is(things which I have experienced first hand):
- Banning stuff for no good reason
- Bad house rules
- Bad fumbles
- Crits/fumbles on skill checks
- Horrible grasp on how alignment works.
- The deck of many things
- Railroading
- Core only in 3.5

Notice the seemingly hypocritical points. Thing is, I basically started DMing, specifically so I can do things better than the rest.

I'm iffy on the Evil thing. I've yet to see first hand an instance of a player play an evil character correctly and in an engaging manner. I've read about these mythical players, I've just never laid eyes upon such a unicorn.
So in the campaign I'm prepping now I've stated on numerous occasions, that while I will not ban evil characters, I'd ideally like to see a good party. Then again, players decided to be pirates, so I may as well get to see them go whole hog.

Venger

2017-04-21, 07:31 PM

I dunno. I think there are reasonable arguments for flat banning evil characters. What can you do as an evil PC that is simultaneously something you couldn't do as a neutral PC and not something that should make the other PCs declare you an enemy?

maybe your gm enforces alignment reqs for feats, prcs, etc. a lot of options are Evil only for no reason, such as murderous intent, so mechanically my guy might have to be Evil even if I as a player am neither an edgelord nor a disruptive jerkstore

Rynjin

2017-04-21, 07:35 PM

It's kinda hard to be both Evil AND kind and considerate, in my thankfully limited experience.

Unless you morph into every character you create...no, it's not. If you're annoying everyone at the table that's an issue with your behavior as a player, not your character.

More to the point it's pretty easy to play an evil character that isn't a moron. Evil does not mean "kick puppies and antagonize everyone you meet". That is, as you put it, being a jackass. A Chaotic Neutral character (or Lawful good one for that matter) can do the same and be just as annoying (and potentially more so).

If you've ever read the Coldfire Trilogy, Gerald Tarrant is Evil. He slaughtered his family for immortality. He feeds on peoples' fear. He feels no remorse about killing.

But he's not an idiot. He works with the good guys because they have common goals, and his shady methods provide avenues and opportunities that the others in the party can't. He's polite to mostly everyone (though haughty; He is a nobleman). He has a code of honor that makes him tolerable to the other people so long as he is working toward the greater common good. And more and more subtle nuance throughout the books that it would be either very spoilery or very tedious to list all of (they're good books, read them).

In short, he's the very model of Lawful Evil.

That is just an example of a character archetype that can be evil and still mesh well with a whole party. "Evil" does not mean "Baby eating Anti-Paladin", though it can encompass that.

Arbane

2017-04-21, 07:36 PM

I'm iffy on the Evil thing. I've yet to see first hand an instance of a player play an evil character correctly and in an engaging manner. I've read about these mythical players, I've just never laid eyes upon such a unicorn.

ISTR someone (on this forum?) mentioned the time they played an evil character... and did it well enough to creep out the other players. Form this they concluded that nobody who would be good at playing an evil character should do so. :smallbiggrin:

martixy

2017-04-21, 07:44 PM

ISTR someone (on this forum?) mentioned the time they played an evil character... and did it well enough to creep out the other players. Form this they concluded that nobody who would be good at playing an evil character should do so. :smallbiggrin:

I've basically come to the conclusion that for an evil character to work, it has to be in a group where everyone is aware of how evil characters work. Because even if someone plays an evil character competently, a party member who is unable to comprehend that play style is likely to come into conflict with said character in irreconcilable ways. Most often OOC, because many times the root cause is the same - inability to abstract fantasy from reality to a sufficient degree.

Pex

2017-04-21, 08:10 PM

Boasts of PC kill count and past stories of making lives miserable for PCs in various situations.

Has own handbook of house rules.

Low magic, low healing, "gritty". Sure, chalk it up as different playstyle preference, no offense intended for those here who like that, but my experience has been such DMs hate it when players get to do amazing things. These DMs want all the power of doing stuff for themselves. Anything more of a PC doing "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage" is too much for them.

Long list of banned stuff from the Core game, another trait of DMs who hate it for players to do amazing things. I'm ok with a DM who doesn't want to use a splat book I like. That I chalk up to having to live with disappointment.

A DM who uses "Because I'm the DM" a lot.

ATHATH

2017-04-21, 08:11 PM

Banning a race just because they don't like it.
Unless that race is a/the Kender. Then it's totally justified.

Actually, why are you aggravated by that? Sometimes a DM believes that a race won't mesh well with his campaign, believes that a certain race is overpowered/a bit strong, or has other legitimate reasons for banning them (no undead/warforged in a survival campaign, no succubi/nymphs/dryads/others of their type, etc.).

ATHATH

2017-04-21, 08:15 PM

Long list of banned stuff from the Core game, another trait of DMs who hate it for players to do amazing things. I'm ok with a DM who doesn't want to use a splat book I like. That I chalk up to having to live with disappointment.

A DM who uses "Because I'm the DM" a lot.
Actually, I think that banning stuff from Core is okay- after all, most people agree that the most unbalanced books are the core ones (Savage Species and Serpent Kingdoms are close runner-ups, though).

Define "a lot". DMs shouldn't be (too) afraid to use Rule 0 if it will improve the game/stop That Guy's incessant whining (if only for a moment).

Pex

2017-04-21, 08:17 PM

Actually, I think that banning stuff from Core is okay- after all, most people agree that the most unbalanced books are the core ones (Savage Species and Serpent Kingdoms are close runner-ups, though).

Define "a lot". DMs shouldn't be (too) afraid to use Rule 0 if it will improve the game/stop That Guy's incessant whining (if only for a moment).

I'm not one of those "most people".

Telonius

2017-04-21, 08:20 PM

DM's significant other (wife/husband/bf/gf/whatever) is a yellow card for me. It can definitely work amazingly well - I've been in a terrific group where the DM's then-girlfriend, later-wife was a player; and DM'd for my own wife in a long-term campaign as well. But for every good story there's three or four bad ones.

Lots of house rules are another yellow card for me. I have a bunch of them myself; they're mainly used to help people do amazing things (mostly dialing up the power on melee classes and skillmonkeys; much lesser emphasis on toning down the casters, except to prevent them from stepping on other classes' toes). But if there are a bunch of arbitrary restrictions, or things that don't make mechanical sense, that's something I'd watch out for.

As for BoEF... I've actually used exactly one thing from it. One of my players was playing an Artificer obsessed with gems and on making jewelry items. Somewhere in that mess of a book, there's a list of alternate body slot items besides the usual vests, amulets, headbands, and things. Stuff like bangles, bindis; I can't remember what all the list had in it. Anyway, we used that list as equivalent items that she could make instead of the usual Wondrous Items. It actually worked out really well for everybody. The player was happy, the group thought it was really creative, and it helped with the fun.

J-H

2017-04-21, 08:28 PM

Every new race that a player brings into a campaign has to fit into the world somewhere, unless it's an extraplanar traveler. The party rolls up replacement characters that swap out a dwarf, a human, an elf, and a Maenad for a goliath, a xeph, a kender, and a Synad? Now I have to figure out where in the world all of these races live, what they usually do, and why we've managed to go 400 miles and two dozen encounters without seeing or hearing of their existence at all.

More species and more subsystems creates more work if you're trying to have a coherent world.

Segev

2017-04-21, 09:27 PM

Evil characters are always trash, and yours are no exception.

Hey, now, speaking as a necromancer, I resent that remark. I mean, if you're a goody two-shoes who thinks what I do is an abomination, that's one thing. But impugning my power and usefulness to the party? That is uncalled-for.

"The paladin falls."

"What? We were just served dinner and started eating.""Somebody sabotaged his chair. He's flat on his backside on the floor now."

I believe that Red Fel begs demands or subtly influences you to differ.

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.
Indeed, I'm sure he would. Evil PCs are not for every table, and banning them for reasons of theme and party cohesion (especially when somebody is playing a paladin or similar) is one thing, but dismissing the well-played evil asset as inherently trash? That is just factually incorrect.

Malroth

2017-04-21, 09:35 PM

E6

Low Magic

Low Loot

Free Loot for Kenders/Party Killers

Great Wyrms/Tarassque at lv 8.

atemu1234

2017-04-21, 09:58 PM

My red flags tend to be banning material outright, instead of listening to people about it.

It's not a deal-breaker. It's a red flag. The DMs that gravitate towards Succubi also tend to gravitate towards other, more distasteful things in my experience. Elves and humans don't have the automatic sexual implications that Succubi do.

I have personally put several Succubi in the games I have DMed.

I typically prefer to have them seducing other NPCs, if that's what they're doing at all. I don't like reducing player agency, in general.

Unless that race is a/the Kender. Then it's totally justified.

Actually, why are you aggravated by that? Sometimes a DM believes that a race won't mesh well with his campaign, believes that a certain race is overpowered/a bit strong, or has other legitimate reasons for banning them (no undead/warforged in a survival campaign, no succubi/nymphs/dryads/others of their type, etc.).

Yeah, I'm of the mind that if it exists in the setting and has stats, you can play it. Though I've also been attempting to get them to dial back the weird **** a bit more lately.

ATHATH

2017-04-21, 10:18 PM

E6
What's wrong with E6?

Doctor Awkward

2017-04-21, 10:22 PM

It's almost like people have opinions and preferences..... Also, posting this in the 3.PF section of the form feels like intentionally trolling :smalltongue:

It's funny though-- I have never once encountered in real life a D&D DM who prefers to run Pathfinder that is capable of admitting that the system has any faults at all.

It's always some variation of my first post. Never anything even resembling a variation of, "Yeah it's not the perfect system, and there were some things they could have done better, but I still like it best because <reasons>." It's the inability to explain why they prefer it that irks me to no end.

I guess it's kind of in the same way I despise The Beatles. My level of dislike for the band itself is nothing compared to how I feel about their fans. The folks who claim they are the greatest band of all time, even though that's demonstrably untrue.

WarKitty

2017-04-21, 10:34 PM

Yeah, I'm of the mind that if it exists in the setting and has stats, you can play it. Though I've also been attempting to get them to dial back the weird **** a bit more lately.

I feel like there's a difference here between DM's who play established settings, and DM's (like me) who play our own custom settings. Those of us who play custom settings might have different rules for what exists in the setting, ranging from "I need this reserved for plot reasons" to "this just doesn't exist because I don't want to work it in."

It's funny though-- I have never once encountered in real life a D&D DM who prefers to run Pathfinder that is capable of admitting that the system has any faults at all.

It's always some variation of my first post. Never anything even resembling a variation of, "Yeah it's not the perfect system, and there were some things they could have done better, but I still like it best because <reasons>." It's the inability to explain why they prefer it that irks me to no end.

I guess it's kind of in the same way I despise The Beatles. My level of dislike for the band itself is nothing compared to how I feel about their fans. The folks who claim they are the greatest band of all time, even though that's demonstrably untrue.

I prefer pathfinder to 4e from experience. I prefer it to 5e because I'm cheap and try not to pirate my books. It's a fun system, but the melee/magic balance still sucks pretty badly, and it still has rocket tag issues.

atemu1234

2017-04-22, 12:34 AM

It's funny though-- I have never once encountered in real life a D&D DM who prefers to run Pathfinder that is capable of admitting that the system has any faults at all.

It's always some variation of my first post. Never anything even resembling a variation of, "Yeah it's not the perfect system, and there were some things they could have done better, but I still like it best because <reasons>." It's the inability to explain why they prefer it that irks me to no end.

I guess it's kind of in the same way I despise The Beatles. My level of dislike for the band itself is nothing compared to how I feel about their fans. The folks who claim they are the greatest band of all time, even though that's demonstrably untrue.

I mean, I'd say Pathfinder has faults like any system. I admit this quite freely in real life too. I just prefer it to 3.5, which I think it has a few more closed loopholes in comparison to.
Granted, closed loopholes mean jack **** when you houserule in 3.5 versions of Polymorph and its ilk and 3.0 versions of Haste and Fly.

Jarmen4u

2017-04-22, 02:27 AM

If draining the power of Pelor is Evil, draining the power of Vecna is presumably Good.

So if I only use Necromancy to turn Evil people into mindless zombies, is it Good?

Lazymancer

2017-04-22, 02:38 AM

I've basically come to the conclusion that for an evil character to work, it has to be in a group where everyone is aware of how evil characters work.
That's true for all alignments. Especially when it comes to Paladins, who seem to have some sort of secret cabal dedicated to Leroy Jenkins.

It's kinda hard to be both Evil AND kind and considerate, in my thankfully limited experience.
Okay. This is just creepy. Like slightly above and beyond "Red Flag player".

What's wrong with E6?
Nothing. Provided it's not used to build a better railroad. Which it often is.

+1 to the low PB/rolled stats. Actually, I can tolerate low PBs, but WHY IN NINE HELLS would you ever do dice-rolled stats?
Actually, why pointbuy should exist in the first place?

Ever thought of how it serves no purpose? Either you do it right, or you do it wrong (hello, d4 drow Sorcerer; no, dumping Constitution was not the brightest idea you could've come up with; no, I'm not infringing on your freedom of expression when I tell you to put some points in it; no, I'm not railroading when I try to sell you +Con belt at a discount; no, you dying in the first fight does not make me Killer GM - it's a consequence of having single-digit hp at 6th level). It should be part of classes. But - no. Players are given "options".

On the other hand, dice-rolls do have a purpose: grant unique qualities to characters. They might suck at it, though; being a legacy feature of completely different system that worked within a different paradigm.

Firechanter

2017-04-22, 02:44 AM

What's wrong with E6?

I wouldn't care for an E6 game either. It stops just before things get interesting.

Lazymancer

2017-04-22, 02:52 AM

I wouldn't care for an E6 game either. It stops just before things get interesting.
Have you ever played with at least half a dozen hirelings?

Firechanter

2017-04-22, 03:44 AM

WesleyVos

2017-04-22, 05:28 AM

Biggest red flag: DM has a DMPC using questionable rulings on RAW that he doesn't make clear are available to the players, and then starts to railroad the party into what his character wants to do. I literally walked off the rails in that game.

Also, in PbP, DM makes one-liner DM posts and massive DMPC posts.

I know, DMPCs are usually bad and a red flag in general, but those two take it from red flag to RUN AWAY NOW.

Crake

2017-04-22, 06:14 AM

I've played with an entire company of hirelings. And then even more followers. It doesn't matter. Level 6 is just not interesting enough to capture my interest for longer than 3 sessions or so. Level 7 is when things _sloooooowly_ start to get interesting for me, with probably level 12-13 being the sweet spot.

My experience as a DM is quite the opposite. Sure you get some cool abilities around 7-12, but players start to get induced analysis paralysis and the game tends to grind to a halt. I only have 1 player that can actually keep the game going forward at that point, so it ends up feeling like a one on one campaign with the other players are NPCs/cohorts.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that I run very open world games with very little forced direction, and the players actually need to figure out a path for themselves, but I've given up trying to GM high level games for that reason, so I'm resigned to running e6 games now.

Ironically, my next game is set in a low magic era (read: no magic items, magic use is punishable by death), with no divine magic even possible, but I'm running the pathfinder unchained no magic item optional rule, so the players do get some bonuses. I'm also very liberal with mundane alchemical items and the like, which can pseudo-duplicate magical effects. To supplement this, I also run several of the unearthed arcana optional rules, including class defense bonus, armor as DR, and the wounds/vitality system to make up for the lack of healing (vitality comes back every hour instead of every day).

Guess that checks off pretty much everyone's red flags around here, my players still have fun though :smalltongue:

JNAProductions

2017-04-22, 07:19 AM

The thing is, red flags are not "Run away, this is a horrible DM!"

Red flags are "Okay, be on watch-make sure you're having fun to continue playing."

Andezzar

2017-04-22, 07:43 AM

But my all time best on the DM red flags I ever experienced was a DM that brought a Frenzied Berserker DMPC and never ever fudged rolls for the sake of... well, anything. No malicious intent, he just didn't see the TPK coming.He probably assumed the PCs would carry bags of marbles with them as soon as they knew they would be going into battle with a frenzied berserker. ;)

Florian

2017-04-22, 08:56 AM

- Doesn´t know the rules, doesn't care as the story is more important.
- Too enamored with the Rule of Cool.
- Wants to use dramatic scenes similar to novels or movies.
- No grip how the game and challenges change past the low level range.
- Too much into the arms race to block character abilities and protect (d)npcs.

Particle_Man

2017-04-22, 09:55 AM

I remember making a character whose only purpose was to tank the Frenzied Berserker when he went off the rails. It worked, but I was very lucky (one crit. would have finished me). :smallsmile:

Anyhow, a minor red flag for me is "fumble rules", but because since almost every DM I have ever had uses them I just consider that one to be a lost battle.

A major red flag would be "And then the NPC rapes your PC" (this has never happened to me or my fellow players, thank goodness!). Like, just no. I would, at minimum, walk away from the table if that occurred.

WarKitty

2017-04-22, 10:46 AM

A follow-up might be "doesn't backtrack when players are uncomfortable."

Different people have different tolerances. On things that are common red flags (such as rape), the DM should probably inquire beforehand as to the tolerances of the players. Sometimes less common tolerances happen - for example, I like a good horror game, but I absolutely cannot tolerate asylum horror. I usually discuss this beforehand, but if it came up in a game, I would expect a DM to make some allowance, even if it meant a bit of retconning.

Doctor Awkward

2017-04-22, 11:29 AM

Ironically, my next game is set in a low magic era (read: no magic items, magic use is punishable by death), with no divine magic even possible, but I'm running the pathfinder unchained no magic item optional rule, so the players do get some bonuses. I'm also very liberal with mundane alchemical items and the like, which can pseudo-duplicate magical effects. To supplement this, I also run several of the unearthed arcana optional rules, including class defense bonus, armor as DR, and the wounds/vitality system to make up for the lack of healing (vitality comes back every hour instead of every day).

Low-magic "gritty" games aren't a bad thing in theory. The Thieve's World d20 setting published by Green Ronin was more or less built on that principle, and can be a lot of fun. The problem enters when a DM says he wants to do a low-magic game because he doesn't like that spellcasters solve problems instantly, and has no understanding of how fundamentally entwined magic is with D&D. The game is designed with the assumption that characters will have certain magic items, benefits, and spells available to them at certain levels of play.

Everyone knows about allips; the CR 3 that is an automatic wipe for any party without access to magic missile or a cleric that can Turn Undead. But it goes further than that. There are other creatures balanced around the assumption that the party has a cleric that can cast Remove Fear or heal ability score damage. Or an item that will boost saving throws. Or the extra HP from a +Con item. Or at a minimum assumes the party can visit a town and pay for spellcasting services to cure these problems after the fact. Or the DM says things like "no magic", and then continues to populate encounters with magical beasts, constructs, undead, outsiders, dragons, and other creatures with innate spellcasting with no explanation where they came from.

If you have a DM who has actually made the monumental undertaking of carefully picking through the books to re-balance the system and appropriately challenge a party who will have very restricted access to magic, then "low-magic" games are just fine. But the lion's share of DM's don't do that, and that's why it's a red flag.

Ellrin

2017-04-22, 12:11 PM

I dunno. I think there are reasonable arguments for flat banning evil characters. What can you do as an evil PC that is simultaneously something you couldn't do as a neutral PC and not something that should make the other PCs declare you an enemy?

Being evil isn't the same thing as being stupid, though, to be fair, a lot of players don't realize that. An evil character is entirely capable of acting in a noble or heroic way for an extended period of time, as long as it ultimately serves his own interests. Played well, you may still see that underneath that he's still a bag of *****, but one the other PCs can't reasonably declare to be an irredeemable villain and simply imprison/kill/etc. Unless they're evil too, of course. It can lead to interesting party dynamics, albeit ones that are slightly more likely to tear themselves apart than normal.

Also, the DM is just as capable of having uncomfortable sex stuff happen with Elves or Humans.

Or owlbears. Or bears. Or owls.

Red Fel

2017-04-22, 02:53 PM

I believe that Red Fel begs demands or subtly influences you to differ.

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

Indeed, I'm sure he would. Evil PCs are not for every table, and banning them for reasons of theme and party cohesion (especially when somebody is playing a paladin or similar) is one thing, but dismissing the well-played evil asset as inherently trash? That is just factually incorrect.

Red Fel does indeed differ.

Segev is quite right that Evil is an alignment that needs to be played judiciously. That is, you need to be aware of who is at the table, and what they expect, and you need to be prepared to steer your character accordingly, or to abandon it altogether if it clashes with the rest of the table.

But that said...

Evil characters are always trash, and yours are no exception.

You're mean and your words are hurtful. You meanie.

Any character is trash in the wrong hands. Alternatively, any character is fun in the right hands.

Blanket generalizations are always, and without exception, a universally terrible thing, and inevitably wholly inaccurate. And blue text is for amateurs.

Back on topic, a red flag for me as DM is simple: A player who refuses to talk or refuses to listen. Everything stems from communication. D&D is a social game, which means that communication is at its core. If I ask you to explain your character concept in a sentence - not a novel, just a quick snippet - and you can't or won't do that, that's a problem. If I have to explain something to you repeatedly, that's a problem.

If you won't tell me what you want in the game, and you won't listen to my or other players' concerns, somebody at this table won't be happy, and it sure as anything won't be me.

GrayDeath

2017-04-22, 04:36 PM

A lot has already been said, but for me the three worst (not counting "Guys I am actually introducing to RPG for the first time" and similar, mind!)

1.: Not reading the necessary Info material (ergo the part in the rulebook about their class/Style/Type, depending on System, and the basic Rules

2.: Submitting cheating Characters when I KNOW they can build them right/defending their "wrong" rUle usage

3.: Wanting to play things I explicitely mentioned as having no place in the campaign BEFOREHAND.

Colonel Snazzy

2017-04-22, 05:05 PM

Everyone knows about allips; the CR 3 that is an automatic wipe for any party without access to magic missile or a cleric that can Turn Undead. But it goes further than that. There are other creatures balanced around the assumption that the party has a cleric that can cast Remove Fear or heal ability score damage.

Oh, this. I once had a DM (who was admittedly new to DMing) who threw an Allip at us when only one person was lvl 3(thank god it was the sorcerer) and the rest were lvl 1 - 2 (cue my lvl1 bard dying)

Naez

2017-04-22, 06:24 PM

Bases their campaign on a video game. (Inherently one player experiences that often rely on mechanics missing in the dnd system such as jump attacks)

Doesn't tailor encounters to the party, making every fight either ridiculously hard or laughably easy.

martixy

2017-04-22, 06:49 PM

Oh, this. I once had a DM (who was admittedly new to DMing) who threw an Allip at us when only one person was lvl 3(thank god it was the sorcerer) and the rest were lvl 1 - 2 (cue my lvl1 bard dying)

See, red flag here is not throwing allips at you. Those can be dealt with by playing intelligently.
It's the level disparity.

Rynjin

2017-04-22, 09:07 PM

Bases their campaign on a video game.

I'm playing in a 5e game based on Icewind Dale 2 that's pretty good, though I agree that trying to base a campaign around video game MECHANICS probably ain't gonna go well.

theasl

2017-04-22, 09:25 PM

"I've been playing D&D since first edition, and honestly, Pathfinder is just the best one they've put out so far."

I mean, they aren't even made by the same people...:smallannoyed:

Bases their campaign on a video game. (Inherently one player experiences that often rely on mechanics missing in the dnd system such as jump attacks)

My first ever campaign was based on Baldur's Gate; it worked quite well too. (My second one from the same DM was also based on another CRPG, though he never told me which one because I bought Baldur's Gate by like the third session and beat it pretty quickly on my own :smallbiggrin:)

Cosi

2017-04-22, 09:56 PM

1.) An Evil alignment.

2.) A jackass.

Why people always assume #1 is the problem is beyond me.

If you could know in advance who was a jackass, you wouldn't need red flags.

So if I only use Necromancy to turn Evil people into mindless zombies, is it Good?

Personally, I don't think the game ever makes a compelling case for why making a mindless zombie is evil but making a mindless robot (with e.g. animate objects) is good. FFS, there are good undead (or undead-ish) critters out there, so I think animate dead getting the [Evil] tag is something that should probably be ignored in any normative discussion of game morality.

But I do get the point you're making -- that the action itself might have moral weight independent of whoever it's being done to. That's potentially true, but I don't think the game description really supports it. Does using divine magic "without praying to or worshiping a god" sound inherently evil? It's not clear to me that their power draining plan is terribly different from a normal Cleric, except instead of doing their gods bidding, they do their own stuff, which sounds pretty neutral to me.

Being evil isn't the same thing as being stupid, though, to be fair, a lot of players don't realize that. An evil character is entirely capable of acting in a noble or heroic way for an extended period of time, as long as it ultimately serves his own interests.

The guy who goes along with the heroes because it helps him out rather than because it's the "right thing to do" is a character concept that is very much compatible with almost any adventuring party. In fact, that's just Han Solo. But that's not really evil so much as just ... kind of a jerk maybe.

zergling.exe

2017-04-22, 10:24 PM

Naez

2017-04-22, 11:13 PM

I'm playing in a 5e game based on Icewind Dale 2 that's pretty good, though I agree that trying to base a campaign around video game MECHANICS probably ain't gonna go well.

I mean, they aren't even made by the same people...:smallannoyed:

My first ever campaign was based on Baldur's Gate; it worked quite well too. (My second one from the same DM was also based on another CRPG, though he never told me which one because I bought Baldur's Gate by like the third session and beat it pretty quickly on my own :smallbiggrin:)

I hope you both realize those games were in turn based on DND. Which means it was already highly compatible with the system.

Rynjin

2017-04-22, 11:15 PM

I hope you both realize those games were in turn based on DND. Which means it was already highly compatible with the system.

Yes, but the plots are no more or less compatible than any other game.

If I run a D&D game based on Final Fantasy VI, the only problem is going to be trying to enforce Final Fantasy gameplay mechanics, rather than plot. Is my point.

Hell, that problem could still crop up with Icewind Dale if handled badly. 2e and 5e are VEEEERY different games.

theasl

2017-04-22, 11:22 PM

If you have a DM trying to include core gameplay mechanics from video games instead of only plot into a 3.P game, then you're right, it's a giant red flag, and for me heck no I'm out of there. Otherwise it's actually quite awesome.

Cisturn

2017-04-23, 12:14 AM

Red Flags:

Every NPC you run into is stupidly powerful and stronger than you.

Conversely: every NPC acts like an idiot.

Every combat ends with PC deaths. Adventuring should be dangerous, but damn when I need to roll three guys to through one combat, the game isn't really fun anymore.

DM becomes vindictive when things don't go their way.

The DM would rather tell a story than run a game.

Thoughts on evil characters:

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about evil PCs. But there's something strange happening. The argument seems to be if you should be allowed to play a mustache-twirling "mwahaha" type character that clearly wants to betray the party at first convenience.

I think that that's pretty severely underselling evil characters. You can play a character that's selfish, amoral, prideful, wrathful, etc. without slipping into Saturday Morning Cartoon/Hannibal Lecter territory. You could also still be loyal, trustworthy, kind to NPCs and the party while still being completely evil.

You could be a charming government agent that believes the ends, even if unsavory, justifies the means. You could be a soldier that's lost too many people and now only lives to hunt down as many enemies as he can find. You could even be a dark knight that gave up on honor a long time ago but still doesn't want to see the entire world go up in the smoke if the real bad guy gets his way.

Evil characters are just as variable as good and neutral characters. While I may not want a clearly psychopathic Chaotic Evil that eats people in the party, a character with some depth and rationale for their behavior I think would be absolutely fine.

GrayDeath

2017-04-23, 01:30 PM

These actually belong in the other thread (and those ones in this thread).

orry, the offtopic discussions hid that this was meant to be a "What things that DM`s do are BAD",

the title implies Red Flags FOR DM`s, which is what I went for.

Sorry. ;)

An Enemy Spy

2017-04-23, 01:39 PM

theasl

2017-04-23, 01:55 PM

That's a problem with the players not understanding alignment rather than alignments themselves. CN is perhaps the classic adventurer alignment: they don't care what anyone thinks, they're just in it for the loot.

Lazymancer

2017-04-23, 02:13 PM

The problem with Evil characters, along with Chaotic Neutral ones, are that they tend to attract the kinds of players who want to disrupt the game and make everything all about them.
Yeah. Some don't even try to stop yawning only after ten minutes of exposition. Who do they think they are?

I once GMed a free-form game where the very first thing one player did was have his character stab another player's guy in the eye, because 'lol I'm so random!'. Pissed everyone off and the game ended very fast.
If only he played LG Paladin and stabbed him For Justice, that would've made everything okay.

Baby Gary

2017-04-23, 02:21 PM

this is a big red flag for me.

Just imagine that you are fighting a dragon in an ancient crypt and you are a wizard and are out of spells and at low hp so you are hiding behind a pillar while the fighter is hitting the dragon.

While that is happening (this of out of game btw) you and the DM are having an argument. but this happens--(back in play) the dragon hit you with their breath attack, even though you are out of the range and even though you got high enough on the save to only take half damage you still fail; and then (you were on low hp, remember?) then you die.

this is a dramatization, but you know what I mean.

unseenmage

2017-04-23, 02:53 PM

Bans too much.

Doesn't ban enough.

Uses rule zero without realizing theyre using rule zero.
For example, the NPCs always see through bluffs and disguises just because theyre that badass.

Baby Gary

2017-04-23, 02:57 PM

what is rule zero?

WarKitty

2017-04-23, 02:59 PM

what is rule zero?

Rule zero is "the DM is always right."

Used judiciously, can save a game. Overused, can ruin it.

An Enemy Spy

2017-04-23, 03:00 PM

Yeah. Some don't even try to stop yawning only after ten minutes of exposition. Who do they think they are?

If only he played LG Paladin and stabbed him For Justice, that would've made everything okay.

Can I get some fries with all that salt?

Who's giving ten minute long exposition? Am I? I never said anything about exposition. You're just making things up to be a smartass. And anyway, I never said Evil characters are actually bad, just that that tend to appeal to players who are jerks. Probably ones like you, which explains why you're so defensive over it.

Quertus

2017-04-23, 03:16 PM

Well, I lost my original reply, because the site decided that this thread didn't exist anymore. :smallconfused:

I break it down into 3 categories: inexperienced DM, bad DM, and incompatible DM.

Inexperienced
- low magic (this one is such a common noob mistake, it really deserves to be listed first).
- otherwise changing the rules without understanding the larger ramifications to balance / the game / world at large.
- banning monk or ToB because it's too OP.
- banning most anything, really, without a really compelling reason (hint: most reasons aren't good).
- core only, for balance reasons.
- doesn't understand the rules (say, allows metamagics to be applied to all spells for free).

Bad
- any of the above, coupled with no desire to evaluate, or no ability to improve, their performance.
- strong favoritism.
- spite (often the flip side of favoritism).
- changes the rules with a coat lack of desire to understand them first.
- changes the rules mid-game.
- has tables of how each alignment (or alignment x race x gender) responds to any given situation; not acting accordance with their tables is "bad role-playing".
- Amy other moronic views on role-playing.

Incompatible
- tailors encounters to the party.
- narrativist "things happen at the dramatically appropriate time / in the most dramatically appropriate way".
- initiative by who talks first.
- cares about alignment.
- level 0.
- the DM built all the characters

Ok, I suppose I'd accept that last one if balance was a huge issue, other solutions had been tried, and the DM got my buy-in first.

I'm sure there's more that ought to make my list.

Baby Gary

2017-04-23, 03:32 PM

JNAProductions

2017-04-23, 03:33 PM

Darth Ultron

2017-04-23, 04:58 PM

*"I run a Low Magic World'' is a huge Red flag for me, even more so as it just about always means ''a low magic world for just the players '' and nothing else in the game changes. This gets really bad in games like 3X after 5th level or so when you start running into foes will all sorts of defenses and damage reduction and your group only has one magic weapon and like three spells.

*Everything is ok to use'' Everything? There is a lot of crazy, broken stuff in that everything...really you have to just ban some stuff or at least fix it.

*All characters must gestalt with a class X'' I'm just not a fan of the DM forcing players to take or do things in character creation.

*Any time the DM is overly obsessed with some fiction(a book, movie or TV show) that they mention it several times in a couple minutes. Amazingly, during the game, the DM will try and make the game ''just like that fiction'' and will get very mad, at least, if the players don't follow the fiction.

*''The rules don't matter lets just play!'' One of the worst ones as the rules do matter....

My big number one:

*"I'm working on my own game system/have my own game system'' sigh, just no. I don't want to hear about it.

Blu

2017-04-23, 05:01 PM

-How he uses Rule 0.
DM: That guy had a magical aura that caused fear.
Me: Then why roll a Sense motive instead of a Will save?
DM: Because i wanted it.

Using Rule 0 is ok if you are using to increase the fun or have a good explanation on why. Changing things without significant reason is a red flag

-Low magic in a hypocritical way
It's okay to have Low magic, it's not okay when most of the bad guys are Wizards/other casters/magical thingys and such or there are a ton of caster NPC's.
In another way, it's also not okay to limit magical loot, but the party has a wizard or cleric that now doesn't have to even think to overshadow others.

-"Too much class features"
DM just looked at the class table and immediately said "No". The reason: too much class features, not even kidding he didn't even bother to read them or understand what they did.

-"Since your character is like that"
DM's that don't understand or even bother to understand character concepts and motivations. Recently i had a DM who didn't even read my character background, despite me explaining the character concept and backgroung, alongside some of it's flaws for him.
These can be a huge red flag of the DM caring more for telling a history than running a game, or simply not caring at all.

On the subject of Evil allignment.
I normally as DM see the allignment only as the tendency of your character. Just because you are Evil, doesn't mean you don't have friends and can only murder for a living. Give options, most of the time your character would probably choose the Evil one, but not always.
Also, Evil allignment is not an excuse for trolling/murdering/robbing PC's unless that is the theme of the campaign.

Blu

2017-04-23, 05:04 PM

*''The rules don't matter lets just play!'' One of the worst ones as the rules do matter....

For that DM you say: "Wrong system mate."
I mean, there are a ton of system and such that favor light mechanics and math. If someone wants to play D&D and ignore those, the person is just too lazy to learn a system.

WarKitty

2017-04-23, 05:09 PM

Blu

2017-04-23, 05:17 PM

For all my griping though, I understand DM's who don't allow homebrew. As a DM I allow very little of it - really only when it's something fairly basic that can be added without fundamentally changing anything.

Well, your idea of it is good. If the DM is not comfortable with it, it's okay to say no.

I usually see on a lot of new DM's that they whant to make homebrew straight away

Red Fel

2017-04-23, 05:48 PM

The problem with Evil characters, along with Chaotic Neutral ones, are that they tend to attract the kinds of players who want to disrupt the game and make everything all about them. I once GMed a free-form game where the very first thing one player did was have his character stab another player's guy in the eye, because 'lol I'm so random!'. Pissed everyone off and the game ended very fast.

I think you have your causation backwards. It's a bit more accurate to say that jerks are attracted to Evil (or CN) characters, and that this is a problem of them being jerks, than to say that it's a problem inherent to Evil (or CN) characters.

And anyway, I never said Evil characters are actually bad, just that that tend to appeal to players who are jerks. Probably ones like you, which explains why you're so defensive over it.

Because you're implying that this is a flaw in Evil characters, as opposed to a flaw in the players. And by extension, you're implying that if you play an Evil character, you must be one of those jerks. You could say the same thing about any character concept that clashes with the party, such as a Paladin, a Necromancer, a character with Vow of Peace, or a Kender.

I play Evil characters. Venite ad me, Frater.

Cosi

2017-04-23, 05:54 PM

I think you have your causation backwards. It's a bit more accurate to say that jerks are attracted to Evil (or CN) characters, and that this is a problem of them being jerks, than to say that it's a problem inherent to Evil (or CN) characters.

Again, if you could know in advance which players were jerks, you wouldn't need red flags.

Remuko

2017-04-23, 06:03 PM

I think you have your causation backwards. It's a bit more accurate to say that jerks are attracted to Evil (or CN) characters, and that this is a problem of them being jerks, than to say that it's a problem inherent to Evil (or CN) characters.

Because you're implying that this is a flaw in Evil characters, as opposed to a flaw in the players. And by extension, you're implying that if you play an Evil character, you must be one of those jerks. You could say the same thing about any character concept that clashes with the party, such as a Paladin, a Necromancer, a character with Vow of Peace, or a Kender.

I play Evil characters. Venite ad me, Frater.

Did, did you just say "come at me bro" in latin? That's amazing xD

Quertus

2017-04-23, 06:08 PM

what's the problem with tailoring the adventure to the party, (this is in the clasic 4 player party btw) if you have a rouge that deals all its damage in sneak attacks and the campaign is about fighting a lot of elemental then you as the DM might want to rethink that before the campaign really gets underway, like changing it in the first 4ish hours.

That was under Incompatible. So they're not saying it's inherently bad DMing-it's just not to their taste.

In other words, no problem at all, except for personal taste.

Yeah, not a sign of a bad DM, just not for me. If I build a fighter that deals double the damage my last fighter dealt, I want the result to be that foes drop twice as fast, not that my foes magically have twice as many HP. If I build a fighter that deals half the damage my last fighter dealt, I want the result to be that foes take twice as long to drop, not that my foes magically have half as many HP.

I want the world to feel real, not custom-tailored to our characters. I want the characters we bring and the decisions we make to matter. Changing the adventure / world to match our characters' capabilities invalidates our choices in making / bringing those characters in the first place. And thus is red flag for me for the players' choices mattering. Consider it a subtle form of railroading.

But.

If the DM knows ahead of time that most of the foes that the party will face for the next 7 levels are elemental, undead, constructs, and oozes, and somebody brings a DPS SA rogue to the table, it's equally bad form not to mention that their character may struggle, and they might want to consider making a different choice.

I hope that clarified my position on the matter.

WarKitty

2017-04-23, 06:09 PM

Again, if you could know in advance which players were jerks, you wouldn't need red flags.

I think part of the problem is that if you ban the jerks from doing one thing, they'll just do another. So suddenly, it's not just evil alignments that are the warning sign, it's CN (because people play CN when they can't play CE). If you flag CN, something else will pop up. And so on.

Naez

2017-04-23, 06:17 PM

Incompatible
- tailors encounters to the party.
-...

I'd actually like to hear the reasoning behind this as I myself have an opposite problem with encounters not being tailored to the party

...I play Evil characters. Venite ad me, Frater.

I feel like playing with you would be a treat.

WarKitty

2017-04-23, 06:19 PM

I'd actually like to hear the reasoning behind this as I myself have an opposite problem with encounters not being tailored to the party

The real annoying thing is when everything is tailored to the specific weaknesses of the party. I admit I do some of that, but the party should get to use their strengths.

Naez

2017-04-23, 06:36 PM

The real annoying thing is when everything is tailored to the specific weaknesses of the party. I admit I do some of that, but the party should get to use their strengths.

See I tend to run into the issue (being that I'm no story writer) in pre-made material they love throwing massive waves of terribly made enemies. Yeah 8 level 2 Warriors with toughness and alertness as their feats? EL 6 encounter. Level 5, the wizard solves the entire encounter with one fireball.

So I kind of have to tailor the encounters to make an encounter that is challenging and engaging so the players don't get bored.

WarKitty

2017-04-23, 06:37 PM

See I tend to run into the issue (being that I'm no story writer) in pre-made material they love throwing massive waves of terribly made enemies. Yeah 8 level 2 Warriors with toughness and alertness as their feats? EL 6 encounter. Level 5, the wizard solves the entire encounter with one fireball.

So I kind of have to tailor the encounters to make an encounter that is challenging and engaging so the players don't get bored.

Yeah, I've pretty much decided with a cleric and a necromancer in the party, I'm not going to use undead unless they have really good turn checks. Otherwise it's just pointless.

Lazymancer

2017-04-23, 06:40 PM

And anyway, I never said Evil characters are actually bad, just that that tend to appeal to players who are jerks. Probably ones like you, which explains why you're so defensive over it.
Yes. People disagree with you because they are jerks. It's the only explanation.

Again, if you could know in advance which players were jerks, you wouldn't need red flags.
There are strong causal links and weak.

To put it simply: that doesn't make every red flag equally useful. Pretending otherwise is counterproductive.

To put it even simpler: I had a bad player in pink jeans. Let's red flag everyone in pink jeans.

@Naez: you might want to look into old school role-playing, if you want to understand distaste towards "appropriate encounters".

Someguy231

2017-04-23, 07:04 PM

Banning/restricting ToB because "too op" but not touching spells

I hat it when that happens. Besides, the three most powerful classes that people are okay with are in the player's handbook because they're fed countless amounts of new **** they can do from all the splatbooks, yet we should ban Tom of Battle because it's too OP compared to the other martial classes, even though the Initiator level system is the most multiclass friendly system in 3.5 compared to spellcasting and power manifesting.

gooddragon1

2017-04-23, 07:13 PM

D&D 3.5
Banning Monk because "too OP"

Well if they insist... *troubled breathing due to laughter*

If the DM has an ego. Not always, but you have to play it by ear.

If the DM pulls out a copy of Gamma World/Any wh40k book/Cthulu Mythos/Etc.

What the DM Says: Low magic...
What the DM means: ...for the players

If the DM says "You should be able to handle this at your level." (again, not always, but be cautious)
If the DM says "Technically it is CR appropriate"

I hat it when that happens. Besides, the three most powerful classes that people are okay with are in the player's handbook because they're fed countless amounts of new **** they can do from all the splatbooks, yet we should ban Tom of Battle because it's too OP compared to the other martial classes, even though the Initiator level system is the most multiclass friendly system in 3.5 compared to spellcasting and power manifesting.

That's part of the problem. Some DM's see flexibility or ease of use with being OP. In the good old days you had to walk uphill both ways...

Honest Tiefling

2017-04-23, 07:26 PM

"My girlfriend's going to join us."

I've seen it go HORRIBLY, and I've seen it go well. It's mildly awkward to hang out with someone and never involve their SO if interested. Just start a new campaign in case things go a bit south.

But please...Can you date for over a month before doing this? Thank you. Date, not sleep together.

"I've been playing D&D since first edition, and honestly, Pathfinder is just the best one they've put out so far."

I think this one is meaning that they believe 3.5 to be the END OF ALL SYSTEMS and the pinnacle of table top, and rabid fanboys and fangirls of any system are a recipe for trouble.

Also, WOTC didn't make Pathfinder, so the fact that they apparently know all about DnD in all of its incarnations without knowing that is a bit suspect.

Unless that race is a/the Kender. Then it's totally justified.

Oh, Pelor yes. I hate Kender.

Then again...As long as a DM can make a reasonable argument NOT to include a race, I don't care about race selection as long as they are upfront about it. I hate players who assume that every campaign setting MUST have whisper gnomes, goliaths, warforged, half-giants and anthromorphic bats. Just gimme a reasonable selection or sell me on a human only campaign.

As for evil alignments, I've seen good aligned characters commit murder(including of babies!), assault, and rape. Alignment doesn't mean a thing, dumb*** gonna dumb***.

Zombulian

2017-04-23, 09:16 PM

If the DM says "You should be able to handle this at your level." (again, not always, but be cautious)
If the DM says "Technically it is CR appropriate"

One more time for the people in the back

atemu1234

2017-04-23, 09:45 PM

Oh, Pelor yes. I hate Kender.

Then again...As long as a DM can make a reasonable argument NOT to include a race, I don't care about race selection as long as they are upfront about it. I hate players who assume that every campaign setting MUST have whisper gnomes, goliaths, warforged, half-giants and anthromorphic bats. Just gimme a reasonable selection or sell me on a human only campaign.

As for evil alignments, I've seen good aligned characters commit murder(including of babies!), assault, and rape. Alignment doesn't mean a thing, dumb*** gonna dumb***.

Yeah, typically in my campaigns I have a pretty 'anything-goes' attitude about this stuff. Racewise, if I put a limitation on it I'll let the players know. For example, recently I decided to have a game with only Elf races. For an entire campaign setting. The idea for the campaign gets pretty politicky. And then elder-evil-y.

Honest Tiefling

2017-04-23, 10:01 PM

Yeah, typically in my campaigns I have a pretty 'anything-goes' attitude about this stuff. Racewise, if I put a limitation on it I'll let the players know. For example, recently I decided to have a game with only Elf races. For an entire campaign setting. The idea for the campaign gets pretty politicky. And then elder-evil-y.

As much as I love a certain race (guess which one!) I'd be fine with that if the DM made their intentions clear and had a reason. I'd get pretty upset if another player DEMANDED a halfling on the grounds that they want a Halfling and wouldn't mind if the DM decided that it was elf or nothing.

atemu1234

2017-04-23, 10:03 PM

As much as I love a certain race (guess which one!) I'd be fine with that if the DM made their intentions clear and had a reason. I'd get pretty upset if another player DEMANDED a halfling on the grounds that they want a Halfling and wouldn't mind if the DM decided that it was elf or nothing.

Honestly most of my players would be afraid of being too confrontational about anything. No idea why.

WarKitty

2017-04-23, 10:12 PM

As much as I love a certain race (guess which one!) I'd be fine with that if the DM made their intentions clear and had a reason. I'd get pretty upset if another player DEMANDED a halfling on the grounds that they want a Halfling and wouldn't mind if the DM decided that it was elf or nothing.

As long as you don't want the DM to be too clear sometimes. I opened my game with "dragons don't exist, no draconic races." Spoiler alert: Dragons seem to be starting to exist again and they're kind of trying to screw the world up.

Arbane

2017-04-23, 10:15 PM

@Naez: you might want to look into old school role-playing, if you want to understand distaste towards "appropriate encounters".

Players need to understand that at any second random death could descend upon them from the skies, and there's nothing they can do about it. Gotta love those Dragon random wilderness encounters!

Honest Tiefling

2017-04-23, 10:16 PM

As long as you don't want the DM to be too clear sometimes. I opened my game with "dragons don't exist, no draconic races." Spoiler alert: Dragons seem to be starting to exist again and they're kind of trying to screw the world up.

I'm honestly fine with a blanket statement of 'As far as your character is aware, there are no X' or 'X exists only in myth or legend'. I don't know how most people would react to being told a lie to set up the game properly, but I wouldn't personally care if it was made clear WHY the deception happened when the plot point in question rolled around.

I meant more like 'warforged don't exist because golem technology is not that advanced and I do not wish to have large-scale manufacture of magic'. Yeah, as a player I might disagree, but I can see some value in the argument. Maybe not my taste, but I can see why someone would do that and can compromise.

atemu1234

2017-04-23, 10:56 PM

I'm honestly fine with a blanket statement of 'As far as your character is aware, there are no X' or 'X exists only in myth or legend'. I don't know how most people would react to being told a lie to set up the game properly, but I wouldn't personally care if it was made clear WHY the deception happened when the plot point in question rolled around.

I meant more like 'warforged don't exist because golem technology is not that advanced and I do not wish to have large-scale manufacture of magic'. Yeah, as a player I might disagree, but I can see some value in the argument. Maybe not my taste, but I can see why someone would do that and can compromise.

I mean, I'm pretty sure there shouldn't be an issue so long as the answer isn't "They aren't in this setting because **** you."

Ellrin

2017-04-24, 01:44 AM

The guy who goes along with the heroes because it helps him out rather than because it's the "right thing to do" is a character concept that is very much compatible with almost any adventuring party. In fact, that's just Han Solo. But that's not really evil so much as just ... kind of a jerk maybe.

It's also the corrupt vizier surreptitiously gathering obscure ingredients for his elixir that will curse the king and his heirs for 13 generations and force the kingdom to rely on his leadership instead of the rightful ruler's, or the treacherous blackguard who's trying to eliminate his fiendish master so he can take over. These are people with not merely selfish ends, but evil ones, who act ethically because operating within the ethical bounds of a society allows you to operate more easily within that society. You're more likely to have lawful and neutral evil characters successfully integrating with a good party this way, but even a savvy chaotic evil character could have the foresight and self-control to keep his impulses restricted to situations that aren't likely to come back and bite him.

I mean, Sauron himself palled around with the good guys when he was making the rings, just to get them to trust him.

bekeleven

2017-04-24, 01:50 AM

I'd actually like to hear the reasoning behind this as I myself have an opposite problem with encounters not being tailored to the partyI once saw it described thusly:

In general, there are some traps that the rogue should be able to find, and perhaps some that the rogue won't be able to find. At level 1, the rogue has a +5 to search. The particularly vile "Good thing we got that" traps are DC15 to find, while the "attrition damage" traps are DC24. Many levels later, the rogue's search bonus is +12. Now, the traps in the dungeon range from DC22 to DC31. Unless the rogue can't make it to that session. In that case, there are no traps; the traps were just a subgame for the rogue anyway.

Andezzar

2017-04-24, 01:56 AM

Traps are not a solo game for the rogue. several other classes can deal with them as well.

Also it breaks immersion when the opposition would reasonably employ traps or other assets, and suddenly does not simply because the PCs do not bother to have means of dealing with them.

Florian

2017-04-24, 02:18 AM

I'd actually like to hear the reasoning behind this as I myself have an opposite problem with encounters not being tailored to the party

You know, there´re two problems with it:

Let´s say a party without a cleric. Now you refrain from using SoD/SoS spells because that would be more challenging, your players notice that and stop investing in one-shot curative and restorative items, because they now rely on you to "play fair".

Let´s say a party with a cleric. Now you refrain from using weaker undead because they get turned the moment they show up and you´ve got the feeling this is too easy. What you do, tho, is robbing the cleric the ability to shine.

death390

2017-04-24, 05:02 AM

i don't mind the forced class that some DM's use for campaigns as long as 2 conditions are met, 1 it doesn't affect your character negatively and/or 2 its a gestalt level or such.

why? because if it adds flavor to the character for a designed campaign then why not. it was set up so level 1 and every 3rd level a free gestalt level of bard was given. we had a sorcerer, a fighter, a druid, a bard, and me the factorum.

the way it was setup was that we were a traveling band of mistrals wandering from kingdom to kingdom. but if you looked at our character sheet, no one really got to much out of being a bard, everyone got a couple of weapon deficiencies, the sorc got a better hit dice on those levels, a couple free spells, and everyone benefits from saves. but no one but the actual bard used bardic music, most of us swapped knowledge for knack.

the guy who got the most out of this was funny enough the bard, as he was able to pick up a couple fighter levels at each "Bard Level" as a free dip because he was already a bard (DM nixed him double dipping bard immediatly).

now because it was gestalt it was fine, but imagine if it were you must have x level of "class" in your build. ouch that would hurt almost everyone. the bard would have been fine but the sorcerer and druid would have lost caster progression, the fighter would have lost BAB, and i would have had my major class features delayed.

the racial limitations hurt me more to be honest, for as bad as they are for optimization i like elves. so when i hear "we are doing a small character campaign" i have to ask things like can i use the child soldier trait to fudge being small, or look at things like whisper gnome, ect ect. usually i can find something to enjoy if i have some freedom

An worse limitation is when its a specific race like, "we are doing dwarves only campaign" i generaly run for the hills, why? most of my caster builds just don't work for the dwarves that well. the "best" caster i made for a dwarf was a 2 shield fighting duskblade... and that's because i could make him cast in full plate. there are several races i just won't play in general, dwarves, half-orcs, all gnomes other than whisper gnome, all halflings except strongheart, to name a few. so hearing racial restrictions makes me cringe.

gooddragon1

2017-04-24, 05:44 AM

One more time for the people in the back

"Technically it's CR appropriate"

In response to the tuckers kobolds there's a passage on page 39 of the DMG as follows:

An orc warband that attacks the PCs by flying over them on primitive hang gliders and dropping large rocks is not the same encounter as one in which the orcs just charge in with spears. Sometimes, the circumstances give the characters' opponents a distinct advantage. Other times, the PCs have the advantage.

Tuckers kobolds are not CR 1 if they have an advantage that large. Ad-Hoc CRs are encouraged in this case.

Similarly a party of low level rogues that just charge in against an undead with damage reduction effective against their attacks is going to have a hard time without sneak attacks. Tailor encounters to suit your party as much as possible and fudge the monster entry +HP -DR and Sneak Attack immunity (partial resistance maybe).

Also, the kobolds in question may be CR 1, but the traps have a separate CR.

Red Fel

2017-04-24, 08:50 AM

Did, did you just say "come at me bro" in latin? That's amazing xD

Not just Latin. Pretentious Latin. It's the only way if you want it just right.

I feel like playing with you would be a treat.

If it's not, I'm doing it wrong.

And that mindset, by the way, is among the greenest of flags for me, whether as player or DM - the mindset of "I'm here to have a good time, but not at the expense of anyone else's good time."

Conversely, when - as a DM - I see a player whose mindset is "I'm here to have a good time despite the rest of you," that's a very big red flag for me. The game is a social game - we all have fun, or we all don't; it's very hard to have something in between. (Particularly when people not having fun are vocal jerks about it.)

TheBrassDuke

2017-04-24, 08:56 AM

"This will be a fairly fatal campaign setting (à la Dark Sun?)."

Even if most of mine are...gotta prep for this stuff--I did warn you.*

*: This does not mean I'm a Killer DM; it's just that I'm not going to tailor everything to you or your capabilities. Some things will kill you. I hinted for you to run, or try something else...you didn't listen.

Quertus

2017-04-24, 09:43 AM

I'd actually like to hear the reasoning behind this as I myself have an opposite problem with encounters not being tailored to the party

Yeah, not a sign of a bad DM, just not for me. If I build a fighter that deals double the damage my last fighter dealt, I want the result to be that foes drop twice as fast, not that my foes magically have twice as many HP. If I build a fighter that deals half the damage my last fighter dealt, I want the result to be that foes take twice as long to drop, not that my foes magically have half as many HP.

I want the world to feel real, not custom-tailored to our characters. I want the characters we bring and the decisions we make to matter. Changing the adventure / world to match our characters' capabilities invalidates our choices in making / bringing those characters in the first place. And thus is red flag for me for the players' choices mattering. Consider it a subtle form of railroading.

But.

If the DM knows ahead of time that most of the foes that the party will face for the next 7 levels are elemental, undead, constructs, and oozes, and somebody brings a DPS SA rogue to the table, it's equally bad form not to mention that their character may struggle, and they might want to consider making a different choice.

I hope that clarified my position on the matter.

Well, here's one version of my answer. Tailoring the game to the PCs is simply a subtle form of railroading (something I and most people don't like). But, true, there's more to it than that.

The real annoying thing is when everything is tailored to the specific weaknesses of the party. I admit I do some of that, but the party should get to use their strengths.

See I tend to run into the issue (being that I'm no story writer) in pre-made material they love throwing massive waves of terribly made enemies. Yeah 8 level 2 Warriors with toughness and alertness as their feats? EL 6 encounter. Level 5, the wizard solves the entire encounter with one fireball.

So I kind of have to tailor the encounters to make an encounter that is challenging and engaging so the players don't get bored.

Yeah, I've pretty much decided with a cleric and a necromancer in the party, I'm not going to use undead unless they have really good turn checks. Otherwise it's just pointless.

You know, there´re two problems with it:

Let´s say a party without a cleric. Now you refrain from using SoD/SoS spells because that would be more challenging, your players notice that and stop investing in one-shot curative and restorative items, because they now rely on you to "play fair".

Let´s say a party with a cleric. Now you refrain from using weaker undead because they get turned the moment they show up and you´ve got the feeling this is too easy. What you do, tho, is robbing the cleric the ability to shine.

By tailoring the enemies to remove cannon fodder for the fireball mage or undead fodder from the turning cleric/DN, you've taken away their chance to shine. Bad DM! And we all know tier 1 casters never get a chance to shine.. Still, it's the wrong mindset - if you're changing things, it should be to give people a chance to shine, NOT to take their chance to shine away!

Unless you've passed the school of, "uplifting the weak, not nerfing the strong", I expect you to fail at tailoring the adventure to give everyone a chance to shine, and will, instead, just be making the world a duller place. Give the party more chances to shine, not less. (EDIT: but, like paradox in WoD Mage, any change you make hurts the "realism" of the game, so use changes sparingly and judiciously, if at all.)

One of my GMs had amazing skill at this. He managed to give everyone a solo encounter that they hated. Had anyone else had the solo encounter, they would have shined. Had they had anyone else's solo encounter, they would have shined. But, instead, each character has their own special moment to not shine. Exactly the way not to run a game.

As to the fodder in particular, one of the most fun parties I was in, that's what my mage did: I cast light, or created a bridge, or fireballed fodder out of the way, so that the mundane characters could go kill whatever the threat was. I took care of the environment (yes, cannon fodder are "environment"), they handled the threat. We took on a module, straight out of the book, no customization to tailor the encounters to our characters, and we felt like BDHs. That was the way to make a game fun!

Have I answered yet why I find custom tailoring to generally be a big red flag for my play style, or should I go on?

EDIT: I guess I'll go on...

I once saw it described thusly:

In general, there are some traps that the rogue should be able to find, and perhaps some that the rogue won't be able to find. At level 1, the rogue has a +5 to search. The particularly vile "Good thing we got that" traps are DC15 to find, while the "attrition damage" traps are DC24. Many levels later, the rogue's search bonus is +12. Now, the traps in the dungeon range from DC22 to DC31. Unless the rogue can't make it to that session. In that case, there are no traps; the traps were just a subgame for the rogue anyway.

Custom tailoring also kills realism / immersion / that "v" word. Killing realism puts a damper on my role-playing. Hurting two of the three letters in RPG isn't good for fun.

Firechanter

2017-04-24, 09:54 AM

Not just Latin. Pretentious Latin. It's the only way if you want it just right.

But venite is plural, isn't it? Sounds a bit strange if you're just addressing a "bro". :p I think I'd use "veni". ^^

More on-topic, I +1 the "But technically it's an appropriate CR" as a red fel, er, red flag. ^^

Red Fel

2017-04-24, 09:57 AM

But venite is plural, isn't it? Sounds a bit strange if you're just addressing a "bro". :p I think I'd use "veni". ^^

Not just pretentious Latin. Bad pretentious Latin. It's the only way if you don't actually know Latin.

I don't know Latin, is my point, here. I have a big list of languages known; Latin ain't on it.

Seerow

2017-04-24, 10:01 AM

Custom tailoring also kills realism / immersion / that "v" word. Killing realism puts a damper on my role-playing. Hurting two of the three letters in RPG isn't good for fun.

Would you rather invest a bunch of time into encounters that are no challenge at all? Like if you're a 10th level party, and run into an angry bugbear. Is that even worth the time to play out? To some degree challenges have to be tailored to the party is required or the game screeches to a halt.

I can understand wanting a variety in enemies. I can understand wanting tactics that make sense. I can even understand occasionally wanting an encounter strong enough the party should run or find a non combat solution for. What I don't understand is what about any of that involves the encounters not being tailored to the group.

Segev

2017-04-24, 10:10 AM

You could say the same thing about any character concept that clashes with the party, such as a Paladin, a Necromancer, a character with Vow of Peace, or a Kender.
Are you suggesting that necromancers naturally clash with the party? I mean, they just bring more waiters to carry around those little Hors d'oeuvre trays. And to stand in the party's potential flanking zones with longspears, discouraging anybody from achieving flank position and providing the occasional Aid Another to attack rolls or AC. Really, clashing with the party? Harumph, I say! Harumph!

Not just pretentious Latin. Bad pretentious Latin. It's the only way if you don't actually know Latin.

I don't know Latin, is my point, here. I have a big list of languages known; Latin ain't on it.

Eh, to be fair, I doubt anybody really "knows" Latin anymore. I see even scholars on the subject debate over actual correct pronunciation of words. I think we know, at best, as much about Latin as somebody who only studied English via taking every English class from First through Twelfth grace in an American school, but taught in Chinese with a strict pronunciation guide and attention to "proper British" grammar.

That's probably slightly unfair. We do have people who study Latin in detail, including vulgates. But it's a dead language for a reason; I don't know that it's survived in a conversational form. Can even monks and scholars who study it for religious and professional purposes carry on conversation in it fluently? And are they sure they're speaking "real" Latin?

......and I just realized this could be a huge diversion on the topic. Sorry. >_<

My point is, Latin is understood by so few that pretentious bad Latin for purposes of fun and spellcasting is probably fine. I mean, what else are you going to do? Cast spells in rhyme like some sort of Child of Oberon?

Buufreak

2017-04-24, 10:19 AM

Are you suggesting that necromancers naturally clash with the party? I mean, they just bring more waiters to carry around those little Hors d'oeuvre trays.

I saw this, and I could only think of the latest bit of M:tG storyline where they arrived on an Egyptian-esque plane where everyone lives a life of training for holy trials while all labor is done by mummies. Gardening, heavy lifting, waiters in hotels, bellhops, literally everything you can imagine that would exist in a Pharoahic society, they did.

I find it even better that they are all white mana zombies according to the cards, which is about as night and day as you can get from the usual zombies. I take it as positive energy, innately good spells that animated them, which turns the entire idea of creating undead on its head.

Red Fel

2017-04-24, 10:22 AM

Are you suggesting that necromancers naturally clash with the party? I mean, they just bring more waiters to carry around those little Hors d'oeuvre trays. And to stand in the party's potential flanking zones with longspears, discouraging anybody from achieving flank position and providing the occasional Aid Another to attack rolls or AC. Really, clashing with the party? Harumph, I say! Harumph!

I'm suggesting that creating a character that occupies a role contra to the rest of the party is a bad call, and that Necromancers - like Paladins - can run contra. Not that they naturally do. (Ain't nothin' natural 'bout a Necro, son.) Rather, for example, if you're in a party of goody-goodies, Pelorites, or other not-fans of the Undead, playing a Necromancer isn't the best call you can make.

My point is, Latin is understood by so few that pretentious bad Latin for purposes of fun and spellcasting is probably fine. I mean, what else are you going to do? Cast spells in rhyme like some sort of Child of Oberon?

I would literally kill to watch that Epic Rap Battle.

Segev

2017-04-24, 10:24 AM

Would you rather invest a bunch of time into encounters that are no challenge at all? Like if you're a 10th level party, and run into an angry bugbear. Is that even worth the time to play out? To some degree challenges have to be tailored to the party is required or the game screeches to a halt.

I can understand wanting a variety in enemies. I can understand wanting tactics that make sense. I can even understand occasionally wanting an encounter strong enough the party should run or find a non combat solution for. What I don't understand is what about any of that involves the encounters not being tailored to the group.

There are two ways to set up encounters that are generally successful for a fun and engaging world. Both can be poorly done, and become most obvious when done poorly.

The first, and the one that 3e D&D tends to advocate, is to design encounters and encounter sites to generally fall in a normal semi-random distribution around the CR equal to the average party level. This is "tailored" encounters. Its strength is that it will tend to ensure that the party is hitting just the right amount of challenge under most circumstances, with some encounters being "easy" and some "very challenging/dangerous," but overall things progress at a narrative pace in a pleasing way. Its weakness is that the DM is responsible for making sure he gets the right mix of CRs in the right places, and that he does build CR-appropriate encounters that are generally hitting at the advertised level of difficulty. It requires careful design of enemies and environments so things come out at the expected overall CR.

The second, which was more common (I'm given to understand) in earlier editions of D&D, was to simply build the setting with encounter locations "out there" to be discovered, and with regions whose random encounters made sense for the area. Parties could scout and research and do investigations to discover what tombs, bandit keeps, lairs, and dungeons were out there to be raided, as well as what nature the threats there had. They would be able to learn the hazards of an area and gauge whether they could handle them or not. In many cases, they would use their loot to tailor their load-out for specific quests when they knew they could do so. The strength of this style is that it is easy for the DM to build; he just designs things and lets the players decide where they want to go and what level of challenge to seek out. The weakness is that it is much more front-loaded on the preparation. The DM can't wait for the party to decide where they want to go and design encounters "one step ahead" of the party getting to them; the party has to already have an idea what they're in for, and the DM who tries to say "uh, it's this general CR" is putting himself back in the first style, because now he has to design encounters to that CR range rather than having a breathing world that is what it is.

The first, when done poorly, winds up looking like Oblivion or FF VIII, where leveling up can actually be a bad thing because everything out there levels up with you. You faced wolves at level 1, and now that you're level 5 you encounter dire wolves. At absolute worst, leveling up in the "wrong" way can leave you unable to beat any encounters at all. Even when that's not the issue, it can wind up feeling like a treadmill, because you're never "getting ahead." The strength of the second option compared to this method in that respect is that the sense of progress is established in the "set" encounters world by having regions that were too dangerous before become accessible as one grows stronger, while regions that were challenges before become romper rooms later.

The second, when done poorly, can have the "realism" of what goes where result in noplace the party can go to do anything, for fear of the massively over-leveled random encounter. It can also create a sense of paralysis with too many options or with not enough information. Laying out multiple hooks can be distracting as much as it is liberating, and if not done well can leave the party feeling like they're failing rather than paying an opportunity cost. Plus, done poorly, the lack of a reasonable distribution of CRs in any given area can mean that it's never "safe" to go anywhere, but also never "sufficiently challenging" in any one area to feel like you're making progress. If everywhere you go, you're always curb-stomping some encounters but still only one bad random encounter away from hopeless TPK, the sense of progress one gets even from a tailored series of encounters (which at least ramp up the scale of the monsters as you level up) is lost.

Venger

2017-04-24, 10:26 AM

Well, here's one version of my answer. Tailoring the game to the PCs is simply a subtle form of railroading (something I and most people don't like). But, true, there's more to it than that.

By tailoring the enemies to remove cannon fodder for the fireball mage or undead fodder from the turning cleric/DN, you've taken away their chance to shine. Bad DM! And we all know tier 1 casters never get a chance to shine.. Still, it's the wrong mindset - if you're changing things, it should be to give people a chance to shine, NOT to take their chance to shine away!

Unless you've passed the school of, "uplifting the weak, not nerfing the strong", I expect you to fail at tailoring the adventure to give everyone a chance to shine, and will, instead, just be making the world a duller place. Give the party more chances to shine, not less. (EDIT: but, like paradox in WoD Mage, any change you make hurts the "realism" of the game, so use changes sparingly and judiciously, if at all.)

One of my GMs had amazing skill at this. He managed to give everyone a solo encounter that they hated. Had anyone else had the solo encounter, they would have shined. Had they had anyone else's solo encounter, they would have shined. But, instead, each character has their own special moment to not shine. Exactly the way not to run a game.

As to the fodder in particular, one of the most fun parties I was in, that's what my mage did: I cast light, or created a bridge, or fireballed fodder out of the way, so that the mundane characters could go kill whatever the threat was. I took care of the environment (yes, cannon fodder are "environment"), they handled the threat. We took on a module, straight out of the book, no customization to tailor the encounters to our characters, and we felt like BDHs. That was the way to make a game fun!

Have I answered yet why I find custom tailoring to generally be a big red flag for my play style, or should I go on?

EDIT: I guess I'll go on...

Custom tailoring also kills realism / immersion / that "v" word. Killing realism puts a damper on my role-playing. Hurting two of the three letters in RPG isn't good for fun.

Well said. the word you're looking for is "verisimilitude," the appearance of being true. since we're on showing off how pretentious we can be about latin, it's from veritus, truth, like in verity or verifiable and simiilius, which means the appearance of, like in one of our favorite spells, simulacrum.

Florian

2017-04-24, 10:26 AM

My point is, Latin is understood by so few that pretentious bad Latin for purposes of fun and spellcasting is probably fine. I mean, what else are you going to do? Cast spells in rhyme like some sort of Child of Oberon?

Hm? Back in my school days, we had to go through 2 mandatory years of classic latin before learning other latin-based languages like french or italian. And no, I´m not that ancient ;)

As a side note: The most popular german RPG actually had spells to be used in rhyme format in earlier editions....

Zanos

2017-04-24, 10:27 AM

I saw this, and I could only think of the latest bit of M:tG storyline where they arrived on an Egyptian-esque plane where everyone lives a life of training for holy trials while all labor is done by mummies. Gardening, heavy lifting, waiters in hotels, bellhops, literally everything you can imagine that would exist in a Pharoahic society, they did.

I find it even better that they are all white mana zombies according to the cards, which is about as night and day as you can get from the usual zombies. I take it as positive energy, innately good spells that animated them, which turns the entire idea of creating undead on its head.
To nitpick, white mana is pretty far from any sort of moral goodness. White and Black are both perfectly capable of mass murder, for example, just that White is more likely to do it "For the Greater Good" and Black is more likely to do it "For the Greatest Good, which is Me." Dictatorships, fascism, martial law, and the like are also all White concepts. White can be associated with good, but it isn't inherent.

Part of why I like the color wheel system, actually.

Venger

2017-04-24, 10:28 AM

Segev

2017-04-24, 10:28 AM

I'm suggesting that creating a character that occupies a role contra to the rest of the party is a bad call, and that Necromancers - like Paladins - can run contra. Not that they naturally do. (Ain't nothin' natural 'bout a Necro, son.) Rather, for example, if you're in a party of goody-goodies, Pelorites, or other not-fans of the Undead, playing a Necromancer isn't the best call you can make.Oh, certainly. But it's surprising how well any concept can work with most parties, as long as the player is willing to tailor it right. Not always; don't try to shoe horn something if it's clear the other players just don't want to deal with it. But if people work together on it, neat things can happen in unexpected ways.

I would literally kill to watch that Epic Rap Battle.
I'm never sure with you; is this an expression of mild interest? (WHO you'd kill is probably relevant.)

Also, are you picturing between Gregorian Chant-sounding spellcasters and Rhyme-and-poetry spellcasters, or what? Because I am now intrigued, myself.

Maybe Brent Spiner could represent the rhymers; he did so well as the Puck.

heavyfuel

2017-04-24, 10:38 AM

Red Fel

2017-04-24, 10:38 AM

Part of why I like the color wheel system, actually.

True. I genuinely enjoy the fact that pretty much every color has an upside and a downside (e.g. White is Light/Good, but also Order/Tyranny; Red is Passion/Power/Freedom, but also Chaos/Destruction/Rage), and actually represents a position on two different spectra (e.g. White is Order on the Red/White Chaos/Order spectrum, and Good on the White/Black Good/Evil spectrum; Green is Creation on the Green/Red Creation/Destruction spectrum, and Life on the Green/Black Life/Death spectrum).

Except for Black, which is just universally badness, because reasons. Seriously, it's like they just gave up there.

Oh, certainly. But it's surprising how well any concept can work with most parties, as long as the player is willing to tailor it right. Not always; don't try to shoe horn something if it's clear the other players just don't want to deal with it. But if people work together on it, neat things can happen in unexpected ways.

Agreed entirely.

I'm never sure with you; is this an expression of mild interest? (WHO you'd kill is probably relevant.)

Mild.

Also, are you picturing between Gregorian Chant-sounding spellcasters and Rhyme-and-poetry spellcasters, or what? Because I am now intrigued, myself.

Maybe Brent Spiner could represent the rhymers; he did so well as the Puck.

Rhymers vs Rhymers, distorting reality with their mystical rhymes. Imagine the dopest rhymes resulting from literal centuries of experience, each verse suffused with will and force, each rippling through the cosmos with an impossible and inexorable power.

This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with the Fair Folk spitting sick.

Zanos

2017-04-24, 10:41 AM

Except for Black, which is just universally badness, because reasons. Seriously, it's like they just gave up there.
There's a good article on Black here. (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/black-2004-02-02)

Basically without Black you don't get a lot of the enlightened self-interest that makes the modern world go round.

Segev

2017-04-24, 10:55 AM

"child of oberon" sounds like some kind of racist slur against elves in the gameIt's a relatively specific reference. To Disney's Gargoyles.

Why is this bad, exactly?
Typically, in my experience, it portends a railroad, because the DM has his major set pieces in mind, but is using the players to fill out the individual scenes. The characters will be expected (and to varying degrees, depending on the strength of railroading the GM is comfortable with, compelled) to make certain choices in certain ways in order to keep the plot moving towards the next set piece, where at least some PCs will be injected into specific roles (and others will be permitted to attend as long as they don't interfere).

Buufreak

2017-04-24, 10:55 AM

To nitpick, white mana is pretty far from any sort of moral goodness. White and Black are both perfectly capable of mass murder, for example, just that White is more likely to do it "For the Greater Good" and Black is more likely to do it "For the Greatest Good, which is Me." Dictatorships, fascism, martial law, and the like are also all White concepts. White can be associated with good, but it isn't inherent.

Part of why I like the color wheel system, actually.

Oh, completely agreed. Elsh Norn was my first introduction to a White villain. And holy crap, is she a villain! But yea, the Selesnya Conclave, the Azorius Senate, the Orzhov Syndicate... all great examples of White twisted into religious, militant, governmental evil. Thus far, the only character I have seen that is about as devote to the LG mentality and is mono white is Gideon, and I hopefully see that changing. But its Wizards, and they don't storyline well...

Edit: I forgot my original point! What I was meaning was if necromancy is a solid embodiment of Black, and it in a DND sense is animation of creatures through use of negative energy, then these mono White zombies are a very solid opposite, which I then translated across the board. I mean, even story wise, these create, when usually they are used to kill and destroy.

BWR

2017-04-24, 11:06 AM

Looks like I'm (and friends who I play under rather than GM for) 'guilty' of a lot of the stuff here.

Tons of house rules: check
Races banned because I don't like them/don't fit with what I'm running: check
Classes banned because I don't like them: check
Entire optional systems like ToB/PoW banned because I don't like them: check (and yes, I know how they work; I just hate them)
Special snowflakes heavily unspecial-ed, practically melted: check
Girlfriend introduced to the group: check
(almost) No evil alignments: check
Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge/BOEF/Nymphology: check
Deck of Many Things: check (give it to your kids)

Yet for all these horrible crimes against players, my groups have stuck together for the better part of 15 years in one case and 25 in another. Guess they must be really clueless about how real GMs should act.
I guess being sensible and adult about things really ruins how games are supposed to be run.

Stuff to really worry about:
GMs that don't want to discuss things with their players.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in GM power and authority and them having the final say, but players should feel comfortable with the boss and be able to bring up issues they have and and expect to be taken seriously. Sure, you occasionally get stupid players who whine about every little thing not being to their liking (special snowflake types tend to fall into this category), but you also get stupid GMs who are too concerned with being in charge and not enough with the primary goal of GMing: making things fun for everyone.

Springing new subsystems and game elements on players without warning or without a good in-game reason.
I've had this happen a couple of times and it did not end well and really diminished our trust in the GM.

GMs taking control over PCs
OK, so we're slightly guilty of this, but always qualified. The true freedom of roleplaying is deciding what your character does or doesn't do, and saying 'no, you don't do X, you do Y' is about the gravest sin you can commit as a GM. Since we're all generally sensible and trusting people, it isn't actually a problem for our groups if the GM starts off a scenario saying something like "you have gone to X to do Y. Once there you find Z: what do you do?" or even more rarely cut-scenes something to speed the game along as long as what we do isn't against our PCs' nature. I would be very wary of it with an unfamiliar GM, however.

Venger

2017-04-24, 11:17 AM

It's a relatively specific reference. To Disney's Gargoyles.

Typically, in my experience, it portends a railroad, because the DM has his major set pieces in mind, but is using the players to fill out the individual scenes. The characters will be expected (and to varying degrees, depending on the strength of railroading the GM is comfortable with, compelled) to make certain choices in certain ways in order to keep the plot moving towards the next set piece, where at least some PCs will be injected into specific roles (and others will be permitted to attend as long as they don't interfere).

I know what you're referring to, I love gargoyles. I was making a joke.

The larger problem with "I plotted this campaign out as a novel" is that the PCs normally don't feature as the protagonists in the plotline since you don't know exactly what their actions will be. It's common for a DMPC to be the actual hero of the story and the party is just kind of along for the ride. since the big decisions regarding the plotline have already been made, players' decisions don't have a huge effect on the plot.

Pex

2017-04-24, 11:24 AM

Grod_The_Giant

2017-04-24, 11:30 AM

Typically, in my experience, it portends a railroad, because the DM has his major set pieces in mind, but is using the players to fill out the individual scenes. The characters will be expected (and to varying degrees, depending on the strength of railroading the GM is comfortable with, compelled) to make certain choices in certain ways in order to keep the plot moving towards the next set piece, where at least some PCs will be injected into specific roles (and others will be permitted to attend as long as they don't interfere).
Ehh... I tend to disagree. If a bad tailored-encounter DM means "you'll do my encounters my way at my time" or "if you're level 10, so are the bandits," then a bad unleveled-DM means "if you leave my plot, you'll get eaten by dragons" or "you're level 1, everything around you is level 10, suck it." You could just as easily list "I don't tailor encounters to the party" as a red flag.

Personally, I tend to come down more on the tailored-encounter, combat-as-sport side of things. As I see it, it's part of the basic GM-player contract. I, as the GM, will never set out to kill you via inappropriate encounters; I will make it when fighting is and isn't a viable option, and when it isn't there will be sufficient warning or opportunity to escape. If you wind up facing overwhelming odds and being killed, it will be because of deliberate poor choices, not ignorance or ad luck on an encounter chart. You will have the freedom to make choices and hatch plans and take risks knowing that one mistake won't mean your death. Whatever you do, I will do my best to make it interesting and challenging and fun. (And in return, I expect you to actually make choices, and hatch plans, and take risks, and generally act like adventurers instead of paranoiacs)

Gildedragon

2017-04-24, 11:31 AM

Black has Extinction which destroys all creatures of a specific type.

White has Wrath of god which destroys all creatures and Armageddon which destroys all lands.

White has healing spells.

Black has Resurrection.

Which one is really evil? :smallbiggrin:

Neither. MtG has a rather amoral system. Hextor and Hieroneous could both be reasonably classed as White mana.

But on to red flags:

Comic relief npcs
They're not bad, per se, but they tend to bog down roleplay, feel like they're setting up a gotcha, and usually feel forced. to me they say: the DM is stalling for time, and wasn't prepared. Once or twice they're good, but if they become a thing in every session...

Zanos

2017-04-24, 11:36 AM

Special snowflakes heavily unspecial-ed, practically melted: check
I didn't see anything in favor of special snowflakes here, so I think you're free and clear on this one.

Darth Ultron

2017-04-24, 12:13 PM

Not explaining the houserules. I'm totally fine with houserules, as long as I know what they are. If you create houserules that only you know about, I'm probably not playing at your table.

So what about house rules that are made to be unknown? The idea is the characters don't have god like intelligence and know everything.

An example might be ''it is dangerous to cast conjuration summing spells by an open gate or portal''. Now the players know that vague bit, but no details. Is that ''enough'' of knowing a house rule, or must you have printed out in front of the DM's dangerous portal results table?

This type of house rule is one I make for players to discover during the game...for the players that like to have fun discovering things. To just tell the players ''ok here is everything'' is boring.....

JNAProductions

2017-04-24, 12:15 PM

Zanos

2017-04-24, 12:16 PM

So what about house rules that are made to be unknown? The idea is the characters don't have god like intelligence and know everything.
This is explicitly wrong. A wizard with maxed out intelligence and maxed out knowledge (arcana) or spellcraft can have god like intelligence (or at least greater than any human) and know nearly everything about that field. Someone with +20 to their checks for "knows stuff about magic" should have a pretty damn good idea about what spells do.

Such as your rule that summoning spells have an X% chance (where X is the spell level) of summoning whatever the hell you want?

You know, no tables, no sanity checks, just "What the DM feels like." Which, your main example, is a Hezrou. From a second level spell. Or in other words, a 2% chance of a TPK, just because you wanted to summon.
Wasn't that some other Rudisplorker?

Venger

2017-04-24, 12:21 PM

So what about house rules that are made to be unknown? The idea is the characters don't have god like intelligence and know everything.

An example might be ''it is dangerous to cast conjuration summing spells by an open gate or portal''. Now the players know that vague bit, but no details. Is that ''enough'' of knowing a house rule, or must you have printed out in front of the DM's dangerous portal results table?

This type of house rule is one I make for players to discover during the game...for the players that like to have fun discovering things. To just tell the players ''ok here is everything'' is boring.....

Yes, that's exactly what this is referring to.

I don't want to show up to your game with a malconvoker ready to roll and then find out summoning is nebulously nerfed somehow. the rule itself may be fine, but as a player, I need to be able to make an informed decision about this kind of thing.

Yes, that means if you have houserules, you need to actually tell people what they are.

Such as your rule that summoning spells have an X% chance (where X is the spell level) of summoning whatever the hell you want?

You know, no tables, no sanity checks, just "What the DM feels like." Which, your main example, is a Hezrou. From a second level spell. Or in other words, a 2% chance of a TPK, just because you wanted to summon.

This is explicitly wrong. A wizard with maxed out intelligence and maxed out knowledge (arcana) or spellcraft can have god like intelligence (or at least greater than any human) and know nearly everything about that field. Someone with +20 to their checks for "knows stuff about magic" should have a pretty damn good idea about what spells do.

Wasn't that some other Rudisplorker?
Okay, but what is the chance of summoning Orcus?

Naez

2017-04-24, 12:49 PM

Well, here's one version of my answer. Tailoring the game to the PCs is simply a subtle form of railroading (something I and most people don't like). But, true, there's more to it than that.

...

By tailoring the enemies to remove cannon fodder for the fireball mage or undead fodder from the turning cleric/DN, you've taken away their chance to shine. Bad DM! And we all know tier 1 casters never get a chance to shine.. Still, it's the wrong mindset - if you're changing things, it should be to give people a chance to shine, NOT to take their chance to shine away!

Unless you've passed the school of, "uplifting the weak, not nerfing the strong", I expect you to fail at tailoring the adventure to give everyone a chance to shine, and will, instead, just be making the world a duller place. Give the party more chances to shine, not less. (EDIT: but, like paradox in WoD Mage, any change you make hurts the "realism" of the game, so use changes sparingly and judiciously, if at all.)

One of my GMs had amazing skill at this. He managed to give everyone a solo encounter that they hated. Had anyone else had the solo encounter, they would have shined. Had they had anyone else's solo encounter, they would have shined. But, instead, each character has their own special moment to not shine. Exactly the way not to run a game.

As to the fodder in particular, one of the most fun parties I was in, that's what my mage did: I cast light, or created a bridge, or fireballed fodder out of the way, so that the mundane characters could go kill whatever the threat was. I took care of the environment (yes, cannon fodder are "environment"), they handled the threat. We took on a module, straight out of the book, no customization to tailor the encounters to our characters, and we felt like BDHs. That was the way to make a game fun!

Have I answered yet why I find custom tailoring to generally be a big red flag for my play style, or should I go on?

EDIT: I guess I'll go on...

Custom tailoring also kills realism / immersion / that "v" word. Killing realism puts a damper on my role-playing. Hurting two of the three letters in RPG isn't good for fun.

You seem to be interpreting tailoring as COMPLETELY REMOVING FROM THE GAME which is not what I was implying. For instance the encounter example I gave earlier. With the 8 Level 2s. I changed it by making it 4 level 2s with somewhat useful feats (Improved Initiative and Weapon Focus) and a couple Hell Hounds (Which was appropriate for the story as well). The wizard still gets to disintegrate as sizable group of people and leaves something for the rest of the party to deal with instead of just sitting there looking pretty.

When it comes the laughably easy encounters, they are still there I just don't bother playing them out. "You run across an arrow trap, you disarm it." which at the level they are at is something the rogue should be able to find and do on sheer reflex, "A bear wanders into your camp." then let them choose to kill it or run it off since it poses no real threat to them. This stuff is still there it's just not worth the time to bother with.

It may also come down to table style. My table tends to play for fun, not serious RP.

Segev

2017-04-24, 01:03 PM

My table tends to play for fun, not serious RP.

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but the implication easily drawn from this sentence is that "serious RP" is inherently not fun. I would dispute that. :smalltongue:

Now, I think that what you PROBABLY mean is that you enjoy a more light-hearted, beer-and-pretzels sort of game. Which is fine, but I'd be careful about saying that's what it means to "play for fun," because everybody's definition of "fun" will differ based on what they enjoy.

Naez

2017-04-24, 01:12 PM

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but the implication easily drawn from this sentence is that "serious RP" is inherently not fun. I would dispute that. :smalltongue:

Now, I think that what you PROBABLY mean is that you enjoy a more light-hearted, beer-and-pretzels sort of game. Which is fine, but I'd be careful about saying that's what it means to "play for fun," because everybody's definition of "fun" will differ based on what they enjoy.

Indeed. I did not mean to imply serious RP is not fun.

Florian

2017-04-24, 01:13 PM

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but the implication easily drawn from this sentence is that "serious RP" is inherently not fun.

It depends. If the definition of "fun" is "winning", than no, "serious rp" can be had without that.

Maximum Carnage

2017-04-24, 01:28 PM

Honestly, hearing you guys and gals talk about this is extremely rich. Seeing as how it's maybe a 90/10 ratio of players to DMs, I'd say you could all just suck it up a little bit. A DM may not know exactly how his house rules or homebrew will affect the world, so to hear you folks scoff just because some literature is banned, like seriously, that's going to ruin your fun? If you don't like the way their game is played, perhaps try making your own game.

I understand the want for discussion on this topic, but some of your "Red Flags" are extremely petty. Just my two cents, not trying to anger anyone.

MC

Zanos

2017-04-24, 01:42 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2017-04-24, 01:53 PM

Most people on this forum are DMs in addition to being players.
I know I am.

And I think the reasoning behind a lot of the "bans _____" entries aren't so much that the thing itself is missing, but about what the ban reveals. Saying "core only for balance" means that you don't understand the fundamental caster/noncaster disparity, and your game is more likely to suffer for it (not necessarily, sure, but that's why it's a red flag and not an instant-no) than another's.

Gildedragon

2017-04-24, 02:02 PM

I know I am.

And I think the reasoning behind a lot of the "bans _____" entries aren't so much that the thing itself is missing, but about what the ban reveals. Saying "core only for balance" means that you don't understand the fundamental caster/noncaster disparity, and your game is more likely to suffer for it (not necessarily, sure, but that's why it's a red flag and not an instant-no) than another's.

Which is why they'd be red flags. I'd be wary but willing to play at a table for which the DM went core only or the like.

heavyfuel

2017-04-24, 02:03 PM

So what about house rules that are made to be unknown? The idea is the characters don't have god like intelligence and know everything.

An example might be ''it is dangerous to cast conjuration summing spells by an open gate or portal''. Now the players know that vague bit, but no details. Is that ''enough'' of knowing a house rule, or must you have printed out in front of the DM's dangerous portal results table?

This type of house rule is one I make for players to discover during the game...for the players that like to have fun discovering things. To just tell the players ''ok here is everything'' is boring.....

Knowledge checks have a "DC 20 or 30 for really tough questions" (quote direct from the SRD with emphasis). Not just difficult questions, but REALLY DIFFICULT questions. A noob wizard with 4 ranks and 18 Int probably doesn't know these things, but by the time they have a +30 modifier as Zanos said, the mystery shouldn't exist anymore.

I'm not saying the world can't its mysteries. Sure it can. But these things should be discoverable.

However, I was referring to more mechanical rules. For example, I had this character that had his trip modifier in the high 30s and enemies were consistently not being tripped. It was a clear case of the DM houserulling something and not telling me about it (he admitted, eventually). Had I known there was this new rule, I wouldn't have invested 9 levels and a dozen feats in tripping.

That's bad DMing. You don't your players to use X strategy? Talk to them. Don't hide behind rule 0.

Typically, in my experience, it portends a railroad, because the DM has his major set pieces in mind, but is using the players to fill out the individual scenes. The characters will be expected (and to varying degrees, depending on the strength of railroading the GM is comfortable with, compelled) to make certain choices in certain ways in order to keep the plot moving towards the next set piece, where at least some PCs will be injected into specific roles (and others will be permitted to attend as long as they don't interfere).

What if the DM doesn't rail road? In fact, what if the DM wants the randomness the players bring? They are the only characters he can't control. Whatever they do to alter the story, will probably feel much real.

Firechanter

2017-04-24, 02:21 PM

I understand the want for discussion on this topic, but some of your "Red Flags" are extremely petty. Just my two cents, not trying to anger anyone.

MC

Pretty much what the other chaps replied, and in addition to that:
I am aware that the "perfect game" for me doesn't exist, because there'll _always_ be some points that the DM and/or other players see differently. I can't clone myself four times and play with my clones, after all. So I am willing to compromise. But there are things that I can live with even though I don't find them ideal, and others that make a game not worth my time.

After so and so many years of gaming, I think I know myself and my likes and dislikes pretty well. If a DM offers a game where I _know_ that I won't like it, because it goees against several of my red flags, then indeed, I will gracefully pass.
I learned my lesson. A couple of years ago I let myself get talked into a game by some guy who kinda wanted to convince me how great his playstyle is. I joined his game and tried to keep an open mind, but the disparities were just too great. It did not end well. Never again.

Pex

2017-04-24, 02:25 PM

If I talk to the DM to tell him why I'm not having fun, and he dismisses it as whining.

Lazymancer

2017-04-24, 02:32 PM

Segev

2017-04-24, 03:13 PM

What if the DM doesn't rail road? In fact, what if the DM wants the randomness the players bring? They are the only characters he can't control. Whatever they do to alter the story, will probably feel much real.

Note that this thread is asking about red flags. Warning signs. Any of the things listed in this thread - well, almost any - could be forgivable or entirely non-issues with the right DM and the right game. But it's something that makes me take notice and be watchful. Even concerned.

martixy

2017-04-24, 03:28 PM

You do realize that many GMs became GMs because they couldn't find GM they were satisfied with?

I know I did.

Also, I believe many DMs have a knee-jerk response to allowing their players be good at something. It may be seen as challenging their authority of the game or they may be fetishizing some ridiculous notion of balance. So they up the DCs, because having a 50% chance to succeed at something is the epitome of balance.

This is why I hate winging-it DMs and what has turned me into a rules-first player. I need to know what to expect of the world and reliably be able to detect when the DM is doing something fishy. Playing off heavy's example, if I'm playing 3.5 and have a high-30s tripping modifier and am not felling mooks left and right like rotten trees, then I can be certain the DM is fudging results. And then I know where the source of my lack of fun lies and can take steps to correct this.

Basically... a DMs privilege to improvise has to be earned.
A DM who starts assuming it is a red flag.

Maximum Carnage

2017-04-24, 03:40 PM

Most people on this forum are DMs in addition to being players.

I would challenge that statement wholeheartedly.

Arbane

2017-04-24, 04:09 PM

I didn't see anything in favor of special snowflakes here, so I think you're free and clear on this one.

*raises hand* By definition, the player characters are the ones the without whom the game DOES NOT EXIST. And personally, I don't object if the player wants them to be slightly more distinct than race/class/gender/favorite weapon. The insistence that they be J. Random Dungshoveller is barely tolerable at first level in AD&D, not so much at level 7 in any edition.

And it's completely laughable in a game like Feng Shui, never mind something like Exalted.

Zanos

2017-04-24, 04:16 PM

I would challenge that statement wholeheartedly.
Ok. Pistols at noon?

*raises hand* By definition, the player characters are the ones the without whom the game DOES NOT EXIST. And personally, I don't object if the player wants them to be slightly more distinct than race/class/gender/favorite weapon. The insistence that they be J. Random Dungshoveller is barely tolerable at first level in AD&D, not so much at level 7 in any edition.

And it's completely laughable in a game like Feng Shui, never mind something like Exalted.
There's a difference between being exemplary and being a snowflake. A character that is incredibly competent within their area of expertise is special, certainly, but "special snowflake" is usually used to refer to a character that the setting bends over backwards to accommodate. A character that masters every form of martial arts over a number of years probably isn't a special snowflake, nor is an accomplished wizard. A vampire who walks around in the sunlight in a setting where all other vampires are crisped by it? 8 year old master wizard where every other character in the setting takes decades to learn their first cantrip? Chaotic Good Drow where all Drow in the setting are overwhelmingly Evil? Those characters are snowflakes.

Pex

2017-04-24, 05:58 PM

bekeleven

2017-04-24, 06:38 PM

Ok. Pistols at noon?
He caught us: Nobody here is a DM. Not you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371731-Pathfinder-Dragons-Gate-A-Persistent-World), not me (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?473579-3-5-The-Grinder-Level-3-All-Combat-Homebrew-Friendly), not anybody.

Naez

2017-04-24, 07:25 PM

Maximum Carnage

2017-04-24, 07:28 PM

He caught us: Nobody here is a DM. Not you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371731-Pathfinder-Dragons-Gate-A-Persistent-World), not me (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?473579-3-5-The-Grinder-Level-3-All-Combat-Homebrew-Friendly), not anybody.

So here is what you two clearly omitted from my post. I stated that the ratio is what's abysmal. Do you really think I'm foolish enough to believe that I'm the only DM in the world, if so please stop reading, because we have nothing more to discuss.

If however you want to engage in civil discourse:

There are far more players in the community then there are DMs willing to host games, if you disagree with this, you're simply in denial. These threads irk me, because while it's not bad to have preferences, to nitpick day and night about how your DM runs the game is childish. I saw some "Red Flags" that I'm sure weren't brought up to the person running the game, and instead thrown on this forum. Players have the responsibility of being straight forward with their DM. If you don't like the way they do something, tell them. If you disagree with a rule, or the manner in which it's applied, say something. The door swings both ways.

That's what I had to say, and I'll sleep easier tonight having said it.

MC

Sir_Chivalry

2017-04-24, 07:37 PM

So here is what you two clearly omitted from my post. I stated that the ratio is what's abysmal. Do you really think I'm foolish enough to believe that I'm the only DM in the world, if so please stop reading, because we have nothing more to discuss.

Alright then, so what's your basis for the assumption that the majority of people who post on this site in the gaming forums are not DMs? In general, the small portion of people who regularly post on internet forums going over minutae are going to HEAVILY intersect with the group which both plays and DMs, I'd wager.

You said you disagree, but haven't provided a counterpoint. Would you propose that the majority of the people agonizing over these details are simply players?

danielxcutter

2017-04-24, 07:39 PM

WarKitty

2017-04-24, 09:36 PM

*raises hand* By definition, the player characters are the ones the without whom the game DOES NOT EXIST. And personally, I don't object if the player wants them to be slightly more distinct than race/class/gender/favorite weapon. The insistence that they be J. Random Dungshoveller is barely tolerable at first level in AD&D, not so much at level 7 in any edition.

And it's completely laughable in a game like Feng Shui, never mind something like Exalted.

My main issue with special snowflakes is making sure they can work with the group. Being special chosen ones is great! But there's going to be 3-5 other players at the table, and you have to get along with them and not take your specialness to the point where you're stealing the spotlight. There's also going to be NPC's, and there's a good chance that the way I built the world, your level 1 butt is not going to be seen as anything than yet another guy with a pointy stick in his hand.

Florian

2017-04-25, 01:27 AM

*raises hand* By definition, the player characters are the ones the without whom the game DOES NOT EXIST. And personally, I don't object if the player wants them to be slightly more distinct than race/class/gender/favorite weapon. The insistence that they be J. Random Dungshoveller is barely tolerable at first level in AD&D, not so much at level 7 in any edition.

And it's completely laughable in a game like Feng Shui, never mind something like Exalted.

Nah, that´s not what´s meant when talking about special snowflakes. This is D&D, we´re playing big damn heroes, so the characters are always special.
The special snowflake is a character that either doesn´t fit in with the setting or with the intended role it should play, in a way that doesn´t enrich the play experience.

Mordaedil

2017-04-25, 01:56 AM

So here is what you two clearly omitted from my post. I stated that the ratio is what's abysmal. Do you really think I'm foolish enough to believe that I'm the only DM in the world, if so please stop reading, because we have nothing more to discuss.

If however you want to engage in civil discourse:

There are far more players in the community then there are DMs willing to host games, if you disagree with this, you're simply in denial. These threads irk me, because while it's not bad to have preferences, to nitpick day and night about how your DM runs the game is childish. I saw some "Red Flags" that I'm sure weren't brought up to the person running the game, and instead thrown on this forum. Players have the responsibility of being straight forward with their DM. If you don't like the way they do something, tell them. If you disagree with a rule, or the manner in which it's applied, say something. The door swings both ways.

That's what I had to say, and I'll sleep easier tonight having said it.

MC
I think we come to the conclusion that most posters in this forum are both DM's and players because the nature of the game mixed with age means everybody who has been at it for some time have gotten at least a passing chance to try to be both. I reckon most of us have had a set DM for some time who eventually went "alright, I'm not in the mood to run next time, can't one of you guys do a session next time?" and so the torch got passed around and eventually everyone in a given group had DM'd for others. Most people I played 3rd edition with that were just players lost interest when they were made to DM and went on to do other things and had no interest in reading forums about the subject either.

I think if you go to the 5th edition, Pathfinder or maybe even 4th edition forums, you might find players who have only ever been players, but if they are 3rd edition players, they likely have had to DM at least once. Or they've found a new hobby.

That's just how I see things though.

Florian

2017-04-25, 02:47 AM

There are far more players in the community then there are DMs willing to host games, if you disagree with this, you're simply in denial. These threads irk me, because while it's not bad to have preferences, to nitpick day and night about how your DM runs the game is childish. I saw some "Red Flags" that I'm sure weren't brought up to the person running the game, and instead thrown on this forum. Players have the responsibility of being straight forward with their DM. If you don't like the way they do something, tell them. If you disagree with a rule, or the manner in which it's applied, say something. The door swings both ways.

Hm, you know, I´m from germany and D&D/PF is a niche within a niche, far away from being the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Most people I know, know of or stay in contact with had to learn some basic gm´ing at a point and host a game, or it´s no gaming at all.

Socksy

2017-04-25, 04:20 AM

Banning Tome of Battle, seriously?

I don't like the flavour, most of my players actively dislike it, and last time I ran into it in a game was with a stupid broken DMPC who wrecked my character with no saves/narration, leaving a sour taste in my mouth. Also, none of us own the book.

Evil characters are always trash, and yours are no exception.

You REALLY need to get over yourself. Calling other people's characters trash is a good way to get hated online and punched in real life.

"My girlfriend's going to join us."

This is why I was worried when one of my players asked me out... I knew I'd have to be careful in case people thought this situation was occuring.

When they pull ideas from a sci-fi movie they love. (Someone threw Aliens at us once)

I think this is OK if handled properly, it's just rarely handled properly. Which is why it's a red flag, I guess.

Red flags for me are:
* DMPCs clearly higher level than the party ("He sees you from the indents your invisible feet are leaving in the ground where you're standing") who we'd have no chance of killing or even fleeing in a fight.
* Making PCs go on quests to get their class features. Sure, if you take Leadership, an NPC two levels lower than you and a bunch of groupies don't just materialise, but the Ranger shouldn't have to go on a special quest to find an animal companion, especially if the GM isn't making it easy for them to do so.
* If I walk into the room and the module is being printed off, that's a huge red flag. WOTC modules especially tend to be full of stupid - the last one had an EL12 encounter in a level 5 module in the enemies' favoured terrain - and if it's only just being printed off now I'll assume the GM hasn't properly read through it and fixed it (An Immoth sorcerer surrounded by runes he's prepared in advance with hostages he can feed off is a level seven boss fight?!).

Dromuthra

2017-04-25, 05:16 AM

I know I did.

Also, I believe many DMs have a knee-jerk response to allowing their players be good at something. It may be seen as challenging their authority of the game or they may be fetishizing some ridiculous notion of balance. So they up the DCs, because having a 50% chance to succeed at something is the epitome of balance.

This is why I hate winging-it DMs and what has turned me into a rules-first player. I need to know what to expect of the world and reliably be able to detect when the DM is doing something fishy. Playing off heavy's example, if I'm playing 3.5 and have a high-30s tripping modifier and am not felling mooks left and right like rotten trees, then I can be certain the DM is fudging results. And then I know where the source of my lack of fun lies and can take steps to correct this.

Basically... a DMs privilege to improvise has to be earned.
A DM who starts assuming it is a red flag.

This was actually a big issue I used to have while DMing, and I still feel that twinge once in a while, particularly with skill-based characters. I'd like to think that I've gotten better with it, but I wholeheartedly agree that this is one of the first challenges that DMs face.

My personal warning flags are:
0. Using multiclassing penalties
1. Requesting player not multiclass very much (highlights misunderstanding of caster/noncaster disparity, as mentioned)
2. Banning ToB/Incarnum/Subsystems for non-flavor reasons. I don't mind banning subsystems that don't fit into the world, but as mentioned if it's because people are too lazy/think things are OP I find it ridiculous.
3. Extensive railroading OR imposing railroaded large penalties on players. For example, I was playing a wizard depending heavily on my familiar, and it was subsequently killed off by fiat in a railroaded battle. That kind of thing.
4. Individual exp and wealth disparities >10% of wbl. I just personally dislike these as it (to my mind) is harmful to the group dynamic.
5. As mentioned before, encouraging party infighting.
6. Anything relating to sex UNLESS the entire group has seriously established what is and is not acceptable.
7. Actively making it harder for players to use their abilities/get access to their abilities.
8. Low magic or low wealth

Regarding the Spheres of Power arguments: I don't have a problem with players running it in my games, but I don't personally use it as a DM because I simply don't have enough system mastery of it to replace the standard magic system. I think that given its complexity it's absolutely legitimate for DMs to ban it as they don't want to have to replace the entirety of spellcasting with it, but I prefer to see it treated as another optional magic subsystem.

Seerow

2017-04-25, 08:33 AM

So I posted earlier on the whole tailoring encounters thing, but just realized I never actually posted my own red flags.

1) Critical Fumbles. This one edges very close to being a deal breaker instead of just a red flag. There is no excuse for these. Any attempt to use them shows at best an ignorance of game design/balance issues, and at worst a power trip. My check for fumble rules comes in two parts, first: Does it impact a caster at least as much as a martial character; and second: the dummy test (ie if a squad of 1st level warriors beat up on a dummy for 10 minutes and take noticable casualties, we have problems). Thus far I haven't found a set yet that I could get behind, a very rare few that fall under tolerable.

2) Banning subsystems specifically (What I mean is things like "All books allowed but no psionics!" something like "Only Core + Completes" is fine). If the issue is fluff, refluffing is trivially easy. If the issue is balance or not wanting to take the time to understand, that's been covered plenty throughout the thread.

3) Unspecified unwritten houserules. I've had a few DMs who were great storytellers, but had a ton of houserules that you might get to know if you play with them long enough, but the DM couldn't bother writing down. These houserules would frequently dramatically alter gameplay and you might not become aware of them until you actually pick a class or try to take a specific action. The games were all right for a ride, but not what I really want when I sit down to a game of 3.5.

WarKitty

2017-04-25, 08:49 AM

2) Banning subsystems specifically (What I mean is things like "All books allowed but no psionics!" something like "Only Core + Completes" is fine). If the issue is fluff, refluffing is trivially easy. If the issue is balance or not wanting to take the time to understand, that's been covered plenty throughout the thread.

At least for 3.5, there's also the point that not everyone pirates. :smallbiggrin:

Someone who's trying to buy their books is more likely to say things like "no ToB" simply because they don't want to pay WotC's ridiculous prices for their books.

(Of course, this is why I play pathfinder...)

Seerow

2017-04-25, 09:01 AM

At least for 3.5, there's also the point that not everyone pirates. :smallbiggrin:

Someone who's trying to buy their books is more likely to say things like "no ToB" simply because they don't want to pay WotC's ridiculous prices for their books.

(Of course, this is why I play pathfinder...)

That's a reason I can understand but hasn't been applicable to a game I've played in for the last decade. I have most of the books and the rare ones I don't have I can beg steal or borrow off friends. But all the major ones I can supply to a dm.

atemu1234

2017-04-25, 09:30 AM

Grod_The_Giant

2017-04-25, 09:36 AM

So that you can pay Paizo's ridiculous prices?
Pathfinder makes all of their stuff available in their online SRD.

zergling.exe

2017-04-25, 10:18 AM

Pathfinder makes all of their stuff available in their online SRD.

Isn't that SRD maintained by someone not affiliated with Paizo? The only reason it exists to that degree is that all PF content has to be OGL since they based it so heavily on 3.5.

BWR

2017-04-25, 10:27 AM

Isn't that SRD maintained by someone not affiliated with Paizo? The only reason it exists to that degree is that all PF content has to be OGL since they based it so heavily on 3.5.

The PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/)is maintained by Paizo and has pretty much only hardcover stuff. the d20pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/)is kept by independents and has pretty much everything, including 3rd party stuff.

zergling.exe

2017-04-25, 10:29 AM

The PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/)is maintained by Paizo and has pretty much only core stuff. the d20pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/)is kept by independents and has pretty much everything, including 3rd party stuff.

Well Grod was referring to the one that has nearly everything so... I'm not really wrong?

Wolfkingleo

2017-04-25, 11:11 AM

stack

2017-04-25, 11:13 AM

Note that the D20pfsrd, since it has a store affiliated with it (I think that's the reason, not a lawyer), has to remove setting specific stuff, so frequently has to rename regional and deity-specific things from Golarion.

The Archives of Nethys (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Default.aspx) is another option to find things not on the PRD but maintaining setting specific names. Has some items that aren't on the PFSRD too. The interface and search functions...well, they exist.

WarKitty

2017-04-25, 11:31 AM

So that you can pay Paizo's ridiculous prices?

Pathfinder also sells their stuff as PDF's. So you can legally own the Pathfinder Core Rulebook as a PDF for 10 bucks.

Naez

2017-04-25, 01:06 PM

so in summation keep an eye out for:
-Massive amounts of houserules
-Not actually playing the advertised system
-DMs forced into the position
-Banning pretty much anything, unless there's a setting reason for it
-Allows everything
-Disallowing Evil alignment
-Low magic/fantasy
-Gritty realism
-Fumble rules
-DMPC
-Anything involving sex
-Railroading
-Long episodes of narration with no player agency
-Arbitrary rules changes
-DM refers to them selves as God
-Plans to turn campaign into a novel
-Has run the campaign before
-Multiclass penalties
-Low point buy
-Rolling for stats
-Nerfing mundanes
-Edition favoritism
-Allowing personal relationships to spill over into the game.
-Actively trying to make the paladin fall.
-Banning options for only the players.
-Lack of system mastery
-Talks about previous bad players
-Excessively high DCs
-Campaign is nothing but fights
-Pulling ideas from a video game/movie.
-Long fights
-Overly invested in the story (often leading to railroading)
-Inability to improvise
-Bad grasp of alignment
-Core only
-Meatgrinders
-Excessive use of Rule 0.
-E6
-Not tailoring encounters.
-Tailoring encounters to specifically mess with the players.
-Reducing player agency in any way
-Ignores rules in favor of Rule of Cool
-Doesn't backtrack when player are uncomfortable
-Expecting the CR system to actually be balanced.
-Overpowered NPCs
-NPCs are idiots
-DM becomes agitated when things don't go right.
-DM more interested in telling a story than playing a game.
-things happen at the dramatically appropriate time / in the most dramatically appropriate way
-Level 0
-Prebuilt Characters
-All players must take X class
-Not explaining/writing down houserules
-fudging dice rolls
-Doesn't listen to player complaints
-Quests for class features
-Spontaneous Houserules
-Disallows the 'Take a 10' rule
-Makes the character look incompetent
-Doesn't understand the concept of multiple valid play styles
-Use of the term 'Rollplayer(s)'
-Attempts to stop you from reading books
-Cliché plot hooks
-Unbalanced plots (all intrigue, all combat, etc.)
-Mary or Gary Sue NPCs
-Requiring rolls for easily done tasks.
-Making you pull teeth for information NPCs would reasonably just tell you.
-NPCs take the spotlight
-'Survival' games
-Using custom classes available to the NPCs but not the PCs
-No experience as a player
-Bad hygiene
-Obsessed with immersion
-Language barriers
-Starting with ridiculously high stats
-Allows Massive LA Buyoffs
-Thinks the PCs don't matter
-Session long Player-NPC interaction sequences
-Retroactively changing rules.

Sun Elemental

2017-04-25, 01:56 PM

Gildedragon

2017-04-25, 02:05 PM

Just to clear things up, what are the 'fumble' rules supposed to be, legally?
1 on an Attack, auto-miss with no other penalties.
Right

1 on a Save, auto-fail the save but no other penalties.
Wrong. Yes auto fail but also items may be harmed

1 on a Skill or Ability check, treat as a 1 and add your bonuses normally?

Yes

martixy

2017-04-25, 02:06 PM

Just to clear things up, what are the 'fumble' rules supposed to be, legally?
1 on an Attack, auto-miss with no other penalties.
1 on a Save, auto-fail the save but no other penalties.
1 on a Skill or Ability check, treat as a 1 and add your bonuses normally?
Have I got that right?

A little contradictory there. E6 nerfs casters, comparatively speaking.

Fumbles are effects of natural ones in excess of simply missing your target or not making your save.

The problem with fumbles is that many people have no intuitive understanding of the rules of probability or empathy for the enjoyment of other people.

Hence, most fumbles introduced in a game are almost universally fun-sapping turds of rules.

Naez

2017-04-25, 02:09 PM

Just to clear things up, what are the 'fumble' rules supposed to be, legally?
1 on an Attack, auto-miss with no other penalties.
1 on a Save, auto-fail the save but no other penalties.
1 on a Skill or Ability check, treat as a 1 and add your bonuses normally?
Have I got that right?

A little contradictory there. E6 nerfs casters, comparatively speaking.

I never said they weren't contradictory. It's a compilation of all the complaints. It would make sense some people disagreed with eachother.

Barstro

2017-04-25, 02:29 PM

1 on a Save, auto-fail...

This is an issue I have with many DMs; wanting save or skill checks when failure isn't even a possibility. (Or when success isn't a possibility, but that's normally a player whining because he wants a natural 20 to critically hit the moon with a marshmallow)

Seerow

2017-04-25, 03:12 PM

This is an issue I have with many DMs; wanting save or skill checks when failure isn't even a possibility. (Or when success isn't a possibility, but that's normally a player whining because he wants a natural 20 to critically hit the moon with a marshmallow)

Any time I run into a DM who wants to do critical success/failures on skill checks, my immediate response is to start hopping up and down in character waiting for the natural 20 to jump to the moon.

Waker

2017-04-25, 03:42 PM

2. Banning ToB/Incarnum/Subsystems for non-flavor reasons. I don't mind banning subsystems that don't fit into the world, but as mentioned if it's because people are too lazy/think things are OP I find it ridiculous.

For me the Red Flag is actually the opposite. I can understand a DM's reticence in learning a new system, not only the basic mechanics but familiarizing themselves with all the maneuvers, soulmelds and so on. What does bother me is when DMs ban material solely on the basis of fluff. If I tried to pass off Incarnum as just another form of Divine Magic (which is kinda is, since it is strictly about manipulating soul stuff), then why shouldn't it be playable? Could a lay person in game really look at the effects of a Wizard and Psion and say, "Clearly these are two completely different forms of universe-bending abilities."
Mainly the gripe is that D&D is a game where players and DMs get together and state this is how something is. Just because something is written in a book doesn't somehow make it immutable and sacred. If you decide that Catfolk all look like characters from Thundercats, more power to you. At your table Orcus speaks with a Russian accent, fine by me. Just because you alter the narrative a bit doesn't mean that Gygax is going to leap from his grave and inflict an XP penalty on you. Anything that isn't strictly mechanics should be something a good DM and player can talk about to make everyone happy.

Zanos

2017-04-25, 03:48 PM

Could a lay person in game really look at the effects of a Wizard and Psion and say, "Clearly these are two completely different forms of universe-bending abilities."
They probably can. Wizard's reach into their magic pocket for a handful of dung, say some magic words, wave their hands around, and magic happens. Psionics fill the area with weird smells, rave strobes, bizarre noises, and "ectoplasmic seepage" if they don't suppress their displays. And that's before the actual power even happens.

Anything that isn't strictly mechanics should be something a good DM and player can talk about to make everyone happy.
Serious question, why does this stop at mechanics for you?

Firechanter

2017-04-25, 03:52 PM

Anecdote time.

This is an issue I have with many DMs; wanting save or skill checks when failure isn't even a possibility. (Or when success isn't a possibility, but that's normally a player whining because he wants a natural 20 to critically hit the moon with a marshmallow)

Well, in 3E, Saves do Auto-Fail or -Pass on Nat 1s or 20s. It may be annoying but well, such are the rules.
However, in 5E, Saves _don't_ have this specialty by the book. So when I played a 5E Paladin, of course I tried to boost by Con save to auto-pass the typical DC10 Concentration check (which you have to do every time you have a spell running and take damage, so for Paladins, that's _all the friggin time_), eventually investing a precious Feat [Resilient Con] into it... and as soon as I was there, the DM immediately houseruled Saves to Auto-Fail on a 1. Imagine my disappointment. -.- But I just swallowed that toad and kept on trucking.

Happened to be my last game with this DM, though. It's not like this event had been the last straw; the game continued for a few more months after that, but with increasingly frequent moments of frustration for me. In hindsight, this spontaneous houserule indeed was a Red Flag - one that pointed out that our preferences and expectations in and of RPGs had developed in different directions over time. Only I refused to acknowledge that at the time.

Doctor Awkward

2017-04-25, 03:58 PM

Fumbles are effects of natural ones in excess of simply missing your target or not making your save.

The problem with fumbles is that many people have no intuitive understanding of the rules of probability or empathy for the enjoyment of other people.

Hence, most fumbles introduced in a game are almost universally fun-sapping turds of rules.

To be a bit more specific, the problems with fumble rules can stem from the implementation of them and also their effects.

For starters, nearly every table I have played at that used a fumble chart ignored one critical component of D&D: You roll a second time to confirm critical hits. But instead of rolling a second time a Natural 1 shows up to see if you again miss your target (thus making it either a miss or a fumble), the DM simply busts out the fumble chart with glee to see what horrid thing happens to you.

The second part is the horrible thing that happens to you.

If you actually sit down to parse out the math you'll find that critical hits in general are heavily skewed against the players. For instance, if you have a team of four 1st level fighters fighting against a team of eight goblins, the fighters have a four in twenty chance of rolling a critical hit each round, while the goblins have an eight in twenty chance. Over the course of a campaign, the odds of critical hits are almost always in favor of the monsters simply because there's more of them.

However, the end result of the players winning a fight is that the monsters are dead. So while negative effects from critical fumble charts don't matter to them (on account of being dead), the penalties to the player characters keep piling up. It becomes especially problematic with the worst of all fumble charts; the ones with permanent penalties applied to a character (losing an eye or whatever).

In general they are just aren't a good idea.

Waker

2017-04-25, 04:11 PM

They probably can. Wizard's reach into their magic pocket for a handful of dung, say some magic words, wave their hands around, and magic happens. Psionics fill the area with weird smells, rave strobes, bizarre noises, and "ectoplasmic seepage" if they don't suppress their displays. And that's before the actual power even happens.
Ok, what about if the Wizard had Eschew Materials and Still Spell? My point is that the fluff and mechanical differences between the magic systems can be jarring.
Think of it like this. The Wizard who studies arcane lore, the Sorcerer who is inherently magical because of his bloodline, the Bard who plays music, the Cleric who devotes themselves to their deity and the Druid who communes with nature all follow the same rules for magic (barring small differences like armor interfering with spells and other quirks) and even share many of the same spells. But why? These are all radically different fluff reasons for being able to utilize magic, but we accept them as being the same since they all come from the PHB and use the Vancian system. Then a player comes along with a Psion, Binder, Incarnate or something else and DMs recoil because these new classes are weird and don't fit the setting. Mechanically I understand the differences between all of them, within the confines of the story though why couldn't Psionics just be viewed as another flavor of mages?

Serious question, why does this stop at mechanics for you?

It doesn't actually. I frequently support houseruling and homebrewing in order to patch over and improve aspects of the game. Fluff aspects of the game are simply easier to change since they are strictly confined to the narrative aspect of the game. Altering mechanics requires a degree of system mastery so that you can understand the impact the change will have on the rest of the game.

danielxcutter

2017-04-25, 05:18 PM

Just because you alter the narrative a bit doesn't mean that Gygax is going to leap from his grave and inflict an XP penalty on you.

I'm seriously considering making an extended signature just to sig that.

Blu

2017-04-25, 07:03 PM

Other two issues i see with fumbles are on they normally work.

One is because most of the time, only mundane characters, that rely on physical attacks get screwed by it.
"If i roll a 1 on a spell with attack roll that is a fumble? Okay, i just drop cloudkill."

Two is because they don't fit with anything resembling serious narrative. Because they simply put imcopetence on the character, sure a nat 1 is always a miss is already a fair enough penalty, luck can be a thing.
But if your lvl 10, old veteran, slips on his feet on a 1 or hits a friendly he wouldn't live that long.

weckar

2017-04-25, 08:57 PM

- low Point Buy, or rolling statsFunny, I find point buy a red flag. Roll or nothing.

Gildedragon

2017-04-25, 09:05 PM

Funny, I find point buy a red flag. Roll or nothing.

This is interesting. Why does PB make you wary of a DM?

weckar

2017-04-25, 09:10 PM

This is interesting. Why does PB make you wary of a DM?

Bad experiences, mostly. I've come to equate PB with DMs who encourage rollplaying over roleplaying, and mostly DMs who assume characters have no inherent weak spots or talents.

In fact, my favorite DM has always gone with "4d6b3 assign" OR "5d6b3 in order", at the player's individual choice.

Zanos

2017-04-25, 10:12 PM

Bad experiences, mostly. I've come to equate PB with DMs who encourage rollplaying over roleplaying, and mostly DMs who assume characters have no inherent weak spots or talents.
It's amusingly ironic that you associate the method where one actually rolls for stats with role playing, and the method where you do not roll with rollplaying.

ross

2017-04-25, 10:14 PM

weckar

2017-04-25, 10:15 PM

I'd never thought about it that way, but yeah - I guess I do... I kind of dislike the term rollplaying (because most 'rollplayers' avoid random chance as much as they can) but it makes for such a nice juxtaposing term.

atemu1234

2017-04-25, 10:32 PM

Y'know when I made these threads I thought it was because bringing up one would invariably lead to the creation of the other. I never thought the two's topics would basically converge.

Blu

2017-04-25, 10:47 PM

Funny, I find point buy a red flag. Roll or nothing.

Well, for me, rolling is not exactly a red flag, but it sure can mean i don't get to play what i want.
Wanting to play a charismatic, yet competent in combat pally? No, cause i rolled one 18 and the rest 10's, guess ill play a wiz then.

My point is, it hurts characters that are MAD much more than SAD. Only a 16 and the rest are 10's? Well my wiz can live with it. Now for martial characters, that will be much more harder to cope with.
Rolling atributes can simply negate you to play the role or character that you want, so i consider it, generally a bad choice.

Just to add some more: When you roll, most of the times there will be a guy in your group who's highest stat is a 14, and the rest are all 12'ish while there is the dude who rolled 16 for his lowest.

weckar

2017-04-25, 10:52 PM

Rolling atributes can simply negate you to play the role or character that you want, so i consider it, generally a bad choice. In essence I agree. In practice I find players stick to theit comfort zone if not incentivised to play different things. Rolling stats, especially in order, is a good way to do that. Buuuut derailing...

Sun Elemental

2017-04-25, 11:25 PM

I don't get this. When we fumble, our suggestions for what should happen to our own characters are usually way worse than what the GM ends up deciding. Maybe they hate fun or something.
Exactly. I asked what the official fumble rules because I legit didn't know... because in my last game, the players actually suggested comical yet horrible things for themselves rolling natural 1's. And when I mentioned aloud every time an NPC got a 1, you know they jumped on that.
Although it was a non-lethal, high wish fulfillment kinda game, so weren't actually sabotaging themselves.

I'm too risk-adverse to ever do 4d6 in order as a player. Most of my characters still have a 7 or two in point buy, because I gotta get that sweet 18 or 20.
I'd allow it as a DM, if the players promised to not kvetch about someone being luckier than them.

Bottom line: let the players pick point buy or roll, it makes them happy and you can scale difficulty up/down very easily.

Firechanter

2017-04-26, 01:24 AM

In essence I agree. In practice I find players stick to theit comfort zone if not incentivised to play different things. Rolling stats, especially in order, is a good way to do that. Buuuut derailing...

And if, so? What's wrong with players spending their spare time in their comfort zone? I really don't get this argument. Typically everyone is adult. We don't need to be educated, and we are able to decide for ourselves what works best for us.

Dragonexx

2017-04-26, 03:40 AM

In essence I agree. In practice I find players stick to theit comfort zone if not incentivised to play different things. Rolling stats, especially in order, is a good way to do that. Buuuut derailing...

Honestly, at that point you'd probably be better just letting them pick any number between 3-18 for their starting attibutes instead of rolling or point buy.

Florian

2017-04-26, 04:03 AM

And if, so? What's wrong with players spending their spare time in their comfort zone? I really don't get this argument. Typically everyone is adult. We don't need to be educated, and we are able to decide for ourselves what works best for us.

It keeps you locked into the usual arms race. You have a player who´s competent with a class and knows you as a gm, they´ll know which options to chose, thereby eliminating weaknesses and raising the power floor considerably.

Mordaedil

2017-04-26, 04:07 AM

Honestly, at that point you'd probably be better just letting them pick any number between 3-18 for their starting attibutes instead of rolling or point buy.
How I see rolling stats:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBmEFgd_4ho

martixy

2017-04-26, 06:21 AM

I don't get this. When we fumble, our suggestions for what should happen to our own characters are usually way worse than what the GM ends up deciding. Maybe they hate fun or something.

You are free to suggest anything you like if that makes it fun for you. But fumbles are not part of the rules. And I for one hate anything that makes my character look like an incompetent jackass.

My enjoyment of the game comes from heroic characters doing cool shiz. Not having an imaginary puppet do slapstick comedy.

Not that either method is more (or less) valid than the other.

A red flag is when the DM doesn't understand the above sentence.

Barstro

2017-04-26, 07:07 AM

Well, in 3E, Saves do Auto-Fail or -Pass on Nat 1s or 20s. It may be annoying but well, such are the rules.
I agree with the rule. I disagree with DMs who apply the rule when they should not.

Rolling a die is our way to bringing the correct amount of random chance into a situation. For instance; let's say that I want to go to a golf course and hit my ball off of the tee, bounce it off the Ladies' tee box marker in front of me, into the woods to my right, off a of tree, into a wooden sign on my left, the bounce back 10 yards behind me. This is a rather improbable shot, but it is mathematically possible (and I did just that one day) and warrants a roll. 5% chance of success is a bit high, but thems the rules.

However, DMs who want a skill check for standing on a two foot step ladder on a flat surface without any distractions are doing a disservice by subjecting that to a 5% auto failure. I stand by my marshmallow/moon scenario as well; that situation is NOT mathematically possible and does not warrant a roll.

Mordaedil

2017-04-26, 07:17 AM

That is why there's a take-10 rule, though.

Barstro

2017-04-26, 07:31 AM

That is why there's a take-10 rule, though.
Good point. I retract much of my argument.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-04-26, 08:01 AM

It keeps you locked into the usual arms race. You have a player who´s competent with a class and knows you as a gm, they´ll know which options to chose, thereby eliminating weaknesses and raising the power floor considerably.
You may or may not squeak out a tiny bit of difference in build effectiveness, but that hardly seems worth curtailing your friends' fun. Who cares if a player always rolls Halfling Rogues or something? As long as they're having fun and not ruining things for the rest of the group, more power to them.

You are free to suggest anything you like if that makes it fun for you. But fumbles are not part of the rules. And I for one hate anything that makes my character look like an incompetent jackass.
Here here!

weckar

2017-04-26, 08:02 AM

How I see rolling stats:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBmEFgd_4ho

Is referencing this series an extension of Godwins by now?

Quertus

2017-04-26, 08:09 AM

For me the Red Flag is actually the opposite. I can understand a DM's reticence in learning a new system, not only the basic mechanics but familiarizing themselves with all the maneuvers, soulmelds and so on.

And why should the DM need to learn the rules of, say, incarnate or ToB in order to allow such a character? As a DM, I've allowed plenty of material blind, and it's worked out fine. I'm not the one running the character, the player is - it's the player who needs to understand the rules for their character.

I'm too risk-adverse to ever do 4d6 in order as a player.

Back in my day, we rolled 3d6, in order, and we liked it.

And if, so? What's wrong with players spending their spare time in their comfort zone? I really don't get this argument. Typically everyone is adult. We don't need to be educated, and we are able to decide for ourselves what works best for us.

To paraphrase The Man in Black, I don't believe you, I've known too many adults. :smallwink:

Don't get me wrong, I know that what I like playing in RPGs is spellcasters. But, the less than 2% of my D&D characters that were mundane gave me a better appreciation for what the "other half" go through, how I could make a better caster to support them, and a better appreciation for the overall flow of battle & of the game.

It keeps you locked into the usual arms race. You have a player who´s competent with a class and knows you as a gm, they´ll know which options to chose, thereby eliminating weaknesses and raising the power floor considerably.

I don't get it.

I suspect the fact that I don't get it is related to the fact that my signature wizard, for whom this account is named, is both inefficient (run, endurance, and exotic weapon proficiency: shuriken, for starters), and lacks my tactical acumen.

And I for one hate anything that makes my character look like an incompetent jackass.

I... mostly very strongly agree with you? Just because I didn't specify where I was wearing my pants doesn't mean I was wearing them on my head. If I want to play a "pants on head" idiot, I can pull that off on my own, thank you very much.

and as soon as I was there, the DM immediately houseruled Saves to Auto-Fail on a 1. Imagine my disappointment. -.- But I just swallowed that toad and kept on trucking.

In hindsight, this spontaneous houserule indeed was a Red Flag -

And I for one hate anything that makes my character look like an incompetent jackass.

My enjoyment of the game comes from heroic characters doing cool shiz. Not having an imaginary puppet do slapstick comedy.

Not that either method is more (or less) valid than the other.

A red flag is when the DM doesn't understand the above sentence.

That is why there's a take-10 rule, though.

Oh Keeper of the Master List, please add "spontaneous house rules"* , "doesn't allow characters to 'take 10'", "makes characters look incompetent", and "doesn't understand the concept of multiple valid play styles" to the list of red flags.

* I don't mean filling in the blanks for missing content, or RAI, or patching drown healing; house rules are explicitly changing the written rules.