Red Flags for DMs?

[Thurbane]

Also, can we make Salt Master a thing? I think 'salty dungeon master' takes too long to say. 'Salt Master, the MASTER of SALT! No-one is more salty than he!'

Funny - when you say Salt Master first thing that poops to mind is someone (ab)using Wall of Salt to break WBL.

I have always felt like the Magic Item conundrum is typically best resolved by the group DM wants meeting the needs of the group.

I have enjoyed both types of games where magic items are abundant or scarce. The only times I have not enjoyed that aspect of a game in either scenario is when their is a disconnect between the DM and the group.

So for me, the real red flag is. The DM sets a type the group is unhappy with it. They talk about it. And the DM goes "Well that is the way it is. Deal with it."

Every great Pen and Paper RPG game I have been in has a balance between the "DMs vision" and the players needs for fun.

Me too.

Of course, common from a 1E background "you get what you're given" is a little entrenched in my DNA.

But I have enjoyed both types of games as a player: scarcity and abundancy/freedom of choice.

And yes - if the DM has a vision that doesn't mesh with the player's expectations, and will hurt their enjoyment, he should be open to negotiation. If not, definitely red flag.

---

To give my own example of DM concept not meshing with player enjoyment:

A very good friend of mine (in fact, probably my best friend) ran a conversion of a 1E campaign he had developed. The concept was that each player ran three predetermined characters: each character represented a different leg of the campaign (there was a pool of pre-determined characters for each leg: the players decided between themselves who would play what).

There were a few major issues with the game:

1. The DM was running a homebrew mishmash of 1E and 3E rules, where everyone's power level was roughly equivalent to an NPC class (i.e. Aristocrat etc.), there were no feats, and the "casters" had access to about three spells that were extremely nerfed. And if someone found a creative use for the nerfed spell, the DM would rule 0 it so "it doesn't work like that". The rules were internally inconsistent, and consisted of about 20 or so printed pages, that referenced both 3.5 and 1E rules, and used confusing pseudo-historical terms for arms and armor that made it quite confusing to work out what you were even wielding (i.e. a lance was renamed to spear; but there was also a different weapon called a spear). ???

2. The game was scripted. Not just light railroading: each leg of the adventure had an actual script, and precious little the players did would make any difference. Most of it involved large army battles etc. in a recreation of a pseudo-historic campaign. Even if the players ruthlessly massacred all opponents with no losses, the overall ending of each leg would be largely predetermined.

3. Because we were playing pre-generated characters, a lot of actions we tried to take would be met with "Your character wouldn't do that!". That was the final straw for me.

After a long chain of back and forth emails in the group, the DM ragequit and said we showed him no repsect and didn't give his concept a fair chance.

We are still very good friends, but he chose to leave the gaming group and not return.