GM Warning Signs?

[The Grue]

So after about a year's hiatus from tabletop RPGs, my group has gotten back together and wrangled up a GM. It's a D&D 3.5 game, but the subject of this thread is not necessarily specific to that system.

Anyhow, this GM has a massive home-brewed setting he's created, ostensibly he's sat down and worked out its history over the span of several thousand years. He also made an off-handed comment about wanting to publish the setting, possibly in the form of a novel...which for me was an instant red flag for Player Agency.

He's said a handful of other little things related to the setting that made me double take, but I'm sure there's probably nothing to worry about and I'm just jumping at shadows. Still, tomorrow is the first session, and I thought I'd ask the Playground if there's any GM Warning Signs I should watch out for.

[Hangwind]

One word: DMPC

Edit: Actually that's more of an acronym.

[The Random NPC]

Here's some good warning signs, but I hope no one ever displays them.
Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3

[The Grue]

That thread and associated blog is the reason "writing a novel about it" is on my list of red flags.

Still, there can't be more than one GM who's as bad as Marty, so I'm looking for more subtle things to watch out for.

[Rabidmuskrat]

Depends on whether he first thought up a main character then built the world around them or thought up the world then inhabited it with characters. Hell, maybe he thought up the world and want you to play in it for inspiration (in essence, your characters will be the inspiration for the characters in his novel).

Regardless, unless all his players agree to essentially play sidekicks - and there are people who enjoy this role, so don't knock it - the DM must be willing to remove his or her main character from the game. Note that I don't say they SHOULD do it, just that they must be willing and able to do it if the players ask. If doing that cripples the campaign or 'ruins the story', I think that is a major red flag that the DM's world does not make a good campaign setting.

[Evo_Kaer]

I wouldn't call it an instant red flag if he designed his own setting and wants to write a novel. I did the same thing (though my setting is probably not as fleshed out, I don't have several thousand years of history written yet)
Originally I intended to write down the campaign I was DMing. Didn't work out since the players didn't accept my setting (low magic, at least where they live and they talk about high lvl spells quite regularly)

So I would probably keep an eye open, but not be suspicious about everything

[NichG]

Eh, the best DM I've ever had basically wrote and ran their own setting for each separate campaign (and it was a new setting every time). I don't think thats a warning flag on its own.

The novel thing is a minor tick, but its not enough on its own to really bother me. Basically what it indicates is that the DM has a certain amount of pride in his work (e.g. he thinks its good enough to be a commercial product), and if he's the only one who has ever seen his setting then there are likely to be all sorts of problems with it that he may get irritated about when they're pointed out. That said, there's no guarantee it will play out that way at all.

If it does start leaning that way, there are things you can do as a player to avoid it becoming an issue. For example, while you can interact in-character however you like, avoid teasing him about inconsistencies in the setting out-of-character; avoid player-vs-DM arguments about how the setting should look, and just focus on your character's actions (and this is generally good advice I think, similar to how I'd advise a DM not to argue with a player about their character's worldview).

The big warning sign to look for would in fact be something where the DM is trying to play your characters for you, for sake of how he imagines the setting. I don't mean railroading, but rather things like 'well, you're an Altarian, so you're honorable; you wouldn't lie'.

[Sith_Happens]

You know it's funny, the obvious solution to the "wants to write a book" potential-problem is to decide and make clear that the campaign and book will be separate continuities, but I've never, ever seen anyone suggest that.

[Kalmageddon]

You know it's funny, the obvious solution to the "wants to write a book" potential-problem is to decide and make clear that the campaign and book will be separate continuities, but I've never, ever seen anyone suggest that.

Yeah, this.

[obryn]

Anyhow, this GM has a massive home-brewed setting he's created, ostensibly he's sat down and worked out its history over the span of several thousand years. He also made an off-handed comment about wanting to publish the setting, possibly in the form of a novel...which for me was an instant red flag for Player Agency.

I'm not even sure if it's a warning sign, yet. This frankly isn't far from how most D&D campaign worlds looked in the 70's and 80's; I've had more than one DM who had binders full of information about their world. But I'm willing to wager he has less detailed information at his disposal than, say, someone running Forgotten Realms would have, and Forgotten Realms isn't an immediate warning sign.

Now if it's clear you can't actually alter the course of events or change his world, or if he flings DMPCs into the party, or railroads you into his stories ... well, that's a problem in and of itself. But a detailed campaign world isn't a problem in and of itself.

So what other things made you spit-take?

[Tengu_temp]

Houserules and arbitrary bans that show the DM has no understanding of the game's rules.

Committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

Horribly offensive parts of the setting used with the excuse of historical accuracy. Bonus points of the setting doesn't even resemble anything historical, or if the objectionable content is not historically accurate.

Authoritarian, non-compromising mentality. A DM who considers himself above the players and is not open to discussion is almost always a bad DM.

[The Grue]

I'm not even sure if it's a warning sign, yet. This frankly isn't far from how most D&D campaign worlds looked in the 70's and 80's; I've had more than one DM who had binders full of information about their world. But I'm willing to wager he has less detailed information at his disposal than, say, someone running Forgotten Realms would have, and Forgotten Realms isn't an immediate warning sign.

Now if it's clear you can't actually alter the course of events or change his world, or if he flings DMPCs into the party, or railroads you into his stories ... well, that's a problem in and of itself. But a detailed campaign world isn't a problem in and of itself.

So what other things made you spit-take?

For clarity: it's the concern that the course of history might be locked in, rather than having a lot of pre-determined material to work with. GMs that work it all out ahead of time are great, so long as they're okay going off script. Somehow - and I'm not sure how to quantify from where I got this - I was left with the impression that going off-script was a thing he's not comfortable doing. But I might be wrong, and we'll find out pretty soon because the sorts of things I do tend to end up going off-script whether I'm intending to take it there or not.

Other things that made me spit-take...if you're reading and aren't too familiar with 3.5 you can skip the rest of this post, the examples I can think of are going to touch on it in some way. Short version: a couple of passing remarks that I noticed, but can be explained away as minor differences in playstyle or simple misunderstandings.

Spoiler

Show

I pitched a quick character idea to him about a noble from the Empire who might have familial ties to the Hells really far back in the family tree. Response was, in a word, no, because for one thing all nobles are subjected to what amounts to magical blood tests. Odd, but reasonable given said Empire was formed in response to a massive extraplanar invasion and they're still pretty paranoid about Outsiders. He also said, and here I'm not paraphrasing, that all nobility must take levels in Cleric. That caused the most recent spit-take, firstly because of the idea that people take levels in-universe, and second because this implies that all nobility spend the first 17-26 years of their lives cloistered away in monasteries which seems a very odd way to run a society. But then again some historical nations had compulsory military service. I intend to - gently, keeping in mind NichG's advice earlier - inquire more about this and see if I just misunderstood.

There was another thing that sticks out, and it's less setting specific and might say more about how he GMs. He said he looked at Pathfinder for running the campaign, got as far as "crafting doesn't cost XP" and immediately rejected it in favour of staying 3.5. He explained that he wants magic items to have meaning, weight, history and such, and that not having them cost XP makes it seem too easy to whip them up. In short, that creating a magic item should not be a thing someone does lightly, but by the same token every magic item that exists should feel special. I can appreciate this as an aesthetic choice. But he also, in the same sentence, mentions Artificers and their presence in the world. He may have meant artificer as in "magic item crafter" rather than the Eberron base class, but it struck me as strange, if he meant the latter, that he'd embrace a class that gets what essentially amounts to Pathfinder's free-XP crafting.

He also said something I can't recall in relation to handing out XP for encounters. Notable mainly because I asked him, or at least I thought I asked him, how well he handles players doing things he doesn't expect - as mentioned, I tend to throw curveballs to my GM whether I mean to or not. When I framed the question in my mind, I was trying to tactfully ask if there were plot rails and whether we could go off them, and to be given an answer about awarding XP for bypassing rather than defeating an encounter took me a little by surprise.

Like I said, easily attributed to miscommunications and playstyle differences. Still, if it transpires that this ends up being the sort of game I do not enjoy I'd prefer to figure that out in the first session so I can politely decline to return next week.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

If the GM isn't interested in the background of your character except insofar as it might invalidate the plot they have planned, that'd be a red flag.

If the GM is hesitant to tell you about the plot that's coming up (as in, at all, even up to what story matter it might involve, or what setting matter), that'd be a red flag.

[valadil]

If the GM isn't interested in the background of your character except insofar as it might invalidate the plot they have planned, that'd be a red flag.

I can live with that. My red flag is when a GM requires a background but only pretends to read it.

[JeenLeen]

Other things that made me spit-take...if you're reading and aren't too familiar with 3.5 you can skip the rest of this post, the examples I can think of are going to touch on it in some way. Short version: a couple of passing remarks that I noticed, but can be explained away as minor differences in playstyle or simple misunderstandings.

The limitation on your character's background sounds reasonable given a setting. Annoying, perhaps, but reasonable. You could (presumably) play another person with a similar familial history, for example. So that part sounds legitimate to me.

The thing about all having clerical training sounds odd, but as long as he's not forces you to play a noble, it doesn't sound like a big deal. It kind of reminds me of an inversed Drow class-gender thing: from my understanding, only females are clerics, so if you want to be a cleric, you have to be female; here, all nobles are clerics, so fi you want to be a noble, you have to be a cleric (to at least a degree.)

I can easily see not liking Pathfinder's crafting rules, since it does make it way too easy for PCs to craft items cheaply (in my opinion.) But my D&D group bans crafting to PCs anyway, so it doesn't matter.
The artificier comment is an odd one, but you said that could be a misunderstanding.

I think you should ask him what magic items are in common shops and how available things are in the setting. I've seen MagicMart, even potions are only gained through contacts, and things between, so you should get an idea of that before starting the game. Neither is wrong or right (although I certainty have my preferences), but that is something a good DM should be able to answer.

...so, some minor flags, but sounds like playstyle more than that he'll be railroading you as player.

[Jay R]

This feels a little bit like starting a marriage by contemplating a divorce. Go into the game with a full commitment and no second thoughts. How else can you evaluate it fairly?

If you assume that there is something wrong, and look for it, you will find it. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There's exactly one warning sign that matters:

Did you have fun?

Even if the game violates most of your general rules for campaigns, if it's fun, keep playing. If it's not fun, stop.

Besides being the crucial issue, you might find out that one or more of your assumptions aren't really true, and thus grow a little.

But mostly, if it's fun, why would you stop playing?

[TheStranger]

I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt until you actually start playing and he introduces a DMPC or forces you along his rails.

Personally, I'm not opposed to settings that reject the "fantasy kitchen sink" approach of 3.X, and I don't really mind a DM that's prepared to link classes and social roles, or veto character concepts because they don't fit in the setting.

So, right up until you hear the words, "your character wouldn't do that," I'd keep an open mind. I agree that there are things that could become problems, but they also might be fine.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This feels a little bit like starting a marriage by contemplating a divorce. Go into the game with a full commitment and no second thoughts. How else can you evaluate it fairly?

I guess I was more thinking of it as "I'm already uncertain if this is going to be something that's a bad experience, and I want to know if there's any Big Warnings that would let me know that I shouldn't get in on the campaign". I suppose this may or may not be what TheGrue actually meant.

Because that instance I'd analogize as "knowing what sorts of people you shouldn't get into relationships with".

[Tengu_temp]

If the GM isn't interested in the background of your character except insofar as it might invalidate the plot they have planned, that'd be a red flag.

Similarily: if the GM isn't interested in the background of your character except parts that he could use to screw you over, that'd also be a red flag.

[The Grue]

I guess I was more thinking of it as "I'm already uncertain if this is going to be something that's a bad experience, and I want to know if there's any Big Warnings that would let me know that I shouldn't get in on the campaign". I suppose this may or may not be what TheGrue actually meant.

Because that instance I'd analogize as "knowing what sorts of people you shouldn't get into relationships with".

The above is indeed closer to where I'm coming from, and I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who's weighed in thus far.

[illyahr]

I have noticed two big warning signs. The rest is shuffled into the above stated "Are you having fun?" line of thought.

1. Are your actions significant to the story the DM/GM is telling? If not, your DM may be centering his story on alternate characters or DMPC's. You are basically there to watch the DM run the story and nothing else.

2. Is the DM/GM making decisions for your character? This may imply that the DM is only 'allowing' you to run one of his NPC's. You're not really playing, just following along.

Either way, you have to actually play in order to get an idea. Try to have fun. Most bad DM's make it obvious after the first couple sessions.

[Knaight]

With the whole novel thing: I'd be more worried about railroading, but other than that it's not a particular concern. In any case, doing a session or two doesn't eat that much time, so it's worth giving it a shot.

[BMXSummoner]

Can't you just ask him? Be as polite as you want, but something along the lines of "So there are different schools of DMing, one which emphasizes a central plot that the DM creates and the players follow, and another that focuses more on open worlds the PCs are free to explore and experience freely. What would you say your personal style is?" If he says he wants you to explore his world because its so cool he could write a hundred books taking place in it, you're probably good to go. If he says that the central plot is so well done is so well crafted that he's sure you'll follow it no matter what, then you might want to bail.

[Kaun]

don't go into it with this attitude.

You are likely to poison what could be a really enjoyable game.

Go in positive with a "lets have some fun" mentality.

If in 5 sessions the DM has curb stomped your fun, then come back and post about it.

[erikun]

Other things that made me spit-take...if you're reading and aren't too familiar with 3.5 you can skip the rest of this post, the examples I can think of are going to touch on it in some way. Short version: a couple of passing remarks that I noticed, but can be explained away as minor differences in playstyle or simple misunderstandings.

The nobles-as-Clerics thing sounds fine. I'd assume that something similar to Clerics (Healers, Favored Souls) should work as well, along with a class that could pretend to be a Cleric where it counts (Bard). For your first game, though, I'd just leave it as Clerics and see how the DM handles the game.

The crafting mechanics are concerning, as crafting scrolls, wands, and universal items is really cheap for just about anyone who wants to do it. This is more of a concern for the DM expectations than for the game itself, especially with your impressing that the DM doesn't handle unexpected surprises that well. I'd recommend contacting the DM and mentioning how cheap scrolls and wands can be produced, and ask if that is his intention. Perhaps he does want scrolls/wands to be rather common but other items more expensive? Still, it would be best if the game lines up with the DM's expectations - and perhaps avoiding playing a crafter if it causes problems for now.

XP-per-encounter doesn't sound like a terrible idea, and the concept behind it is sound. You might ask the DM how they feel about the PCs simply hiding from a scouting party, or how they'd handle the PCs identifying a trap and just avoiding it entirely. Are these still XP rewards, even though there was no danger? The most this could imply is possible railroading, another that is a weak connection between the two. It's certainly not enough to judge the campaign before it's started.

[The Fury]

Did you have fun?

Even if the game violates most of your general rules for campaigns, if it's fun, keep playing. If it's not fun, stop.

Besides being the crucial issue, you might find out that one or more of your assumptions aren't really true, and thus grow a little.

But mostly, if it's fun, why would you stop playing?

Yeah, this is a big one but I'd make exceptions to it. Sometimes GMs will put in a lot of effort to accommodate all the players. So there are times when you might have to put up with not having much fun for a couple of sessions because some other player's idea of fun is that much different than yours.

In my own group, as I've mentioned in the past, there are some players that absolutely love dungeon crawls. For me dungeon crawls... well, I can tolerate them but I don't find them especially fun. But hey, I can spend a week or two doing a dungeon crawl as long as it's with people I like.

As for red flags... If a GM told me to reroll a character because the stats I generated are too low, I'd quit right away. I only had one GM that did that and he ran the worst game I ever played in.

[Vangor]

Ask if the novel is within the setting or about the campaign. This is an important question for the enjoyment and frustration of DM and player alike as the player does not want to feel tracked in a story or take secondary position to DMPC parties whereas the DM does not want to see the story of the novel ruined by the party nor plan around a preconception of the story simply to see this ignored. Is there a possibility were the campaign and novel to overlap at the start and yet still have a great campaign which does not reflect the novel in the end? Of course, but this is difficult.

For the benefit of both, ask the question, and then if the campaign and novel do overlap you might present a concern and wait for another campaign within the setting. Frankly, writing a novel about the happenings of players in a campaign is far more organic because there are these many personalities and the characters need valid reasons and evidence to progress rather than any Deus Ex Machina or "Just so happens..." style solution.

[The Grue]

Update on scenario outlined in OP:

While obviously the inaugural session of a new campaign can expect a certain degree of GM nudging to get the wheels turning, on the whole it was an enjoyable experience. We spent the first portion of the session fluffing out the characters and finding motivations for them and for the party to be travelling together, and while the GM was quick to offer suggestions about where some characters might fit in the world he made them as exactly that: suggestions. Instead of "You're XYZ kind of race/class combination, so you'd come from ABC and have traits QRS" it was "Well for reasons JKL, it's pretty common for XYZ race/class combination to congregate in ABC. That might be where you're from, or another likely possibility is...".

There were some NPCs I strongly suspect will have plot significance, but the actions of the party got their attention rather than the reverse. There was a bit of a tussle in the skies above between a couple of high-ECL NPCs, but it felt like a sideshow to the main event on the ground, which is where the party was.

Ultimately, he's a little bit more hands-on than I'm used to, but not in a way that's unpleasant or off-putting. Conclusion: Still first session, but what concerns I had are all but eliminated. I'm chalking up earlier things to mutual miscommunication, especially in light of the GM's mention that he doesn't like communicating by email or text and immensely prefers face-to-face.

Thanks again to everybody who weighed in with their thoughts.

[SiuiS]

But I'm willing to wager he has less detailed information at his disposal than, say, someone running Forgotten Realms would have, and Forgotten Realms isn't an immediate warning sign.

For you it's not.

[BeerMug Paladin]

You know it's funny, the obvious solution to the "wants to write a book" potential-problem is to decide and make clear that the campaign and book will be separate continuities, but I've never, ever seen anyone suggest that.

I've been working on a novel for some time now and have run a game in that setting before, but I never really considered the player characters' adventures to be canon because I didn't want to have a problem with them not behaving 'right' in order to have the setting turn out the right way. In fact, they were in one of the few parts of the setting that resembles a classical D&D world, so they probably had more leeway in that case than they would have had if they were in one of the other regions.

Seems like an obvious solution, from the DM side of things.