Players, what are things you wish your GM had told you before game start?

[Miz_Liz]

Hiya,

So this is meant to be kind of a combination group therapy, and a helpful guide for new or new-ish GMs coughmecough. What are some things about the game or the setting you want/wish/expect your GM to lay out before the game starts?

as an example:
I started a new 5e campaign after the group tpk. Decided to roll up a tranquility monk. After everyone have rolled characters and the game had started, the DM dropped the bomb that this would be an almost exclusively nautical campaign. I, being quite literally the only melee combatant (we had a warlock, wizard, gunsmith artificer, and ranged ranger) would be at an immense disadvantage. I got really, really lucky in the fact that I had decided to play a water genasi, so I could just hop in the ocean and start bashing the baddies, but if I hadn't done that I would have been entirely useless for a solid 3/4 of the time in combat.

All that to say I now directly and bluntly ask what the main topography of a campaign is going to be before I start designing my character.

[Man_Over_Game]

What to do if the GM/Table is wrong regarding a rule.

What changes should we expect to the rules as houserules.

How much will your backstory play into the campaign.



That's about it. Anything else I can work around. I'm fine with a DM that makes rulings on the fly. I'm fine with a DM that makes houserules. I'm not fine with a DM that's unorganized enough to make houserules on the fly. Extra Attack should NOT be used for casting spells, or at least we should have known about that before we started. I'd be fine with a DM that makes mistakes, but I can't again play with one that covers up his mistakes by making on-the-spot houserules that he "definitely" put thought into. Which happens a lot more than I'd like.

[Lord Torath]

How much "bean-counting" is there going to be? Do I need to bring several weeks' worth of rations for myself and my horse? Should I bring several extra bow-strings? I'm fine with that, but it's nice to know before-hand. I'm used to tracking ammo and encumbrance, but let me know if I need to track other stuff.

Also, something along the lines of this (manifesto) is nice, just to help everyone agree on the "understood" table rules.

[GrayDeath]

How much of the mentioned System will be houseruled, and how exactly.

If he intends to introduce new rules InGame (unless there is a fluff reason for it, say Magic surging or somesuch, this is a reason for me to leave, bad experience^).

What he intends as start and the type of Campaign its supposed to be.

How (if playing D&D or similar) he will handle XP/Ressurections/similar problems.

The Carta of Snack and Drink.

[Themrys]

Hiya,

So this is meant to be kind of a combination group therapy, and a helpful guide for new or new-ish GMs coughmecough. What are some things about the game or the setting you want/wish/expect your GM to lay out before the game starts?

Well, this is more of a GM horror story, but I wish Horror-GM had told me he is a misogynist and likes to inflict his misogyny on female characters by twisting a setting that is canonically equal into being as misogynist as the 50s, and the canonically slightly sexist (think LotR) setting into a misogynist dystopia where women are officially considered men's property.

Most likely I would have chosen to not play with him at all, but in case of extreme boredom and lack of alternatives, I might have chosen to play a male character. (Though he also was against playing characters of the other sex ... I wonder why ... no, I actually don't.)


Other things ... I was actually quite happy with all the other GM's I played with, but perhaps things like "historical" accuracy and stuff ... telling people beforehand that it is not going to be perfectly accurate would have spared a group with a quite nice DM the debate on whether or not large amounts of clear glass would have been available in a world with this and that technology, or not.

People also like to know in advance whether you allow fighting other player characters. I'm currently in a group where the GM allows it, and I would still have joined if I had known, but only because I am friendly with the other players. (I heard some GMs don't even allow to roll on social skills when interacting with other player characters, and I think if you play with strangers, that's a sensible policy.)

In general, what you allow and don't allow is going to be of interest. Knowing what I know now, I would immediately leave any group where the GM doesn't ban sexual violence. (Horror GM only inflicted his creepyness on NPCs at first, but I should have been warned ...)

[jintoya]

Some things to always tell players:

1) The general thrust of the feeling you are projecting into a setting:

For example if it's a happy-fun snuggle campaign with rainbows and unicorns... No dread necromancer!

If it's a fun campaign, where the rule-of-cool applies:
Don't worry about over optimizing...

It's good to let players know what they are getting into.

2) house rules and your stance on meta-gaming:

I've had DMs who were willing to punish us in-game for chatting among ourselves about our reasons for character actions.
I've had some who don't care so long as we don't act on meta-knowledge in-character... That's my stance, but its up to you.

3) your big red NOPE button:

Every human is different, we all have things we just don't tolerate and you are likely no different... Tell them so they do not catch a lighting bolt of DM wrath because they hit a sore topic for you... Just set "the limit" and they will respect it... Or play a different game, that simple.

I think those are what I'd consider rather essential.

[jintoya]

(I heard some GMs don't even allow to roll on social skills when interacting with other player characters, and I think if you play with strangers, that's a sensible policy

Do you mean like diplomacy or bluff... Or the Pathfinder equivalent?
There is a good reason for that.

[Themrys]

Do you mean like diplomacy or bluff... Or the Pathfinder equivalent?
There is a good reason for that.

Yeah, that sort of thing. And yes, I read enough horror stories ... including one heartbreaking request by a girl who wanted help with building a character who would be resistant to seduction (I think that might actually have been a skill in that game, it was something more focused on social stuff than D&D) by a character played by a male creep in her group.

In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

I'd definitely ban it myself if playing with strangers.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah, that sort of thing. And yes, I read enough horror stories ... including one heartbreaking request by a girl who wanted help with building a character who would be resistant to seduction (I think that might actually have been a skill in that game, it was something more focused on social stuff than D&D) by a character played by a male creep in her group.

In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

I'd definitely ban it myself if playing with strangers.

I'd like it if there was some kind of system that allowed social pvp in a way that wasn't forceful and helped the narrative.

Like, successfully "persuading" someone means that they get bonuses to doing what you want, and penalties to act against it. Failing to "persuade" someone means that you suffer penalties for your attempt at being a jerk, and they get benefits towards acting against what you want.

In the end, it still comes down to player decisions, and what they want to do, but they may be more rewarded (with Exp, temporary hitpoints, whatever) by following the narrative. But I'm not sure how people would perceive something like that in real play, though.

[hotflungwok]

"By the way I'm going to kill each of you at least once in the next three months, usually very arbitrarily with nothing you can do about it, so have some extra characters ready if you want to keep playing."

[jintoya]

Yeah, that sort of thing. And yes, I read enough horror stories ... including one heartbreaking request by a girl who wanted help with building a character who would be resistant to seduction (I think that might actually have been a skill in that game, it was something more focused on social stuff than D&D) by a character played by a male creep in her group.

In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

I'd definitely ban it myself if playing with strangers.

The issue isn't so much an "did/should I?" problem as it is a "can I?"
I ban it because the answer to the question "can I force you to do anything you don't want to with your character?" In D&D should never be "yes"... Ever.
It's about agency. Unless mind controlled, taking actions on another behalf in a way that cannot be combated in-game is a big no-no.
"My number is higher than your number... Sign this paper"
Is not fun and undermines the game in ways larger than it's possible benefits

[Cygnia]

For one particular GM...

"Hi, I'm anal retentive and passive-aggressive! I will punish you if you are unable to be mind-readers as to what my exact meaning in a post is!"

[Jakinbandw]

I always make sure I let my players know that they need to player Good aligned characters. I understand that isn't everyone's jam, but I can't enjoy GMing for non Good Characters. If you reaction is 'May I just play chaotic neutral instead' we aren't going to enjoy gaming together.

[Quertus]

In general, what you allow and don't allow is going to be of interest.

Agreed.

Knowing what I know now, I would immediately leave any group where the GM doesn't ban sexual violence.

I'm more concerned about the GM who doesn't ban fluffy bunnies… if a player explains that they have a problem with fluffy bunnies. Substitute whatever for fluffy bunnies

Some things to always tell players:

1) The general thrust of the feeling you are projecting into a setting:

For example if it's a happy-fun snuggle campaign with rainbows and unicorns... No dread necromancer!

If it's a fun campaign, where the rule-of-cool applies:
Don't worry about over optimizing...

It's good to let players know what they are getting into.

2) house rules and your stance on meta-gaming:

I've had DMs who were willing to punish us in-game for chatting among ourselves about our reasons for character actions.
I've had some who don't care so long as we don't act on meta-knowledge in-character... That's my stance, but its up to you.

3) your big red NOPE button:

1) my Dread Necromancer and his dancing skeletons can absolutely party with happy fun snuggle rainbow unicorns.

2) that GM have a problem with role-playing?

3) very important, that.

In the group I'm currently in, I think it is fun to roll dice to see whether my character fell for the other's blatant lies, but I can already see how it could get annoying with more blatant lying, and I am prepared to speak up if or when that happens.

I'd definitely ban it myself if playing with strangers.

"You are actually an elephant"?

And why ban it with strangers?

I always make sure I let my players know that they need to player Good aligned characters. I understand that isn't everyone's jam, but I can't enjoy GMing for non Good Characters. If you reaction is 'May I just play chaotic neutral instead' we aren't going to enjoy gaming together.

What do you mean by "good"? What about "**** alignment, here's my personality"?

[Jakinbandw]

What do you mean by "good"? What about "**** alignment, here's my personality"?

Hey, I thought you played rules as written, no fudging things like alignment!

But more seriously, that doesn't cut it. That sounds like just a way to try to get around the restriction, and at the end of the day, that doesn't solve the issue. I don't run games for villains. I run games for character that help people because they want to, not for reward or profit, not because they are forced, and I definitely don't run games to let players be sadistic murderhobos.

Here's the thing. I enjoy evil characters in games and in movies. However I like to watch them fail and lose. If I tried to run for an evil party I would inevitably party kill them by having good characters show up and wreck their day (okay, I wouldn't because I'm not that bad of a GM, but I wouldn't have any enjoyment for the game and I would stop running it after a session).

Case in point; one group of players fought against a friendly enemy who was honorable and viewed the PCs as necessary to kill. If the players had killed him, I wouldn't have minded as it would have been an honest mistake. I don't expect characters to always make the right choice, just to try to. However the players befriended him, and got him working with them. They put effort into befriending him. A session later one of the players decided that this NPC wasn't as useful as he had hoped and mind controlled him, then got him to commit suicide.

I let it work. Then dropped the game and never ran for that player again. I couldn't enjoy the game any more, and I've I'm not having fun as a GM, I don't view it as my duty to keep running the game.

That said, just because I don't run games for characters that exist solely for self profit or whatever doesn't mean I'm a particularly stingy GM. Right now for example my players rule the Astral plane as their own personal paradise and have become divinities in the world. It's not like I'm forcing paladins to fall, or saying that their only reword for saving a town is a feeling of accomplishment. It does mean however that some sessions of our games right now exist around them debating the ethics of hell with a god of betrayal and agony.

[Spore]

Less like a thing and more of a "if you're a happy-go-lucky thief going out to steal stuff, assume I throw improvised traps and death at you into you know better than to actually RP your character". No, I did not play the "lulul, CN Rogue out there breaking into people's houses to make coffee" random nonsense.

But seriously if you're railroading my character into activating a trap that releases a fire elemental so that my fellow group has something to do/battle while I steal the map we need to progress back please don't let me roll for it?

Same as in when I decided to borrow from the xenophobic dwarves' magic weapons vault, I was expecting a fair few traps and locks. What I was NOT expecting was that my DM literally throws people at me to stop me from getting away (the dwarf merchant's son woke up from my noise and I sprinted over him after I failed a reflex save and badly injured him apparently?). I am all for immersive gaming but that was the last straw for me.

Yes, maybe the character choices were a bit random. But the dwarves showed nothing but disdain for us outsiders, and when we asked for some magic weapons to battle the literal ghosts that murder their citizens we are greeted with: "No, you have to manage on your own." Yea okay, I'm gonna stab this ghost with my masterwork dagger, alright.

[Themrys]

I'm more concerned about the GM who doesn't ban fluffy bunnies… if a player explains that they have a problem with fluffy bunnies. Substitute whatever for fluffy bunnies

Nice for you.

But I will think twice before ever again playing in a group with a male GM who doesn't ban sexual violence without me asking him to do so.

I told GM of horrors outright that I didn't want sexual violence in my game, and he ... just threw it at me regardless, then first made bull**** claims that love potions didn't constitute sexual violence, then just threw sexual violence at us without even bothering to find excuses.

So, no. Just listening to players and nodding and smiling doesn't cut it.


None of the GMs I played with when I was younger banned sexual violence, but out of two male DMs, one was very young and had only ran games for his all-male friends, and the other was GM of horrors.
And the female GM didn't tell me she wouldn't have sexual violence in the game when we started playing, but later told me that I needn't have played it safe with the rapey cultists we were fighting, they wouldn't ever have managed to rape my character, cause she didn't like that sort of thing in her game. Wish I had known that in advance cause I would have roleplayed my character much better if the out of character fear of things getting ugly hadn't kept me back. (Because back then I was too young to know that I could just tell the GM I didn't want sexual violence in my game. Another good reason to just ban it without anyone asking. Inexperienced players will only realize that it could come up and that they don't want it once you started playing.)

A man my age would have to be extremely sheltered to not know that a) lots of men are creeps and b) almost all women my age have enough negative experiences to not want any sexual violence at all in a game run by a man and c) younger female players may find it cathartic to violently dispose of some rapey cultists, but will leave the group if they are sexually harrassed by male players and the GM thinks that just because they don't verbally object out of character they are okay with it.


Sexual violence isn't some unusual thing to not want in a game, like your tasteless fluffy bunny example. In its extreme unfunnyness, it is akin to a player character getting cancer.

[Quertus]

Hey, I thought you played rules as written, no fudging things like alignment!

But more seriously, that doesn't cut it. That sounds like just a way to try to get around the restriction, and at the end of the day, that doesn't solve the issue. I don't run games for villains. I run games for character that help people because they want to, not for reward or profit, not because they are forced, and I definitely don't run games to let players be sadistic murderhobos.

Here's the thing. I enjoy evil characters in games and in movies. However I like to watch them fail and lose. If I tried to run for an evil party I would inevitably party kill them by having good characters show up and wreck their day (okay, I wouldn't because I'm not that bad of a GM, but I wouldn't have any enjoyment for the game and I would stop running it after a session).

Case in point; one group of players fought against a friendly enemy who was honorable and viewed the PCs as necessary to kill. If the players had killed him, I wouldn't have minded as it would have been an honest mistake. I don't expect characters to always make the right choice, just to try to. However the players befriended him, and got him working with them. They put effort into befriending him. A session later one of the players decided that this NPC wasn't as useful as he had hoped and mind controlled him, then got him to commit suicide.

I let it work. Then dropped the game and never ran for that player again. I couldn't enjoy the game any more, and I've I'm not having fun as a GM, I don't view it as my duty to keep running the game.

That said, just because I don't run games for characters that exist solely for self profit or whatever doesn't mean I'm a particularly stingy GM. Right now for example my players rule the Astral plane as their own personal paradise and have become divinities in the world. It's not like I'm forcing paladins to fall, or saying that their only reword for saving a town is a feeling of accomplishment. It does mean however that some sessions of our games right now exist around them debating the ethics of hell with a god of betrayal and agony.

Near as I can tell, the bolded bits come closest to explaining how you define "good". Which, depending on the edition/system, is something that my "good" characters could often fail, or my evil characters could often pass (although 3e rather clearly put "sadism" in the "evil" camp). Which is why I asked, because not everyone - and not every system - shares the same definition. And people often debate over what alignment a system will call a set of actions.

It seems much clearer to call out what behaviors you want / don't want, than to hope people mean the same things by those words that you do.

"Evil' GMs can fail in numerous ways, but "Believing that you have communicated" is one of the most common failings of the "good" GM.

[Jay R]

"Evil' GMs can fail in numerous ways, but "Believing that you have communicated" is one of the most common failings of the "good" GM.

Yup. As George Bernard Shaw wrote, "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."

I tend to provide a several-page-long introduction that includes house rules, background, and any other details needed to create a character, and anything that all people in a world should know. [If there are two moons, then people who grew up there don't need to discover it in play.] I also specifically point out what there characters won't know. [In my last game, they grew up in an isolated village deep in a haunted forest, and had no knowledge of any other lands, or any non-forest creatures.] I know (at least some of) the players read it, because one of them quoted it back to me years later.

[Pauly]

1) what is the social setting of the game? How important is social interaction? Do I need to consider building “talky” skills into my character?

2) what is the general tone? Combat, skullduggery, Monty Python, swashbuckling etc. etc etc.

3) how much book keeping is required? Do you need to keep track of food and ammo, or will it be assumed your character isn’t an idiot and can feed and clothe themselves without explicit instructions.

4) Any no-go areas. Not just sex things, but for example I had a DM sink our ship because he didn’t want us to be traders.

5) what the DM expects of me. How expert do I have to be in the rules, how expert do I have to be in the setting, how forgiving is he/she about SNAFUs.

6) are there any peculiar wrinkles to the setting that would not be obvious to a random player

[Jakinbandw]

Near as I can tell, the bolded bits come closest to explaining how you define "good". Which, depending on the edition/system, is something that my "good" characters could often fail, or my evil characters could often pass (although 3e rather clearly put "sadism" in the "evil" camp). Which is why I asked, because not everyone - and not every system - shares the same definition. And people often debate over what alignment a system will call a set of actions.

It seems much clearer to call out what behaviors you want / don't want, than to hope people mean the same things by those words that you do.

"Evil' GMs can fail in numerous ways, but "Believing that you have communicated" is one of the most common failings of the "good" GM.

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

If you have an 'evil' character that goes around helping others for no gain, and is not a murder hobo, and treats npcs with respect....

Then why do you try to label them as evil? Dnd does have outlines for what good and evil are. Honestly, eny time someone has asked what I meant and I shared a more in depth view I've ended up with that player trying to rule lawyer their way into following the guidelines I laid out while being as evil as possible within them. It's happened several times to me now. I have never had a problem with a player that didn't ask and just accepted that I only wanted good aligned pcs.

But I will think twice before ever again playing in a group with a male GM who doesn't ban sexual violence without me asking him to do so.

Being honest I've never banned sexual violence. Though to be fair I never inflicted it on players either. That said, I'd like to improve as a GM and I'm not quite clear on what you have an issue with, because I thought you wanted a full ban from your first post, but this one made me doubt that a bit so:

-Sexual violence towards pcs is banned (obviously!)
-Is an NPC having implied to have suffered Sexual Violence in their past okay?
-what about explicitly?
-Is it okay for an NPC to have in the past sexually abused another NPC? (assuming they are a villian that exists to be defeated)
-Is it okay for an NPC to threaten sexual violance is the player is aware that those threats are hot air? (either because it's a bluff, or because the GM won't allow it to happen?)

For the record the furthest I've gone down the list is explicite sexual abuse suffered by an NPC in the past. It was a murder mystery time loop thing, and the pcs were always the only ones left alive on an island. One of the options after solving the mystery was to agree with the killer that certain people (including the killers sexual abuser) needed to die and to work with her to make sure she survived along with the pcs instead of committing suicide (she had reasons to believe everyone but the pcs were horrible people and she was making the world a better place by killing them all.)

[Telok]

1) Do we care about "alignment" and/or religion? Am I going to be punished for making a character with a personality that doesn't fit nicely into your preconceptions of morality? Is there any difference between being a devout worshipper of a diety and being a cleric of kill-loot-levelup?

2) Did the DM actually read at least most of the rules in the book? Is the DM aware that there's errata which reduces target numbers from 15+(2 x level) to 10+(1.5 x level)? Does the DM know that "move speed (land) 40" does not mean that the critter can make a 40 foot vertical jump from standing still.

3) Does the DM regularly nerf first level spells, feats, and class abilities that negate low level traps and environmental 'hazards' that are just piddly temporary nuisances?

[Jakinbandw]

1) Is the DM aware that there's errata which reduces target numbers from 15+(2 x level) to 10+(1.5 x level)?

Yikes! What if the GM lets you know they haven't read and memorized all errata for the game their running?

[MeimuHakurei]

Less like a thing and more of a "if you're a happy-go-lucky thief going out to steal stuff, assume I throw improvised traps and death at you into you know better than to actually RP your character". No, I did not play the "lulul, CN Rogue out there breaking into people's houses to make coffee" random nonsense.

But seriously if you're railroading my character into activating a trap that releases a fire elemental so that my fellow group has something to do/battle while I steal the map we need to progress back please don't let me roll for it?

Same as in when I decided to borrow from the xenophobic dwarves' magic weapons vault, I was expecting a fair few traps and locks. What I was NOT expecting was that my DM literally throws people at me to stop me from getting away (the dwarf merchant's son woke up from my noise and I sprinted over him after I failed a reflex save and badly injured him apparently?). I am all for immersive gaming but that was the last straw for me.

Yes, maybe the character choices were a bit random. But the dwarves showed nothing but disdain for us outsiders, and when we asked for some magic weapons to battle the literal ghosts that murder their citizens we are greeted with: "No, you have to manage on your own." Yea okay, I'm gonna stab this ghost with my masterwork dagger, alright.

To be fair, that last one is less of a situation where you should leave the game/group and more where you should consider siding with the ghosts.

[Mad_Saulot]

I know you asked for players to post but I thought as DM I would put in my prereq speel for players before we started our current game

- No PvP, this means no fighting, no theft, no plotting against each other, no conspiracies and no refusal of service, and no loot denial, no slander or defamation between characters, all in game characters must sign an ingame "Contract" indicating their chosen representative/quest-leader and listing the above conditions in the agreement, all loot will be kept in a group pot and if a player wants his cut a "Cut Event" is issued and the entire pot is divided equally between contract members (ie the players) once a cut has been divided then loot begins to be stored in pot as beefore til another cut event is called this document exists in-game and is legally binding, we refer to it as an "Adventure Contract".

- Players *Must* come up with their own reasons to be in the group, if a player creates an evil character it is on them to rationalise why they are with the group, it is their responsibility to not break the group, prefereably using their backstory but failing that cite the Adventure Contract, edge-lords arent welcome.

- All rules will be interpreted by RAW and only content from official sources will be considered for inclusion into the game. Any confusion will be resolved out of game in a group quorum.

[Wraith]

Which of the other players is the GM beholden to, to the point where their opinion can end the game on a whim?

The most recent game I was playing in was over discord, and one of the players was streaming it live on her Twitch account. I'm fine with that; she has ~8 followers, so while it might amuse one or two people it's not like I needed to be worried about my privacy being invaded or suffering from "stage fright" in front of a large audience.

It quickly became apparent that this was the ONLY reason that she was playing, and when her internet started getting throttled due to nearby maintenance work being carried out she quickly put an end to the game, saying that it was "pointless" to keep playing if she couldn't stream and that she was far, far too busy to play just "for fun".
The GM was happy to run "for fun", and the other players were happy to play "for fun", but as the GM's housemate her hour of passive-aggressive explaining why she wasn't there just to play the game with us killed all of our enthusiasm and the game has quietly folded.

An extreme example, but one that applies in other forms. Does the GM bring along their girlfriend/boyfriend and thus needs to refrain from roleplay or events that might raise emotions that would linger after the game? Do they need to get a ride to the game with someone? Is this person as reliable and as committed as the GM is, if their refusal to attend could end the game for everyone else?
I wouldn't ask to pry into someone else's private relationships with each other, but if the case is like above - the GM leaves because one specific player is less committed than they are - it at least lets me be aware that the game is even more precarious than the usual attempt at cat-herding that is getting 5 or 6 strangers together for a few hours a week.

Not exactly a horror story, but it's taught me to be a bit more selfish about what *I* want from the game. If I judge that the GM's co-dependant player is flaky, I know who I need to be more accommodating for... or just to prepare myself not to get too invested in something that has double the usual potential to be a train-wreck.

[Quertus]

love potions

Here's the thing: I'm not going to hold those who love Harry Potter, and fail to recognize the squick in Rawlings' world-building as inherently irredeemably evil individuals with whom I must never associate.

By the same token, I'll not carte blanche judge all slave holders, people who talk on theaters, or illusionist GMs. I'll reserve my judgement for how they respond to being told the error of their ways.

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

If you have an 'evil' character that goes around helping others for no gain, and is not a murder hobo, and treats npcs with respect....

Then why do you try to label them as evil? Dnd does have outlines for what good and evil are.

Because my character does one or more of…

• animates the dead;
• is a sadist / otherwise enjoys the suffering of others (even if they do not cause such suffering themselves);
• uses poison:
• owns slaves (OK, that one's unlikely to jive with your definition for long if others poke at their beliefs);
• believes in revenge;
• makes hard choices for the greater good;
• is Athenian

I'm pretty sure any one of those would have the character labeled as "evil" in at least one edition of D&D.

Heck, one of my more recent games, my evil character was concerned about the "good" party's murder of sentient beings. They didn't care when I / he brought it up. He was also the only one interested in second chances, and letting sentient beings repent their evil ways.

Was he evil? Well, does wanton hedonism and willingness to use extreme measures (like torture) make you evil? It did at that table, and it does in my mind. But he matched your definition of good better than most of the "good" characters I've encountered - thus my question of how *you* define it.

[Quertus]

So, to answer the OP, in addition several answers that have already been given, I want to know if it's worth my time to bring a character as opposed to just a playing piece; I want to know if it's worth my time to use my brain & think about the campaign; and I want to know how well the GM will serve as the eyes & ears of my character / my interface to the game world.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well...Odd thing, but what the DM actually enjoys. I'm not always the best player ('So...Can I play a tiefling?' might come up a lot), but having an idea of ONE THING that will make the DM happy that I can work towards can help a lot. A happy DM doesn't just run a better game, they don't cancel midway.

For example, you want good aligned characters? Well, if I know that upfront and directly (I might have a real life wisdom score of 8), I can design a character that is good aligned and discuss any issues with that beforehand. I know what NOT to do and what to use for backstory elements. Don't assume I'm going to play attention to hints in game, because I get carried away and distracted. Just tell me a few things to make the DM keep coming back before hand.

[Delta]

Well... what kind of game he'd like to run and what kind of characters fit (and don't fit) into it.

Once had a really fun case of a GM only telling me where his new campaign was located, I gave him a character concept for a "magical secret service agent", a wizard in service of the local realm, not "lawful stupid", quite willing to go well beyond the limits of the law as long as it's in service of her Empress and magical order. GM was like "Great, that character would be so much fun in this campaign!"

Next thing I know, the first two adventures are almost completely about us trying to break the law for trivial reasons (like stealing important documents from a wealthy merchant to help a friendly NPC get out of her debt) where my character always had to be the "Yeah sorry, I can't do that!" speedbump with the group ending up pulling a BA Baracus on me just so we could get on with the adventure. After the second time something like this happened (again, in the first two adventures) I asked the GM what in the world he was thinking when telling me that character would fit in, and he basically said "Yeah I always accept every character for every adventure, you have to figure out how to make it work"... I switched to a different character after that

Suffice to say, I most definitely disagree with that statement and from that moment on always tried to make extra sure to give any new player a good impression of what they're signing up for and what kind of characters might cause problems.