What are some red flags for you that will make you think someone is a 'bad' DM?
Printable View
What are some red flags for you that will make you think someone is a 'bad' DM?
Whenever I realize I'm DMing.
Banning/restricting ToB because "too op" but not touching spells
Banning PC-accesible magic effects
Too much houserules. Like yes we all use them but it just gets to a point where its too much
D&D 3.5
Banning Tome of Battle because "too OP"
Banning Warlock because "too OP"
Banning Monk because "too OP"
Banning Soulknife because "too OP
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)"
Wants to run a 'primitive low magic world, realistically'.
Translation: Fighters have to do without full plate and magical weapons. Casters are unaffected.
everything everyone already said
DMPC
fumbles
Including succubi. Or any stupid sex stuff.
Long, narrated intros with no player agency.
"Just play a monk. It's an awesome class."
In addition to that and everyone else's response I'd like to add a DM that arbitrarily changes rules without an obvious reason. I get changing something (not that I agree with it) when a DM discovers a new trick that's OP for a given game. But when something else gets banned out of the blue or changed--usually without actually updating the players--I begin to have problems.
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?
Any of the above mentioned so far without good reasons.
"No evil alignments, period." Bad sign-not going to make me not play with them, but a warning.
"No evil alignments-I've run a few evil groups lately, and I'm more interested in playing a game of heroes doing heroic things, you know?" Not a warning sign at all.
"Succubi who's so totally hot and she charms you instantly and you have to have sex with her!" Hell no. I'm out.
"Huh. You know, it'd make a lot of sense for your characters to run into a succubus or something similar at this point in time. I know that some people don't like mixing D&D and sexy rumpus funtimes, so how do we want to handle this?" Perfectly fine.
"No Tome Of Battle-it's OP." They're just dumb.
"No Tome Of Battle-I want to run a 0 magic campaign." Okay, still a warning sign-no magic in 3.5 is not good. But not nearly as bad.
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?
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.Quote:
"Huh. You know, it'd make a lot of sense for your characters to run into a succubus or something similar at this point in time. I know that some people don't like mixing D&D and sexy rumpus funtimes, so how do we want to handle this?" Perfectly fine.
"I'm running a game that I plan to turn into a novel when it's done."
"I've run this campaign before, and so I know how to handle all the encounters already."
"We'll be using multiclass XP penalties."
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.
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.
Ugh.
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.
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.
Evil characters are always trash, and yours are no exception.
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.
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.
What arguments? It depends on specific campaign and interpretations of alignment.
For example, if necromancer considersmurdering some of the PCs and resurrecting them as his undead lieutenantsradical 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.
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.
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.
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.
Got me to LOL.
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.
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.
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.
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've been playing D&D since first edition, and honestly, Pathfinder is just the best one they've put out so far."
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).
"My girlfriend's going to join us."
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:
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.
"The paladin falls."
"What? We were just served dinner and started eating."
"It was veal."
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".
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.
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).
Red flag means that your preferences might differ from GMs preferences.
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.
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.
"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"
+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.
Also, I don't have any problem with occasional Succubi or sex stuff when i DM, but this may be because we're close friends in my group...
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.
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.
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.
Sure, those exist, but they're mostly stupid.Quote:
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.
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.
First, it's still a judgment the game is making that it shouldn't be.Quote:
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.
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).
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)
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.
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.
It's kinda hard to be both Evil AND kind and considerate, in my thankfully limited experience.
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.)
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.
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.
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.