Red Flags for DMs?

[atemu1234]

What are some red flags for you that will make you think someone is a 'bad' DM?

[Buufreak]

What are some red flags for you that will make you think someone is a 'bad' DM?

A massive notebook of houserules. A stack of printed DMPCs.

[idesofmarch]

Whenever I realize I'm DMing.

[Gildedragon]

Banning/restricting ToB because "too op" but not touching spells
Banning PC-accesible magic effects

[flappeercraft]

Too much houserules. Like yes we all use them but it just gets to a point where its too much

[Mehangel]

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)"

[Ruslan]

Wants to run a 'primitive low magic world, realistically'.
Translation: Fighters have to do without full plate and magical weapons. Casters are unaffected.

[Venger]

everything everyone already said

DMPC
fumbles

[ComaVision]

Including succubi. Or any stupid sex stuff.
Long, narrated intros with no player agency.

[CIDE]

"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.

[MintyThe1st]

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?

[JNAProductions]

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.

[The_Jette]

What are some red flags for you that will make you think someone is a 'bad' DM?

If the DM ever refers to themselves as "God"... you're gonna have a bad time.

[WarKitty]

If the DM ever refers to themselves as "God"... you're gonna have a bad time.

I resemble resent that!

[Cosi]

"No evil alignments, period." Bad sign-not going to make me not play with them, but a warning.

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?

"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.

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.

[Segev]

"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."

[Zombulian]

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?

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.

[Telonius]

"We'll be using multiclass XP penalties."

[Zanos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Zanos]

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]

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]

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]

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.