Red Flags for DMs?

[Firechanter]

That was uncalled for. But yes, Monopoly money is actually worth more than our regular paper money.

I honestly didn't mean to offend you. Sorry if it came across that way!

Weird, because from an economic standpoint Socialism works actually less in D&D than it does in real life; the expectation of certain types of economy is hard-baked into the system.

No kind of economy works in D&D. :p
However, for that kind of discussion (which would be off-topic here anyway) we'd first need to agree on whether we are talking "USA socialism" or "socialism socialism". I mean, for a lot of Americans, every ounce of social equity agenda immediately gets tagged "socialism", including the systems of most European countries, although said countries do not consider themselves "socialist".

Anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread. Back to topic. ^^

[dehro]

Spoiler: tl;dr

Show

You uh, mind putting some spaces somewhere in there for us, bud? It's hard not to get lost in those walls of text.

you're right.. I edited stuff. It's still a wall of text though.

I take it you've never played organized sports. In a well-populated area, there might be a large enough supply of DMs to allow one to pick and choose. For the most part, though, you take what you can get and you are stuck with that jackass wide receiver who thinks he's a god. The adage "Bad DM < No DM" doesn't hold true for all people.

I have, and I understand.
That said, I was more wondering about this from the perspective of the DM. Running a game for a group of players that has 1 or 2 jerks in it, must be doable when you're the DM... easier at least than when you are a player and the jerk happens to be the DM.
That said, I have gone through dry spells of not playing for lack of players and/or DM before, some of those spells even lasting years. I'd still prefer them to having to play with a master who really doesn't fit my idea of fantasy, or gaming, or my game in general... I could have played 4ed easier, during those years, what with there being plenty of games running in that edition.
I chose not to. Hell.. there were even times when I chose to not join a game because all the players were students (as in high school) and I would have been wildly out of place and with no common ground whatsoever other than the game. Did I miss out? possibly, but then.. once the game was wrapped for the night, I would have had nothing in common with those guys and I'd have gotten a few stares from concerned parents (I'm 38). Not worth it.
I seriously prefer to not play than to play with people I actively dislike or can't relate to.
As a DM though, it must be possible to just take the jerk to one side and tell him "listen, either conform to the rules/stop doing that specific thing/ don't purposedly antagonise the other players and/or characters or I'll start putting restrictions to what you can or cannot get away with".

[bekeleven]

- Letting one player do something but not anouther.

"But mike retired and swapped characters 3 times in the last 4 sessions!"

"Your role is too important, the party won't work without you."

"Well, it has to anyway, because I quit."

--An anticlimactic end to a Nobilis game I played.

[j!nx]

the DM who never has been a player, or the DM that has played only enough times to count on one hand then tells you he is going to run a "huge" campaign,

[j!nx]

or the time I experienced.. we all sit down me and 2 other players get everything ready and the DM says " alright lets start and slams the DMG on the table like he's a lawyer with a highlighter, I don't have no problem with rules but sometimes to many rules is no fun, that game was more of disputing rules and reality vs. fun with friends

[Mikemical]

I honestly didn't mean to offend you. Sorry if it came across that way!

Nah, I'm just pulling your leg, I'm not thin-skinned to get angry about strangers on the internet.

Back on topic, another sign of a bad DM: Terrible personal hygiene.

Like seriously man, we're gonna sit around you for 2 to 12 hours, the least you can do is wear some dehodorant and brush your teeth. Cologne is only gonna make you stink if you don't frigging shower.

[j!nx]

[QUOTE=Mikemical;21977945]Nah, I'm just pulling your leg, I'm not thin-skinned to get angry about strangers on the internet.

Back on topic, another sign of a bad DM: Terrible personal hygiene.

absolutely agreed, not willing to shower not willing to put time in on adventure

[martixy]

Also, these ones are fairly obvious Red Flags:

- They've played F.A.T.A.L. and believe it's a good system. (It's not.)

- They've been caught reading The Book of Erotic Fantasy.

- They've tried getting you to read The Book of Erotic Fantasy.

- They're really insistent that you should try Ironclaw/Jadeclaw.

- They think some filthy Xenos could be potential allies of the Imperium of Man as infiltrators/moles. (This is Heresy and should be met with Standard Issue Exterminatus)

I detect a common theme here.

But reading BoEF, actually reading it, with comprehension, can only be a good thing. If you don't wanna include the topic of sex in your campaign under any form, that's fine. But it is still part of human experience(one might say a major part) that should be open for exploration in games. I'd say you start at a yellow flag and escalate to red, the younger the DM is.

As for Ironclaw and its ilk, I cannot speak of the actual mechanical merits of the system, but apart from the obvious association with furries that you seem to wanna draw attention to, I see nothing wrong with it. Looks more like disney cartoons TBH. The subject matter doesn't automatically squick everybody out.

So... these aren't really obvious Red Flags in the slightest.

Except FATAL, that's not a red flag either. That's a run-in-the-opposite-direction-as-fast-as-possible flag.

[ComaVision]

the DM who never has been a player, or the DM that has played only enough times to count on one hand then tells you he is going to run a "huge" campaign,

b-b-b-but nobody else will DM. I want to play more, really. I just don't get the opportunity.

[Honest Tiefling]

But reading BoEF, actually reading it, with comprehension, can only be a good thing. If you don't wanna include the topic of sex in your campaign under any form, that's fine. But it is still part of human experience(one might say a major part) that should be open for exploration in games. I'd say you start at a yellow flag and escalate to red, the younger the DM is.

I've read parts of the BOEF...And it did actually address homosexuality in a semi-serious manner which was something that wasn't going to happen in 3rd edition. So technically, you could use the BOEG and have nothing more sexual then that dude dwarf is married to that other dude dwarf.

Personally, even if I have never played Cthulhutech I'd place it into the definite yellow flag territory from what I have heard of it. So you admit to enjoying a game with snuff porn adventures? Yeah, that's not reassuring.

[icefractal]

A basic thing? I often forget to concentrate before casting a spell and therefore occasionally get a fistful of AoUs to the face.

I hate this one. And way too many GMs do it - "Simon Says" style GMing, where even when there's no conceivable reason that an action makes sense to the character, and is only happening because the player misheard or forgot to say something, it happens, no takeback! And why? So they can laugh about how they "outsmarted" the players by doing a bad job at providing an interface?

If your Concentration skill is high enough to always succeed at casting defensively (which it really should be by epic level), then I recommend making a big sign that says "Always Casting Defensively" and set it on the table next to you.

Related, GMs who discourage or hinder taking 10 / taking 20.
* No, taking 10 does not take ten times as long. RTFM!
* No, being in a generally tense situation like "inside enemy territory" does not prevent taking 10, only being directly under threat or directly distracted does that.
* If you ban taking 20, but leave other rules the same, people will just roll 20+ times. How is that better?
* And no, skill checks do not auto-fail on a natural '1'. RTFM, again!

Maybe if your game requires PCs randomly screwing up on non-hard tasks, then your game is bad and you should feel bad.


Somewhat tangentially:

also, it's one thing to refluff, one to have to also adapt the game mechanics of psionics to make them mesh with whatever the setting dictates.

You're free not to like psionics, but the mechanics of (3.x) psionics match up to most fantasy source material better than pseudo-vancian magic does. Heck, the "vancian" magic used in D&D doesn't even match the way it works in Vance's stories!

[WarKitty]

I've read parts of the BOEF...And it did actually address homosexuality in a semi-serious manner which was something that wasn't going to happen in 3rd edition. So technically, you could use the BOEG and have nothing more sexual then that dude dwarf is married to that other dude dwarf.

It also has some interesting options for characters who want children but wouldn't normally be able to have them. I actually had a character once who had that as a motivation - her and her partner weren't able to have children naturally, so they were seeking a solution.

[Honest Tiefling]

It also has some interesting options for characters who want children but wouldn't normally be able to have them. I actually had a character once who had that as a motivation - her and her partner weren't able to have children naturally, so they were seeking a solution.

And when two kingdoms of people are about to go to war, suddenly finding a magical means of reproduction for the beautiful dwarven princess and her elven wizard lover doesn't seem that out of place for a world with nobility.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So... these aren't really obvious Red Flags in the slightest.

These are personal red flags, often enough. To be honest, "sex is going to be a big enough part of my game that we need actual rules governing it" is probably a red flag for me as well. I really don't need anything other than a quick fade-to-black.

[WarKitty]

These are personal red flags, often enough. To be honest, "sex is going to be a big enough part of my game that we need actual rules governing it" is probably a red flag for me as well. I really don't need anything other than a quick fade-to-black.

There's so much more to sexuality than just sex though, and there's a lot of things that could make it into the game without going into actual sex.

[Quertus]

The other thing that annoys me, but that's probably mostly a problem I have because of my nature:
I'm easily distracted and often forgetful of game mechanics, half the players AND the DMs seem to just be waiting to catch you out on a mistake.
A basic thing? I often forget to concentrate before casting a spell and therefore occasionally get a fistful of AoUs to the face.
On one hand, I understand it's frustrating for everybody to see me die stupidly for something avoidable.. on the other, when you know it's something I, the player, don't always check and when you know that tactical movement and strategic deployment of spells/resources just isn't something I'm very good at, would it kill you to remind me rather than to wring your hands at every opportunity and kill off my character yet again? I'm running out of things to play and ways to join the party in a believable fashion.
And this is true for the group in general, because half the players can't wait to see me put my foot in it again, the other half would help/remind me but are told by the DMs that they should let me make my mistakes... it annoys me that the character should die of a blunder that he wouldn't make if not for the idiotic player who pulls the strings (me) .
Yes, I realise that most of the DMs in this thread will be more sympatethic towards the DMs, in this regard, than with me.

I hate this one. And way too many GMs do it - "Simon Says" style GMing, where even when there's no conceivable reason that an action makes sense to the character, and is only happening because the player misheard or forgot to say something, it happens, no takeback! And why? So they can laugh about how they "outsmarted" the players by doing a bad job at providing an interface?

If your Concentration skill is high enough to always succeed at casting defensively (which it really should be by epic level), then I recommend making a big sign that says "Always Casting Defensively" and set it on the table next to you.

This. I'm a ****, and I trained at the Grognard School of "Git Gud", and firmly believe in player skills, but even I will ask, "are you sure? / anything you want to tell me?" before taking unnecessary AoOs. In part because some players would rather risk being hit and maybe losing the spell to just maybe losing the spell.

In WoD Mage, I took a merit called Strong Will for one of my characters, which basically allows the chance for free expenditures of Willpower on tasks with difficulty 6 or higher. Because I, too, am absent minded, I made the blanket statement that, with that character, I was always spending Willpower on any task diff 6 or higher (and not on any task diff 5 or lower) unless I said otherwise. Worked like a charm - and helped me remember about spending Willpower.

A GM that doesn't accept such a blanket statement, and doesn't register the difference between the player and the character, is a huge red flag.

on a different note:
I don't see why a DM should justify why they are banning a class or race and why "I don't like'em" should not be considered a valid enough reason. If you really insist on playing that race or class, it's on you to find someone who will accept them in their game.
with so many alternatives at your disposal, you should be able to find something else you like playing.
Case in point, as a player, I dislike the notion of monks in a "classic" fantasy setting, because they're styled after shaolin monks, which is such a well defined trope that to me it just feels out of place with the rest of the setting.
Moreover, this is true mechanically as well, since they introduce limitations and powers based on ki, traditional martial arts styles and a few of the weapons that come with... now, if we were playing a wuxia setting, I'd be all for it; but we usually are not, so I completely agree with my DM banning them.
Likewise, I've personally always associated psionic powers with science fiction rather than with fantasy.
Yes, you can refluff all you like, but I often take inspiration from the fluff to determine the background, motivation and identity of my characters.. also, it's one thing to refluff, one to have to also adapt the game mechanics of psionics to make them mesh with whatever the setting dictates.
Put simply, it's a pointless complication of things, that is predicated on your mage and/or cleric somewhat forcibly ignoring that the very existence of a psionicist doesn't fit with how he "knows" the world to be put together..

Anyhoo, I'm just a player, and I realise by reading this thread that there are a number of things that my DMs do that I don't really like and wish could be done differently.
For instance: there's a lot of rolling for basic stuff.
"I'll tie the rope so that you can climb down it.."
"Roll for use rope."
seriously? how about after I tie the knot I try it out by pulling at it with all my weight and if it doesn't come lose, it won't come lose 30 seconds from now? I'm not in a hurry, I'm not trying to fashion a hammock or tying down a ship in a storm. It's a basic knot.
"I'm going to ask the innkeeper for directions..."
"Roll diplomacy."
Dude, I'm a 22th level cleric of Bahamut..I'm basically the right-hand man to the highest priest of Bahamut... we're in Celestia, why on earth should he not want to give me an answer?
"roll for diplomacy."

All considered, this thread discourages me from starting to work on my own campaign. I know for a fact, thanks to previous experiences in running other gaming contexts, that I'd be just fine with the narrative side of things and with keeping the story interesting and the options open.. but the numbers side of things scares the crap out of me.
I have no idea how to balance an encounter.
I'm crap at putting together my own characters, let alone running multiple npcs, and the players I'd be having are more of a rollplaying ilk than I am, which would play badly against my particular shortcomings.

I play wizards. DM says he doesn't like wizards, I build a Cleric of Azuth, or an Arcane Spellcaster, or a... many of which the DM may hate on even more than he did a wizard, if he doesn't tell me why be doesn't like wizards. If course, if he doesn't like them because they obsolete other characters, I'll happily bring Quertus, no problem. Or, you know, build a non-wizard who has a niche, and plays well with others.

On the other hand, if the DM doesn't like wizards because they obsolete his plot, well, that's a big red flag.

Or, you know, saying you don't like monks, but don't explain that it's because they don't fit the theme, and the player may well respond with, "that's ok, I've got this great idea for an alien Psion based on..." Yeah, save yourself the hassle, and explain yourself.

A DM who cannot communicate well enough to explain "why" is a big ol' red flag.

-----

I'm baffled by your narrow-minded mages and clerics who "know" how the world works. Are there more details which make this make sense?

-----

I occasionally ask players to roll for seemingly trivial things because...
* sometimes, they'll get bonuses for doing better than what they're trying to do.
* sometimes, people are watching, who are observing exactly how well they do.
* sometimes to obfuscate the above reasons.
* sometimes because I don't know that it's an auto-success for them - I don't care about their sheets.
* sometimes to work on those player skills of, "I test the rope before using it".

-----

As to running your own game... This isn't a problem! Just explain things, and get player buy-in on the "git gud" school of thought (that, you know, they've been forcing on you), where any given encounter may well be a TPK level of challenge, and it's on the players to be careful enough to survive.

* If you ban taking 20, but leave other rules the same, people will just roll 20+ times. How is that better?

It helps you to get in character, of course. It lets you feel the frustration your character is feeling at having to repeat the same task over and over again. Works especially well when the GM makes the roll for you, where you don't know if you could have done better.

My Red Flags are as Follows
- A 'Survival' 3.5 Edition starting at Level one with nothing
- Talking about how you got this idea from a book that only you've read and made the puzzle exactly like the book making it impossible for anyone who doesn't know about it to figure it out.
- "What do you mean there's a challenge rating?" This is almost a walk away.
- Punishing players for Roleplay

Can you explain these?

Running a game for a group of players that has 1 or 2 jerks in it, must be doable when you're the DM... easier at least than when you are a player and the jerk happens to be the DM.

there were even times when I chose to not join a game because all the players were students (as in high school) and I would have been wildly out of place and with no common ground whatsoever other than the game. Did I miss out? possibly, but then.. once the game was wrapped for the night, I would have had nothing in common with those guys and I'd have gotten a few stares from concerned parents (I'm 38). Not worth it.

Listen, young'un, ain't nothin' wrong with spending time with your elders, or with those dang youths and their hippy nonsense. Many of my friends are less than half your age, and I've taught several 7-year-olds to play d20. The new generation's gotta learn to play somehow, and I don't want them picking up bad habits from their hippy friends, and using those bad habits to create another 4th edition. Digest that, then get off my lawn!

Totally agree that a jerk DM is way, way worse than a jerk player.

[TheIronGolem]

* If you ban taking 20, but leave other rules the same, people will just roll 20+ times. How is that better?

It helps you to get in character, of course. It lets you feel the frustration your character is feeling at having to repeat the same task over and over again. Works especially well when the GM makes the roll for you, where you don't know if you could have done better.

It isn't a given that my character is feeling frustrated. Maybe he enjoys doing this and doesn't mind having to try repeatedly. Maybe he has a zen attitude about it and doesn't let little setbacks bother him. Or maybe the game's default assumption of "you're failing several times before you succeed" is not applicable in this instance and he's just taking his sweet time for whatever reason. I'm the one who decides how my character feels about what he's doing.

But even if we assume my character is feeling frustrated, it isn't necessary for me to feel the same thing in order to roleplay the character. I don't point a gun in your face when my character makes an Intimidate check against an NPC, so please don't try to make me feel like you think my character "should". You are not Stanley Kubrick.

[kuhaica]

Can you explain these?
.

So in order.

The Survival thing comes from playing several survival campgains. Now while I don't mind them, and I've had a few fun ones. The issue comes when you are level one. Make your character sheet get all your equipment and then you enter th4 game and get told you have nothing. Not even clothes. And you now must survive. So unless you are a caster. You are usless. So whenever someone says 'Survival Setting in 3.5' the warning bells begin to ring.


The second one involves mostly during the game aspects and it has reared it's ugly head more then once where a DM would talk about this book they've recently read. Mention some silly puzzle or trap. Then the next session make the party deal with the trap or puzzle. Without any context. It's difficult to understand that the key to the room is that random squiggly line on the wall when you've mentioned there's other lines on the wall. And described how all of them mean something diffrent. None relating to the problem at hand, but instead the prophecy that the protagonist in that book you read heard.

Now I care little if you take ideas. Everyone does it. It's part of being a DM. Getting inspiration. But when you use stuff word for word in the wrong setting. It makes life difficult for anyone who doesn't know the setting. It's even worst the DM says there setting is based on a book. And then it is the book.


Challenge Ratings are an important aspect of DND. Many people know what they are. Some don't. These people shouldn't be DMs as they see a cool Monster have the party fight it. And the party gets wrecked. Because who knew that an Acid spitting winged Monster is dangerous to level 3s? Basically it's something that takes place during the game that lets you know that you've walked into a bad time. It generally becomes obvious in the first session.


And finally. Punishing players for RP. This is a recent one for me. Never heard of it tell my last DM and apperently it got worst according to a friend who decides to play in a one shot with said DM. Now. Imagine your role-playing, everyone is role-playing. Everyone is having fun. Then you hear the DM roll dice you stop and look to them and they say "As no one was paying attention to there surroundings 'x' is attacked taking 48 damage and being knocked out"

Seems normal enough right. Random encounter. No problems. But a trend forms. If the party role plays for to long. The DM gets bored and something horrible happens. We've lost all our money due to pick pocketed while we where shopping and rping. Had a shop keeper attack us for 'wasting his time' by asking about his skills. Set upon by an orc raiding party as we sat in a cave with no fire as we had no wood and just talking in character. The list goes on.

Overall. While it's hard to notice at first. You soon pick up on it. And it makes already non roleplayers struggle even more to move outside there comfort zone. Leading just me and one guy to rp between ourselves all the time. But this was apperently disrupting the session. We then later found out that only our bank accounts had problems causing us to lose half our wealth. Good times.

[Zanos]

It helps you to get in character, of course. It lets you feel the frustration your character is feeling at having to repeat the same task over and over again. Works especially well when the GM makes the roll for you, where you don't know if you could have done better.

I'm not really certain I would be all that frustrated IRL if it took me two minutes to attempt to something difficult.

For what it's worth taking 20 is actually not the same as rolling a d20 20 times. Because of probabilities and stuff. You could get a 20 on the first roll, or not until the 100th one.

There's so much more to sexuality than just sex though, and there's a lot of things that could make it into the game without going into actual sex.

Flirting and romance are better just handled with RP. And even those are somewhat minimal in most games I play.

[Pex]

These are personal red flags, often enough. To be honest, "sex is going to be a big enough part of my game that we need actual rules governing it" is probably a red flag for me as well. I really don't need anything other than a quick fade-to-black.

Maybe the DM wants to roleplay it?

I had a DM or two I wouldn't have minded.

[Mauvar]

Personally, I don't mind reasonable adjusted rules. If the DM wants to curb disjunction, the polymorph school (or just shapechange) or remove the darkstalker feat that's fine. What irks me is inconsistency.

Also when personal prejudices get in the way of proper adjudication:

DM: "I don't see how anyone could balance on clouds...even with a 120 balance"
Rogue: "Ok, I guess I cast fly"
DM: "That works."

The other thing is a sentiment that it is a "players vs the DM" scenario instead of a collaborative storytelling effort. If he gets angry, competitive or unreasonable punishes player successes.

DM: "You're leg got caught in the web...and the spiders are coming. The whole tunnel is filled with webs...and spiders. You have three rounds."
Paladin: "I've been saving this potion of freedom of movement for three levels...I drink it and run"
DM: "Umm...what potion of Freedom of Movement?"
Paladin: "The one the high priest of Hieronious gave me for rescuing his cat from the neighbors hell hound"
DM: "It doesn't work"
Player: "why...?"
DM: "You tell me? Maybe it was water."
Paladin: "I guess I try to break free..."
DM: "Too late, the spiders are on you. I don't know why you guys keep dying..."

Another, terribly rude DM adjudication:

DM: "You enter the dungeon and come to a chasm and a rope bridge, on the other side are two statues"
Player: "I carefully cross the bridge."
DM: "You've wandered around for a while...all of your precasts would be expired. Roll init."
Player: "1"

You're probably shouldn't make a big investment in your character (in fact I would just use blank character sheets and consistently fail at everything) if your DM is like this:
DM: "Five ruffians are roughing up the bartender. He cries for help as they strike him and others pour out his lockbox and drink down his ale"
Player: "I compliment the ruffians on their style and ask to join their gang."
DM: "The bartender casts meteor swarm at you."
Player: "Can I play another bard?"

[dehro]

Listen, young'un, ain't nothin' wrong with spending time with your elders, or with those dang youths and their hippy nonsense. Many of my friends are less than half your age, and I've taught several 7-year-olds to play d20. The new generation's gotta learn to play somehow, and I don't want them picking up bad habits from their hippy friends, and using those bad habits to create another 4th edition. Digest that, then get off my lawn!

Totally agree that a jerk DM is way, way worse than a jerk player.

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly mind an age gap. I'm already the old guy in my group, where ages go from my 38 to the DM's girlfriend (her being that is not much of a problem) who is in her mid 20's. Nothing wrong with that. Back when I lived in England, I was 29, the DM 19.. it was cool.
And should any child relative/ child of a friend request to play, I would have 0 problems with it. Since however most of my social life these days revolves around the people I play with (aside from my partner's friends, that is), I'd rather have people I have at least a passing affinity with outside the gaming world. If you're 15/20 and your main concerns are getting permission from your mom to hang out, preparing for a test the next day, dabbing, one direction and today's equivalent of Hannah Montana, and you can't tell what show our movie classic I'm quoting during the game, then chances are you and me won't have much in common and unless you're a relative or a friend's relative, I have little interest in committing anyway. This is doubly true if you're going to be the DM and I've got to argue common sense with you at every turn.
That's not to say everybody half my age would be that way, but the odds aren't really reassuring, especially so here in Italy, where a generation gap really tends to be rather wide.
Also, it's usually my lawn, so shove off yourself!

[weckar]

Also when personal prejudices get in the way of proper adjudication:

DM: "I don't see how anyone could balance on clouds...even with a 120 balance"
Rogue: "Ok, I guess I cast fly"
DM: "That works."

(...)

Another, terribly rude DM adjudication:

DM: "You enter the dungeon and come to a chasm and a rope bridge, on the other side are two statues"
Player: "I carefully cross the bridge."
DM: "You've wandered around for a while...all of your precasts would be expired. Roll init."
Player: "1"

You're probably shouldn't make a big investment in your character (in fact I would just use blank character sheets and consistently fail at everything) if your DM is like this:
DM: "Five ruffians are roughing up the bartender. He cries for help as they strike him and others pour out his lockbox and drink down his ale"
Player: "I compliment the ruffians on their style and ask to join their gang."
DM: "The bartender casts meteor swarm at you."
Player: "Can I play another bard?"

I fail to see the issue in all these three situations. Other than I do not get why crossing a bridge would require initiative.

[Mauvar]

...I do not get why crossing a bridge would require initiative.

Let me clarify, because it's the worst part. A statue is never a statue...

[Shark Uppercut]

Also when personal prejudices get in the way of proper adjudication:

DM: "I don't see how anyone could balance on clouds...even with a 120 balance"
Rogue: "Ok, I guess I cast fly"
DM: "That works."

I don't get it. Unless you're a Silver Dragon or have magic boots, cloudwalking is a flat-out, completely impossibly thing.
Is this an Epic Level Handbook sorta thing? I'm down with DMs banning special outcomes for triple digit skill checks.

The statues attacking you on the bridge is an edge case. On one hand, it's a fairly basic way to start a combat encounter. On the other hand, you should tell a player how fast time is going, so they can buff, explore or retreat accordingly.

All the others are textbook examples of DMs stomping on players for no good reason.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I fail to see the issue in all these three situations. Other than I do not get why crossing a bridge would require initiative.

You don't see an issue with an NPC asking for help, then casting 9th level spells (meaning he totally could have solved his problem himself) when the player refuses?

I don't get it. Unless you're a Silver Dragon or have magic boots, cloudwalking is a flat-out, completely impossibly thing.
Is this an Epic Level Handbook sorta thing? I'm down with DMs banning special outcomes for triple digit skill checks.

It's in the ELH, yeah.

[danielxcutter]

You don't see an issue with an NPC asking for help, then casting 9th level spells (meaning he totally could have solved his problem himself) when the player refuses?

No, the NPC has Schrödinger's spells; he always has the appropriate caster level to maximize how screwed the PCs are.

[weckar]

You don't see an issue with an NPC asking for help, then casting 9th level spells (meaning he totally could have solved his problem himself) when the player refuses?

I hadn't considered the specific spell being used. But siding against an NPC provoking a retaliation seemed legitimate.

[j!nx]

b-b-b-but nobody else will DM. I want to play more, really. I just don't get the opportunity.

hey I understand when a new game comes out take the very best example of when dnd first came out someone had to DM but you know who im talking about.. joe that played 3 times and now has running his own campaign when he doesn't even remember how to level himself up

[Mikemical]

But reading BoEF, actually reading it, with comprehension, can only be a good thing. If you don't wanna include the topic of sex in your campaign under any form, that's fine. But it is still part of human experience(one might say a major part) that should be open for exploration in games. I'd say you start at a yellow flag and escalate to red, the younger the DM is.

As for Ironclaw and its ilk, I cannot speak of the actual mechanical merits of the system, but apart from the obvious association with furries that you seem to wanna draw attention to, I see nothing wrong with it. Looks more like disney cartoons TBH. The subject matter doesn't automatically squick everybody out.

So... these aren't really obvious Red Flags in the slightest.

I've read parts of the BOEF...And it did actually address homosexuality in a semi-serious manner which was something that wasn't going to happen in 3rd edition. So technically, you could use the BOEG and have nothing more sexual then that dude dwarf is married to that other dude dwarf.

To these, I raise this:

These are personal red flags, often enough. To be honest, "sex is going to be a big enough part of my game that we need actual rules governing it" is probably a red flag for me as well. I really don't need anything other than a quick fade-to-black.

Also, because I've had bad experiences with DMs trying to get us(the players) to enter their magical realms. There are limits of how much you can try to push something under the table before anyone notices what you're doing. Then again, I'm guilty of having allowed some of it go undetected but only because it catered to my own fetishes, and it was subtle so it didn't really squick anyone out. But that's besides the point.

Also, sexuality can turn obnoxious if it's made out to be a character's first defining trait. Allow me to elaborate:

If I play a barbarian who comes from a tribe that views same-sex relationships as normal because where they live is basically Skyrim, but don't bring it up unless asked about in character or some event allows him to comment on it in a semi-serious game, that's okay.

If I play a barbarian who dresses in drag and spends every waking hour trying to hook up with cute, weaker boys in a very pushy manner in what's supposed to be a semi-serious game, that's being obnoxious, rude, offensive and I deserve being punched in the face.

If from the start we all agree "this is gonna be an ERP", I'm fine with people detailing stuff like a character's girth and how tight their rear is, because hey, I signed up for this. If we agree on playing Vanilla, PG15 D&D and you try to turn it into 50 shades of Grey without explicit consent, I'm walking out of the game and telling everyone you're a weirdo.