Red Flags for DMs?

[danielxcutter]

It's a goofy, but not a creepy book. Which is more than can be said about any other book that tried to cover that topic(that I know of). FATAL is beyond creepy.

Also, while I haven't gone through the whole creepy-gamers thread, the first few pages did remind me that even the irreproachable nerds of GitP are still only human.

Wait, did you just call us "irreproachable nerds"?

[martixy]

Wait, did you just call us "irreproachable nerds"?

Enjoy the rain while it lasts.

[Razade]

Evil characters are always trash, and yours are no exception.

The only thing absolute in this world is that this statement is incorrect.[/QUOTE]

It's kinda hard to be both Evil AND kind and considerate, in my thankfully limited experience.)

Evil people aren't monsters. They're people (unless they're monsters and then they're monsters) and they have things they care about. Pets, loved ones, goals. Evil doesn't equate into heartless, souless monstrosity.

[Svata]

Evil people aren't monsters. They're people (unless they're monsters and then they're monsters)

Can I sig this?

[Red Fel]

Evil people aren't monsters. They're people (unless they're monsters and then they're monsters) and they have things they care about. Pets, loved ones, goals. Evil doesn't equate into heartless, souless monstrosity.

"I'm not a monster, Tom - well, technically, I am. I guess I am." - Jonathan Coulton, "Re: Your Brains"

But yeah. Preach it, meatbag!

[Arbane]

I don't get it. Unless you're a Silver Dragon or have magic boots, cloudwalking is a flat-out, completely impossibly thing.

So is magic. So are LOTS of things in D&D. Mundanes having Nice Things is just the one that gets the hammer down on it most often.

Just sayin'.

EDIT because Showerthought:


If you can't already fly, how did you reach the cloud?

A totally realistic flying dragon knocked me off my totally realistic pegasus, of course.

[Shark Uppercut]

So is magic. So are LOTS of things in D&D. Mundanes having Nice Things is just the one that gets the hammer down on it most often.

Just sayin'.

Dude, calm down. I like mundanes. ToB is my favorite sourcebook.

I'm fine with Cloudwalking being a free racial ability for Air Genasi, or Raptorans. I'm fine with Cloudwalking boots being extremely cheap. I'm fine with Desert Wind stances giving free Cloudwalking. Or Silver Crane or Black Seraph stances.
Cloudwalking is, as I noted, worthless without complementary Flying.

I NOT fine with a character using skill abilities from ELH, because ELH SUCKS.
And that's all I'll say on that.

[JNAProductions]

Dude, calm down. I like mundanes. ToB is my favorite sourcebook.

I'm fine with Cloudwalking being a free racial ability for Air Genasi, or Raptorans. I'm fine with Cloudwalking boots being extremely cheap. I'm fine with Desert Wind stances giving free Cloudwalking. Or Silver Crane or Black Seraph stances.
Cloudwalking is, as I noted, worthless without complementary Flying.

I NOT fine with a character using skill abilities from ELH, because ELH SUCKS.
And that's all I'll say on that.

I'd like to point this-let's assume you start with a 20 in Dexterity (+5), take Skill Focus (Balance) for another +3, and whatever that +2 feat is (Acrobatic?). Then, you max ranks in Balance and put every level up stat boost into Dexterity.

You would have to be level 78 to hit 120.

81 Ranks + 14 Dexterity Modifier + 3 Skill Focus + 2 Acrobatic = 100. And then you need a nat 20 still.

But you probably have magic items. So let's give you a +30 Competence Item Of Balance (shoes, I'd imagine). Now you're only level 60.

63 Ranks + 12 Dexterity Modifier + 3 Skill Focus + 2 Acrobatic + 30 Item = 100. And then you need a nat 20 still.

So, assuming you spent one of your skills, every ability boost, two feats, and 90,000 GP on balance, and were lucky enough to roll a natural 20, you can, at level 60, balance on clouds.

How is that broken? Hell, looking at the numbers, I'd be inclined to LOWER the DC, so you can achieve it by level 30 or something, because level 60 is gorram ridiculous!

[Lorddenorstrus]

I'd like to point this-let's assume you start with a 20 in Dexterity (+5), take Skill Focus (Balance) for another +3, and whatever that +2 feat is (Acrobatic?). Then, you max ranks in Balance and put every level up stat boost into Dexterity.

You would have to be level 78 to hit 120.

81 Ranks + 14 Dexterity Modifier + 3 Skill Focus + 2 Acrobatic = 100. And then you need a nat 20 still.

But you probably have magic items. So let's give you a +30 Competence Item Of Balance (shoes, I'd imagine). Now you're only level 60.

63 Ranks + 12 Dexterity Modifier + 3 Skill Focus + 2 Acrobatic + 30 Item = 100. And then you need a nat 20 still.

So, assuming you spent one of your skills, every ability boost, two feats, and 90,000 GP on balance, and were lucky enough to roll a natural 20, you can, at level 60, balance on clouds.

How is that broken? Hell, looking at the numbers, I'd be inclined to LOWER the DC, so you can achieve it by level 30 or something, because level 60 is gorram ridiculous!

You should look at some theoretical optimization threads. Getting a skill checks over 120 is actually quite trivial.

[JNAProductions]

You should look at some theoretical optimization threads. Getting a skill checks over 120 is actually quite trivial.

I'm sure it is. But with reasonable optimization, it's not.

Unless I'm just being dumb, and missing the obvious. (And yes, I know about stuff like Guidance of the Avatar, but I want to walk on clouds reliably.)

[Remuko]

Dude, calm down. I like mundanes. ToB is my favorite sourcebook.

I'm fine with Cloudwalking being a free racial ability for Air Genasi, or Raptorans. I'm fine with Cloudwalking boots being extremely cheap. I'm fine with Desert Wind stances giving free Cloudwalking. Or Silver Crane or Black Seraph stances.
Cloudwalking is, as I noted, worthless without complementary Flying.

I NOT fine with a character using skill abilities from ELH, because ELH SUCKS.
And that's all I'll say on that.

I think its silly to ban every single idea just because its from a book you claim "sucks". Its definitely flawed but not letting those epic skill checks is kinda meaningless. It's not part of the "suck" of that book and it just comes off that youre saying "I hate this book and it sucks so everything in it sucks by association even if its actually sound and reasonable!"

[Mordaedil]

I'm sure it is. But with reasonable optimization, it's not.

Unless I'm just being dumb, and missing the obvious. (And yes, I know about stuff like Guidance of the Avatar, but I want to walk on clouds reliably.)

Epic Skill Focus(Balance) adds +10 to balance checks. Kinda important for this. Also check if there's a syngery bonus to be gained somewhere.

[Ethernil]

so in summation keep an eye out for:
-Massive amounts of houserules
-Not actually playing the advertised system
-DMs forced into the position
-Banning pretty much anything, unless there's a setting reason for it
-Allows everything
-Disallowing Evil alignment
-Low magic/fantasy
-Gritty realism
-Fumble rules
-DMPC
-Anything involving sex
-Railroading
-Long episodes of narration with no player agency
-Arbitrary rules changes
-DM refers to them selves as God
-Plans to turn campaign into a novel
-Has run the campaign before
-Multiclass penalties
-Low point buy
-Rolling for stats
-Nerfing mundanes
-Edition favoritism
-Allowing personal relationships to spill over into the game.
-Actively trying to make the paladin fall.
-Banning options for only the players.
-Lack of system mastery
-Talks about previous bad players
-Excessively high DCs
-Campaign is nothing but fights
-Pulling ideas from a video game/movie.
-Long fights
-Overly invested in the story (often leading to railroading)
-Inability to improvise
-Bad grasp of alignment
-Core only
-Meatgrinders
-Excessive use of Rule 0.
-E6
-Not tailoring encounters.
-Tailoring encounters to specifically mess with the players.
-Reducing player agency in any way
-Ignores rules in favor of Rule of Cool
-Doesn't backtrack when player are uncomfortable
-Expecting the CR system to actually be balanced.
-Overpowered NPCs
-NPCs are idiots
-DM becomes agitated when things don't go right.
-DM more interested in telling a story than playing a game.
-things happen at the dramatically appropriate time / in the most dramatically appropriate way
-Level 0
-Prebuilt Characters
-All players must take X class
-Not explaining/writing down houserules
-fudging dice rolls
-Doesn't listen to player complaints
-Quests for class features
-Spontaneous Houserules
-Disallows the 'Take a 10' rule
-Makes the character look incompetent
-Doesn't understand the concept of multiple valid play styles
-Use of the term 'Rollplayer(s)'
-Attempts to stop you from reading books
-Cliché plot hooks
-Unbalanced plots (all intrigue, all combat, etc.)
-Mary or Gary Sue NPCs
-Requiring rolls for easily done tasks.
-Making you pull teeth for information NPCs would reasonably just tell you.
-NPCs take the spotlight
-'Survival' games
-Using custom classes available to the NPCs but not the PCs
-No experience as a player
-Bad hygiene

My last dm did about 95% of those. Which is why, even though he is the only one who wants/has time to DM, all his previous players(we are all real life friends) won't be playing with him again.

[danielxcutter]

My last dm did about 95% of those. Which is why, even though he is the only one who wants/has time to DM, all his previous players(we are all real life friends) won't be playing with him again.

What did he do? No, scratch that - what didn't he do?

[Mikemical]

Regarding the discussion on the previous page:
My issue when dealing with sexuality is that everyone seems to exclusively picture the extremes. It's either "fade to black" or full on sexual RP.
There seems to be a certain difficulty in escaping this mindset, even here, judging from the past responses in this thread.

In an actual mature group this is very rarely the case.

I suppose due to the cultural immaturity in dealing with that topic, it is a red flag(that is to say, you're safer assuming things are gonna go badly more often than not). I just wish this wasn't the case.

Me either, I'm a sucker for romantic comedies, but the moment your character shows interest in courting an NPC(sometimes even with justifieable reasons), most of the time you'll be getting funny looks.

I get why people don't like it. If you need a refresher, go to the thread titled 'Creepiest gamers you've ever played with' in the main roleplaying forums. I do understand the reaction and why it's a bad thing.

This reminds me of another red flag:

Immersion Obsessed A'holes: The guys who'll debate 2 hours about wether your character should be allowed to make curare poison-tipped arrows, because you're not in a tropical habitat that would allow such a plant to be grown. Like, I agree that if we're gonna be playing in a medieval europe-type setting, you would say I can't be a katana-wielding ninja, but even back then people would import herbs and substances from far away lands for sell.

Or worse, coupled with the topic previously discussed, the guy who will autistically argue about magical-animal people's genitalia, like saying gnoll females have pseudo-penises just because they're based on hyenas.

[dehro]

I say this as a player who has never run a game himself: why is "I don't like it" not a good enough reason for a DM to ban a certain book or source?
Why do DM have to be all knowing on a subject that encompasses about a 100 different volumes and allows for infinite variety of flavour, characterisation and, indeed, determination on the part of the DM?
What is lost if a DM says that you can't use psionics, tome of battle, binders or UA variations or any other sub-set of rules??
Why does he have to qualify and justify himself to you?
Maybe he doesn't know that material and doesn't care to learn it because he already knows the ins and outs of another 50 books and he thinks it's enough for you to create a fun and functional character with.
Maybe he's indeed missing out and could learn to appreciate that particular source material/class/feat/spell... is him not willing to do so such a big issue though?
Maybe he doesn't think those classes or races fit well within his world.
Yes, you can say that refluffing/retooling is the answer, but... why should the DM repurpose something he doesn't like and is outside of his comfort zone/area of competence? Why can't you do the same, refluff and retool, working within the very large confines of what IS allowed? After all you're the one raising the issue and he's got an entire world of npcs to look after already.
Maybe he has other motives: lack of access to the material, no time to read up on it... Or maybe he just thinks that there's more than enough for any player to create any kind of character and maybe if you insist on playing that particular class/ class combo, he thinks you are going to be the problem player, rather than him being a problem DM.
The notion that if someone bans a book or ruleset it must be because he doesn't understand the game in its entirety, or maybe he's unable to balance a decent game because "the only way to balance certain stuff is through that one book or class"... seems to me somewhere between preposterous and offensive, when that's all you have to go by.
My understanding of the role of a DM is that he's supposed to throw stuff at the players; stuff that they can handle within the scope of their characters, whatever the class, class combo or level of optimisation.
So, after a session or 3, you find that your fighter sucks compared to the magician in the party, because you don't have access to that particular class or feat that is in a banned book... well, maybe the role of your fighter is not to be the damage dealer.
Suck it up and find a way to make it work.. if need be, talk to your DM in order to together find a way to improve the relevance of your character that doesn't necessarily rely on hitting stuff with a blade.
If he doesn't understand your plight and is unwilling to reason with you about how to make the game enjoyable, then yes, the fault is with him.. if that is not the case, then, really, is he a sucky DM or are you throwing a tantrum because your character isn't the optimised Terminator he could be if only you had access to every thing, irrespective of how your DM feels about it?
The notion: he doesn't like/know/appreciate TOB/psionics/binders/LEVEL BUYOFF = he must be a crap DM... just doesn't compute for me.
It's like saying that you have a whole dance routine for a specific song, but the DJ isn't putting it on because reasons (he doesn't like it, he can't for legal reasons, he forgot the record at home), so he must be a **** DJ...
Well, maybe you should learn a new routine. Or maybe you could at least appreciate that the guy is doing a fine job, even though the music he's putting on is not to your taste.
/RANT

[Waker]

Maybe he doesn't think those classes or races fit well within his world.
Yes, you can say that refluffing/retooling is the answer, but... why should the DM repurpose something he doesn't like and is outside of his comfort zone/area of competence? Why can't you do the same, refluff and retool, working within the very large confines of what IS allowed? After all you're the one raising the issue and he's got an entire world of npcs to look after already.
Maybe he has other motives: lack of access to the material, no time to read up on it... Or maybe he just thinks that there's more than enough for any player to create any kind of character and maybe if you insist on playing that particular class/ class combo, he thinks you are going to be the problem player, rather than him being a problem DM.

Because there is a limit to what you can do with refluffing and retooling. When I tell a DM I want to play as a psionic character, its not cause I wanna pull some infinite power point tricks or transform myself into a psionic sandwich. Its because I hate Vancian casting, I think the mechanic is inelegant and just doesn't feel right for the majority of spellcasters. However the vast majority of spellcasters use the system that I've disliked since 3rd ed started and I continue to be denied access because "Psionics doesn't fit the flavor of my campaign." In the 14 years that I've been playing 3rd ed, I have never played a psionic character in any group I've been in.

So, after a session or 3, you find that your fighter sucks compared to the magician in the party, because you don't have access to that particular class or feat that is in a banned book... well, maybe the role of your fighter is not to be the damage dealer.
Suck it up and find a way to make it work.. if need be, talk to your DM in order to together find a way to improve the relevance of your character that doesn't necessarily rely on hitting stuff with a blade.
If he doesn't understand your plight and is unwilling to reason with you about how to make the game enjoyable, then yes, the fault is with him.. if that is not the case, then, really, is he a sucky DM or are you throwing a tantrum because your character isn't the optimised Terminator he could be if only you had access to every thing, irrespective of how your DM feels about it?

Here is the thing. Yes, the DM is certainly capable of making a Fighter or whomever they want to be relevant to the story just by saying so. But that's it. Fighters and other lower tier classes aren't going to contribute outside of their comfort zone without DM fiat. The Fighters utter lack of class abilities and skill points means they aren't going to do anything beyond hit things with a sword or hit things harder with a sword. Its not about playing an optimized Terminator, but it would be nice to play a character who doesn't need the DM to hold my hand when I cross the street.

[Zanos]

I'll be honest I'm not really particularly generous with new people who join my groups. If the first thing you do is question all my house rules and demand "reasonable explanations" for them, which is often codespeak for that someone has already determined that the rules are bad and just want to spend an hour wasting my time arguing about how they're right and I'm wrong, I'm not likely to keep them.

So I don't usually entertain a lot of that stuff from players until I've had them around for a couple sessions.

Because there is a limit to what you can do with refluffing and retooling. When I tell a DM I want to play as a psionic character, its not cause I wanna pull some infinite power point tricks or transform myself into a psionic sandwich. Its because I hate Vancian casting, I think the mechanic is inelegant and just doesn't feel right for the majority of spellcasters. However the vast majority of spellcasters use the system that I've disliked since 3rd ed started and I continue to be denied access because "Psionics doesn't fit the flavor of my campaign." In the 14 years that I've been playing 3rd ed, I have never played a psionic character in any group I've been in.

Psionics actually don't fit the flavor of a lot of campaigns, although even with that I've probably only been at 2 tables were psionics were flat out banned in recent years. YMMV, I guess?

Here is the thing. Yes, the DM is certainly capable of making a Fighter or whomever they want to be relevant to the story just by saying so. But that's it. Fighters and other lower tier classes aren't going to contribute outside of their comfort zone without DM fiat. The Fighters utter lack of class abilities and skill points means they aren't going to do anything beyond hit things with a sword or hit things harder with a sword. Its not about playing an optimized Terminator, but it would be nice to play a character who doesn't need the DM to hold my hand when I cross the street.

Depends greatly on the optimization going around. There are still tables that exist where fireball is the best 3rd level spell and cleave is considered a very good feat.

[martixy]

I'll be honest I'm not really particularly generous with new people who join my groups. If the first thing you do is question all my house rules and demand "reasonable explanations" for them, which is often codespeak for that someone has already determined that the rules are bad and just want to spend an hour wasting my time arguing about how they're right and I'm wrong, I'm not likely to keep them.

So I don't usually entertain a lot of that stuff from players until I've had them around for a couple sessions.

You have to cut these players some slack.

From the point of view of the player, this is the optimal strategy he could adopt. Simple game theory, most people are straight up idiots. Half of them are stupider than that. In a random arrangement, this is the correct decision on part of the player.

[Pex]

I'm inclined to believe the DC 120 to balance on a cloud is an amusing joke rather than something to be feasibly possible in a given epic level game. It's there to give a perspective and encourage imagination of possibilities of what can be done in epic games. The inherent limits of normal campaigns no longer apply.

[Waker]

Psionics actually don't fit the flavor of a lot of campaigns, although even with that I've probably only been at 2 tables were psionics were flat out banned in recent years. YMMV, I guess?

And as I've said on the topic many, many times, fluff can be changed. From the viewpoint of story, how much different is a Wizard and a Psion? Probably a lot more similar than a Wizard and a Sorcerer.

Depends greatly on the optimization going around. There are still tables that exist where fireball is the best 3rd level spell and cleave is considered a very good feat.

Of course in lower optimization levels, that is true. Outside of the Wizards suck/Monks OP tables, Fighters and other low tier just don't have much going on. I like playing t3 characters, where I can do a lot of little things without breaking the game. But that tier is largely made up of ACFs or subsystem classes; ToB, Incarnum, Binder etc. While Bard is my favorite class, I don't wanna keep playing the same thing over and over. When DMs ban non-core systems then I'm stuck playing as a T1/2 deity which I don't like, replaying the same class that I've done several times or being bored out of my mind as another warrior-type character.

[Gildedragon]

I say this as a player who has never run a game himself: why is "I don't like it" not a good enough reason for a DM to ban a certain book or source?

Swift answer: because "just because" is never good.

Standard answer: it isn't good enough because D&D is a collective game. The DM does have the last word but they ought take into account their player's wants... Including the want to play a martial and not suck.

Full Round answer: just banning something isn't a deal breaker, but it does make players wary of a DM either not grasping mundane-caster disparity, or bringing in a very rigid idea of what game they want to run. It falls down on why don't they like the source. Familiarity is a valid concern for DMs: they might just not have the time to learn a whole new subsystem, and that's sorta fair. But one would expect more trust from the DM... this is where fair play and explaining to the DM one's powers comes in.

[Mikemical]

Here is the thing. Yes, the DM is certainly capable of making a Fighter or whomever they want to be relevant to the story just by saying so. But that's it. Fighters and other lower tier classes aren't going to contribute outside of their comfort zone without DM fiat. The Fighters utter lack of class abilities and skill points means they aren't going to do anything beyond hit things with a sword or hit things harder with a sword. Its not about playing an optimized Terminator, but it would be nice to play a character who doesn't need the DM to hold my hand when I cross the street.

Because ALL social interactions require skill checks, I take it?

I've played my fair share of fighters/paladins in RP-focused capaigns, and I never once had to roll on Bluff, Diplomacy, and maybe only a couple of times I've used Intimidate. I was either the voice of reason because of a decent Wisdom and Intelligence scores and simply appealed to what the other person cared for; or I played the guy the diplomancer pointed to when he said "If you don't give us what we want, I'll leave the half-orc to ask the questions instead", and start the good cop, bad cop routine. In the end it's all up to how creative you can be when talking.

But I'll agree that fighters feel underwhelming after level 8. I mean, at level 20 a wizard is considered an all-knowing master of the arcane, a level 20 cleric is their god's emmissar, a level 20 fighter feels nowhere near the "one-man army" or "master tactician" territory.

[Zanos]

You have to cut these players some slack.

From the point of view of the player, this is the optimal strategy he could adopt. Simple game theory, most people are straight up idiots. Half of them are stupider than that. In a random arrangement, this is the correct decision on part of the player.

Clearly it's not an optimal strategy if I don't put up with it.

And as I've said on the topic many, many times, fluff can be changed. From the viewpoint of story, how much different is a Wizard and a Psion? Probably a lot more similar than a Wizard and a Sorcerer.

Hey man, I don't stalk your posts.

And I really don't agree. For organization stuff I don't mind tweaking fluff. There could still be silver pyromancers even if there's no church of the silver flame in my setting, because the general concept is enough that a similar organization with the same mechanics could exist. Same with Mage of the Arcane Order, Shadowcraft Mage, or other organization based prestige classes. The power of the class comes from principles that the organization creates rather than the organization itself, so I don't mind saying there's an organization whose principles and teachings are close enough to the original and I can include it.

On the other hand a lot of base classes are a principle rather than an organization. I don't think I'd let someone make a druid who fluffed getting all their magic by hanging out in wizard towards and studying magic from books. The mechanics don't map at all, and I like at least a little bit of flavor in my classes rather than just a block of abilities. Psions and Wizards are actually kind of meaningfully different. Psions don't gain their powers through study and theirdisplays are seriously weird compared to a wizard's V/S components. So yeah, I would say that the class who causes a technicolor rave and spews ghost goo and chimes whenever he uses his power is a little bit more different than the two classes who use the same abilities in the same way with different numbers of uses per day.

Of course in lower optimization levels, that is true. Outside of the Wizards suck/Monks OP tables, Fighters and other low tier just don't have much going on. I like playing t3 characters, where I can do a lot of little things without breaking the game. But that tier is largely made up of ACFs or subsystem classes; ToB, Incarnum, Binder etc. While Bard is my favorite class, I don't wanna keep playing the same thing over and over. When DMs ban non-core systems then I'm stuck playing as a T1/2 deity which I don't like, replaying the same class that I've done several times or being bored out of my mind as another warrior-type character.

That's fair, I just don't like the assertion that fighter is bad at all tables forever.

[Mehangel]

And as I've said on the topic many, many times, fluff can be changed. From the viewpoint of story, how much different is a Wizard and a Psion? Probably a lot more similar than a Wizard and a Sorcerer.

I completely agree, I have had players who played the wizard class refluffed as a fighter. As he ran out of spells (called combat and tactical maneuvers) he roleplayed as getting sore and or tired. Rays and magic missiles were refluffed at arrow/bolts fired from weapons, personal buffs (such as bulls strength or bears endurance) were fluffed as adrenaline, elemental damage was fluffed with using alchemist's fire, etc. All in all, it worked out great; even better than another party member who actually used the fighter class.

So if you are telling me that you cannot refluff a Psion to cast spells as a Wizard, well then I sure as hell will be having some red flags pop up.

[Waker]

Because ALL social interactions require skill checks, I take it?

I've played my fair share of fighters/paladins in RP-focused capaigns, and I never once had to roll on Bluff, Diplomacy, and maybe only a couple of times I've used Intimidate. I was either the voice of reason because of a decent Wisdom and Intelligence scores and simply appealed to what the other person cared for; or I played the guy the diplomancer pointed to when he said "If you don't give us what we want, I'll leave the half-orc to ask the questions instead", and start the good cop, bad cop routine. In the end it's all up to how creative you can be when talking.

Part of me wants to be flippant and just say yes, but I will explain my answer. The issue is what happens when you have a player who is intelligent/charismatic controlling a character who isn't? They can use the character as a mouthpiece and substitute their own personal abilities in lieu of game mechanics, giving them an advantage over other players who might not be so savvy. Then you get the disparity of a character who invested game resources (skill ranks, feats...) being outperformed in their own field because another player has the gift of gab. How is that any different than a character with no ranks in Knowledge, but knows all the weakness of a monster because the player read the Monster Manual. D&D and a lot of other RPGs have those mechanics for a reason and players should conform their actions based on what their character sheet says they can do. Unless a character specifically commits resources to it, they can't be the Face of the party.

Psions and Wizards are actually kind of meaningfully different. Psions don't gain their powers through study and theirdisplays are seriously weird compared to a wizard's V/S components. So yeah, I would say that the class who causes a technicolor rave and spews ghost goo and chimes whenever he uses his power is a little bit more different than the two classes who use the same abilities in the same way with different numbers of uses per day.

Psions don't get their power from studying books, but they do get it from meditation, mental exercises and rigorous practice. Which seems a lot closer to a Wizard than a Sorcerer's fluff of "Grandma was a dragon and now I can magic." As for psionic displays, they don't have to be performances by Skrillex. That is my point about refluffing. When manifesting a power, say that glyphs and spell formulae instead are what floats around or whatever else floats your boat. My big gripe when bringing up Wizards vs Sorcerer though is that the only reason they are so close is because they are from the same book and the designers were really lazy. From a fluff standpoint they have nothing in common at all. One studies the laws of reality through years of experimentation whereas another simply has an inborn talent. Yet they have nearly identical spell lists and mechanics.

[martixy]

I'm inclined to believe the DC 120 to balance on a cloud is an amusing joke rather than something to be feasibly possible in a given epic level game. It's there to give a perspective and encourage imagination of possibilities of what can be done in epic games. The inherent limits of normal campaigns no longer apply.

No more ridiculous than the DC120 Escape artist to pass through a wall of force. Or the DC100 to walk on the ceiling.

Didn't we already have that argument?

I know somebody posted the Guy at the Gym fallacy a page or two ago. Once you leave that behind, walking on clouds is not much of a stretch.

@Zanos, if that's not tongue in cheek, you've misunderstood the idea of "optimal strategy".

[Buufreak]

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

New one popped into my head: Language barriers. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with someone who speaks a different language, or that they shouldn't be allowed to play. I just take issue with trying to translate back and forth, as google and the like aren't totally reliable, nor is doing all that leg work time efficient.

As someone stated before, definitely a personal flag for myself, and it goes both ways, as a DM and a player.

[Svata]

I say this as a player who has never run a game himself: why is "I don't like it" not a good enough reason for a DM to ban a certain book or source?
Why do DM have to be all knowing on a subject that encompasses about a 100 different volumes and allows for infinite variety of flavour, characterisation and, indeed, determination on the part of the DM?
What is lost if a DM says that you can't use psionics, tome of battle, binders or UA variations or any other sub-set of rules??
Why does he have to qualify and justify himself to you?
Maybe he doesn't know that material and doesn't care to learn it because he already knows the ins and outs of another 50 books and he thinks it's enough for you to create a fun and functional character with.

That's not "because I don't like it." That's a decent reason. I'd sooner accept that with no argument than "because I don't like it."

Maybe he's indeed missing out and could learn to appreciate that particular source material/class/feat/spell... is him not willing to do so such a big issue though?

Sometimes. I mean, sometimes I've had this idea for a character I've been sitting on for months, and it requires a certain class. I'd really like to play in a game where I can play that character, so if the class is not allowed, I'll have to find another table, as I only have so much time.

Maybe he doesn't think those classes or races fit well within his world.

Again, that's a far better reason than "I don't like it."

Yes, you can say that refluffing/retooling is the answer, but... why should the DM repurpose something he doesn't like and is outside of his comfort zone/area of competence? Why can't you do the same, refluff and retool, working within the very large confines of what IS allowed? After all you're the one raising the issue and he's got an entire world of npcs to look after already.

Refluffing works fine. Unless you want a class for a mechanical reason. (BTW, most of the time, if I want a specific class from outside of core, its for a mechanical reason)

Maybe he has other motives: lack of access to the material, no time to read up on it... Or maybe he just thinks that there's more than enough for any player to create any kind of character and maybe if you insist on playing that particular class/ class combo, he thinks you are going to be the problem player, rather than him being a problem DM.

Guess what I'm going to say.

The notion that if someone bans a book or ruleset it must be because he doesn't understand the game in its entirety, or maybe he's unable to balance a decent game because "the only way to balance certain stuff is through that one book or class"... seems to me somewhere between preposterous and offensive, when that's all you have to go by.

There's unbalanced stuff in every book. You can't have a perfectly balanced game via banning certain books wholesale.

My understanding of the role of a DM is that he's supposed to throw stuff at the players; stuff that they can handle within the scope of their characters, whatever the class, class combo or level of optimisation.
So, after a session or 3, you find that your fighter sucks compared to the magician in the party, because you don't have access to that particular class or feat that is in a banned book... well, maybe the role of your fighter is not to be the damage dealer.
Suck it up and find a way to make it work.. if need be, talk to your DM in order to together find a way to improve the relevance of your character that doesn't necessarily rely on hitting stuff with a blade.

Problem being, that's about all the Fighter can do, mechanically. 2+INT skills/level and a crappy list (and usually no reason to prioritize INT) doesn't get you far. And all those bonus feats? All are off a combat-related list.

If he doesn't understand your plight and is unwilling to reason with you about how to make the game enjoyable, then yes, the fault is with him.. if that is not the case, then, really, is he a sucky DM or are you throwing a tantrum because your character isn't the optimised Terminator he could be if only you had access to every thing, irrespective of how your DM feels about it?

Often not about being an "optimized Terminator". More often about being a competent character, or being able to do this one cool thing.

The notion: he doesn't like/know/appreciate TOB/psionics/binders/LEVEL BUYOFF = he must be a crap DM... just doesn't compute for me.
It's like saying that you have a whole dance routine for a specific song, but the DJ isn't putting it on because reasons (he doesn't like it, he can't for legal reasons, he forgot the record at home), so he must be a **** DJ...
Well, maybe you should learn a new routine. Or maybe you could at least appreciate that the guy is doing a fine job, even though the music he's putting on is not to your taste.
/RANT

I don't wholly disagree with this, but there's only so much of I can take of playing one of three allowed classes I like. Eventually, even your favorite food gets old, and you want to try something new.

[Mauvar]

I'm fine with Cloudwalking being a free racial ability for Air Genasi, or Raptorans. I'm fine with Cloudwalking boots being extremely cheap. I'm fine with Desert Wind stances giving free Cloudwalking. Or Silver Crane or Black Seraph stances.

Cloudwalking is, as I noted, worthless without complementary Flying.

I NOT fine with a character using skill abilities from ELH, because ELH SUCKS.
And that's all I'll say on that.

That's a fair statement, not using specific books in a campaign is fair (it would be nice if most DM's considered balance between classes before banning specific books). Characters with a 120 balance check trying to balance on clouds are probably using the ELH. If a character wants to play a "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" or "walk on water" balance character it doesn't seem out of the realm of being so good at a skill that it seems mystical (the Players Handbook describes rogues use of skills this way). It's extraordinarily unlikely that any character is getting there without the assistance of some epic items. At this point the characters probably have a couple different options to simulate this effect in infinitely less expensive ways.

The red flag would be banning abilities that are not imbalanced in favor of the characters (and enormous investment like 120 balance check), and yet allowing almost anything else from the Epic Level Handbook.