Red Flags for DMs?

[Honest Tiefling]

It is easy to do it in reverse: I only allow X books.

I think it is silly to say it is a ''red flag'' for a DM to ban something they don't like. What is wrong with that? The DM does not like it, so the DM does not want it used in the game they are running.

The red flag is the refusal to elaborate. If your ONLY stated reason is because you don't like it, that doesn't exactly send the right message. If you won't go over why it will detract from your gaming experience, that's also a bad sign.

[Thurbane]

The phrase "Your character wouldn't do that!".

Massive alarm bells, and one of the few things I have left a game over: a DM telling me how I can and can't roleplay my character.

I've had the "action dictates alignment, not vice versa" argument with a couple of DMs.

If I'm playing a Paladin, or other character with a strict code of conduct, I'm OK with the DMing giving me a nudge and saying "Are you sure you want to do that?".

I'm definitely not OK with being told that my LN Wizard "wouldn't do that because it'ds a bit to far along the chaos axis of the alignment chart".

[Quertus]

The phrase "Your character wouldn't do that!".

Massive alarm bells, and one of the few things I have left a game over: a DM telling me how I can and can't roleplay my character.

I've had the "action dictates alignment, not vice versa" argument with a couple of DMs.

If I'm playing a Paladin, or other character with a strict code of conduct, I'm OK with the DMing giving me a nudge and saying "Are you sure you want to do that?".

I'm definitely not OK with being told that my LN Wizard "wouldn't do that because it'ds a bit to far along the chaos axis of the alignment chart".

Given the amount of vitriol I've spewed about alignment, and how it's "the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs", it should come as no surprise that I feel your pain. Heck, I even had DMs - plural - who had tables of situations, and what reach alignment would do in that situation. Do something different, and you weren't role-playing "correctly".

That having been said, you technically could ruin info this kind of behavior in systems that don't have alignment or equivalent, it's just... rarer.

I'm curious how you'd feel about what was, for me, one of my best role-playing experiences: a group where, when you did something any of the players didn't expect, they would stop the game to ask about it. "I thought you would do / the character in my head did X; your character actually did Y. Can you explain why they are different?"

[Thurbane]

I'm curious how you'd feel about what was, for me, one of my best role-playing experiences: a group where, when you did something any of the players didn't expect, they would stop the game to ask about it. "I thought you would do / the character in my head did X; your character actually did Y. Can you explain why they are different?"

That sounds like an interesting option.

---

To expand on my previous post: it's not only when it's related to alignment.

Sometimes it's related to rank, race or other character background/traits.

IMHO, no DM should ever tell a player how to roleplay his character. If I'm playing a dour, serious dwarven knight, who one day for no particular suddenly decides he wants to act like a prankster and dress in a jester's motley...so what? It's my character.

I get that sometimes it might hurt suspension of disbelief, but while I understand that D&D is generally a game of cooperative storytelling, at the end of the day, if my character isn't my own to roleplay, why am I even at the table?

[Nosta]

Lets see My Red Flags Are

1: Banning A race or class , cause the dm/gm can't handle it , not cause it would not fit in to the story of the game

2: showing Very high favoritism to one players, My personal Examples would be GM Allowing only player to play homebrew/Giving said player Way better items than the rest of the group, making them higher level than the rest of the party

3: Saying stuff like no magic and then five sessions in "then the sorcerer casted Empower Fire Ball, toward you all

4: See 3 but with Dragons

5: GM is a player themselves and They like totally the hero of prophecy Bleh Bleh Bleh./ GM plays and make there character the star of the show

6: GM Allows players to build a Army to face another army but them all of a sudden, said players army is Gm'd away

and my personal favorite is

The Gm saying its this type of campaign and all of a sudden something that never be in that World/story Drops in and makes the game a headache for all

Example: The Players Are playing A classic Fantasy setting 3.5 game " and then the Decepticons attack"

[tadkins]

and my personal favorite is

The Gm saying its this type of campaign and all of a sudden something that never be in that World/story Drops in and makes the game a headache for all

Example: The Players Are playing A classic Fantasy setting 3.5 game " and then the Decepticons attack"

I guess I will cut out the part in my campaign where Rick Sanchez (and Morty) randomly drops in. xD

[WarKitty]

The phrase "Your character wouldn't do that!".

Massive alarm bells, and one of the few things I have left a game over: a DM telling me how I can and can't roleplay my character.

I've had the "action dictates alignment, not vice versa" argument with a couple of DMs.

If I'm playing a Paladin, or other character with a strict code of conduct, I'm OK with the DMing giving me a nudge and saying "Are you sure you want to do that?".

I'm definitely not OK with being told that my LN Wizard "wouldn't do that because it'ds a bit to far along the chaos axis of the alignment chart".

The exception to this if a player is doing something to get back at another player (not at the character). That's the only time I've said "no, your character wouldn't do that."

[Gildedragon]

I guess I will cut out the part in my campaign where Rick Sanchez (and Morty) randomly drops in. xD

Heh. That'd be a cute way to introduce a Well of Many Worlds into a campaign.
Make it a Ravenloft-Style device so it loses charge each time it is used.

[Darth Ultron]

The red flag is the refusal to elaborate. If your ONLY stated reason is because you don't like it, that doesn't exactly send the right message. If you won't go over why it will detract from your gaming experience, that's also a bad sign.

So as long as the DM has a long winded reason why they don't like something of at least 25,000 words or so, it's ''ok''. And the hostile players will just sit there, listen to the DM's speech, and agree with it 100% and then the game can start?

Or did you mean to say the DM must argue and bicker with the players over every tiny little thing the players don't like. And the argument should go back and forth and get heated and ultimately be pointless as neither side will change their minds.

Or do you think the ''rebel protesting players '' are Always Right because You Agree With Them? And a DM that disagrees With You is Always Wrong?

Do you think the rebel protesting players that are Always Right just have to say they are right and the DM will be like ''my gosh, I have been so blind, but now I see everything the players say is right!'' ?

no DM should ever tell a player how to roleplay his character. If I'm playing a dour, serious dwarven knight, who one day for no particular suddenly decides he wants to act like a prankster and dress in a jester's motley...so what? It's my character.

I agree with this, but also note that it does not give a character the freedom to ''do whatever they feel like doing whenever they want'' AND then still saying (aka demanding) that the DM treat their character one way always, no matter what the character does.

Character actions have consequences. If a character publicly runs from a fight with dozens of npcs around, they can expect to be called ''a yellow belled chicken''. The player can't then turn around and complain that it says on their sheet ''my character is brave'' , so all npcs should always treat the character like his is the demi god of bravery.

[TheIronGolem]

So as long as the DM has a long winded reason why they don't like something of at least 25,000 words or so, it's ''ok''. And the hostile players will just sit there, listen to the DM's speech, and agree with it 100% and then the game can start?

Or did you mean to say the DM must argue and bicker with the players over every tiny little thing the players don't like. And the argument should go back and forth and get heated and ultimately be pointless as neither side will change their minds.

Or do you think the ''rebel protesting players '' are Always Right because You Agree With Them? And a DM that disagrees With You is Always Wrong?

Do you think the rebel protesting players that are Always Right just have to say they are right and the DM will be like ''my gosh, I have been so blind, but now I see everything the players say is right!'' ?

You don't get experience points for knocking over strawmen, you know.

[Shark Uppercut]

Stuff

Every thread I see you in, you always give the impression that you hate players. Maybe take a break from DMing?

[An Enemy Spy]

Every thread I see you in, you always give the impression that you hate players. Maybe take a break from DMing?

It's Darth Ultron. You're better off just ignoring him.

[Honest Tiefling]

It's Darth Ultron. You're better off just ignoring him.

At least until he gives me an essay of 25,000 words with properly cited sources. If it's good enough for the table, it's good enough for forums.

[ATHATH]

I think you guys are being a bit too mean/hurtful to Darth Ultron. It's almost starting to sound like bullying.

[Darth Ultron]

Every thread I see you in, you always give the impression that you hate players. Maybe take a break from DMing?

Note: I only hate bad players.

A good player is one that just says ''ok'' when the DM bans a book or whatever. A good player understands and respects the DM who is running the game.

A bad player whines and cries and says ''you can't just say you don't like my favorite book and ban it, that is not fair!''

[JNAProductions]

Note: I only hate bad players.

A good player is one that just says ''ok'' when the DM bans a book or whatever. A good player understands and respects the DM who is running the game.

A bad player whines and cries and says ''you can't just say you don't like my favorite book and ban it, that is not fair!''

You have a very broad definition of bad player, DU. It really seems like a bad player is anyone who disagrees with you, or questions you in the slightest.

[TheIronGolem]

Note: I only hate bad players.

A good player is one that just says ''ok'' when the DM bans a book or whatever. A good player understands and respects the DM who is running the game.

A bad player whines and cries and says ''you can't just say you don't like my favorite book and ban it, that is not fair!''

Because respect means total acquiescence 100% of the time, and can never include any disagreement. Any kind of attempt at discussion or negotiation is only ever expressed as a cartoonish temper tantrum. Also, pigs can fly, and I am Elvis.

[Coretron03]

Note: I only hate bad players.

A good player is one that just says ''ok'' when the DM bans a book or whatever. A good player understands and respects the DM who is running the game.

A bad player whines and cries and says ''you can't just say you don't like my favorite book and ban it, that is not fair!''

I Agree with JNA and TheIronGolem. This is pretty ridiculous.

On a side note, Darth, whats your opinion on Tome of battle ands its classes/manauvers system? Oh, and Kantana's.

[Svata]

Note: I only hate bad players.

A good player is one that just says ''ok'' when the DM bans a book or whatever. A good player understands and respects the DM who is running the game.

A bad player whines and cries and says ''you can't just say you don't like my favorite book and ban it, that is not fair!''

Your bar for "bad player" is very, very low.

[DarkEternal]

Your bar for "bad player" is very, very low.

To be fair, so is this thread's bar for bad DM's/red flags.

[Coretron03]

To be fair, so is this thread's bar for bad DM's/red flags.

Maybe, but according to him people are bad players if they disagree with the Dm's decision and that only good players agree with everything the Dm says. Thats a slight bit excessive don't you think?

[AlanBruce]

I haven't been on the player side of the table in years, but I was once, and we had just started playing 3.0 with a DM who had a lot of experience with 2nd ed. He was known for being tough in his campaigns. Obscenely so, but with a new edition that nobody really knew about, we figured we'd all be on the level as we learned together.

We were 4th level at the time. Between level 1 and 4, we had fought a gish drow that single handedly destroyed the caravan we were protecting and everyone in it. By virtue of an odd iron lamp the party rogue found in my PC's house (don't ask), we figured it contained an Efreet!

Reminder, we are level 4 and this drow has used Flesh to Stone on my PC, while pummeling the rest of the party, so an Efreet came as a blessing, using the rogue who freed him to cast a wish to bring us all back to full health and spells.

The Efreet was killed effortlessly by the drow a round later.

We nearly died there but by chance and a lucky roll, the party's drow ranger (the gish's son), managed to land the final blow as he looked at our bloodied unconscious bodies since, of course the drow gish kept cutting us down.

Fast forward a few sessions and one of our players excitedly slams on the table the newest Psionic's Handbook- you know, the one with a Mindflayer on the cover?

The DM leafs through it for a few minutes and we resume game, when we meet a dwarf fighter in a tavern. A contact for our next mission.

We are still level 4.

Your cliched hooded stranger comes into the inn and the party's detects evil: off the charts.

We engage, but are unable to land a single blow on him as he takes off his hood and...

A mindflayer! because of course there was going to be one after the DM saw the cover, but this wasn't your MM Illithid, oh no.

He was a psion, something none of us IC and OOC understood because we had never reviewed the rules for psionics in 3.0. neither had the DM, in the few minutes he skimmed through the book, but what the hell: psionic mindflayer at the inn.

We all end up stunned, of course, except for the NPC dwarf, who happened to be... wait for it: a psion gish! We're saved!

The dwarf effortlessly chops the mind flayer with his urgrosh and we become his groupies- he is after all, a powerful NPC who masters "arts you have never even heard of and could not possibly comprehend!""

So we tag along, mutiny in our minds as we come across a plain with, I would guess two or three hundred orcs on Oliphants? You know, the ones from LoTR? They are marching nearly a mile away and have not noticed us. Good, we can be on our merry way and head to our own destination.

The Dwarf Psion Gish had a different idea.

He runs and I quote "like a jedi" towards the orc army and starts butchering the army. Orc heads fly. Oliphants are given the Legolas treatment while the rest of us- still level 4- watch from far away and I ask the DM if my PC, a conjurer, could cast "Summon Bag of Popcorn".

The dwarf solos the army and returns to us, berating on why we didn't join in the fight, since he could've used some help.

Silence at the table and we marched on to our destination...

Until we get into gnoll territory, with a bunch of Flind Clerics with, what I can guess are PrC levels tacked on.

We turn to look at our Lord and Savior, but he's gone. No explanation as to why, since he guided us here in the first place.

A few Blasphemy spells later, we are in a cell, captured by the gnolls and of course, without our gear. Forced to eat our own horses to survive and when that meat was gone, the maggots from the dead horse.

I was not present at the next sessions, but I was told they involved the amazing rules of starvation and eventual death.

I should not have only seen the red flag, but noticed Jaws way close to shore.

[Svata]

o_O


Remember, kids. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

[LTwerewolf]

Things.

That's not a killer dm, that's a dm that wants you inside your box like a good boy while he tells his story. And you better pay attention, there's a test.

[AlanBruce]

That's not a killer dm, that's a dm that wants you inside your box like a good boy while he tells his story. And you better pay attention, there's a test.

Something was tested, alright: my patience. I understand that NPCs sometimes tag along, usually as back up to the PCs, who are the stars of the story, but at level 4, there isn't much you can do against drow gishes who spam Flesh to Stone and kill efreets casually, not before blowing up an entire caravan.

Never mind saving against a mind flayer psion's Stun Cone... or whatever the trademark ability is called.

We new he was a harsh DM. a punishing one, from our experiences with him in 2 ed., but we thought- wrongly- that 3.0, being new to all, would be handled with a lot more care and less abuse.

Ignorance sure is Bliss. In this case, of the painful kind.

[Darth Ultron]

You have a very broad definition of bad player, DU. It really seems like a bad player is anyone who disagrees with you, or questions you in the slightest.

I don't have a problem with players that disagree or have questions any time except during the game. I do really hate when a player is full of secret haltered and hides it until a couple hours then decides to disrupt the game with it.

And just because we ''disagree'' does not mean I'll cave in if a player whines and cries, they can go one forever about how super cool a pixie character would be and I will still always say ''sorry, not in my game''.

Because respect means total acquiescence 100% of the time, and can never include any disagreement. Any kind of attempt at discussion or negotiation is only ever expressed as a cartoonish temper tantrum. Also, pigs can fly, and I am Elvis.

There is a time and place for disagreements, and it is not during the game. And if the player ''can't'' find the time to disagree any other time...well, guess it was not that important, right?

I Agree with JNA and TheIronGolem. This is pretty ridiculous.

On a side note, Darth, whats your opinion on Tome of battle ands its classes/manauvers system? Oh, and Kantana's.

Well, it is ridiculous...but I know most people do it. And sure most of the board would support a jerk player disrupting a game in protest as he can't use the Tome of Battle in the game. But, oddly, only because they support that book...they don't support the ''protest idea''. And if a player protested something they did not like or approve of they would have the same ''ridiculous' reaction...go figure.

Side note: I hate that book and everything in it. Kantana's are awesome....well except that first printing of OA that gives them the threat range of ''9-19'', I don't use that misprint in my games. And that is a typical ''sneaky jerk player move'' to write ''kantana'' on their dwarven cleric character sheet along with weapon focus (battle axe) from their domain that they ''exploit'' and apply to the kantana and then roll an 11 and are all like ''yes Critical Threat!''

Maybe, but according to him people are bad players if they disagree with the Dm's decision and that only good players agree with everything the Dm says. Thats a slight bit excessive don't you think?

To be fair, plenty of players disagree and act like mature adults about it, accept it and the game rolls on. A good player can disagree and not be a jerk and a bad player.

[weckar]

To be fair, some disagreements arise around situations that come up DURING the game. Do you expect them to sit on their hands until the situation has long passed?

[Barstro]

The phrase "Your character wouldn't do that!".

Massive alarm bells, and one of the few things I have left a game over: a DM telling me how I can and can't roleplay my character.

I couldn't disagree more. Granted, we are talking "red flags", not "run away", and the overuse and inappropriate use of the above is certainly horrible. However, I have found that players often have to be told when their character simply wouldn't take an action. Often it's because of the disparity between PC knowledge and Player knowledge.

P: "I cast _____ so the party can swim in the lava"
DM: "He wouldn't do that"
P: "Yes, he would. And it will work because ___"
DM: "Fine. Your PC casts the spell and jumps in the lava. He is now dead because the spell specifically states it doesn't work like that".

Actual conversation from a game of mine.


Now, if the DM is preventing you from throwing a tomato at a guard or stealing from a shop; sure, he's gone too far.

[weckar]

Wouldn't in the above scenario it be more appropriate to tell the player WHY they would not do something? Explaining the spell in question instead of simply saying they wouldn't?

[Barstro]

Wouldn't in the above scenario it be more appropriate to tell the player WHY they would not do something? Explaining the spell in question instead of simply saying they wouldn't?

Tried, argued, ignored.

The above is just a specific example, though. There are plenty of other times where a PC has knowledge that would prevent him from doing something. Much like I would never drink a tall glass of drain cleaner, a LG PC would never defecate on the alter of his LG god, despite what the player thinks should happen.