Red Flags for DMs?

[Naez]

Bases their campaign on a video game. (Inherently one player experiences that often rely on mechanics missing in the dnd system such as jump attacks)

Doesn't tailor encounters to the party, making every fight either ridiculously hard or laughably easy.

[martixy]

Oh, this. I once had a DM (who was admittedly new to DMing) who threw an Allip at us when only one person was lvl 3(thank god it was the sorcerer) and the rest were lvl 1 - 2 (cue my lvl1 bard dying)

See, red flag here is not throwing allips at you. Those can be dealt with by playing intelligently.
It's the level disparity.

[Rynjin]

Bases their campaign on a video game.

I'm playing in a 5e game based on Icewind Dale 2 that's pretty good, though I agree that trying to base a campaign around video game MECHANICS probably ain't gonna go well.

[theasl]

"I've been playing D&D since first edition, and honestly, Pathfinder is just the best one they've put out so far."

I mean, they aren't even made by the same people...

Bases their campaign on a video game. (Inherently one player experiences that often rely on mechanics missing in the dnd system such as jump attacks)

My first ever campaign was based on Baldur's Gate; it worked quite well too. (My second one from the same DM was also based on another CRPG, though he never told me which one because I bought Baldur's Gate by like the third session and beat it pretty quickly on my own )

[Cosi]

1.) An Evil alignment.

2.) A jackass.

Why people always assume #1 is the problem is beyond me.

If you could know in advance who was a jackass, you wouldn't need red flags.

So if I only use Necromancy to turn Evil people into mindless zombies, is it Good?

Personally, I don't think the game ever makes a compelling case for why making a mindless zombie is evil but making a mindless robot (with e.g. animate objects) is good. FFS, there are good undead (or undead-ish) critters out there, so I think animate dead getting the [Evil] tag is something that should probably be ignored in any normative discussion of game morality.

But I do get the point you're making -- that the action itself might have moral weight independent of whoever it's being done to. That's potentially true, but I don't think the game description really supports it. Does using divine magic "without praying to or worshiping a god" sound inherently evil? It's not clear to me that their power draining plan is terribly different from a normal Cleric, except instead of doing their gods bidding, they do their own stuff, which sounds pretty neutral to me.

Being evil isn't the same thing as being stupid, though, to be fair, a lot of players don't realize that. An evil character is entirely capable of acting in a noble or heroic way for an extended period of time, as long as it ultimately serves his own interests.

The guy who goes along with the heroes because it helps him out rather than because it's the "right thing to do" is a character concept that is very much compatible with almost any adventuring party. In fact, that's just Han Solo. But that's not really evil so much as just ... kind of a jerk maybe.

[zergling.exe]

A lot has already been said, but for me the three worst (not counting "Guys I am actually introducing to RPG for the first time" and similar, mind!)

1.: Not reading the necessary Info material (ergo the part in the rulebook about their class/Style/Type, depending on System, and the basic Rules

2.: Submitting cheating Characters when I KNOW they can build them right/defending their "wrong" rUle usage

3.: Wanting to play things I explicitely mentioned as having no place in the campaign BEFOREHAND.

These actually belong in the other thread (and those ones in this thread).

[Naez]

I'm playing in a 5e game based on Icewind Dale 2 that's pretty good, though I agree that trying to base a campaign around video game MECHANICS probably ain't gonna go well.

I mean, they aren't even made by the same people...



My first ever campaign was based on Baldur's Gate; it worked quite well too. (My second one from the same DM was also based on another CRPG, though he never told me which one because I bought Baldur's Gate by like the third session and beat it pretty quickly on my own )

I hope you both realize those games were in turn based on DND. Which means it was already highly compatible with the system.

[Rynjin]

I hope you both realize those games were in turn based on DND. Which means it was already highly compatible with the system.

Yes, but the plots are no more or less compatible than any other game.

If I run a D&D game based on Final Fantasy VI, the only problem is going to be trying to enforce Final Fantasy gameplay mechanics, rather than plot. Is my point.

Hell, that problem could still crop up with Icewind Dale if handled badly. 2e and 5e are VEEEERY different games.

[theasl]

If you have a DM trying to include core gameplay mechanics from video games instead of only plot into a 3.P game, then you're right, it's a giant red flag, and for me heck no I'm out of there. Otherwise it's actually quite awesome.

[Cisturn]

Red Flags:

Every NPC you run into is stupidly powerful and stronger than you.

Conversely: every NPC acts like an idiot.

Every combat ends with PC deaths. Adventuring should be dangerous, but damn when I need to roll three guys to through one combat, the game isn't really fun anymore.

DM becomes vindictive when things don't go their way.

The DM would rather tell a story than run a game.

Thoughts on evil characters:

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about evil PCs. But there's something strange happening. The argument seems to be if you should be allowed to play a mustache-twirling "mwahaha" type character that clearly wants to betray the party at first convenience.

I think that that's pretty severely underselling evil characters. You can play a character that's selfish, amoral, prideful, wrathful, etc. without slipping into Saturday Morning Cartoon/Hannibal Lecter territory. You could also still be loyal, trustworthy, kind to NPCs and the party while still being completely evil.

You could be a charming government agent that believes the ends, even if unsavory, justifies the means. You could be a soldier that's lost too many people and now only lives to hunt down as many enemies as he can find. You could even be a dark knight that gave up on honor a long time ago but still doesn't want to see the entire world go up in the smoke if the real bad guy gets his way.

Evil characters are just as variable as good and neutral characters. While I may not want a clearly psychopathic Chaotic Evil that eats people in the party, a character with some depth and rationale for their behavior I think would be absolutely fine.

[GrayDeath]

These actually belong in the other thread (and those ones in this thread).

orry, the offtopic discussions hid that this was meant to be a "What things that DM`s do are BAD",

the title implies Red Flags FOR DM`s, which is what I went for.

Sorry. ;)

[An Enemy Spy]

The problem with Evil characters, along with Chaotic Neutral ones, are that they tend to attract the kinds of players who want to disrupt the game and make everything all about them. I once GMed a free-form game where the very first thing one player did was have his character stab another player's guy in the eye, because 'lol I'm so random!'. Pissed everyone off and the game ended very fast.

[theasl]

That's a problem with the players not understanding alignment rather than alignments themselves. CN is perhaps the classic adventurer alignment: they don't care what anyone thinks, they're just in it for the loot.

[Lazymancer]

The problem with Evil characters, along with Chaotic Neutral ones, are that they tend to attract the kinds of players who want to disrupt the game and make everything all about them.

Yeah. Some don't even try to stop yawning only after ten minutes of exposition. Who do they think they are?

I once GMed a free-form game where the very first thing one player did was have his character stab another player's guy in the eye, because 'lol I'm so random!'. Pissed everyone off and the game ended very fast.

If only he played LG Paladin and stabbed him For Justice, that would've made everything okay.

[Baby Gary]

this is a big red flag for me.

Just imagine that you are fighting a dragon in an ancient crypt and you are a wizard and are out of spells and at low hp so you are hiding behind a pillar while the fighter is hitting the dragon.

While that is happening (this of out of game btw) you and the DM are having an argument. but this happens--(back in play) the dragon hit you with their breath attack, even though you are out of the range and even though you got high enough on the save to only take half damage you still fail; and then (you were on low hp, remember?) then you die.

this is a dramatization, but you know what I mean.

[unseenmage]

Bans too much.

Doesn't ban enough.

Uses rule zero without realizing theyre using rule zero.
For example, the NPCs always see through bluffs and disguises just because theyre that badass.

[Baby Gary]

what is rule zero?

[WarKitty]

what is rule zero?

Rule zero is "the DM is always right."

Used judiciously, can save a game. Overused, can ruin it.

[An Enemy Spy]

Yeah. Some don't even try to stop yawning only after ten minutes of exposition. Who do they think they are?


If only he played LG Paladin and stabbed him For Justice, that would've made everything okay.

Can I get some fries with all that salt?

Who's giving ten minute long exposition? Am I? I never said anything about exposition. You're just making things up to be a smartass. And anyway, I never said Evil characters are actually bad, just that that tend to appeal to players who are jerks. Probably ones like you, which explains why you're so defensive over it.

[Quertus]

Well, I lost my original reply, because the site decided that this thread didn't exist anymore.

I break it down into 3 categories: inexperienced DM, bad DM, and incompatible DM.

Inexperienced
- low magic (this one is such a common noob mistake, it really deserves to be listed first).
- otherwise changing the rules without understanding the larger ramifications to balance / the game / world at large.
- banning monk or ToB because it's too OP.
- banning most anything, really, without a really compelling reason (hint: most reasons aren't good).
- core only, for balance reasons.
- doesn't understand the rules (say, allows metamagics to be applied to all spells for free).

Bad
- any of the above, coupled with no desire to evaluate, or no ability to improve, their performance.
- strong favoritism.
- spite (often the flip side of favoritism).
- changes the rules with a coat lack of desire to understand them first.
- changes the rules mid-game.
- has tables of how each alignment (or alignment x race x gender) responds to any given situation; not acting accordance with their tables is "bad role-playing".
- Amy other moronic views on role-playing.

Incompatible
- tailors encounters to the party.
- narrativist "things happen at the dramatically appropriate time / in the most dramatically appropriate way".
- initiative by who talks first.
- cares about alignment.
- level 0.
- the DM built all the characters

Ok, I suppose I'd accept that last one if balance was a huge issue, other solutions had been tried, and the DM got my buy-in first.

I'm sure there's more that ought to make my list.

[Baby Gary]

what's the problem with tailoring the adventure to the party, (this is in the clasic 4 player party btw) if you have a rouge that deals all its damage in sneak attacks and the campaign is about fighting a lot of elemental then you as the DM might want to rethink that before the campaign really gets underway, like changing it in the first 4ish hours.

[JNAProductions]

what's the problem with tailoring the adventure to the party, (this is in the clasic 4 player party btw) if you have a rouge that deals all its damage in sneak attacks and the campaign is about fighting a lot of elemental then you as the DM might want to rethink that before the campaign really gets underway, like changing it in the first 4ish hours.

That was under Incompatible. So they're not saying it's inherently bad DMing-it's just not to their taste.

In other words, no problem at all, except for personal taste.

[Darth Ultron]

*"I run a Low Magic World'' is a huge Red flag for me, even more so as it just about always means ''a low magic world for just the players '' and nothing else in the game changes. This gets really bad in games like 3X after 5th level or so when you start running into foes will all sorts of defenses and damage reduction and your group only has one magic weapon and like three spells.

*Everything is ok to use'' Everything? There is a lot of crazy, broken stuff in that everything...really you have to just ban some stuff or at least fix it.

*All characters must gestalt with a class X'' I'm just not a fan of the DM forcing players to take or do things in character creation.

*Any time the DM is overly obsessed with some fiction(a book, movie or TV show) that they mention it several times in a couple minutes. Amazingly, during the game, the DM will try and make the game ''just like that fiction'' and will get very mad, at least, if the players don't follow the fiction.

*''The rules don't matter lets just play!'' One of the worst ones as the rules do matter....

My big number one:

*"I'm working on my own game system/have my own game system'' sigh, just no. I don't want to hear about it.

[Blu]

-How he uses Rule 0.
DM: That guy had a magical aura that caused fear.
Me: Then why roll a Sense motive instead of a Will save?
DM: Because i wanted it.

Using Rule 0 is ok if you are using to increase the fun or have a good explanation on why. Changing things without significant reason is a red flag

-Low magic in a hypocritical way
It's okay to have Low magic, it's not okay when most of the bad guys are Wizards/other casters/magical thingys and such or there are a ton of caster NPC's.
In another way, it's also not okay to limit magical loot, but the party has a wizard or cleric that now doesn't have to even think to overshadow others.

-"Too much class features"
DM just looked at the class table and immediately said "No". The reason: too much class features, not even kidding he didn't even bother to read them or understand what they did.

-"Since your character is like that"
DM's that don't understand or even bother to understand character concepts and motivations. Recently i had a DM who didn't even read my character background, despite me explaining the character concept and backgroung, alongside some of it's flaws for him.
These can be a huge red flag of the DM caring more for telling a history than running a game, or simply not caring at all.

On the subject of Evil allignment.
I normally as DM see the allignment only as the tendency of your character. Just because you are Evil, doesn't mean you don't have friends and can only murder for a living. Give options, most of the time your character would probably choose the Evil one, but not always.
Also, Evil allignment is not an excuse for trolling/murdering/robbing PC's unless that is the theme of the campaign.

[Blu]

*''The rules don't matter lets just play!'' One of the worst ones as the rules do matter....

For that DM you say: "Wrong system mate."
I mean, there are a ton of system and such that favor light mechanics and math. If someone wants to play D&D and ignore those, the person is just too lazy to learn a system.

[WarKitty]

For all my griping though, I understand DM's who don't allow homebrew. As a DM I allow very little of it - really only when it's something fairly basic that can be added without fundamentally changing anything.

[Blu]

For all my griping though, I understand DM's who don't allow homebrew. As a DM I allow very little of it - really only when it's something fairly basic that can be added without fundamentally changing anything.

Well, your idea of it is good. If the DM is not comfortable with it, it's okay to say no.

I usually see on a lot of new DM's that they whant to make homebrew straight away

[Red Fel]

The problem with Evil characters, along with Chaotic Neutral ones, are that they tend to attract the kinds of players who want to disrupt the game and make everything all about them. I once GMed a free-form game where the very first thing one player did was have his character stab another player's guy in the eye, because 'lol I'm so random!'. Pissed everyone off and the game ended very fast.

I think you have your causation backwards. It's a bit more accurate to say that jerks are attracted to Evil (or CN) characters, and that this is a problem of them being jerks, than to say that it's a problem inherent to Evil (or CN) characters.

And anyway, I never said Evil characters are actually bad, just that that tend to appeal to players who are jerks. Probably ones like you, which explains why you're so defensive over it.

Because you're implying that this is a flaw in Evil characters, as opposed to a flaw in the players. And by extension, you're implying that if you play an Evil character, you must be one of those jerks. You could say the same thing about any character concept that clashes with the party, such as a Paladin, a Necromancer, a character with Vow of Peace, or a Kender.

I play Evil characters. Venite ad me, Frater.

[Cosi]

I think you have your causation backwards. It's a bit more accurate to say that jerks are attracted to Evil (or CN) characters, and that this is a problem of them being jerks, than to say that it's a problem inherent to Evil (or CN) characters.

Again, if you could know in advance which players were jerks, you wouldn't need red flags.

[Remuko]

I think you have your causation backwards. It's a bit more accurate to say that jerks are attracted to Evil (or CN) characters, and that this is a problem of them being jerks, than to say that it's a problem inherent to Evil (or CN) characters.



Because you're implying that this is a flaw in Evil characters, as opposed to a flaw in the players. And by extension, you're implying that if you play an Evil character, you must be one of those jerks. You could say the same thing about any character concept that clashes with the party, such as a Paladin, a Necromancer, a character with Vow of Peace, or a Kender.

I play Evil characters. Venite ad me, Frater.

Did, did you just say "come at me bro" in latin? That's amazing xD