Red Flags for DMs?

[zergling.exe]

The PRD is maintained by Paizo and has pretty much only core stuff. the d20pfsrd is kept by independents and has pretty much everything, including 3rd party stuff.

Well Grod was referring to the one that has nearly everything so... I'm not really wrong?

[Wolfkingleo]

- Doesn´t know the rules, doesn't care as the story is more important.
- Too enamored with the Rule of Cool.
- Wants to use dramatic scenes similar to novels or movies.
- No grip how the game and challenges change past the low level range.
- Too much into the arms race to block character abilities and protect (d)npcs.

Are you from one of my tables? =p

EXACTLY THESE are the problems on it.

Cheers

[stack]

Note that the D20pfsrd, since it has a store affiliated with it (I think that's the reason, not a lawyer), has to remove setting specific stuff, so frequently has to rename regional and deity-specific things from Golarion.

The Archives of Nethys is another option to find things not on the PRD but maintaining setting specific names. Has some items that aren't on the PFSRD too. The interface and search functions...well, they exist.

[WarKitty]

So that you can pay Paizo's ridiculous prices?

Pathfinder also sells their stuff as PDF's. So you can legally own the Pathfinder Core Rulebook as a PDF for 10 bucks.

[Naez]

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
-Obsessed with immersion
-Language barriers
-Starting with ridiculously high stats
-Allows Massive LA Buyoffs
-Thinks the PCs don't matter
-Session long Player-NPC interaction sequences
-Retroactively changing rules.

[Sun Elemental]

Just to clear things up, what are the 'fumble' rules supposed to be, legally?
1 on an Attack, auto-miss with no other penalties.
1 on a Save, auto-fail the save but no other penalties.
1 on a Skill or Ability check, treat as a 1 and add your bonuses normally?
Have I got that right?

-E6

-Nerfing mundanes

A little contradictory there. E6 nerfs casters, comparatively speaking.

[Gildedragon]

Just to clear things up, what are the 'fumble' rules supposed to be, legally?
1 on an Attack, auto-miss with no other penalties.

Right

1 on a Save, auto-fail the save but no other penalties.

Wrong. Yes auto fail but also items may be harmed

1 on a Skill or Ability check, treat as a 1 and add your bonuses normally?

Yes

[martixy]

Just to clear things up, what are the 'fumble' rules supposed to be, legally?
1 on an Attack, auto-miss with no other penalties.
1 on a Save, auto-fail the save but no other penalties.
1 on a Skill or Ability check, treat as a 1 and add your bonuses normally?
Have I got that right?





A little contradictory there. E6 nerfs casters, comparatively speaking.

Fumbles are effects of natural ones in excess of simply missing your target or not making your save.

The problem with fumbles is that many people have no intuitive understanding of the rules of probability or empathy for the enjoyment of other people.

Hence, most fumbles introduced in a game are almost universally fun-sapping turds of rules.

[Naez]

Just to clear things up, what are the 'fumble' rules supposed to be, legally?
1 on an Attack, auto-miss with no other penalties.
1 on a Save, auto-fail the save but no other penalties.
1 on a Skill or Ability check, treat as a 1 and add your bonuses normally?
Have I got that right?





A little contradictory there. E6 nerfs casters, comparatively speaking.

I never said they weren't contradictory. It's a compilation of all the complaints. It would make sense some people disagreed with eachother.

[Barstro]

1 on a Save, auto-fail...

This is an issue I have with many DMs; wanting save or skill checks when failure isn't even a possibility. (Or when success isn't a possibility, but that's normally a player whining because he wants a natural 20 to critically hit the moon with a marshmallow)

[Seerow]

This is an issue I have with many DMs; wanting save or skill checks when failure isn't even a possibility. (Or when success isn't a possibility, but that's normally a player whining because he wants a natural 20 to critically hit the moon with a marshmallow)

Any time I run into a DM who wants to do critical success/failures on skill checks, my immediate response is to start hopping up and down in character waiting for the natural 20 to jump to the moon.

[Waker]

2. Banning ToB/Incarnum/Subsystems for non-flavor reasons. I don't mind banning subsystems that don't fit into the world, but as mentioned if it's because people are too lazy/think things are OP I find it ridiculous.

For me the Red Flag is actually the opposite. I can understand a DM's reticence in learning a new system, not only the basic mechanics but familiarizing themselves with all the maneuvers, soulmelds and so on. What does bother me is when DMs ban material solely on the basis of fluff. If I tried to pass off Incarnum as just another form of Divine Magic (which is kinda is, since it is strictly about manipulating soul stuff), then why shouldn't it be playable? Could a lay person in game really look at the effects of a Wizard and Psion and say, "Clearly these are two completely different forms of universe-bending abilities."
Mainly the gripe is that D&D is a game where players and DMs get together and state this is how something is. Just because something is written in a book doesn't somehow make it immutable and sacred. If you decide that Catfolk all look like characters from Thundercats, more power to you. At your table Orcus speaks with a Russian accent, fine by me. Just because you alter the narrative a bit doesn't mean that Gygax is going to leap from his grave and inflict an XP penalty on you. Anything that isn't strictly mechanics should be something a good DM and player can talk about to make everyone happy.

[Zanos]

Could a lay person in game really look at the effects of a Wizard and Psion and say, "Clearly these are two completely different forms of universe-bending abilities."

They probably can. Wizard's reach into their magic pocket for a handful of dung, say some magic words, wave their hands around, and magic happens. Psionics fill the area with weird smells, rave strobes, bizarre noises, and "ectoplasmic seepage" if they don't suppress their displays. And that's before the actual power even happens.

Anything that isn't strictly mechanics should be something a good DM and player can talk about to make everyone happy.

Serious question, why does this stop at mechanics for you?

[Firechanter]

Anecdote time.

This is an issue I have with many DMs; wanting save or skill checks when failure isn't even a possibility. (Or when success isn't a possibility, but that's normally a player whining because he wants a natural 20 to critically hit the moon with a marshmallow)

Well, in 3E, Saves do Auto-Fail or -Pass on Nat 1s or 20s. It may be annoying but well, such are the rules.
However, in 5E, Saves _don't_ have this specialty by the book. So when I played a 5E Paladin, of course I tried to boost by Con save to auto-pass the typical DC10 Concentration check (which you have to do every time you have a spell running and take damage, so for Paladins, that's _all the friggin time_), eventually investing a precious Feat [Resilient Con] into it... and as soon as I was there, the DM immediately houseruled Saves to Auto-Fail on a 1. Imagine my disappointment. -.- But I just swallowed that toad and kept on trucking.

Happened to be my last game with this DM, though. It's not like this event had been the last straw; the game continued for a few more months after that, but with increasingly frequent moments of frustration for me. In hindsight, this spontaneous houserule indeed was a Red Flag - one that pointed out that our preferences and expectations in and of RPGs had developed in different directions over time. Only I refused to acknowledge that at the time.

[Doctor Awkward]

Fumbles are effects of natural ones in excess of simply missing your target or not making your save.

The problem with fumbles is that many people have no intuitive understanding of the rules of probability or empathy for the enjoyment of other people.

Hence, most fumbles introduced in a game are almost universally fun-sapping turds of rules.

To be a bit more specific, the problems with fumble rules can stem from the implementation of them and also their effects.

For starters, nearly every table I have played at that used a fumble chart ignored one critical component of D&D: You roll a second time to confirm critical hits. But instead of rolling a second time a Natural 1 shows up to see if you again miss your target (thus making it either a miss or a fumble), the DM simply busts out the fumble chart with glee to see what horrid thing happens to you.

The second part is the horrible thing that happens to you.

If you actually sit down to parse out the math you'll find that critical hits in general are heavily skewed against the players. For instance, if you have a team of four 1st level fighters fighting against a team of eight goblins, the fighters have a four in twenty chance of rolling a critical hit each round, while the goblins have an eight in twenty chance. Over the course of a campaign, the odds of critical hits are almost always in favor of the monsters simply because there's more of them.

However, the end result of the players winning a fight is that the monsters are dead. So while negative effects from critical fumble charts don't matter to them (on account of being dead), the penalties to the player characters keep piling up. It becomes especially problematic with the worst of all fumble charts; the ones with permanent penalties applied to a character (losing an eye or whatever).

In general they are just aren't a good idea.

[Waker]

They probably can. Wizard's reach into their magic pocket for a handful of dung, say some magic words, wave their hands around, and magic happens. Psionics fill the area with weird smells, rave strobes, bizarre noises, and "ectoplasmic seepage" if they don't suppress their displays. And that's before the actual power even happens.

Ok, what about if the Wizard had Eschew Materials and Still Spell? My point is that the fluff and mechanical differences between the magic systems can be jarring.
Think of it like this. The Wizard who studies arcane lore, the Sorcerer who is inherently magical because of his bloodline, the Bard who plays music, the Cleric who devotes themselves to their deity and the Druid who communes with nature all follow the same rules for magic (barring small differences like armor interfering with spells and other quirks) and even share many of the same spells. But why? These are all radically different fluff reasons for being able to utilize magic, but we accept them as being the same since they all come from the PHB and use the Vancian system. Then a player comes along with a Psion, Binder, Incarnate or something else and DMs recoil because these new classes are weird and don't fit the setting. Mechanically I understand the differences between all of them, within the confines of the story though why couldn't Psionics just be viewed as another flavor of mages?

Serious question, why does this stop at mechanics for you?

It doesn't actually. I frequently support houseruling and homebrewing in order to patch over and improve aspects of the game. Fluff aspects of the game are simply easier to change since they are strictly confined to the narrative aspect of the game. Altering mechanics requires a degree of system mastery so that you can understand the impact the change will have on the rest of the game.

[danielxcutter]

Just because you alter the narrative a bit doesn't mean that Gygax is going to leap from his grave and inflict an XP penalty on you.

I'm seriously considering making an extended signature just to sig that.

[Blu]

Other two issues i see with fumbles are on they normally work.

One is because most of the time, only mundane characters, that rely on physical attacks get screwed by it.
"If i roll a 1 on a spell with attack roll that is a fumble? Okay, i just drop cloudkill."

Two is because they don't fit with anything resembling serious narrative. Because they simply put imcopetence on the character, sure a nat 1 is always a miss is already a fair enough penalty, luck can be a thing.
But if your lvl 10, old veteran, slips on his feet on a 1 or hits a friendly he wouldn't live that long.

[weckar]

- low Point Buy, or rolling stats

Funny, I find point buy a red flag. Roll or nothing.

[Gildedragon]

Funny, I find point buy a red flag. Roll or nothing.

This is interesting. Why does PB make you wary of a DM?

[weckar]

This is interesting. Why does PB make you wary of a DM?

Bad experiences, mostly. I've come to equate PB with DMs who encourage rollplaying over roleplaying, and mostly DMs who assume characters have no inherent weak spots or talents.

In fact, my favorite DM has always gone with "4d6b3 assign" OR "5d6b3 in order", at the player's individual choice.

[Zanos]

Bad experiences, mostly. I've come to equate PB with DMs who encourage rollplaying over roleplaying, and mostly DMs who assume characters have no inherent weak spots or talents.

It's amusingly ironic that you associate the method where one actually rolls for stats with role playing, and the method where you do not roll with rollplaying.

[ross]

Fumbles are effects of natural ones in excess of simply missing your target or not making your save.

The problem with fumbles is that many people have no intuitive understanding of the rules of probability or empathy for the enjoyment of other people.

Hence, most fumbles introduced in a game are almost universally fun-sapping turds of rules.

I don't get this. When we fumble, our suggestions for what should happen to our own characters are usually way worse than what the GM ends up deciding. Maybe they hate fun or something.

[weckar]

I'd never thought about it that way, but yeah - I guess I do... I kind of dislike the term rollplaying (because most 'rollplayers' avoid random chance as much as they can) but it makes for such a nice juxtaposing term.

[atemu1234]

Y'know when I made these threads I thought it was because bringing up one would invariably lead to the creation of the other. I never thought the two's topics would basically converge.

[Blu]

Funny, I find point buy a red flag. Roll or nothing.

Well, for me, rolling is not exactly a red flag, but it sure can mean i don't get to play what i want.
Wanting to play a charismatic, yet competent in combat pally? No, cause i rolled one 18 and the rest 10's, guess ill play a wiz then.

My point is, it hurts characters that are MAD much more than SAD. Only a 16 and the rest are 10's? Well my wiz can live with it. Now for martial characters, that will be much more harder to cope with.
Rolling atributes can simply negate you to play the role or character that you want, so i consider it, generally a bad choice.

Just to add some more: When you roll, most of the times there will be a guy in your group who's highest stat is a 14, and the rest are all 12'ish while there is the dude who rolled 16 for his lowest.

[weckar]

Rolling atributes can simply negate you to play the role or character that you want, so i consider it, generally a bad choice.

In essence I agree. In practice I find players stick to theit comfort zone if not incentivised to play different things. Rolling stats, especially in order, is a good way to do that. Buuuut derailing...

[Sun Elemental]

I don't get this. When we fumble, our suggestions for what should happen to our own characters are usually way worse than what the GM ends up deciding. Maybe they hate fun or something.

Exactly. I asked what the official fumble rules because I legit didn't know... because in my last game, the players actually suggested comical yet horrible things for themselves rolling natural 1's. And when I mentioned aloud every time an NPC got a 1, you know they jumped on that.
Although it was a non-lethal, high wish fulfillment kinda game, so weren't actually sabotaging themselves.

I'm too risk-adverse to ever do 4d6 in order as a player. Most of my characters still have a 7 or two in point buy, because I gotta get that sweet 18 or 20.
I'd allow it as a DM, if the players promised to not kvetch about someone being luckier than them.

Bottom line: let the players pick point buy or roll, it makes them happy and you can scale difficulty up/down very easily.

[Firechanter]

In essence I agree. In practice I find players stick to theit comfort zone if not incentivised to play different things. Rolling stats, especially in order, is a good way to do that. Buuuut derailing...

And if, so? What's wrong with players spending their spare time in their comfort zone? I really don't get this argument. Typically everyone is adult. We don't need to be educated, and we are able to decide for ourselves what works best for us.

[Dragonexx]

In essence I agree. In practice I find players stick to theit comfort zone if not incentivised to play different things. Rolling stats, especially in order, is a good way to do that. Buuuut derailing...

Honestly, at that point you'd probably be better just letting them pick any number between 3-18 for their starting attibutes instead of rolling or point buy.