What to Watch Out for in Your Players

[Liquor Box]

Honestly, no. Because how would a game world like that look with no reference to that at all? "The King and his Q... oh, sorry, almost would've mentioned a romantic pairing there" just doesn't work. Now, sexuality is not a part that needs to be explored in any kind of depth and that's fine, but to remove the sheer mention of it from the game at all would simply castrate the types of stories to be told in the vast majority of settings to such a degree I'd find it ridiculous.

If someone came to me asking me for that, I'd recommend him to find a group playing a purely action-focused dungeon crawler campaign or something like that, because I feel as soon as social interaction within a plausible greater game world is concerned, the simple mentioning of sexuality and romance is kind of a given.

Ah, apologies, I may not have been very clear, but I thought we were talking about player characters.

I completely accept that it would be odd if there were no reference to any romantic/sexual connections of any kind in the game world - a person could not have a mother and a father.

Would you mind considering the question again - a player or the GM says "I prefer a game where we don't explore sexual preferences at all, because I prefer to avoid arguments that sometimes surround those issues, therefore lets keep the question of whether our characters are gay or straight in our own heads, and not introduce any story elements that require us to explore sexuality"? This time though on the understanding that the reference is only to the player character you are creating.

let's assume that as a player you wouldn't know much about the game world, although you might expect to see NPC couples in it (so some evidence of romantic relationships), you wouldn't know whether there happens to be gay NPC couples or not, but you wouldn't expect an NPC's sexuality to played up in any way (whether gay or not) because presumably the a similar request has been made of the GM as was made to you.

How would you approach that scenario?

[Delta]

I'm not sure how I would handle that scenario. Honestly, I probably would have a hard time accepting that because "to avoid arguments" when there clearly are none is not a motivation I can really get behind, and the only arguments I could imagine arising from just mentioning a characters sexuality are the ones we have been talking about here, and since those are ones where I'd feel comfortable to make a stand and say "No, I don't want to compromise on that" I'd feel hard pressed to think of a reason.

To be honest, this whole issue is mostly academic to me anyway, since I've never had a group even remotely as opposed to the issue of sexuality in pen & paper as seem to be rather standard for a lot of people here, I guess this is kind of a cultural issue too.

[Mordaedil]

Ever hear of conventions? Or pick up games? How about if it isn't even a player or gm making the rule but the parents or other family of the host? Or maybe the game has kids in it. Sex talk in that situation could theoretically get you arrested in that point or even sued.

Yeah, no sex talk at all has many applications other than what you consider bigotry.

Conventions and pick-up games also have people that behave in undesirable ways, you have to contend with people being *******s in any situation if you attend a table like that. If you have kids at the table and two players are being extremely crass, you pull them aside and ask them what the **** is wrong with them and tell them to tone **** down.

Though I will say, lawsuit and arrest are unlikely outcomes in both of those situations too. You might at worst get a stern warning and talking to. I've certainly never heard of anyone issuing a lawsuit over a game, that's ridiculous.

[Satinavian]

I'm not sure how I would handle that scenario. Honestly, I probably would have a hard time accepting that because "to avoid arguments" when there clearly are none is not a motivation I can really get behind, and the only arguments I could imagine arising from just mentioning a characters sexuality are the ones we have been talking about here, and since those are ones where I'd feel comfortable to make a stand and say "No, I don't want to compromise on that" I'd feel hard pressed to think of a reason.

IME the main reason for rules of never doing anything related to character sexuality are idiots who mingle it with player sexuality and try to hit on other gamers via character. It is not that uncommon a request to forbid anything that might be unwelcome sexual attention or harassment done under the pretense of it being "only in game".

It is not an issue i encountered in any long standing group (there were only instances of players flirting with each other willingly and the rest of the table being annoyed for the waste of time), but there have been problems at conventions.

[Quertus]

IME the main reason for rules of never doing anything related to character sexuality are idiots who mingle it with player sexuality and try to hit on other gamers via character. It is not that uncommon a request to forbid anything that might be unwelcome sexual attention or harassment done under the pretense of it being "only in game".

It is not an issue i encountered in any long standing group (there were only instances of players flirting with each other willingly and the rest of the table being annoyed for the waste of time), but there have been problems at conventions.

On an almost completely unrelated note, I gamed with a guy who, um, played a cultist of Slanesh terrifyingly well. But he kept his creep limited to NPCs (and the table was all adults), so it wasn't an issue.

My point being, I agree that harassment of the other players is a bigger issue.

Perhaps we can describe it as a hierarchy? PC on PC (on PC...) at the top, then PC on NPC, then NPC on NPC?

Hmmm... That isn't quite right. Because GM initiated unwanted actions are at least as potentially troublesome as PC on PC.

And direct player on player interactions are a thing, too - from players who have issues with pda, to flirtation / creeping.

Maybe it's not simple enough to describe as a simple hierarchy, to list your group's acceptance level on various topics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the "sexual interactions" topic:

My rule as DM is that there will be no explicit sexual activity described. Saying "I flirt with X" is fine, as long as X is an NPC or a PC whose player is OK with that. Anything further or more detailed will get a fade-to-black.

Same goes for explicit violence and gore. You can torture that cultist to death. But we'll not describe it, simply say "you brutally torture the fellow until he dies" and move on.

Most of this is because I play with teenagers in a school setting, and so have to keep it clean. Plenty of innuendo--one particularly icky villain was trying to breed/create (using foul magics) a harem of dragon-human hybrids and thought that the PCs would make good subjects. The group (of two girls) found that it added to the incentive to obliterate him without mercy.

[Delta]

IME the main reason for rules of never doing anything related to character sexuality are idiots who mingle it with player sexuality and try to hit on other gamers via character. It is not that uncommon a request to forbid anything that might be unwelcome sexual attention or harassment done under the pretense of it being "only in game".

Yeah, but I feel like there's a big difference between that and not mentioning a PCs sexuality at all to the level being discussed here (as in, more sanitized than your average childrens fairy tale story).

I'm honestly trying to think of a scenario where I find it reasonable to ban that to such a degree. On the danger of repeating myself, but the example I posted a couple pages earlier sums it up quite well I think

Charles the Cleric: "If we ever defeat Larry the Lich, if we get out of all of this alive, what do you want to do with your life?"
William the Warrior: "I go back home, rebuild my families castle, find a nice guy to settle down with and take care of my dead sisters kids"

I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario I'd accept where a dialogue like this would be considered inappropriate. If I encountered a group where everyone would be "No, that's too much sexual content!" I'd be really weirded out and pass on the group, and I don't think I'd want to accomodate a player in one of my groups asking for it because that would set a very weird precedent.

[Satinavian]

I'm honestly trying to think of a scenario where I find it reasonable to ban that to such a degree. On the danger of repeating myself, but the example I posted a couple pages earlier sums it up quite well I think

I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario I'd accept where a dialogue like this would be considered inappropriate. If I encountered a group where everyone would be "No, that's too much sexual content!" I'd be really weirded out and pass on the group, and I don't think I'd want to accomodate a player in one of my groups asking for it because that would set a very weird precedent.

Mostly such a blanket ban could happen when a more nuanced version didn't work and you got several arguments about what kind of thing already went to far and what didn't. I could see myself agreeing to that to put the topic to rest but players where such a measure is necessary would not really be something i would really like in the group.

[Quertus]

Mostly such a blanket ban could happen when a more nuanced version didn't work and you got several arguments about what kind of thing already went to far and what didn't. I could see myself agreeing to that to put the topic to rest but players where such a measure is necessary would not really be something i would really like in the group.

I once again purpose a world without gender.

And ask whether that would be offensive to those for whom gender is a huge portion of their identity.

[2D8HP]

....a player or the GM says "I prefer a game where we don't explore sexual preferences at all, because I prefer to avoid arguments that sometimes surround those issues, therefore lets keep the question of whether our characters are gay or straight in our own heads, and not introduce any story elements that require us to explore sexuality"? This time though on the understanding that the reference is only to the player character you are creating.

let's assume that as a player you wouldn't know much about the game world, although you might expect to see NPC couples in it (so some evidence of romantic relationships), you wouldn't know whether there happens to be gay NPC couples or not, but you wouldn't expect an NPC's sexuality to played up in any way (whether gay or not) because presumably the a similar request has been made of the GM as was made to you.

How would you approach that scenario?

What a long question!

I can think of precisely one time where "sexual content" may have made me walk out of a game:

Late '80's co DM's, he was speaking when she went behind me and placed a "bedroom toy" on my shoulder and then laughed.

These were also the DM's who had asked if I wanted "to meet our new ferret", and since a friend I previously knew had of a couple of ferrets as pets (hers just seemed mostly like cats) I said yes. Almost immediately the beast bit hard on my fortunately thick leather boot (with my foot in it!) and I had to kick it off!

I don't remember which of those incidents was first, but one of them was the dealbreaker and I didn't play D&D again for decades afterwards.

Anyway Liquor Box, if someone asked "please keep sex talk down" that seems fine to me (I don't actually remember much in any game that I've played, and most of the D&D I've run have been traditional dungeon crawls), I make a similar "no torture talk" request.

If however someone says "I don't want any gay stuff" that is a red flag because the last guy I heard say that was a City and County of San Francisco co-worker who seemed like a psychopath to me and, while I'm not gay so I'm not their target, most people who I've heared voice anti-gay sentiments have been jerks in other ways as well so I'm prejudiced against them.

When I think about it the folks that I've known to be "out" have actually seemed to have slightly less of a percentage of jerks then everyone else, so I suppose that based on that I should be prejudiced in their favor, which didn't occur to me until I thought about it just now.

Wow making broad generalizations about people is fun! (Okay maybe that has more to do with what a person acts like effecting how likely I'm going to know them well enough to learn such a detail about their private life, but where's the sport?)

Alight so how many games have I played that have had "out" characters?

Let me count...

.....that would be none.

How many tables have I played at where someone has said anti-gay comments?

I calculated that as...

....none.

Have I played with anti-gay bigots?

Maybe.

I really don't know.

Have I played any RPG's with someone who I know was gay?

I calculated that at...

...one person, and now I can make a broad generalization, hooray for me!

When I was eleven years old a classmate invited me to play D&D at his house where the DM was his older brother and the other players (besides me and my classmate) were three teenagers, and except for the DM the teenagers were jerks.

As we grew up we became friends and they stopped seeming like jerks.

One of them eventually "came out", and he was the only one to apologize for being a jerk years earlier.

So based on that...

...yeah even I can't extrapolate anything.

Any ideas?

Oh wait!

Based on my experience, don't play D&D with heterosexual couples that own ferrets.

-Your welcome.

[Segev]

I once again purpose a world without gender.

And ask whether that would be offensive to those for whom gender is a huge portion of their identity.

I think the big problem you'd run into here is that people would accuse your world of having only men.

[Delta]

Mostly such a blanket ban could happen when a more nuanced version didn't work and you got several arguments about what kind of thing already went to far and what didn't. I could see myself agreeing to that to put the topic to rest but players where such a measure is necessary would not really be something i would really like in the group.

That's exactly what I mean, in a vacuum, it doesn't sound like a completely unreasonable request, I just can't think of a plausible scenario where it would ever come up where I would agree to it. Honestly, a group that needs such strict rules to function does not sound like a group I'd want to play with at all.

[Lord Raziere]

I think the big problem you'd run into here is that people would accuse your world of having only men.

Which is also biologically wrong.

a parthenogenetic species would be female like whiptail lizards. Every child would be a clone of their parents. Disease would be civilizations greatest threat due to lack of genetic diversity, so everyone would be neat freaks if the civilization survives long enough to figure out hygiene, there would erroneous beliefs that because someone is a clone of their parent that they want to do the same things as them. not only would they be obsessed with cleanliness more than us, they'd have a rigid caste system believing that everyone is born into their jobs.

yet at the same time, to make up for lack of genetic diversity, they'd produce MORE children than us as insurance so that if one child dies another can still live and keep going. which leads to overpopulation more quickly which leads to the older members of society, the rulers currently in charge to instituting various measures to choose people who is more worthy of staying where they currently are and then finding a way to either convince the excess population to go forth and pioneer and found new towns to either expand the nation or die trying. it would lead to a very warlike race as excess population would be constantly drafted to go fight their enemies.

the nobility would of course see the commoners as expendable, because their biology literally builds them to be. to minimize risk of early death, their period of time before they become an adult is shorter and they have to learn faster, but their life span would probably also be shorter because of it.

such a society would be hell. basically a vast military. there'd be no freedom, no valuing life for its own sake, everyone within a certain caste would be interchangeable, and it'd be in constant war mode forever to either expand or keep down its numbers. with the ever looming risk of disease coming to wipe them all out someday.

[2D8HP]

Which is also biologically....

Hobgoblins?

[Lord Raziere]

Hobgoblins?

If all hobgoblins are female, have a fear of disease surpassing any human because their race's achilles heel is the plague and breed faster than us and producing only clones of themselves, yes.

[JoeJ]

Which is also biologically wrong.

a parthenogenetic species would be female like whiptail lizards. Every child would be a clone of their parents. Disease would be civilizations greatest threat due to lack of genetic diversity, so everyone would be neat freaks if the civilization survives long enough to figure out hygiene, there would erroneous beliefs that because someone is a clone of their parent that they want to do the same things as them. not only would they be obsessed with cleanliness more than us, they'd have a rigid caste system believing that everyone is born into their jobs.

yet at the same time, to make up for lack of genetic diversity, they'd produce MORE children than us as insurance so that if one child dies another can still live and keep going. which leads to overpopulation more quickly which leads to the older members of society, the rulers currently in charge to instituting various measures to choose people who is more worthy of staying where they currently are and then finding a way to either convince the excess population to go forth and pioneer and found new towns to either expand the nation or die trying. it would lead to a very warlike race as excess population would be constantly drafted to go fight their enemies.

the nobility would of course see the commoners as expendable, because their biology literally builds them to be. to minimize risk of early death, their period of time before they become an adult is shorter and they have to learn faster, but their life span would probably also be shorter because of it.

such a society would be hell. basically a vast military. there'd be no freedom, no valuing life for its own sake, everyone within a certain caste would be interchangeable, and it'd be in constant war mode forever to either expand or keep down its numbers. with the ever looming risk of disease coming to wipe them all out someday.

In technical, anthropological, terminology, sex refers to biological differences and gender to the cultural assignment of roles and personality traits based (in part) on sex. A society without gender, therefore, would not necessarily have to be without sex. All the members could be hermaphroditic, so that any two healthy adults could reproduce together. Or they could have biological sexes but assign no particular cultural importance to them. The latter might be especially easy if they lay eggs that are incubated equally by both parents. Obviously, neither of these occurs among human cultures, but in a fantasy or SF setting they are quite feasible.

[Lord Raziere]

In technical, anthropological, terminology, sex refers to biological differences and gender to the cultural assignment of roles and personality traits based (in part) on sex. A society without gender, therefore, would not necessarily have to be without sex. All the members could be hermaphroditic, so that any two healthy adults could reproduce together. Or they could have biological sexes but assign no particular cultural importance to them. The latter might be especially easy if they lay eggs that are incubated equally by both parents. Obviously, neither of these occurs among human cultures, but in a fantasy or SF setting they are quite feasible.

Ah yes, hermaphrodites.

yet, it seem almost too ideal.

yet lets actually examine the effects:
any two adults can reproduce with one another opens it to a free for all for romance and seduction. Yet nature abhors a free for all. eventually it has to settle into some kind of order, kids have to be taken care of, that sort of thing. unfortunately nature's order is one enforced by strength. the members of society would look for someone who is strong to reproduce with, and thus more likely to make and raise kids who will survive.

thus traditions of testing and proving strength would become commonplace. attraction would not be about gender, but about strength and who people feel would give them strong offspring. Thus society would become a constant competition, and from this competition would arise people who they consider alphas. These alphas would of course only seek to mate with their runner up, thus producing an alpha couple. the children of this alpha couple would be expected to succeed like their parents and given high expectations because of it. society becomes about constant competition that sorts the weak from the strong, and all the "weak" ones would have to obey the alpha couple. of course at any time one can prove that they're stronger through a duel and topple one of them to get one of the alpha couple for themselves, thus making a new alpha couple. the partner of the loser's feelings would depend: if they're just doing this for the competition and strong offspring they won't actually care. if actual love is involved, they will of course be angry and kill the one who killed their partner, but this would be frowned upon, as that means society would have to compete to make a new alpha couple again until things are stable.

thus everyone would be ranked in a hierarchy that would change based on who beats who in duels, with the weak obeying the "stronger" ones. in times of war, the weaker ones will be sent out to die against the enemy while the strong would be expected to repopulate society through polyamory. Thus eventually would arise a harem system where the strongest would be nobles, who court by beating up the ones they are attracted to in duels to prove they are stronger thus meaning the loser has to obey them in all things to add to their harem would basically be slaves, and would be selective about who they beat up and add to their harem to produce strong offspring, and in turn must be careful about being beaten by someone else who might add to their harem.

the commoners of course would still compete to make alpha couples who can join the nobility while the rest who lose to the alpha couple labor to serve them. while any noble produced from a harem would be kicked down to being a commoner if they lose to the alpha couple made by the commoners competition.

and so on. really such a hermaphroditic set up would only result in a different kind of horribleness: constant competition over who gets who, forever.

[Mr Beer]

<snip>
Based on my experience, don't play D&D with heterosexual couples that own ferrets.

-Your welcome.

I think it's fair to say that people who like to liven things up by occasionally attacking you with angry ferrets and dildos are probably not the best gaming hosts.

Unless of course you're into that, in which case, well I'm no kink-shamer sir, have at it.

[ross]

Constantly compares the world to "tippyverse" and genuinely thinks this is insightful

Using tv tropes terms instead of just describing things

"This is just like that xkcd comic"

"Looks to" instead of "looks at"

Incorrect usage of the verb "sees"

Monty python jokes

Likes critical role

"This is a literate roleplay. That means we will never use line breaks, we will definitely use semi colons without understanding their purpose, and we will spend fifteen paragraphs every post saying nothing at all."

[Gravitron5000]

and so on. really such a hermaphroditic set up would only result in a different kind of horribleness: constant competition over who gets who, forever.

That's one way it could go, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion. Strength is not the biggest indicator of reproductive fitness, and even so, there will be sufficient variation in preferences that the strongest will not always be chosen. Kind of like how we are right now.

If a successful mate is one that is determined as the physically fittest, then sport will probably be a driving factor for mate selection rather than raw strength.

Or perhaps the ability to provide for offspring might be seen as an indicator of reproductive suitability, then there might be elaborate courtship rituals or a series of tasks to prove worthiness.

In summary, your example seems like one that strips personal preference out of consideration, or at least limits it to a single criteria, which is probably not realistic.

[ross]

any two adults can reproduce with one another opens it to a free for all for romance and seduction. Yet nature abhors a free for all.

Nature doesn't abhor anything.

eventually it has to settle into some kind of order, kids have to be taken care of, that sort of thing.

Unless you're a member of a species that doesn't care for its offspring.

unfortunately nature's order is one enforced by strength.

Nature is neither ordered nor disordered.

the members of society would look for someone who is strong to reproduce with, and thus more likely to make and raise kids who will survive.

Or, they will look for someone with the best mating song, or the most colorful feathers.

and so on. really such a hermaphroditic set up would only result in a different kind of horribleness: constant competition over who gets who, forever.

Every living thing that wants to reproduce competes for reproduction, directly or indirectly.

[kyoryu]

the points Kyoru made make sense, but...

Honestly, that's not really disagreeing with me at all.

I wouldn't quite go to the point of spreading that the group should be avoided, but might tell people that were considering joining it...

(Note that I generally consider cross-gender play to be a different situation. I mean, if you're trans, it's not cross-gender play anyway.)

[Segev]

In technical, anthropological, terminology, sex refers to biological differences and gender to the cultural assignment of roles and personality traits based (in part) on sex. A society without gender, therefore, would not necessarily have to be without sex. All the members could be hermaphroditic, so that any two healthy adults could reproduce together. Or they could have biological sexes but assign no particular cultural importance to them. The latter might be especially easy if they lay eggs that are incubated equally by both parents. Obviously, neither of these occurs among human cultures, but in a fantasy or SF setting they are quite feasible.

A fantasy race I came up with years ago but never finished writing the story using the setting they're in have definite male and female sexes. For contrived in-setting reasons (and obvious narrative "so human readers can tell" out-of-story reasons), they phenotypically are recognizable analogs to human male/female.

However, at the time of copulation, they can determine (by details which aren't important here) which of the pair is the one "risking" pregnancy. The one that is carrying the potentially fertilized egg. Which one carries it determines the sex of the child, should pregnancy result. They actually have cultures that have different traditions regarding which sex traditionally does child-rearing and home-making, and which is the bread-winner/externally-focused one.

[Lord Raziere]

That's one way it could go, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion. Strength is not the biggest indicator of reproductive fitness, and even so, there will be sufficient variation in preferences that the strongest will not always be chosen. Kind of like how we are right now.

If a successful mate is one that is determined as the physically fittest, then sport will probably be a driving factor for mate selection rather than raw strength.

Or perhaps the ability to provide for offspring might be seen as an indicator of reproductive suitability, then there might be elaborate courtship rituals or a series of tasks to prove worthiness.

In summary, your example seems like one that strips personal preference out of consideration, or at least limits it to a single criteria, which is probably not realistic.

Nature doesn't abhor anything.

Unless you're a member of a species that doesn't care for its offspring.

Nature is neither ordered nor disordered.

Or, they will look for someone with the best mating song, or the most colorful feathers.

Every living thing that wants to reproduce competes for reproduction, directly or indirectly.

You both completely missed the point.

The point is that no matter what biological changes you make, atrocities resulting from people treating biology as more important than reason will always happen. the only thing that prevents these things is recognizing them and not doing them. it doesn't matter if you throw out these specific details, they will still happen just in different ways for different reasons. nature is cruel and monstrous like that. the whole "lets make a setting where there are no sexes/genders" stops nothing bad from happening. the details you throw out, stop nothing bad from happening. you only exchange one set of atrocities for another. that people will somehow magically become better if they were all hermaphroditic is naive.

[ross]

You both completely missed the point.

The point is that no matter what biological changes you make, atrocities resulting from people treating biology as more important than reason will always happen. the only thing that prevents these things is recognizing them and not doing them. it doesn't matter if you throw out these specific details, they will still happen just in different ways for different reasons. nature is cruel and monstrous like that. the whole "lets make a setting where there are no sexes/genders" stops nothing bad from happening. the details you throw out, stop nothing bad from happening. you only exchange one set of atrocities for another. that people will somehow magically become better if they were all hermaphroditic is naive.

People will commit atrocities, yes. You do not have enough information to make this determination for all conceivable intelligent species. No one does. It is, therefore, entirely up to the setting author to decide if atrocities will take place, and all objections are irrelevant.

[Lord Raziere]

People will commit atrocities, yes. You do not have enough information to make this determination for all conceivable intelligent species. No one does. It is, therefore, entirely up to the setting author to decide if atrocities will take place, and all objections are irrelevant.

Irrelevant. Any author that decides no such thing takes place is not worth talking about. There is no accurate depiction of the world without pain.

[Gravitron5000]

You both completely missed the point.

The point is that no matter what biological changes you make, atrocities resulting from people treating biology as more important than reason will always happen. the only thing that prevents these things is recognizing them and not doing them. it doesn't matter if you throw out these specific details, they will still happen just in different ways for different reasons. nature is cruel and monstrous like that. the whole "lets make a setting where there are no sexes/genders" stops nothing bad from happening. the details you throw out, stop nothing bad from happening. you only exchange one set of atrocities for another. that people will somehow magically become better if they were all hermaphroditic is naive.

It's not that I don't get the point, it's that you seem to be engaging in reductio ad absurdum. You are stating things as if they would unfold inevitably towards a specific extreme, and although that extreme might be worthwhile topic to explore, it does not necessarily follow from the starting premise. Making a setting with no sexes may not stop bad things from happening in that setting, but nor does it cause bad things to happen.

[martixy]

Problem players. Everybody knows about them. We've all seen them. Heck, maybe we've even BEEN them. In the relatively short time that I've been both a player and a DM, these are some of the red flags I've seen in problem players.

• Plays a character that does not match their gender
• Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory
• Insists on using a class they found on dandwiki
• Asks to play a class focused on crafting
• Insists on using anything they found on dandwiki

I'm sorry, what?

Especially the first one. 11 pages of thread have probably picked you apart to little itty bitty pieces on this one, but I'll add my own small anecdote: None of my party have characters that match their gender. And everybody's fine.

The rest are equal bullcrap. There's nothing wrong with being the king. There's nothing wrong with crafting. There's some small bits wrong with dandwiki, and it's the DMs job to decide which.

Can I flip the table here? Half this list signals to me "bad, immature DM" in big red flags.

[Rerem115]

I never said that this was a definitive list; these are the traits that problem players, in my personal experience have possessed. I've played a lot with new players and strangers, so rather than being hard limits, these are instead signs to me that I may need to steer the game in a more productive direction in order for everyone to be happy.

[Nifft]

The rest are equal bullcrap. There's nothing wrong with being the king. There's nothing wrong with crafting. There's some small bits wrong with dandwiki, and it's the DMs job to decide which.

Can I flip the table here? Half this list signals to me "bad, immature DM" in big red flags.

dandwiki is a smoking garbage pit.

As a DM that's what I've decided.