Red Flags for DMs?

[Luccan]

How does "important" equate to "spotlight-hogging mary-sue"?

What about a party where EVERYONE wants to be important to the world, but equally so with each other? A party who is saving the day from a nation-spanning threat? How is that not important?

You could probably tone this down even more. Someone pointed out stopping goblin raiders. So let's say that you're stopping goblins from raiding a small, isolated village. No one will hear of your deeds, you aren't kings or gods. You're level... 4 let's say. You should still be important or matter in the process of stopping the raiders. In this instance, say you're characters are "important" or "matter" to the game (not the game world, the game you are playing) is correct and mean the same. You're the focal point of the story that is being told.

[ross]

How does "important" equate to "spotlight-hogging mary-sue"?

What about a party where EVERYONE wants to be important to the world, but equally so with each other? A party who is saving the day from a nation-spanning threat? How is that not important?

Naturally every character I make just happens to end up saving the world. What else would they do with their free time?

You are aware PC stands for "Player Character", right?

Don't you put correct words in my mouth!

I do admit there is SOME distinction between mattering and being important, but it's a minor semantic thing. They're very closely related.

You can matter without being important, and you can be important without mattering. They're not the same, and they're not correlated. This isn't complicated.

A celebrity is important.

A fire-fighter matters.

You could probably tone this down even more. Someone pointed out stopping goblin raiders. So let's say that you're stopping goblins from raiding a small, isolated village. No one will hear of your deeds, you aren't kings or gods. You're level... 4 let's say. You should still be important or matter in the process of stopping the raiders. In this instance, say you're characters are "important" or "matter" to the game (not the game world, the game you are playing) is correct and mean the same. You're the focal point of the story that is being told.

In this example, the characters matter, and aren't important.

[Luccan]

Don't you put correct words in my mouth!

I do admit there is SOME distinction between mattering and being important, but it's a minor semantic thing. They're very closely related.

I'm sorry, but you called me a smart cookie. I'll be insufferable now.

More to the point, I agree with you. A person matters to someone and is thus important to them. An important person on the grand scale is a leader of country. They matter.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Okay. Maaaybe this is just miscommunication. Ross, would you agree with the following?

Player characters should be central figures in the plot the game is exploring, but need not be central figures in the setting?

[Delicious Taffy]

It's amazing to me that almost an entire page was required before any clarity was given. Meanwhile, condescension and presumption were handed out like candy.

Here's a red flag, just to try and keep things on topic. If the DM insists on having the party interact with a living tower with a text-to-speech computer voice, with no other options for that session.

[ross]

Okay. Maaaybe this is just miscommunication. Ross, would you agree with the following?

Player characters should be central figures in the plot the game is exploring, but need not be central figures in the setting?

Characters should be whatever the players prefer.

I'm in two games right now in which nobody's character is central to the plot or setting. Everyone's having fun. (I'm not the GM in either one, and they weren't my ideas.)

Characters can be central to the plot and setting. They don't have to be, and it isn't the default.

[ComaVision]

I'm used to pedantry on the forums but usually they make some sort of sense.

[Luccan]

Characters should be whatever the players prefer.

I'm in two games right now in which nobody's character is central to the plot or setting. Everyone's having fun. (I'm not the GM in either one, and they weren't my ideas.)

Characters can be central to the plot and setting. They don't have to be, and it isn't the default.

Ok, but everyone else has made it clear they don't like that. Obviously you signed up for that experience (I assume). I think everyone else is talking about games where the GM is the "special snowflake", where they have the dark coated, katana man as an NPC that does everything in the plot. Most people do not play RPGs to be second fiddle. I'm glad you're having fun in those games, truly, but many people do not want to do that. That doesn't invalidate your choice to play it, but these are personal red flags. As someone pointed out, the master list of red flags already contradicts itself for precisely that reason. It's ok if you like it and others don't. no one is judging you specifically for enjoying it (or judging anyone, really, so long as they don't do it against their fellow player's will).

[Delicious Taffy]

Ok, but everyone else has made it clear they don't like that. Obviously you signed up for that experience (I assume). I think everyone else is talking about games where the GM is the "special snowflake", where they have the dark coated, katana man as an NPC that does everything in the plot. Most people do not play RPGs to be second fiddle. I'm glad you're having fun in those games, truly, but many people do not want to do that. That doesn't invalidate your choice to play it, but these are personal red flags. As someone pointed out, the master list of red flags already contradicts itself for precisely that reason. It's ok if you like it and others don't. no one is judging you specifically for enjoying it (or judging anyone, really, so long as they don't do it against their fellow player's will).

Careful with all that clarity, pal. You're getting dangerously close to making a clear point from the start. Wouldn't you rather make a somewhat cryptic statement that seems to imply things nobody was saying, and then reply to it as if they'd said it?

[Honest Tiefling]

I think a better phrasing is 'The player characters are central to THEIR story'.

Maybe they're a bunch of thieves eking out a living in a hive of scum and villainy. Their deeds will never be recorded and they will be forgotten once dead. But they make their own decisions and make choices that affect the plot. They aren't herded by railroading or a badly done DMPC.

Maybe they're just some minor guards, saving a few people here and there. Fine, but those people should probably react to their choices, and not forget them instantly even if all they did was rescue their darn cat.

Maybe they're a part of a magical society being ripped apart by fiends, but they're so low ranking they can't affect larger events...But they need to have an impact on THEIR story. How they survived, what happens to their loved ones, and what they do in this situation. They might not affect the larger plot in the background, but they decide how they react to it and their choices matter.

[JNAProductions]

I think a better phrasing is 'The player characters are central to THEIR story'.

Maybe they're a bunch of thieves eking out a living in a hive of scum and villainy. Their deeds will never be recorded and they will be forgotten once dead. But they make their own decisions and make choices that affect the plot. They aren't herded by railroading or a badly done DMPC.

Maybe they're just some minor guards, saving a few people here and there. Fine, but those people should probably react to their choices, and not forget them instantly even if all they did was rescue their darn cat.

Maybe they're a part of a magical society being ripped apart by fiends, but they're so low ranking they can't affect larger events...But they need to have an impact on THEIR story. How they survived, what happens to their loved ones, and what they do in this situation. They might not affect the larger plot in the background, but they decide how they react to it and their choices matter.

That's a good way to put it. Like I said earlier, the focus should be on the PCs-they might not be (and, unless high level, probably SHOULDN'T be) the most important people in the world, but they're the most important people to the people at the table and what they do.

[icefractal]

You're not a character in a book, and your character isn't important.

Ok, fine ... that doesn't answer why fumbles would be a desirable thing. Because it's definitely not for realism, and apparently it's not for genre-emulation either, so what beneficial thing do they do?

[Delicious Taffy]

Ok, fine ... that doesn't answer why fumbles would be a desirable thing. Because it's definitely not for realism, and apparently it's not for genre-emulation either, so what beneficial thing do they do?

See, fumble rules exist to simulate your character having a random bout of stupidity so powerful, it causes them physical harm. Another Very Important reason is to make sure nobody's character is competent enough not to trip over nothing and fall face-first into their own sword. Look, there's a lot of nuance, here.

[Barbarian Horde]

I've been DM on roll20 for a few years now. I had to do a general blanket ban on evil because the biggest issue is people can't act like adults when their characters start getting into PVP because of actions that a evil member has taken. Dynamic change is fun, telling two grown men to stfu because they get into a shouting contest is not.


Recently the group i've been playing with, its been 6 months so i've let things slide a bit more now that I have a feel for the player(s) in question at the moment. Newer players are banned till such time.

Red flag for me is when they allow the erotica splat book. I want play a game; I do not want to listen to third party porn.

[ross]

Careful with all that clarity, pal. You're getting dangerously close to making a clear point from the start. Wouldn't you rather make a somewhat cryptic statement that seems to imply things nobody was saying, and then reply to it as if they'd said it?

Lol @ this passive aggression. Not sorry for assuming people understand definitions of basic words. That's on you.

Ok, fine ... that doesn't answer why fumbles would be a desirable thing. Because it's definitely not for realism, and apparently it's not for genre-emulation either, so what beneficial thing do they do?

You're right, it's not realistic. No one in real life has ever made a mistake.

[Zanos]

You can matter without being important, and you can be important without mattering. They're not the same, and they're not correlated. This isn't complicated.

A celebrity is important.

A fire-fighter matters.

Spoiler

Show

Maybe you're looking for famous.

[martixy]

fumble rules don't kill you

You're not a character in a book, and your character isn't important.

Poor ones do, but Grod covered that.

Whether the character is important to me is only for me to decide. Whether he's important in the grand scheme of things in the setting/plot is for play to determine.

I'm not sure whether to flag that statement "red flag", "bad GM", or just "incompatible styles".

Don't get me wrong, not every character has (WoD) Destiny 5, but... to just assume every single PC is inherently unimportant?

Depending on the context of that last word it could be either an incompatibility or so WAY PAST a red flag, you'd need to invent an entire new colour to describe it. More of a GTFO flag.

You're right, it's not realistic. No one in real life has ever made a mistake.

Wow... that's such a telegraphed straw-man, you can see it from SPACE.

@Barbarian Horde: Pervasive immaturity is why I stopped playing in random games on that site.

[icefractal]

You're right, it's not realistic. No one in real life has ever made a mistake.

Not 1 in 20 times they don't. I'm not a professional driver. In fact, my job is much easier to get to by train than car, so I usually only drive a few times a week. And yet, I sure as hell don't crash the car once every twenty times I drive, or even 1/400 times.

Ok, but that's non-combat, combat is chaotic and stuff, right? Well do soldiers shoot themselves in the foot every two minutes of combat? Or even anything remotely like that? They don't? Ok, well then, fumbles, in any D&D implementation I've seen, are in fact not realistic.

[Barbarian Horde]

@Barbarian Horde: Pervasive immaturity is why I stopped playing in random games on that site.

Takes a moment to find a good one, but I have few alternatives as I work out of state consistently. Online D&D is the only option for me at the moment.

[Delicious Taffy]

Lol @ this passive aggression. Not sorry for assuming people understand definitions of basic words. That's on you.

What was passive about it? The rest of us understand words just fine. It's your meaningless, self-assigned distinctions that caused confusion. And aside from that, I'm prettier than you, so maybe sit on that one for a hot minute.


On-topic, a DM trying to introduce level-inappropriate encounters on the level of "Your three first-level PCs are suddenly accosted by both a Greater Flameskull and an Ancient Silver Dragon" would get some flags flying.

[Zanos]

That reminds me that I was playing d20 modern once and the DM had guns jam on a 1 on attack roll because it was "realistic." He was not amused when I showed him that the 1911(the gun that my character was using) routinely goes through 6,000 rounds without malfunctions.

[Honest Tiefling]

That reminds me that I was playing d20 modern once and the DM had guns jam on a 1 on attack roll because it was "realistic." He was not amused when I showed him that the 1911(the gun that my character was using) routinely goes through 6,000 rounds without malfunctions.

I think a DM running a modern game and NOT expecting some form of gun talk is a bit of a red flag for me...That's like running a Vampire the Masquerade game and wondering why people keep dressing in black.

[ross]

Wow... that's such a telegraphed straw-man, you can see it from SPACE.

So do you believe people make mistakes or not?

Not 1 in 20 times they don't. I'm not a professional driver. In fact, my job is much easier to get to by train than car, so I usually only drive a few times a week. And yet, I sure as hell don't crash the car once every twenty times I drive, or even 1/400 times.

Ok, but that's non-combat, combat is chaotic and stuff, right? Well do soldiers shoot themselves in the foot every two minutes of combat? Or even anything remotely like that? They don't? Ok, well then, fumbles are in fact not realistic.

Mistakes are not necessarily catastrophic, dramatic, or even interesting. Most aren't.

What was passive about it? The rest of us understand words just fine. It's your meaningless, self-assigned distinctions that caused confusion. And aside from that, I'm prettier than you, so maybe sit on that one for a hot minute.

That's why people kept pretending to be confused about their very simple meanings right? lol @ the rest, you're not even good at condescending

[Barbarian Horde]

I think if players have an issue with DM then they themselves should do it. Doesn't seem like a very popular position. I feel like majority of people want to be a player. FYI topic is derailing I think.

[icefractal]

Mistakes are not necessarily catastrophic, dramatic, or even interesting. Most aren't.

So I guess you're going to continue with this "Schrödinger's argument" style, where you answer everything in vague terms so that you can always say what you really meant was something different and we were just too dumb to get it?

No thanks. If you have some fumble rules that you think are good, go ahead and post them.

[TheIronGolem]

Mistakes are not necessarily catastrophic, dramatic, or even interesting. Most aren't.

You're arguing in favor of fumble rules, which represent mistakes that are catastrophic, dramatic, or interesting. The much larger set of mistakes that is none of those things is already represented by failed rolls. So you can stop acting as though opposition to fumble rules somehow equates to asserting that mistakes never happen. It's not a position that anyone in this thread has ever advanced, and attacking it only underscores your unwillingness and/or inability to respond to what was actually said.

[Delicious Taffy]

That's why people kept pretending to be confused about their very simple meanings right? lol @ the rest, you're not even good at condescending

Sure, people were definitely "pretending to be confused" about "very simple meanings", and you certainly weren't making pointless distinctions between synonyms commonly understood to mean the same thing, without elaborating what the distinction was for an inordinately long time.

I don't really care if you think I'm good at condescending, though, since I wasn't even trying to go for that. I stated a simple fact, which is that I'm prettier than you are. It may have nothing to do with the topic, but then you're not particularly concerned with things having an actual connection, are you. At this point, I'm done with your nonsense, whether you think that's what it is or not.


In another vain attempt at sticking to what's actually important to this thread, here's another red flag. If the DM doesn't properly communicate that his campaign is meant to be based on exploring a harsh, barren wilderness, but then gets frustrated when the party consistently avoids even heading there in favor of getting drunk in a sketchy inn, you should look around, because there's a good chance there's at least one big, red flag a-flyin'.

[Aliquid]

Ok, fine ... that doesn't answer why fumbles would be a desirable thing. Because it's definitely not for realism, and apparently it's not for genre-emulation either, so what beneficial thing do they do?

Sometimes I find the concept of fumbles amusing... a bit of slapstick. Other times I like the added tension and drama that it brings to a story... that "oh crap" moment.

I play games for the story more than for combat simulation, and I've never had a DM that's out to kill the PCs. So fumbles don't really have any negative impact on the game for me.

But I have never been a fan of a 1/20 chance of fumbling. It would have to be more rare than that, otherwise it would just get annoying.

[Barbarian Horde]

I used fumble rules. Nat 1 call high or low. If player calls it right they don't let go of their weapon. If they don't they drop it. Same with magic if you attempt to do touch. Spell fizzles out if you fail to call high or low correctly. It made for some funny combat.

I don't use those rules atm, but I did for a while.

[martixy]

So do you believe people make mistakes or not?

Irrelevant. Do not continue trying to straw-man the discussion.

Just to get you on the same page:
A straw-man is a fallacy.
A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness.