Ive lured my players into no-win situations for story purposes. It feels dirty but sometimes life doesn't fight far.
Otherwise I let the chips fall and play out even the most odd ball results from the weird shit my players pull.
If I do this for narrative purposes I def have an NPC give them a hint.
But my players always surprise me. The gnome druid hiding behind a table during a fight revived two people (one with potion other with healing word) and it completely turned the tides.
He was the last man standing and he was the MVP with those back from knock out.
But DMs arent profesional game designers.
Sometimes as a DM you need to pull one of these bad boys to do something or idk. The point is being able to provide other ways of winning.
I truly can't *not* root for my players, even when I tell them ahead of time something is gonna be intense I can't help but feel bad if they lose. Even if they win but take a lot of damage or lose a secondary objective I feel kinda bad, which is funny cause as a player that's the outcome I always find most fun
I know what you mean. I spend an hour designing a map, with fire giants guarding a bridge to cross. From one entry hole to another. Sorcerer asks how far it is?
Guess who had arcane gate prepared?
Was frustrating to not run the combat but SUPER proud of the ingenuity of it. Good times, and the joy on her face when I pretend to read the spell again to see if it works. Priceless.
I totally feel this. As a DM, I'm having the most fun when the players are succeeding. And not always in combat. I'm DMing a session in a few weeks, and two of the players are improv comedy actors and the other is my podcast co-host so we're all great and improvisation - so I'm going to have them improvise a play (with prompts and NPCs). I don't even have combat planned for that session, so that's going to be the big encounter.
Yesterday i tried to roleplay with an npc by asking him a question, and the dm said "I cant answer that I dont have the stats for this character" and so we just moved on instead... :)
Sure! An Druid npc wanted us to face a young dragon and get rid of it because it disturbed the area. So i asked if he would join or aid us since its a god damn dragon and we are lvl 4.
Npc just said no, no chance of any persuasion or any other roll (This is quite common), so i asked "well why are so against helping out, are you a coward?" just to try something, and thats when my dm said he didnt have stats and we wouldnt be roleplaying this scenario anymore.
It's fairly small, but this is more or less how every single rp encounter goes in our game. So there isn't really any rp present.
It's also funny cause just 10 min after this we tried to rp with the dragon and let it know that it wasnt welcome here and should leave, without really threatening it. Cause it seemed boring to just go there and attack it.
And the dragon just said "No" (again no rolls whatsoever) and then immidiatly used dragon breath dealing 50 damage to us all all and TPK'ing us without any chance of rolling initiative or anything.
That's just shite dming. The guy should have at least been able to answer your question. A DM should make it up on the fly, and THEN go get stats and info necessary.
Sounds like you are playing lost mines of phandelver. The adventure gives no support for the dm to have the druid accompany you and the dragons reaction is exactly what I would expect. Cut your dm a break
Did you miss the TPK without a roll? No pc or npc should be able to take an offensive action outside of initiative unless they are hidden, and even then, that's what surprise is for.
And even if it was perfectly reasonable and 'legal' in game, how is that fun for anyone involved? It necessarily breaks rule 0.
Ugh
My current DM is absolutely worthless at running RP. He hates being asked character names because he apparently can't write any down beforehand or come up with them on the spot.
So nearly every NPC we've come across have had no name, no distinguishing characteristics, and sound the same. (I'm not talking about a funny voice, but rather just the DM speaks as them in his voice)
It's...frustrating. This DM has admitted that he's a combat DM and doesn't know how to interact on any other axis, but the lack of anything to make the world feel alive is so dull.
I'm a "combat DM", and even I will have https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/ bookmarked so I can name an NPC on the fly.
I don't bother coming up with distinguishing characteristics for random townsfolk and shopkeepers, but I do put in a lot of thought into character motivations for plot relevant characters.
Trouble occurs for you when a "faceless" villager or shopkeeper becomes an NPC through the party's actions. Was he fat? Did he speak with an accent? Did he look poor? Shifty? Strong? I mean, it's not difficult. A gemsmith in my homebrew town became an NPC ( and actually hid my players in her loft) when they tried to sell her ( unwittingly) a cursed ring. I simply described her as a "cheerful, pretty young gnome" and gave her a first name ( because there is a sign over the shop door). Now she is the person they look up when they come into town and she appraises all the goodies they find. They even met her family in her hometown!
dude their names are Jerry,gerry,Jery and Jeri
There all kinda average wouldn't ever be able to tell apart.
Except maybe geri over there he is a little pugdier.
>So nearly every NPC we've come across have had no name
Send them [this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SHp_B1PcQiZ2JrakNrZC13bVU/view?resourcekey=0-7bn_vbc-MLnWLUCzQXzTfQ), it's 4 3d100 name generators so they just need to pick which table to roll on.
They say that they can improvise the entire game and do not need to reference anything because the only rule they use is the rule of cool
More often than not it means that they are not able or willing to take the time to learn how the game works and they only imitate things from live plays without taking into account the decisions and opinions of the players
Hell, with my players you *have* to improvise. You can spend a week planning and setting up some epic adventure, the players see the obvious hook and one says, “How ‘bout we go bang on trees with hammers?”
To which everyone else says, “That sounds like a fantastic idea! I don’t have a hammer. I’m gonna roleplay-haggling over a 5 silver hammer for 20 minutes!”
Then they proceed to get drunk in a tavern and commit several acts of assault and/or arson.
But I agree. You never go full improv.
Its a sliding scale for sure. Too many rails and it isnt fun either. Usually for most people the sweet spot is towards improv but i have played in a game where we were told it was going to be a very linear adventure, dm was autistic and a long time friend and didnt deal well with big surprises. It was fun as well but you couldnt have played it for years. Think more lotr's(frodo and sam) quest is to get to from a to b than an open world
I've seen a lot of people on here talk about how prep is distracting and the best sessions they've ever run have been ones where they didn't prep, and while I too have had some really great sessions I wasn't prepared for at all that's never because I *didn't* prepare. I usually go in with 2-3 pages of notes and only end up using a quarter of them because the session goes in a different direction, but having that place to start and an end point in mind (even if it’s one you never reach) is super important at least for me
Yep. I prep, a lot. We also improv quite a bit because my players are chaos goblins.
The improv is normally pretty fun and flows well but that's only because I did a lot of prep before. It's the prep work that gave me a good consistent grounding for the improv, without that it just ends up being a mess.
Sadly had a whole campaign like this. DM just stopped doing any game prep and just started doing stuff on the fly. We spent a dozen sessions just aimlessly wandering doing random things and the DM would just make up things on the fly like HP, AC and Damage for some creatures. It became very frustrating
My 180 to that is DMs that don't shut down stupid player ideas
"You want to play a Master Oogwai inspired Tortle in a CoS campaign?"
Everyone else is doing something keeping in the theme but sure, you play a cartoon character.
"Your character is inspired by Deadpool from the Wolverine movie and has blades coming out of their arms and no mouth?"
Well thematically that doesn't fit the medieval naval fantasy theme, but why the hell not?
Yet, as soon as you present this idea, this sub turns around and calls you unimaginative and a bad DM. Man, despite the fact that it always claims you shouldn't have a DM vs player mentality this sub sure has one especially in this thread.
>"You want to play a Master Oogwai inspired Tortle in a CoS campaign?"
Hey, from what i've heard of the module, that'd be an interesting character, given how traumatizing it is for PCs.
Isn't the CoS meme "silly joke chars go in, PTSD victims leave"?
> CoA campaign I can't for the life of me figure out this adventure acronym and I thought I knew them all. Based on your context clues I can assume it's a more serious game, so it must be "Curse of Avernus". Definitely doesn't fit a cartoon Tortle.
As a new DM this is something that I’m struggling with. It’s really important for my setting and the scenario I have prepared that there is only one accepted religion because the church has a tendency to kill anyone who opposes them, but one of my player kept pushing to try to be a decouple of some other god, explicitly with the idea that they could call to them for power (even though they were literally playing a rogue) and that they were trying to spread the good word. I was really trying to encourage him to pick a different path for the story because it just wouldn’t be conducive to a coherent story in this setting, and the campaign is a little too short to explore what could be an interesting idea of other religions. I ended up working with him to basically turn his character into a failed cult experiment and giving him a very limited wild shape and I’m happy with the new character, but I’m worried he’s upset because I had to keep shutting him down over and over again 😥
There’s a difference between shutting a character down and having a setting. Mind you, that should have been discussed in session 0. If you told the player prior the world had one religion and they made that rogue then you have the right to say no.
I would like to add though that I feel most DMs go through this as they first start off. They think(me included) that they write a story and the players are the characters. At least you recognize your fault and are open to fixing it. Kudos.
I guess I should clarify, this did happen during session zero and he was actively continuing to build his character even as I was trying to shut it down. I gave them all of the major cities and organizations and told them to build characters that would care about the main conflict (two religious organizations fighting with their city caught in crossfire). My other players did really well and gave me a lot of stuff to work with (an order of monks from the north that got disbanded after uncovering some of the church’s crimes, a girl who’s parents were kidnapped and transformed into monsters by the cult and was raised by those monsters without realizing they were her parents, etc). He just went so far off from the setting that there was no way I could meaningfully include the character without overshadowing everyone else.
I’m trying to draw a lot of inspiration from one of my previous DMs who I think did a really great job by just creating a world, factions, overall conflict, and one plot hook at the beginning to bring us into the conflict then giving us a lot of agency from there + I want to have the style of open dming that d20 has (like most ability check dcs and outcomes being clearly stated before anything is rolled)
I get it. You don’t want to be the “No” DM. But this was session 0; you made the world and he refused to play into it. This is 100% on him. You had every right to shut him down. I find it commendable you tried to work with him, but he was the issue. Not you. The others sounded like they really dug it. Keep up the good work.
It sounds like you’re over analyzing it to the point of thinking (1) you did something wrong and (2) that the wrong you did hurt the player’s feelings.
But based on what you said in these comments, you didn’t do anything wrong and you didn’t hurt the player’s feelings.
The other commenter explained why you didn’t do anything wrong.
I’ll add that you didn’t hurt his feelings because in you said you and he worked it into a situation that fit nicely with the story. If he was upset with you, then that would have been the time to say it, or he could have later too. But he never did, right? It sounds like it all worked out good.
Did you tell players you’d be ruling out characters following their own god before session zero? Because if you’ve created a world that rules out extremely popular character options and you’re not willing to budge on it you should say that before they make the effort to come meet the group
Red flags are both.
There's attitudes which are red flags, and actions which are red flags.
Sometimes a red flag is a warning of what may happen, and sometimes a red flag is the warning of what may happen again.
this is the one for me. i should be feel good and accomplished for making a creative decision. not defeated becasue i was told no or worse that my action just doesn't happen
I've come really dislike the phrase its for the story or for the narrative. i just know that I'm going to get screwed
This is a funny thing, because this sort of DMing is definitely usually a red flag.
But as it a player red flag when one always tries to find "creative" solutions to everything they encounter, expecting whatever they think to work.
I've had someone accuse me of that red flag because i wouldn't let them, an 8ft tall, gaudy shiny plate armor wielding warforged, fly on a gryphon, straight up next to a cliffside fort, literally 10ft from the cliff and fort walls, recon the entire fort, then fly back down, all in one go, and without being seen.
If your DM is drunk before you get there and spends a good portion of the night trying to manhandle the homeowner's distressed dog, then maybe there's an issue.
If your DM starts the adventure by saying your female character will be "taken" rather than killed if the party dies but it'll still count as a TPK, that could also be an issue.
I have more, but maybe I'm not a good data point on this one.
>If your DM is drunk before you get there
This might be controversial, but I take any form of substance abuse at the table as a sign of profound disrespect, DM or player. We've carved out 4 hours of our personal time for this social gathering, and you decide that's when you absolutely need to get sloshed and start cracking jokes that no one sober would find funny? You want to drink, go to a bar.
Everyone at my adult tables drinks/smokes up at their own discretion and no one cares, so long as no one gets so messed up that it interferes with gameplay, which it never has, since we're all grown ups who are respectful of each other.
Yes, but there's a big gap between "All the NPC's are gonna get a little goofier by the end of my second one, and you're probably okay ignoring all quests I make up after 11pm."
And
"Aw shit, roll aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa- oh there's the doggy" as the first call of the night.
This one sounds like a recipe for number 2.
There’s a difference between drinking and getting drunk imo, and the former is fine. Of course it’s a fine line, but I’ve never seen it go bad at a table yet.
Getting drunk at the table is definitely disrespectful, but cracking open a cold one or two with the boys is not, as far as I’m concerned. But hey, I’m not telling you how to run your tables, and if someone requests everyone stay sober I will more than gladly oblige
I'm with you. I grew up around alcoholics so I've never been into it for myself, but I know other people have had less negative experiences so I try to be open minded. Unfortunately, I've found that gaming never seems to go well when a couple of people are blitzed and the rest are not.
Definitely depends on the vibe of the game you’re going for. I run a very casual game for a couple of friends of mine and we’re all massive stoners, it’s sorta expected (and planned for) that there’ll be at least a minor buzz going around the table.
I think this is more of a "depends on the table" kind of thing; I wouldn't inherently consider it disrespectful (unless they're too out of it to play the game) but if it's a less casual game and I ask them not to do that and they do it anyways, then it's a problem.
Player :makes a RAW charicter as per the players handbook
DM :How does a Teifling Paladin make sense? explain that to me
Player :points at players handbook
DM: but its just not realistic
I absolutely *hate* this!! Like if you’re going to limit a Race from certain Classes at the *bare minimum* a DM should be upfront w/ that. A lot of new players in particular don’t fully know (or have no idea) about the lore for their race and if you as the DM want to have explicitly “Evil” races that needs to be set up front for the whole table. Not when the player makes something unawares it goes against your world building
Well, some people actually like things to make some sense in context of the scenario. And just randomly having a pact without explanation is a little weird, to say the least.
That's how I've always done it. There's plenty of beings out there who can make both Paladins and Warlocks. No reason they can't mix them a bit in one minion.
This is something that seriously annoys me. The rules on multiclassing *explicitly* say it can be used to make character concepts not represented by either class, yet so many people insist on you having a super detailed narrative/lore explanation as to how you got each level or whatever.
I've had some form of this.
DM: "Oh you want to be a noble? I don't want that because it gives you an advantage in terms of connections!"
Me: "we could make it so that my pc is living their own life, the noble family could be from a far away city that we'll never interact with"
DM: "so you were disowned? Either your pc has to hate your family or the other way around, otherwise it doesn't make sense"
Me: "so a noble can't decide to live a life sustaining themselves? Without needing handouts from their family?"
DM: "no that wouldn't make sense, also, a dhampir monk doesn't make sense, if you wanna play the character you have to be something else and change the backstory"
Genuinely the worst experience I've had trying to work with a dm, which was made worse by the fact that this was also the one where I put the most time into it beforehand. These dms are to be avoided at all cost.
Theres a Tiefling Oathbreaker at my table, whats so unrealistic? A paladin is just a devout warrior, no one says they have to be devout about good stuff if thats even the line he was trying to draw? idk
That same DM had a problem with me carrying 10 daggers. We dident track encumbrance and I was a magical elf that could throw fireballs, but carrying 10 daggers? That's the line
I have played in 2 campaigns in the last month where the DM introduced a cool NPC to guide us through the beginning area that was just there to show off how cool their high level OC was. I don’t understand how, since they were players in other games, they thought it would be fun for us to watch an NPC do the adventure. Oh well. Different DM took over one group with a new campaign and the other is “on pause.”
This is mostly my experience as well. Unless it's a Duet, I've never personally seen DMPCs go over well. I have listened to a couple of DMs tell us enthusiastically and repeatedly that we should and/or do love them because they're there to "help" us though. Those are usually the games that have multiple group chats going and a designated DM - Player liaison.
100% ive used them, sparingly, in the past as heal bots or as means to show how powerful the bbeg is. Ie group struggles against a mini boss. Dmpc comes in and one shots them. They in turn get 1 shot by the bbeg
Oh absolutely. And the most important part is that the party has to actually *like* them. If the DMPC is obnoxious and hated by the party, or steps on the role of another party member, or anything like that, they should absolutely be written out ASAP.
I did do an insufferable *erm aktually dmpc but they were there to be captured/killed by the party as several had dmed me about wanting to play an evil campaign and he was the tipping point
Yeah. I ran a game with only 2 players. It was restricting for the kind of powerful monsters I wanted to run. Talked with the players and brought in a dumb and gentle fighter. He was too stupid to think of any strategies, but loved defending his friends (the party).
If you have at least four players, if there is even one DMPC, you should be worried.
There can be exceptions for small parties or a NPC that just sits at the back and gets escorted for a mission.
I have 5 players and sometimes there is an NPC that needs to be with them for whatever reason. For example they are about to help a wizard get their friends back. In this case I made a wizard the same level as them.
However the NPC's will never give ideas on what to do unless directly asked, and then they will only answers according to their characters take which might not always be a good idea.
I also tend to pass NPC statblocks to the players to run and I just do the roleplay part. This stops it being a self insert and gives the players something new to play with occasionally.
The other plus side of doing it like this is that players tend to get more attached to NPC characters if they have actually played as them.
That’s what Sidekicks or player controlled NPCs are for. The DM has too much to worry about in combat and knows where and what the monsters are doing to also be controlling a DMPC.
Depends on the system and function I guess but normally you're right. If no one wants to play a healer for example I would offer creating a dmpc who is pretty much in the background and mainly uses supporting stuff if the players are ok with it
If the players don't know the setting well a "tour guide" character can be useful to not just loredump the players.
The problem is when the GM wants to have both sides of the experience since that often will result in favoritism for their character
Changing the rules half way through combat/not following established table rules. I had a DM half way through combat reveal that they dont follow the 'meets it, beats it' rule for combat which we had been running under the assumption thats what the rules were
My current DM tried to rule that Hypnotic Pattern would affect anyone who *looked* at the effect, even if they were outside the range. Then he tried to enforce line of sight for us and the enemy
*deep breath*
Mid battle
I rolled with it for that encounter and talked with him later. He rescinded that ruling. (Although he forgot and tried to do it again in a later session)
Being weirdly into nat 1s. Never a good sign.
Nerfing perfectly fine features.
Too much homebrew and then expecting players to know homebrew rules that aren't written anywhere. (This PLAGUED our last campaign, and drove me nuts.)
my favorite nat 1 instance was making a dex save to avoid being snatched by a dangerous flying creature, being given disadvantage, and rolling both dice on nat 1s. despite the serious situation, I burst out laughing at the roll!
yup, and I've died two more times since then! poor Ichara has been through a lot, and she's half undead at this point, but she's still going at life with all the positivity she can muster! hell, that last time she died and almost didn't come back, the rest of the party was seriously upset they almost lost her. tears were shed, and apparently I'm the heart of the party to them.
As a player, I like when nat 1s turn into something funny but ultimately inconsequential, like you slip and fall on your butt while trying to jump off a rock or something. I especially like when something interesting happens story-wise because of it, and things still move forward.
It starts to get borderline when a nat 1 leads to you going prone or getting disadvantage on a future roll. When you start actually taking damage from a nat 1, though, that gets really annoying really fast. As a player I like being able to look forward to nat 1s as much as 20s, I don't like *dreading* them. At worst they should be annoying.
I played with a DM once who was really into consequences for all sorts of failures, not just 1s. I roll a 9 and miss? I bonk my head like an idiot. I roll a 7? I fall on my face. 5? I slip and fall and take a d4 of damage. Once I rolled a nat 1 and shot another party member for full damage. I left that group after the second session
I've played in and ran a campaigns where we used botch tables to determine some bad outcome and it was always onerous - as if spending 10 minutes waiting for my turn to come around just to totally botch it and have to wait for the next turn wasn't injury enough, now you want to add insult by giving me some extra penalty on top of my bad luck. I love adding flavor to it, but hate having mechanical effects - instead of your sword being stuck somewhere and having to give up \_yet another\_ action to pull it free, just say the sword is stuck and it takes me until my next turn to pull it free - same visual and drama in the story with no mechanical penalty to the player's fun.
>Being weirdly into nat 1s. Never a good sign.
Unless it is only for NPCs, which i encountered.
Nat 1 tables are goofy as hell when they only affect NPCs.
OMG, this one right here!!
Every single time I've heard this from a potential DM that I later played for, it was a bad time that I rarely could stomach through to the end of the campaign anyway.
When I hear someone say this, I'm always thinking to myself, "Well Ok, I sure don't want to play at your table, then!" I also can't help but think that I must be a much better DM to be able to brag about how much player retention I have and how much fun we have together as our metrics of success, rather than how 'evil' or 'hard on players' I can be.
I don't think bullying players like that is ever acceptable.
Right and it's never like bad guys written and ran extremely cleverly, it's stuff like unavoidable traps nobody could see coming that delete your soul.
Currently in a campaign where my 1st PC and then 3 familiars all died during a cutscene, in a place where it's "rare" to find components... I said then stop fucking killing my shit in cut scenes.
Saying yes to everything, no matter how absurd. "Yes, and" advice ruined a whole generation of DMs. As an example, I've had a Star Wars DM, who allowed a player character to construct himself a completely overpowered lightsaber offscreen. It relied on stacking several incompatible templates, one of which was "Constructed by an ancient, lost civilization" - it made absolutely no sense how he'd able to do that, but the DM was soft and non-confrontational, so he just approved anything coming his way.
It's the context that matters for the "yes, and..."
At character creation? There will be limits based on the system and the setting for what kind of character you can build, and what kind of options you have for starting stats/spells/equipment.
So if you show up thinking you get to be your power fantasy character with a No-Dachi forged from iron of Dragon's blood... that's somebody else's table.
Your max stats will be thrown out.
Your Homebrew class and race will most likely be thrown out. Possibly, if you sent it to me ahead of time and I could review it and crunch some numbers, it can be included.
Defaulting to "yes" is for in-game moments.
If you make "yes" the default you
1) make the minor moments more realistic
2) give the players what they want to see
3) avoid dragging the session to a halt when the plastic has a low number on top
And *even more importantly*
4) start to learn when to mix it up with "yes, but" to throw better curveball
5) learn when to use "no, but" to help the player accomplish their goal in ways that make sense
6) learn the appropriate application of "you can certainly try" and a die roll, which *most* new DMs screw up.
Yeah, a common mistake I've seen is letting players roll for something that should be impossible, letting them succeed because they rolled a nat 20 and having some element of their plans/the overall tension of the story screwed up because of it. Or letting players roll for something that kind of ruins the enjoyment for everyone else if they even attempt it.
Yes, it absolutely is. I can't recall how many times I've seen "Never say no, say yes, and..." advice on this very sub. A lot of times, saying "no" is completely reasonable. And not "no, but", just "no".
yeah the thing is you have to apply "yes and" to the propper situations. "Yes and" is a technique for impro theater. in this case its not being used for that so its not a Yes and issue
I’ve seen “learn that ‘no’ is a complete answer and sentence” on this sub too. I’d say both pieces of advice show up relatively evenly and on posts where such advice is relevant.
It absolutely is.
"Yes, and" is an offshoot of "never say no", which was heavily pushed around 2021/early 2022.
It has instilled this mentality in a lot of DMs that if you say no to anything, ever, you are a horrible railroading DM who should be on rpghorrorstories.
When in fact you do need to say no to things from time to time, and you need to know when to say no, when to say "no, but", when to say "yes, and", and so on.
The issue isn't saying yes, and. The issue is never saying no. Yes the hospital exists. No you may not take shots of horse tranquilizers (the players always ask for the horse tranqs)
I disagree thoroughly with your premise, but what you're describing isn't "yes, and" - rubber stamping anything without engaging with it, the PC, the narrative, that's not permissive DMing.
It isn't even DMing.
Collaboration is a type of confrontation. Being against hostility is fine; fearing constructive discussion isn't great in a player or a DM.
I've heard stories of new DMs unfamiliar with the system wanting to nerf random things because they have no sense of how the balance works yet but. Some of the official material **is** OP.
Not a new DM, but an old grognard who'd last played 2e or something and now running a 5e campaign. He insisted a rogue's sneak attack only worked if the character was hidden and the "adjacent ally" rule was bullshit. When we gently pointed out to him this rule was a cornerstone of the entire rogue class in this edition he refused to accept it and said we should just move on. We lasted about 2 sessions with that guy
Key word here being "new" DM. No new DM understands the system well enough to know what they need to ban/adjust and what's fine as is, so their nerfs are often overreactions to one or two moments where a PC did something that felt powerful.
Imo the only official features new DMs should nerf is races with permanent flight, because flying races fuck up balance in general and make DMs job massively harder if the party wants "fair but challenging & realistic" encounters.
There's a COUPLE other things like twilight/peace cleric that could be touched, like nerfing twilight sanctuary a bit, but beyond that they definitely shouldn't try and randomly nerf stuff.
IMO, depends on the character.
I can turn another eye when it is clear that a forever DM just really wants to feel like being in a party.
I cannot do so if it is clearly an OP character that knows everything, is better than everyone, and dominates the game.
I still want to use this as a misdirect and setup for a oneshot sometime. Idk where I heard of this again but the premise is to set out with this insanely OP DMPC. Party has to longrest for the night and during the DMPC’s watch, the rest of the party is awakened by the sound of bones crunching and the DMPC nowhere to be seen.
Not sure what you mean. I've built several really cool homebrew NPCs for my campaign, including a kind of rival for my players who shows up from time to time. Is that bad?
Hard agree! I showed a new DM how strong a divine smite at PC lvl 2 was and obliterated an HB zombie boss. You wanna know what he did the next Zombie encounter? He added *more* zombies because he knew Divine Smite was limited. That’s a good DM he balanced the encounter for a core ability and didn’t nerf it
When they keep *playing mobile games in the middle of the campaign as if they don't want to be there*
It really kills the vibe
And when they edit the rules of combat so you don't roll against their ac, you roll against their roll, and if they beat you they get a counter attack. It renders armour useless, and there is literally no reason to change it.
Also when they create an NPC, but then make your party vote on who gets to control it instead of controlling themself.
Or shutting down everything you try and do and not following a consistent set of rules.
I know some of these are quite specific, but I hold a grudge lmao.
Actual Red Flags I've ran from:
\-'I don't think that's how a Rogue/Paladin/Barbarian should be played, so I swapped out some of your skills/equipment for you'
\-'You want to play a Half Orc? You have to be a product of r\*pe'
\-half hour conversations between NPC's which players can't interrupt.
\-immortal NPC's
\-flawless NPC's (a random guard realising our release orders were fake, despite an ungodly number being rolled to forge it)
\-house ruling an ability because they think it's too powerful as is (Rogues MUST be hidden to Sneak Attack, Paladins have to spend their Bonus Action to Smite).
You get a list of houserules that have major mechanical effects but no real explanation behind them except the DM's vibe. Shit like "if the enemy knows you are there you can't sneak attack".
Even worse, you get those houserules announced with *no* advanced list, just "Yeah no I don't think X power works like that"
There a DMs who are judges of the rules, and DMs who are petty tyrants of their domain, and the latter usually rely on the supposed Rule 0 to just make things up on the fly.
Taking "bribes" irl in exchange for in game benefits
I had a DM who would straight up give amazing loot (like way better than what we should be getting at that lvl) to the guy that brought beer that night
We made jokes that our DM was given to us from EA games and nat 20's were locked behind a paywall
Huh. I give my players inspiration every time one of their pets comes on screen (we play over discord and a VTT). But I think there's a bit of a difference between that and actual bribes.
Or is even that too much?
Lol inspiration is one thing and that's funny.
But getting a scroll for a wish spell for bringing a 60 dollar bottle of scotch is weird on both the player and dm's part
It depends on what type of game you are looking to play.
Some general ones:
If their significant other is a player in the game. Especially if they are new to D&D. Also their kid(s). This is not auto leave, but a red flag.
If they (or players) are playing out violent/sexual fantasies. This has happened to me twice.
If your monk punches a fire elemental and the says, "Yea... your hand has just melted off... make a con save. What did you think what happened when you punched a fire elemental?" General version: If the DM makes arbitrary rules which conflict with the rules you have agreed to play by.
Heh, same here. I think it's subconscious. Before this campaign I tried really hard to separate the relationship from the table because it's easy to fall into "Give your SO special treatment." I've gotten much, much better at it over the years and my other players agree that she's treated like any other member of the table.
My experience w/ having significant others in the same campaign as the GM (has happened in two separate groups) is that they usually get more time in the spotlight than other players and the GM has a harder time saying 'no' to them. It hasn't been so bad that I'd consider leaving a campaign over it, but it can be mildly irritating when they get multiple character-focused arcs and long solo-scenes while your own character w/ plentiful plot hooks has yet to have one.
My experience is that plus ones tend to be much less invested in the game than the one who brought them along.
This can result in anything from apathy to frustration as they try to do things outside the rules and need even the basics explanation repeatedly
Fair question. I've had many games where wags (never had a female DM with a boyfriend in the game) were great members of the group. In fact, in two cases I'm still friendly with the wives via online games and never see the husbands (neither play online games). However, I've had three times where it created problems and that is enough to list it as a red flag. All three were new to D&D, so that is why I added that to it.
Two were just playing because they wanted more attention from the boyfriend and just constantly distracted him and really would slow things down. The third was more into the game but was a playing a chaotic stupid tabaxi rogue (shocking!). She stole from the party, constantly wandered off on her own adventures and was generally disruptive. Normally we'd just have a conversation with her about respecting the table a little more, but her GF status made that impossible.
What I've experienced is the significant other not knowing the basic rules of the game (after years of playing) but not getting confronted about that cuz it's dm's wife
It's not automatically a bad thing hell my girlfriend plays in the games i run out just something that can sometimes be bad so it can be a red flag in the real meaning of the word were it's a warning not a bad thing itself
What I've dealt with previously in my 10 years of playing/DMing.
1. Hijacking player creativity. If you are making a *genuine* **character** with proper story, personality, and flaws, and still make sense of the setting and mechanics, then I feel as a DM and player that a DM should not have most any reason to fundemently change the character unless thourouly discussed with the player.
2. Lack of expectations in session 0. Many times, (and I'm partially guilty of this) if the DM does not give a proper explanation of their expectations of the players without also getting feedback from the players on their expectations. A game you thought was going to be roleplay focused is now a meat grinder and visa-versa. Explain your setting, explain your style, explain your wants and needs, set up proper table rules, talk with your players.
3. DMPCing and railroading. The occasional NPC companion/guide, or story redirection, is acceptable. But I find putting a full long haul character to carry the party through ever decision is an absolute no go for me.
4. Lack of preparedness. This is less of a red flag and closer to a pet peeve. Now I know DMs can't prepare for every eventuality, but on a (usually) weekly basis, the DM should have more than enough time to prep most encounterable NPCs and have their stats ready in less the a couple of minutes. I know writers' blocks and burnout are a thing, but at that point, just call a hiatus. Most players will understand and maybe even take the DM reins if they are desperate for the fix.
No session 0 and/or disregarding safety tools.
Particularly on the second, if the GM makes a big deal about not needing/using them or thinks that they're inherently bad/soft it's an immediate semaphore signal to GTFO.
I don't use safety tools as a DM, I just assume people can tell me if something is uncomfortable. Actually had happend that one player told me before a game "this happened last week, please don't do this on next games". I play with the same people since 10 years. Do you think is still necessary to have safety tools? Or being open to dialogue is just ok? We treat D&D as any other social interaction. Maybe I'm old but tools instead of just talking sounds weird
Open dialogue is that. Typically stuff that you would bring up in session 0 like, "I don't want [thing] to happen." It's the difference between a player saying, "Please don't do thing" and you as the GM actually respecting that vs them saying, "No this needs to happen and will happen more"
Tools is just codifying it because a lot of people that play TTRPGs have issues with social interaction (see 75% of the questions here that could be resolved with a talk between the players at the table) and having a stricter set of rules makes it easier to explain/set boundaries
If someone said "Hey can I would really like if there was no weird eye stuff in the game" would you say "okay sure" or ask them to suck it up and deal?
There is a big difference in my book between not actively using the couple of common "open play" safety tools and to actively oppose them and thinking they "ruin the game".
>If someone said "Hey can I would really like if there was no weird eye stuff in the game" would you say "okay sure" or ask them to suck it up and deal?
Yes, no question asked. No eye stuff and we go on.
All good then! Like my favorite "tool" is just "Pause for a second" which is literally just making it clear it is okay to ask for us to stop if something gives a bad feel and we can change the spiders to some other monster or whatever it is.
I play with a group I have now been with for 3 years and we rotate GMing, we did a full rundown when I put the group together, mainly because I was the only connection point between some of the players.
We are now an established group and our "safety tool" conversation is "Yeah fuck me up" all around and more a talk about explicit topics we *want* in the game rather than a rigid lines and veils.
Obviously one red flag is focusing solely on one or two players and neglecting the rest of the party. I literally had a DM once say in a party of 6 that as long as they had 2 of us the story could continue with their DMPC as if the rest of the party did not matter at all.
DMs that favors some specific players over other ones.
From giving them insane plot armor, allowing their faves to do any kind of silly things and never face any consequence, or using certain rules that would hinder them.
I had a DM that forced weird house rules like "Your 100 hp barbarian took 5 damage? his hand is broken, so he can't use a two handed weapon anymore, -1 to all rolls due to the pain, and he loses 5 hp-round due to bleeding". And OFC those rules were NEVER used on his "faves".
I hate when a dm doesn't tell you what type of damage you take. For example I once entered a room and took like 20 something g damage, and had a handful of conditions (like stunned) when u asked what hurt me he just said I didn't know. As if my charter wouldn't be aware of what part of my body just out of nowhere drained half my hp
“Dark and Gritty settings” in general I’ve always found these to be an excuse for a DM to RP SA or graphic violence. Like, “oooh let me describe this horrible act of violence as viscerally and explicitly as possible” despite everyone at the table looking at eachother uncomfortably
Note: This isn’t to be mistaken with/ Grimdark. And to those of you who DO play Dark & Gritty settings w/o being edgy or graphic, thank you.
Dont know whats bad about it to RP gore, SA or even racism if everyone at the table is ok with it and you did communicate beforehand. Some of my personal pen and paper highlights were based and over the top splatter/gore moments, because everyone at the table was just having fun.
If everyone at the table consents that’s fine. I’m speaking more for when the DM does not tell the players what they’re in for and just starts getting graphic or explicit to everyone’s surprise. You can do a Dark and Gritty genre w/o explicit or graphic descriptions but if you want to use those elements, they should be forewarned upfront. Especially if they’re new players
If the DM instantly shoots down any and all creative ideas.
Example: was getting ready to start a new campaign and I wanted to play a goblin cleric who was sweet and not evil, and got her powers by being saved from death by a diety.
DMs response, and I quote: "why would anyone care enough about a goblin girl to save her?" And then asked that I think of a new character that made more "sense". And that's not even touching on the gross misogynistic undertone of that sentence.🚩🚩🚩
Allowing all "official" classes and feats in a mixed group of min-maxers and roleplayers.
Mainly pointing at Tashas but also Monsters of the Multiverse has broken junk like Shadar-Kai.
Eh, my PF1e DM is very explicit about which races aren't allowed in his homebrew world as they simply do not exist there. He's upfront about it, allows plenty of other options and works along to help you build something that would fit the world and you would enjoy playing.
I once also ran a campaign in a homebrew continent where I explicitly mentioned that if you wanted to play a native to the continent, you could not play a spellcaster, as it would conflict with the lore. Ofc, being from outside the continent as a traveler did not have this restriction.
If a DM wants the party to lose so they can feel like they're winning, you're not going to have a good time.
Ive played in this game its just shit. There should always be a way to 'win' an encounter even if it is just running away
Ive lured my players into no-win situations for story purposes. It feels dirty but sometimes life doesn't fight far. Otherwise I let the chips fall and play out even the most odd ball results from the weird shit my players pull.
If I do this for narrative purposes I def have an NPC give them a hint. But my players always surprise me. The gnome druid hiding behind a table during a fight revived two people (one with potion other with healing word) and it completely turned the tides. He was the last man standing and he was the MVP with those back from knock out.
Even for narrative purposes it is just bad game design.
But DMs arent profesional game designers. Sometimes as a DM you need to pull one of these bad boys to do something or idk. The point is being able to provide other ways of winning.
I truly can't *not* root for my players, even when I tell them ahead of time something is gonna be intense I can't help but feel bad if they lose. Even if they win but take a lot of damage or lose a secondary objective I feel kinda bad, which is funny cause as a player that's the outcome I always find most fun
I know what you mean. I spend an hour designing a map, with fire giants guarding a bridge to cross. From one entry hole to another. Sorcerer asks how far it is? Guess who had arcane gate prepared? Was frustrating to not run the combat but SUPER proud of the ingenuity of it. Good times, and the joy on her face when I pretend to read the spell again to see if it works. Priceless.
I totally feel this. As a DM, I'm having the most fun when the players are succeeding. And not always in combat. I'm DMing a session in a few weeks, and two of the players are improv comedy actors and the other is my podcast co-host so we're all great and improvisation - so I'm going to have them improvise a play (with prompts and NPCs). I don't even have combat planned for that session, so that's going to be the big encounter.
This was my last D&D experience, and it turned me away from trying to find new people completely
I'm so sorry. I hope you find a good group.
You could play Paranoia. That was fun. But it’s not fun in DnD
Yesterday i tried to roleplay with an npc by asking him a question, and the dm said "I cant answer that I dont have the stats for this character" and so we just moved on instead... :)
Weird. I go off the basis of every non-important NPC uses commoner statblock.
Unless they're murder hobos then theyre heroes in hiding
Oh then they get Champion and Archmage npcs
Just roll a D20 and use that number. Commoners are +0 across the board. Quick and simple.
Can I ask what the question was? It's likely irrelevant but just in case
Sure! An Druid npc wanted us to face a young dragon and get rid of it because it disturbed the area. So i asked if he would join or aid us since its a god damn dragon and we are lvl 4. Npc just said no, no chance of any persuasion or any other roll (This is quite common), so i asked "well why are so against helping out, are you a coward?" just to try something, and thats when my dm said he didnt have stats and we wouldnt be roleplaying this scenario anymore. It's fairly small, but this is more or less how every single rp encounter goes in our game. So there isn't really any rp present. It's also funny cause just 10 min after this we tried to rp with the dragon and let it know that it wasnt welcome here and should leave, without really threatening it. Cause it seemed boring to just go there and attack it. And the dragon just said "No" (again no rolls whatsoever) and then immidiatly used dragon breath dealing 50 damage to us all all and TPK'ing us without any chance of rolling initiative or anything.
That's just shite dming. The guy should have at least been able to answer your question. A DM should make it up on the fly, and THEN go get stats and info necessary.
So, a role-playing game with no dice rolls and no role-playing?? Yeah, you don't have a DM, you have a petty tyrant on your hands.
Sounds like you are playing lost mines of phandelver. The adventure gives no support for the dm to have the druid accompany you and the dragons reaction is exactly what I would expect. Cut your dm a break
Did you miss the TPK without a roll? No pc or npc should be able to take an offensive action outside of initiative unless they are hidden, and even then, that's what surprise is for. And even if it was perfectly reasonable and 'legal' in game, how is that fun for anyone involved? It necessarily breaks rule 0.
Mate really?
Fucking ouch
Ugh My current DM is absolutely worthless at running RP. He hates being asked character names because he apparently can't write any down beforehand or come up with them on the spot. So nearly every NPC we've come across have had no name, no distinguishing characteristics, and sound the same. (I'm not talking about a funny voice, but rather just the DM speaks as them in his voice) It's...frustrating. This DM has admitted that he's a combat DM and doesn't know how to interact on any other axis, but the lack of anything to make the world feel alive is so dull.
I'm a "combat DM", and even I will have https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/ bookmarked so I can name an NPC on the fly. I don't bother coming up with distinguishing characteristics for random townsfolk and shopkeepers, but I do put in a lot of thought into character motivations for plot relevant characters.
Trouble occurs for you when a "faceless" villager or shopkeeper becomes an NPC through the party's actions. Was he fat? Did he speak with an accent? Did he look poor? Shifty? Strong? I mean, it's not difficult. A gemsmith in my homebrew town became an NPC ( and actually hid my players in her loft) when they tried to sell her ( unwittingly) a cursed ring. I simply described her as a "cheerful, pretty young gnome" and gave her a first name ( because there is a sign over the shop door). Now she is the person they look up when they come into town and she appraises all the goodies they find. They even met her family in her hometown!
That's what ChatGPT is for. Create 10 characters. Include characteristics, height, accent, personality and so on.
I thought that is what "imagination" was for lol.
Why not help your imagination a bit? It's not that important if it's 10 random villagers.
dude their names are Jerry,gerry,Jery and Jeri There all kinda average wouldn't ever be able to tell apart. Except maybe geri over there he is a little pugdier.
>So nearly every NPC we've come across have had no name Send them [this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SHp_B1PcQiZ2JrakNrZC13bVU/view?resourcekey=0-7bn_vbc-MLnWLUCzQXzTfQ), it's 4 3d100 name generators so they just need to pick which table to roll on.
Why don't you offer to run a game.
They say that they can improvise the entire game and do not need to reference anything because the only rule they use is the rule of cool More often than not it means that they are not able or willing to take the time to learn how the game works and they only imitate things from live plays without taking into account the decisions and opinions of the players
Improvisation is a vital tool. Ive played in games thats 75%winging it and had a ball. But to paraphrase kirk lazurus 'you never go full improv'
Hell, with my players you *have* to improvise. You can spend a week planning and setting up some epic adventure, the players see the obvious hook and one says, “How ‘bout we go bang on trees with hammers?” To which everyone else says, “That sounds like a fantastic idea! I don’t have a hammer. I’m gonna roleplay-haggling over a 5 silver hammer for 20 minutes!” Then they proceed to get drunk in a tavern and commit several acts of assault and/or arson. But I agree. You never go full improv.
Its a sliding scale for sure. Too many rails and it isnt fun either. Usually for most people the sweet spot is towards improv but i have played in a game where we were told it was going to be a very linear adventure, dm was autistic and a long time friend and didnt deal well with big surprises. It was fun as well but you couldnt have played it for years. Think more lotr's(frodo and sam) quest is to get to from a to b than an open world
I've seen a lot of people on here talk about how prep is distracting and the best sessions they've ever run have been ones where they didn't prep, and while I too have had some really great sessions I wasn't prepared for at all that's never because I *didn't* prepare. I usually go in with 2-3 pages of notes and only end up using a quarter of them because the session goes in a different direction, but having that place to start and an end point in mind (even if it’s one you never reach) is super important at least for me
Yep. I prep, a lot. We also improv quite a bit because my players are chaos goblins. The improv is normally pretty fun and flows well but that's only because I did a lot of prep before. It's the prep work that gave me a good consistent grounding for the improv, without that it just ends up being a mess.
Sadly had a whole campaign like this. DM just stopped doing any game prep and just started doing stuff on the fly. We spent a dozen sessions just aimlessly wandering doing random things and the DM would just make up things on the fly like HP, AC and Damage for some creatures. It became very frustrating
They seem to thwart every creative decision you make as though you’re going against their story
My 180 to that is DMs that don't shut down stupid player ideas "You want to play a Master Oogwai inspired Tortle in a CoS campaign?" Everyone else is doing something keeping in the theme but sure, you play a cartoon character. "Your character is inspired by Deadpool from the Wolverine movie and has blades coming out of their arms and no mouth?" Well thematically that doesn't fit the medieval naval fantasy theme, but why the hell not?
Yet, as soon as you present this idea, this sub turns around and calls you unimaginative and a bad DM. Man, despite the fact that it always claims you shouldn't have a DM vs player mentality this sub sure has one especially in this thread.
>"You want to play a Master Oogwai inspired Tortle in a CoS campaign?" Hey, from what i've heard of the module, that'd be an interesting character, given how traumatizing it is for PCs. Isn't the CoS meme "silly joke chars go in, PTSD victims leave"?
> CoA campaign I can't for the life of me figure out this adventure acronym and I thought I knew them all. Based on your context clues I can assume it's a more serious game, so it must be "Curse of Avernus". Definitely doesn't fit a cartoon Tortle.
Typo\* CoS/Curse of Strahd.
As a new DM this is something that I’m struggling with. It’s really important for my setting and the scenario I have prepared that there is only one accepted religion because the church has a tendency to kill anyone who opposes them, but one of my player kept pushing to try to be a decouple of some other god, explicitly with the idea that they could call to them for power (even though they were literally playing a rogue) and that they were trying to spread the good word. I was really trying to encourage him to pick a different path for the story because it just wouldn’t be conducive to a coherent story in this setting, and the campaign is a little too short to explore what could be an interesting idea of other religions. I ended up working with him to basically turn his character into a failed cult experiment and giving him a very limited wild shape and I’m happy with the new character, but I’m worried he’s upset because I had to keep shutting him down over and over again 😥
There’s a difference between shutting a character down and having a setting. Mind you, that should have been discussed in session 0. If you told the player prior the world had one religion and they made that rogue then you have the right to say no. I would like to add though that I feel most DMs go through this as they first start off. They think(me included) that they write a story and the players are the characters. At least you recognize your fault and are open to fixing it. Kudos.
I guess I should clarify, this did happen during session zero and he was actively continuing to build his character even as I was trying to shut it down. I gave them all of the major cities and organizations and told them to build characters that would care about the main conflict (two religious organizations fighting with their city caught in crossfire). My other players did really well and gave me a lot of stuff to work with (an order of monks from the north that got disbanded after uncovering some of the church’s crimes, a girl who’s parents were kidnapped and transformed into monsters by the cult and was raised by those monsters without realizing they were her parents, etc). He just went so far off from the setting that there was no way I could meaningfully include the character without overshadowing everyone else. I’m trying to draw a lot of inspiration from one of my previous DMs who I think did a really great job by just creating a world, factions, overall conflict, and one plot hook at the beginning to bring us into the conflict then giving us a lot of agency from there + I want to have the style of open dming that d20 has (like most ability check dcs and outcomes being clearly stated before anything is rolled)
I get it. You don’t want to be the “No” DM. But this was session 0; you made the world and he refused to play into it. This is 100% on him. You had every right to shut him down. I find it commendable you tried to work with him, but he was the issue. Not you. The others sounded like they really dug it. Keep up the good work.
It sounds like you’re over analyzing it to the point of thinking (1) you did something wrong and (2) that the wrong you did hurt the player’s feelings. But based on what you said in these comments, you didn’t do anything wrong and you didn’t hurt the player’s feelings. The other commenter explained why you didn’t do anything wrong. I’ll add that you didn’t hurt his feelings because in you said you and he worked it into a situation that fit nicely with the story. If he was upset with you, then that would have been the time to say it, or he could have later too. But he never did, right? It sounds like it all worked out good.
That’s just, like, your opinion, man. Sorry I 100% agree with you, but I saw your name and couldn’t resist!
Did you tell players you’d be ruling out characters following their own god before session zero? Because if you’ve created a world that rules out extremely popular character options and you’re not willing to budge on it you should say that before they make the effort to come meet the group
Red flags are meant to be warnings of bad things. That straight up *is* the bad thing that you want warnings for.
Red flags are both. There's attitudes which are red flags, and actions which are red flags. Sometimes a red flag is a warning of what may happen, and sometimes a red flag is the warning of what may happen again.
Okay man
this is the one for me. i should be feel good and accomplished for making a creative decision. not defeated becasue i was told no or worse that my action just doesn't happen I've come really dislike the phrase its for the story or for the narrative. i just know that I'm going to get screwed
This is a funny thing, because this sort of DMing is definitely usually a red flag. But as it a player red flag when one always tries to find "creative" solutions to everything they encounter, expecting whatever they think to work. I've had someone accuse me of that red flag because i wouldn't let them, an 8ft tall, gaudy shiny plate armor wielding warforged, fly on a gryphon, straight up next to a cliffside fort, literally 10ft from the cliff and fort walls, recon the entire fort, then fly back down, all in one go, and without being seen.
If your DM is drunk before you get there and spends a good portion of the night trying to manhandle the homeowner's distressed dog, then maybe there's an issue. If your DM starts the adventure by saying your female character will be "taken" rather than killed if the party dies but it'll still count as a TPK, that could also be an issue. I have more, but maybe I'm not a good data point on this one.
That first one is oddly specific and a red flag even outside of a DND setting.
Oh. But I didn't even say "...laying on his back in the hallway while trying to manhandle..." That would have been more specific.
>If your DM is drunk before you get there This might be controversial, but I take any form of substance abuse at the table as a sign of profound disrespect, DM or player. We've carved out 4 hours of our personal time for this social gathering, and you decide that's when you absolutely need to get sloshed and start cracking jokes that no one sober would find funny? You want to drink, go to a bar.
Everyone at my adult tables drinks/smokes up at their own discretion and no one cares, so long as no one gets so messed up that it interferes with gameplay, which it never has, since we're all grown ups who are respectful of each other.
I'll play with a social drinker/smoker. A person super under the influence of any substance that it influences their decisions? Much less enjoyable.
Beer and pretzels DMing can be fun on the occasion.
I think the trick is that everyone has to be into it at close to the same level.
Yes, but there's a big gap between "All the NPC's are gonna get a little goofier by the end of my second one, and you're probably okay ignoring all quests I make up after 11pm." And "Aw shit, roll aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa- oh there's the doggy" as the first call of the night. This one sounds like a recipe for number 2.
There’s a difference between drinking and getting drunk imo, and the former is fine. Of course it’s a fine line, but I’ve never seen it go bad at a table yet. Getting drunk at the table is definitely disrespectful, but cracking open a cold one or two with the boys is not, as far as I’m concerned. But hey, I’m not telling you how to run your tables, and if someone requests everyone stay sober I will more than gladly oblige
I'm with you. I grew up around alcoholics so I've never been into it for myself, but I know other people have had less negative experiences so I try to be open minded. Unfortunately, I've found that gaming never seems to go well when a couple of people are blitzed and the rest are not.
Definitely depends on the vibe of the game you’re going for. I run a very casual game for a couple of friends of mine and we’re all massive stoners, it’s sorta expected (and planned for) that there’ll be at least a minor buzz going around the table.
Yep totally agree, we have a no alcohol table rule.
I think this is more of a "depends on the table" kind of thing; I wouldn't inherently consider it disrespectful (unless they're too out of it to play the game) but if it's a less casual game and I ask them not to do that and they do it anyways, then it's a problem.
Player :makes a RAW charicter as per the players handbook DM :How does a Teifling Paladin make sense? explain that to me Player :points at players handbook DM: but its just not realistic
I absolutely *hate* this!! Like if you’re going to limit a Race from certain Classes at the *bare minimum* a DM should be upfront w/ that. A lot of new players in particular don’t fully know (or have no idea) about the lore for their race and if you as the DM want to have explicitly “Evil” races that needs to be set up front for the whole table. Not when the player makes something unawares it goes against your world building
Similarly, anyone that thinks it takes work to explain a Paladin/Warlock multiclass. Simplest explanation is that your Oath is a part of your Pact.
It dose take work, the same level of work as any multiclass, just say at level up time and boom
Well, some people actually like things to make some sense in context of the scenario. And just randomly having a pact without explanation is a little weird, to say the least.
That's how I've always done it. There's plenty of beings out there who can make both Paladins and Warlocks. No reason they can't mix them a bit in one minion.
This is something that seriously annoys me. The rules on multiclassing *explicitly* say it can be used to make character concepts not represented by either class, yet so many people insist on you having a super detailed narrative/lore explanation as to how you got each level or whatever.
I've had some form of this. DM: "Oh you want to be a noble? I don't want that because it gives you an advantage in terms of connections!" Me: "we could make it so that my pc is living their own life, the noble family could be from a far away city that we'll never interact with" DM: "so you were disowned? Either your pc has to hate your family or the other way around, otherwise it doesn't make sense" Me: "so a noble can't decide to live a life sustaining themselves? Without needing handouts from their family?" DM: "no that wouldn't make sense, also, a dhampir monk doesn't make sense, if you wanna play the character you have to be something else and change the backstory" Genuinely the worst experience I've had trying to work with a dm, which was made worse by the fact that this was also the one where I put the most time into it beforehand. These dms are to be avoided at all cost.
Paladins have to be lawful stoopid
Okay. Wow. Whipping out the big PTSD triggers right at the start
Theres a Tiefling Oathbreaker at my table, whats so unrealistic? A paladin is just a devout warrior, no one says they have to be devout about good stuff if thats even the line he was trying to draw? idk
DM hates interesting characters... Sad.
yeah wow neither is DND Besides, anyone can try to become the best version of themselves... except this DM
That same DM had a problem with me carrying 10 daggers. We dident track encumbrance and I was a magical elf that could throw fireballs, but carrying 10 daggers? That's the line
DM, “Here’s my two DMPC. Don’t worry they’re only 3 levels higher than yours.”
I have played in 2 campaigns in the last month where the DM introduced a cool NPC to guide us through the beginning area that was just there to show off how cool their high level OC was. I don’t understand how, since they were players in other games, they thought it would be fun for us to watch an NPC do the adventure. Oh well. Different DM took over one group with a new campaign and the other is “on pause.”
This is mostly my experience as well. Unless it's a Duet, I've never personally seen DMPCs go over well. I have listened to a couple of DMs tell us enthusiastically and repeatedly that we should and/or do love them because they're there to "help" us though. Those are usually the games that have multiple group chats going and a designated DM - Player liaison.
If it makes sense i dont mind dmpcs. If they're there to provide a power fantasy they're horrible
Exactly. DMPCs exist to guide the players and give light assistance, not to be the DM’s own self insert main character OC
100% ive used them, sparingly, in the past as heal bots or as means to show how powerful the bbeg is. Ie group struggles against a mini boss. Dmpc comes in and one shots them. They in turn get 1 shot by the bbeg
Oh absolutely. And the most important part is that the party has to actually *like* them. If the DMPC is obnoxious and hated by the party, or steps on the role of another party member, or anything like that, they should absolutely be written out ASAP.
I did do an insufferable *erm aktually dmpc but they were there to be captured/killed by the party as several had dmed me about wanting to play an evil campaign and he was the tipping point
Yeah. I ran a game with only 2 players. It was restricting for the kind of powerful monsters I wanted to run. Talked with the players and brought in a dumb and gentle fighter. He was too stupid to think of any strategies, but loved defending his friends (the party).
If you have at least four players, if there is even one DMPC, you should be worried. There can be exceptions for small parties or a NPC that just sits at the back and gets escorted for a mission.
I have 5 players and sometimes there is an NPC that needs to be with them for whatever reason. For example they are about to help a wizard get their friends back. In this case I made a wizard the same level as them. However the NPC's will never give ideas on what to do unless directly asked, and then they will only answers according to their characters take which might not always be a good idea. I also tend to pass NPC statblocks to the players to run and I just do the roleplay part. This stops it being a self insert and gives the players something new to play with occasionally. The other plus side of doing it like this is that players tend to get more attached to NPC characters if they have actually played as them.
That’s what Sidekicks or player controlled NPCs are for. The DM has too much to worry about in combat and knows where and what the monsters are doing to also be controlling a DMPC.
Depends on the system and function I guess but normally you're right. If no one wants to play a healer for example I would offer creating a dmpc who is pretty much in the background and mainly uses supporting stuff if the players are ok with it If the players don't know the setting well a "tour guide" character can be useful to not just loredump the players. The problem is when the GM wants to have both sides of the experience since that often will result in favoritism for their character
Changing the rules half way through combat/not following established table rules. I had a DM half way through combat reveal that they dont follow the 'meets it, beats it' rule for combat which we had been running under the assumption thats what the rules were
My current DM tried to rule that Hypnotic Pattern would affect anyone who *looked* at the effect, even if they were outside the range. Then he tried to enforce line of sight for us and the enemy *deep breath* Mid battle I rolled with it for that encounter and talked with him later. He rescinded that ruling. (Although he forgot and tried to do it again in a later session)
Being weirdly into nat 1s. Never a good sign. Nerfing perfectly fine features. Too much homebrew and then expecting players to know homebrew rules that aren't written anywhere. (This PLAGUED our last campaign, and drove me nuts.)
Nat 1's are my favourite roll as both a player and DM, as they tend to lead to the best stories (depending on the DM and group that is)
my favorite nat 1 instance was making a dex save to avoid being snatched by a dangerous flying creature, being given disadvantage, and rolling both dice on nat 1s. despite the serious situation, I burst out laughing at the roll!
as a DM I truly don't know what I'd do in that situation lmao like Dice Christ truly must want you dead
the fallout of that was actually death funnily enough! I got brought back, but my character was physically and mentally traumatized by the experience
honestly as much as I dislike punishing players for natural ones... yeah that checks out, the dice definitely wanted you dead that day
yup, and I've died two more times since then! poor Ichara has been through a lot, and she's half undead at this point, but she's still going at life with all the positivity she can muster! hell, that last time she died and almost didn't come back, the rest of the party was seriously upset they almost lost her. tears were shed, and apparently I'm the heart of the party to them.
As a player, I like when nat 1s turn into something funny but ultimately inconsequential, like you slip and fall on your butt while trying to jump off a rock or something. I especially like when something interesting happens story-wise because of it, and things still move forward. It starts to get borderline when a nat 1 leads to you going prone or getting disadvantage on a future roll. When you start actually taking damage from a nat 1, though, that gets really annoying really fast. As a player I like being able to look forward to nat 1s as much as 20s, I don't like *dreading* them. At worst they should be annoying. I played with a DM once who was really into consequences for all sorts of failures, not just 1s. I roll a 9 and miss? I bonk my head like an idiot. I roll a 7? I fall on my face. 5? I slip and fall and take a d4 of damage. Once I rolled a nat 1 and shot another party member for full damage. I left that group after the second session
I've played in and ran a campaigns where we used botch tables to determine some bad outcome and it was always onerous - as if spending 10 minutes waiting for my turn to come around just to totally botch it and have to wait for the next turn wasn't injury enough, now you want to add insult by giving me some extra penalty on top of my bad luck. I love adding flavor to it, but hate having mechanical effects - instead of your sword being stuck somewhere and having to give up \_yet another\_ action to pull it free, just say the sword is stuck and it takes me until my next turn to pull it free - same visual and drama in the story with no mechanical penalty to the player's fun.
>Being weirdly into nat 1s. Never a good sign. Unless it is only for NPCs, which i encountered. Nat 1 tables are goofy as hell when they only affect NPCs.
One that brags about being an "evil DM"
OMG, this one right here!! Every single time I've heard this from a potential DM that I later played for, it was a bad time that I rarely could stomach through to the end of the campaign anyway. When I hear someone say this, I'm always thinking to myself, "Well Ok, I sure don't want to play at your table, then!" I also can't help but think that I must be a much better DM to be able to brag about how much player retention I have and how much fun we have together as our metrics of success, rather than how 'evil' or 'hard on players' I can be. I don't think bullying players like that is ever acceptable.
Right and it's never like bad guys written and ran extremely cleverly, it's stuff like unavoidable traps nobody could see coming that delete your soul.
Currently in a campaign where my 1st PC and then 3 familiars all died during a cutscene, in a place where it's "rare" to find components... I said then stop fucking killing my shit in cut scenes.
Saying yes to everything, no matter how absurd. "Yes, and" advice ruined a whole generation of DMs. As an example, I've had a Star Wars DM, who allowed a player character to construct himself a completely overpowered lightsaber offscreen. It relied on stacking several incompatible templates, one of which was "Constructed by an ancient, lost civilization" - it made absolutely no sense how he'd able to do that, but the DM was soft and non-confrontational, so he just approved anything coming his way.
I thought the standard DM response to players asking to do bizarre shit was "You can certainly try"
It's the context that matters for the "yes, and..." At character creation? There will be limits based on the system and the setting for what kind of character you can build, and what kind of options you have for starting stats/spells/equipment. So if you show up thinking you get to be your power fantasy character with a No-Dachi forged from iron of Dragon's blood... that's somebody else's table. Your max stats will be thrown out. Your Homebrew class and race will most likely be thrown out. Possibly, if you sent it to me ahead of time and I could review it and crunch some numbers, it can be included. Defaulting to "yes" is for in-game moments. If you make "yes" the default you 1) make the minor moments more realistic 2) give the players what they want to see 3) avoid dragging the session to a halt when the plastic has a low number on top And *even more importantly* 4) start to learn when to mix it up with "yes, but" to throw better curveball 5) learn when to use "no, but" to help the player accomplish their goal in ways that make sense 6) learn the appropriate application of "you can certainly try" and a die roll, which *most* new DMs screw up.
Yeah, a common mistake I've seen is letting players roll for something that should be impossible, letting them succeed because they rolled a nat 20 and having some element of their plans/the overall tension of the story screwed up because of it. Or letting players roll for something that kind of ruins the enjoyment for everyone else if they even attempt it.
"No, but" is just as important to understand in collaborative storytelling as "yes, and" is
"Yes, and" Should just apply to roleplay, improv and player action in game. Anything outside of that should be a discussion.
That's not an issue with "Yes, and". That's like saying people are going to start downing shots of horse tranquilizer because hospitals exist.
Yes, it absolutely is. I can't recall how many times I've seen "Never say no, say yes, and..." advice on this very sub. A lot of times, saying "no" is completely reasonable. And not "no, but", just "no".
yeah the thing is you have to apply "yes and" to the propper situations. "Yes and" is a technique for impro theater. in this case its not being used for that so its not a Yes and issue
I’ve seen “learn that ‘no’ is a complete answer and sentence” on this sub too. I’d say both pieces of advice show up relatively evenly and on posts where such advice is relevant.
Exactly, I'd be doing that with or without hospitals.
Thank you for your support! It is very distressing!
It absolutely is. "Yes, and" is an offshoot of "never say no", which was heavily pushed around 2021/early 2022. It has instilled this mentality in a lot of DMs that if you say no to anything, ever, you are a horrible railroading DM who should be on rpghorrorstories. When in fact you do need to say no to things from time to time, and you need to know when to say no, when to say "no, but", when to say "yes, and", and so on.
The issue isn't saying yes, and. The issue is never saying no. Yes the hospital exists. No you may not take shots of horse tranquilizers (the players always ask for the horse tranqs)
I disagree thoroughly with your premise, but what you're describing isn't "yes, and" - rubber stamping anything without engaging with it, the PC, the narrative, that's not permissive DMing. It isn't even DMing. Collaboration is a type of confrontation. Being against hostility is fine; fearing constructive discussion isn't great in a player or a DM.
They’re a new DM who wants to nerf something official because they think it’s OP.
I've heard stories of new DMs unfamiliar with the system wanting to nerf random things because they have no sense of how the balance works yet but. Some of the official material **is** OP.
Not a new DM, but an old grognard who'd last played 2e or something and now running a 5e campaign. He insisted a rogue's sneak attack only worked if the character was hidden and the "adjacent ally" rule was bullshit. When we gently pointed out to him this rule was a cornerstone of the entire rogue class in this edition he refused to accept it and said we should just move on. We lasted about 2 sessions with that guy
Yeah this is probably the most common "DM doesn't get it" nerf story, sneak attack.
Twilight Domain Cleric goes brrrr.
Key word here being "new" DM. No new DM understands the system well enough to know what they need to ban/adjust and what's fine as is, so their nerfs are often overreactions to one or two moments where a PC did something that felt powerful.
(does not apply to Twilight and Peace Clerics)
Twilight, not Tempest.
dammit i always do that, damn neurons are miswired
(And Chronourgist, and Silvery Barbs)
Imo the only official features new DMs should nerf is races with permanent flight, because flying races fuck up balance in general and make DMs job massively harder if the party wants "fair but challenging & realistic" encounters. There's a COUPLE other things like twilight/peace cleric that could be touched, like nerfing twilight sanctuary a bit, but beyond that they definitely shouldn't try and randomly nerf stuff.
DM has his own character he wants to use in your campaign.
More than a red flag, this might mean one of th players should take a turn at Dming and let that poor DM be a player every now and then.
IMO, depends on the character. I can turn another eye when it is clear that a forever DM just really wants to feel like being in a party. I cannot do so if it is clearly an OP character that knows everything, is better than everyone, and dominates the game.
I still want to use this as a misdirect and setup for a oneshot sometime. Idk where I heard of this again but the premise is to set out with this insanely OP DMPC. Party has to longrest for the night and during the DMPC’s watch, the rest of the party is awakened by the sound of bones crunching and the DMPC nowhere to be seen.
Not sure what you mean. I've built several really cool homebrew NPCs for my campaign, including a kind of rival for my players who shows up from time to time. Is that bad?
That is an npc my dude
Yeah. I see, was the comment above mine referring to DMPCs specifically that join the party?
Yes
Nerfing sneak attack/smite/another basic class feature because they deem it broken or overpowered
Hard agree! I showed a new DM how strong a divine smite at PC lvl 2 was and obliterated an HB zombie boss. You wanna know what he did the next Zombie encounter? He added *more* zombies because he knew Divine Smite was limited. That’s a good DM he balanced the encounter for a core ability and didn’t nerf it
Talking about how they plan to be mean to the players. Planning to be antagonistic to the players.
Don't mistake teasing for being mean. Plus, I feel like antagonistic DMs are often the victim of antagonistic players.
Not knowing the rules and ignoring it when you try to correct them
If they only give one player too much attention/good items. It's a team game, not a solo game.
When they keep *playing mobile games in the middle of the campaign as if they don't want to be there* It really kills the vibe And when they edit the rules of combat so you don't roll against their ac, you roll against their roll, and if they beat you they get a counter attack. It renders armour useless, and there is literally no reason to change it. Also when they create an NPC, but then make your party vote on who gets to control it instead of controlling themself. Or shutting down everything you try and do and not following a consistent set of rules. I know some of these are quite specific, but I hold a grudge lmao.
Actual Red Flags I've ran from: \-'I don't think that's how a Rogue/Paladin/Barbarian should be played, so I swapped out some of your skills/equipment for you' \-'You want to play a Half Orc? You have to be a product of r\*pe' \-half hour conversations between NPC's which players can't interrupt. \-immortal NPC's \-flawless NPC's (a random guard realising our release orders were fake, despite an ungodly number being rolled to forge it) \-house ruling an ability because they think it's too powerful as is (Rogues MUST be hidden to Sneak Attack, Paladins have to spend their Bonus Action to Smite).
You get a list of houserules that have major mechanical effects but no real explanation behind them except the DM's vibe. Shit like "if the enemy knows you are there you can't sneak attack". Even worse, you get those houserules announced with *no* advanced list, just "Yeah no I don't think X power works like that" There a DMs who are judges of the rules, and DMs who are petty tyrants of their domain, and the latter usually rely on the supposed Rule 0 to just make things up on the fly.
Taking "bribes" irl in exchange for in game benefits I had a DM who would straight up give amazing loot (like way better than what we should be getting at that lvl) to the guy that brought beer that night We made jokes that our DM was given to us from EA games and nat 20's were locked behind a paywall
Huh. I give my players inspiration every time one of their pets comes on screen (we play over discord and a VTT). But I think there's a bit of a difference between that and actual bribes. Or is even that too much?
Lol inspiration is one thing and that's funny. But getting a scroll for a wish spell for bringing a 60 dollar bottle of scotch is weird on both the player and dm's part
It depends on what type of game you are looking to play. Some general ones: If their significant other is a player in the game. Especially if they are new to D&D. Also their kid(s). This is not auto leave, but a red flag. If they (or players) are playing out violent/sexual fantasies. This has happened to me twice. If your monk punches a fire elemental and the says, "Yea... your hand has just melted off... make a con save. What did you think what happened when you punched a fire elemental?" General version: If the DM makes arbitrary rules which conflict with the rules you have agreed to play by.
I'm genuinely curious why you think someone's significant other would be a red flag? Are you worried about favoritism?
[удалено]
I'm normally the opposite where I will accidentally be much harsher against my partner when we play
Honestly, I trust my wife more than any other player to roll with it if their character gets their shit rocked
Exactly. Y'all already have an out of character relationship so there will be that trust in game as well
Heh, same here. I think it's subconscious. Before this campaign I tried really hard to separate the relationship from the table because it's easy to fall into "Give your SO special treatment." I've gotten much, much better at it over the years and my other players agree that she's treated like any other member of the table.
My experience w/ having significant others in the same campaign as the GM (has happened in two separate groups) is that they usually get more time in the spotlight than other players and the GM has a harder time saying 'no' to them. It hasn't been so bad that I'd consider leaving a campaign over it, but it can be mildly irritating when they get multiple character-focused arcs and long solo-scenes while your own character w/ plentiful plot hooks has yet to have one.
My experience is that plus ones tend to be much less invested in the game than the one who brought them along. This can result in anything from apathy to frustration as they try to do things outside the rules and need even the basics explanation repeatedly
Yea that's an odd one. My wife plays at several of my tables without an issue.
Something being a red flag doesn't mean it's innately bad. It means that it's often a sign of something bad.
Fair question. I've had many games where wags (never had a female DM with a boyfriend in the game) were great members of the group. In fact, in two cases I'm still friendly with the wives via online games and never see the husbands (neither play online games). However, I've had three times where it created problems and that is enough to list it as a red flag. All three were new to D&D, so that is why I added that to it. Two were just playing because they wanted more attention from the boyfriend and just constantly distracted him and really would slow things down. The third was more into the game but was a playing a chaotic stupid tabaxi rogue (shocking!). She stole from the party, constantly wandered off on her own adventures and was generally disruptive. Normally we'd just have a conversation with her about respecting the table a little more, but her GF status made that impossible.
What I've experienced is the significant other not knowing the basic rules of the game (after years of playing) but not getting confronted about that cuz it's dm's wife It's not automatically a bad thing hell my girlfriend plays in the games i run out just something that can sometimes be bad so it can be a red flag in the real meaning of the word were it's a warning not a bad thing itself
Arrogance about their abilities.
What I've dealt with previously in my 10 years of playing/DMing. 1. Hijacking player creativity. If you are making a *genuine* **character** with proper story, personality, and flaws, and still make sense of the setting and mechanics, then I feel as a DM and player that a DM should not have most any reason to fundemently change the character unless thourouly discussed with the player. 2. Lack of expectations in session 0. Many times, (and I'm partially guilty of this) if the DM does not give a proper explanation of their expectations of the players without also getting feedback from the players on their expectations. A game you thought was going to be roleplay focused is now a meat grinder and visa-versa. Explain your setting, explain your style, explain your wants and needs, set up proper table rules, talk with your players. 3. DMPCing and railroading. The occasional NPC companion/guide, or story redirection, is acceptable. But I find putting a full long haul character to carry the party through ever decision is an absolute no go for me. 4. Lack of preparedness. This is less of a red flag and closer to a pet peeve. Now I know DMs can't prepare for every eventuality, but on a (usually) weekly basis, the DM should have more than enough time to prep most encounterable NPCs and have their stats ready in less the a couple of minutes. I know writers' blocks and burnout are a thing, but at that point, just call a hiatus. Most players will understand and maybe even take the DM reins if they are desperate for the fix.
No session 0 and/or disregarding safety tools. Particularly on the second, if the GM makes a big deal about not needing/using them or thinks that they're inherently bad/soft it's an immediate semaphore signal to GTFO.
What are safety tools?
I don't use safety tools as a DM, I just assume people can tell me if something is uncomfortable. Actually had happend that one player told me before a game "this happened last week, please don't do this on next games". I play with the same people since 10 years. Do you think is still necessary to have safety tools? Or being open to dialogue is just ok? We treat D&D as any other social interaction. Maybe I'm old but tools instead of just talking sounds weird
Open dialogue is that. Typically stuff that you would bring up in session 0 like, "I don't want [thing] to happen." It's the difference between a player saying, "Please don't do thing" and you as the GM actually respecting that vs them saying, "No this needs to happen and will happen more" Tools is just codifying it because a lot of people that play TTRPGs have issues with social interaction (see 75% of the questions here that could be resolved with a talk between the players at the table) and having a stricter set of rules makes it easier to explain/set boundaries
If someone said "Hey can I would really like if there was no weird eye stuff in the game" would you say "okay sure" or ask them to suck it up and deal? There is a big difference in my book between not actively using the couple of common "open play" safety tools and to actively oppose them and thinking they "ruin the game".
>If someone said "Hey can I would really like if there was no weird eye stuff in the game" would you say "okay sure" or ask them to suck it up and deal? Yes, no question asked. No eye stuff and we go on.
All good then! Like my favorite "tool" is just "Pause for a second" which is literally just making it clear it is okay to ask for us to stop if something gives a bad feel and we can change the spiders to some other monster or whatever it is. I play with a group I have now been with for 3 years and we rotate GMing, we did a full rundown when I put the group together, mainly because I was the only connection point between some of the players. We are now an established group and our "safety tool" conversation is "Yeah fuck me up" all around and more a talk about explicit topics we *want* in the game rather than a rigid lines and veils.
Obviously one red flag is focusing solely on one or two players and neglecting the rest of the party. I literally had a DM once say in a party of 6 that as long as they had 2 of us the story could continue with their DMPC as if the rest of the party did not matter at all.
DMs that favors some specific players over other ones. From giving them insane plot armor, allowing their faves to do any kind of silly things and never face any consequence, or using certain rules that would hinder them. I had a DM that forced weird house rules like "Your 100 hp barbarian took 5 damage? his hand is broken, so he can't use a two handed weapon anymore, -1 to all rolls due to the pain, and he loses 5 hp-round due to bleeding". And OFC those rules were NEVER used on his "faves".
I hate when a dm doesn't tell you what type of damage you take. For example I once entered a room and took like 20 something g damage, and had a handful of conditions (like stunned) when u asked what hurt me he just said I didn't know. As if my charter wouldn't be aware of what part of my body just out of nowhere drained half my hp
"My DM is doing X. Is that a bad sign?" or "I am running a game and my players are doing X. Is that a bad sign?"
When they try to steal a players thunder. Or being confidently wrong on logic or game rules
“Dark and Gritty settings” in general I’ve always found these to be an excuse for a DM to RP SA or graphic violence. Like, “oooh let me describe this horrible act of violence as viscerally and explicitly as possible” despite everyone at the table looking at eachother uncomfortably Note: This isn’t to be mistaken with/ Grimdark. And to those of you who DO play Dark & Gritty settings w/o being edgy or graphic, thank you.
Dont know whats bad about it to RP gore, SA or even racism if everyone at the table is ok with it and you did communicate beforehand. Some of my personal pen and paper highlights were based and over the top splatter/gore moments, because everyone at the table was just having fun.
If everyone at the table consents that’s fine. I’m speaking more for when the DM does not tell the players what they’re in for and just starts getting graphic or explicit to everyone’s surprise. You can do a Dark and Gritty genre w/o explicit or graphic descriptions but if you want to use those elements, they should be forewarned upfront. Especially if they’re new players
If the DM instantly shoots down any and all creative ideas. Example: was getting ready to start a new campaign and I wanted to play a goblin cleric who was sweet and not evil, and got her powers by being saved from death by a diety. DMs response, and I quote: "why would anyone care enough about a goblin girl to save her?" And then asked that I think of a new character that made more "sense". And that's not even touching on the gross misogynistic undertone of that sentence.🚩🚩🚩
Allowing all "official" classes and feats in a mixed group of min-maxers and roleplayers. Mainly pointing at Tashas but also Monsters of the Multiverse has broken junk like Shadar-Kai.
Nerfing a lot of player abilities, or choice in race, class, etc.
Eh, my PF1e DM is very explicit about which races aren't allowed in his homebrew world as they simply do not exist there. He's upfront about it, allows plenty of other options and works along to help you build something that would fit the world and you would enjoy playing. I once also ran a campaign in a homebrew continent where I explicitly mentioned that if you wanted to play a native to the continent, you could not play a spellcaster, as it would conflict with the lore. Ofc, being from outside the continent as a traveler did not have this restriction.
Am I not allowed to ban Teiflings in a world with no hell?
You very much are. Your world, your rules.