Are there any rules or quirks your GM has that you completely ignore?
The first time I heard my GM say my paladin couldn't worship a CG god I thought "screw you, I'll worship who I want." I wouldn't force an issue for a class that mechanically relies on the god worshiped, but for roleplay I'll write down whatever deity I want regardless of the character's alignment. That's about it for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I can see the land mines on either side of the train tracks.
I do expect some railroading, because otherwise my character will spend all of their time living their actual life or just off doing their own thing, but at the same time a GM must be flexible and willing to go along with the unexpected. Just as I would be with my players.
So, if I do something unexpected and get penalized for it just because it screws up the GM's campaign, I won't be happy. But if I do something incredibly dumb and the results are what you could expect, I'm not the least bit unhappy at the GM.
Of course, I am the person who posted a story about unwittingly summoning the Tarrasque through a badly-worded wish and then managing to later simultaneously kill the Tarrasque (not permanently) and cause the party paladin to permanently lose their paladin abilities at the same time by outsmarting myself. So I'm pretty comfortable with the fact I will do some very dumb things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although technically from a rules perspective I think that you're right, at least as far as RAW goes. The only mention of gods in the paladin class description says that they worship 'virtuous' gods. Your GM is most likely thinking of clerics who operate by a different system, considers their interpretation to be RAI or has decided that the clerical system should apply to paladins as a house rule.
All of that said, I wouldn't recommend just bringing the game into open conflict with the GM. It can work to get you what you want but it's likely to just bring about resentment from one or both of you. This is probably something better worked through with communication, can you find out why the GM is so intransigent on this point? Perhaps if you understand their objection, you can find a way around it.
I do understand the urge to rebel though, a long time ago I was in a game where the GM had given XP to another player for doing them a favour outside of the game. I was so annoyed by this that I "miscalculated" my own XP when I was adding it up. I figured if the GM didn't respect the XP system, why should I? I don't think I would do the same thing now if the circumstances recurred and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
He runs PFS as a venture lieutenant and that's how paladins are ran there. He uses the same ruling in his home games. Like I said, for a paladin I wouldn't make it an issue. For any other class where such things are purely roleplay I frankly don't care about that rule.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of hard to "ignore" a rule from the DM. You can argue about it, maybe get him to change his mind. Ultimately, all you can do if he insists on a rule you hate is to leave the game.
There isn't much that'll make me leave a game, at least in terms of rulings... I've done it over critical fumble rules - I avoid joining games with them, so I've only walked when it was a "surprise!" moment and DM refused to give them up - not much else. Only other times I remember leaving a game was because of a jerk player being extremely antagonistic towards me and the DM not doing anything about it. Which has sadly happened more than once...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He runs PFS as a venture lieutenant and that's how paladins are ran there. He uses the same ruling in his home games. Like I said, for a paladin I wouldn't make it an issue. For any other class where such things are purely roleplay I frankly don't care about that rule.
Running with PFS restrictions is high on my list of red lights personally.
Not much that I'll just ignore, but there are plenty of things that strike me as "get out now!" moments. Sort of hard to just ignore something without it coming back to bite you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't hate on PFS. It isn't for everybody, but it's a good way to "PUG" PFRPG games.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the guys running a game I'm in uses the fumbles, and the fumble and crit decks. My hate for those burns as hot as a thousand blazing suns, so I only play characters who don't make attack rolls, neatly sidestepping the issue.
So, pretty much means I'll have a string of sorcerers in that game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
He runs PFS as a venture lieutenant and that's how paladins are ran there. He uses the same ruling in his home games. Like I said, for a paladin I wouldn't make it an issue. For any other class where such things are purely roleplay I frankly don't care about that rule.Running with PFS restrictions is high on my list of red lights personally.
Not much that I'll just ignore, but there are plenty of things that strike me as "get out now!" moments. Sort of hard to just ignore something without it coming back to bite you.
Yeah, that's true. In PFS itself, I understand they have to use them, so whatever. I don't play in PFS.
But a DM outside of PFS that uses them because he "thinks they're a good idea" or whatever?
That's a double red flag. Back away calmly, don't make direct eye contact. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean to insinuate he's a bad GM. He's not. He's pretty good overall actually. My deity example was just meant to be an example of something I don't agree with. Since he's a VL, using many of the same rules between game types probably just makes his life easier. No harm there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't hate on PFS. It isn't for everybody, but it's a good way to "PUG" PFRPG games.
Who said I hate PFS? There is a pretty big difference between PUGing and playing a home game. Not big fan of a GM telling me they're using PFS rules because some of that doesn't translate well, among other things. I've got a pretty big list of red lights, not sure if leaving or talking about it counts as rebelling though.
Too bad "Don't be a jerk" is only a rule in PFS,
Oh its a rule in real life too. Its how you keep your job and all your teeth! With some exceptions, of course.
Except there is a mechanics issue for Paladins. They have an alignment restriction, and their source of divine power has to stay fairly close to that alignment.
False. This is nowhere in the class write up. They have a personal code of behavior. There are zero restrictions on where their power can come from. I can see the inherent disconnect for evil gods and the various references to "holy" power and such and even the more corrupt neutral ones but any good god can make use of a LG servant and be consistent with their ethos.
Too bad "Don't be a jerk" is only a rule in PFS, because deliberately not following rules, also known as cheating, is a pretty jerky thing to do to the GM who is sacrificing a lot of time and energy to entertain you for free.
Meh. I volunteer to play as he volunteers to run. It's a symbiosis. Neither role is greater than the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate mythic. Every time anyone in my group suggests it I just think about how bad the rocket tag with the group already is and I have to avoid outright saying I wont play. If it ever comes down to it I wont play, and so far is been nothing more than idle talk, but I want nothing to do with that rule set.
Don't hate on PFS. It isn't for everybody, but it's a good way to "PUG" PFRPG games.Who said I hate PFS? There is a pretty big difference between PUGing and playing a home game. Not big fan of a GM telling me they're using PFS rules because some of that doesn't translate well, among other things. I've got a pretty big list of red lights, not sure if leaving or talking about it counts as rebelling though.
Not saying that. I just saw that you and at least one other mentioned that they weren't necessarily fans of PFS. I just don't want PFS hated on for no good reason.
That said... if your GM wants you to abide by PFS rules in a home game...I'm sorry. As a PFS GM I will tell you that the rules are restrictive but are important to organized play. Without the organized play part, they are only restrictive.
Also that said... I am a fan of restrictive GMing. I don't mean that I give a few pre-gens out in the beginning and tell you that that's what you're stuck with for the campaign, but I do mean that certain builds don't fit with this campaign, so please, hold on to your character concept and use it for another game. Get what I mean? I hope to not have to extrapolate.
One of the guys running a game I'm in uses the fumbles, and the fumble and crit decks. My hate for those burns as hot as a thousand blazing suns, so I only play characters who don't make attack rolls, neatly sidestepping the issue.
I wouldn't mind so much if you had to roll to 'confirm' a fumble or there was some sort of margin of success mechanic involved. A 1 in 20 chance of badly screwing up regardless of how good your skill is just seems completely unfair and unbelievable.
One of the guys running a game I'm in uses the fumbles, and the fumble and crit decks. My hate for those burns as hot as a thousand blazing suns, so I only play characters who don't make attack rolls, neatly sidestepping the issue.I wouldn't mind so much if you had to roll to 'confirm' a fumble or there was some sort of margin of success mechanic involved. A 1 in 20 chance of badly screwing up regardless of how good your skill is just seems completely unfair and unbelievable.
They do that, actually. I just loathe fumbles and 'special crit effects' in general. The Magic Crit/Fumble Effects are particularly egregious to me, as they will rarely have ANYTHING to do with the spell you just cast. 'I cast Scorching Ray and created a time vortex?'
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A confirm roll just makes the random event happen less often. It's still bs. It still screws over martials more than casters. And it still means that as your # of attacks goes up and you get higher level, your chances of fumbling actually *increase*. And, as a side note to that, it screws over those who rely on making a lot of weaker attacks (like TWF and monks) more than a 2H build that does more damage per swing, and those types of builds are already weaker, so as if punishing martials over casters wasn't bad enough, you're also especially punishing the weakest of the martials.
Fumbling is like the ultimate Reverse Robin Hood.
Then there's the fact that increased randomness always hurts the PCs and helps the NPCs (NPCs are more expendable individually than a PC is, and a specific NPC will roll a tiny fraction of the d20's a PC ever will, and so is less likely to get hit with the fumble in the first place).
And then there's the fact that the results are often non-sensical (like, I've had DMs say I hit myself with a reach polearm, despite that being IMBOSSIBLE; another told me my archer's bow string breaks every time I roll a 1!), and that actual real life people don't fumble nearly as often as fumble rules would imply.
"But sometimes you just screw up your attack by sheer dumb luck or sneezing, etc..."
"Yes. That's what auto-missing on a 1 already represents."
Fumble is just a terrible houserule, one of the worst a DM could possibly conceive of. It manages to ruin the game in such an incredible amount of ways while adding absolutely nothing to it.
It is jolly good fun for DMs that love to lord their power over the players and get a chuckle every time the fighter crotch-shots himself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh. Mythic. Right.
I use a "confirm roll" with Critical Fumbles, to represent the more experienced a character is, the less likely random bad things happen. If you roll a natural 1, roll again to beat DC 10 (or the original target number). If you succeed in the second roll, its a normal failure. Fail the second roll, and something bad happens.
The key is to make it so the character didn't do something bone headed, but that the he got unlucky. Don't have him hit himself, have his foot get stuck in a crack in the floor, a chandelier (knocked loose by a stray arrow) crashes down on him, or something like that. Leaving the bonehead actions to the player to choose.
DM characters are a warning sign. DM characters that dominate a scene is a break point. DM characters that take the spotlight away from the PC's (the actual heroes of this tale), are "stand up and walk away" points.
Another warning sign: Direct Divine Presence. Anytime a god comes down directly to speak to a character, instead of staying locked in the eternal struggle (good vs. evil, chaos vs. order, light vs. dark, taste great vs. less filling) annoys me. Anytime a hero can talk back to his deity, and the deity doesn't re-write reality minus one smart mouth annoys me greatly. Anyone responsible for rearranging the mountains, land masses and oceans shouldn't have to resort to attack rolls to get his point across. Or even have to get his point across.
So much hatred for PFS. LOL!
Yessssss. Give in to your hatred. The power of the dark side grows stronger...
I suppose my 'rebellion point' would be when the game stops being fun. For me personally, I enjoy the role play aspects and having battles where the team can shine. Fights where the party is so challenged that everyone is constantly escaping death because of lucky rolls turn me into a nervous mess. That's the point when sessions aren't fun anymore and I start asking myself "why am I here?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it is it, if the PCs are spectators to the story. If the GM gets annoyed with the players trying to influence the story.
So i am on the "when the railroading gets to constricting" wangon.
"But sometimes you just screw up your attack by sheer dumb luck or sneezing, etc..."
"Yes. That's what auto-missing on a 1 already represents."
Exactly. The worst I would do* on a Natural 1 would be to describe the miss in a perhaps embarrassing or entertaining, but utterly non-mechanical, way. Your arrow is now stuck in the wizard's pointy hat, or embedded itself in someone's shield. You missed and spun yourself around when you swung your sword, no penalties but you look goofy.
*I have abandoned the 'natural 1/20' rule, so this is purely hypothetical.
Eh different strokes fo different folks. Neither way is the "right" way, that varies from group to group. Some people view their characters as heros who will never fail, some view their characters as normal people who will fail but eventually succeed even though they aren't perfect, and anywhere in between. As far as the crit/fumble decks goes, atm my current party has the choice of doing their crit like normal and the enemies will use the crit cards always, and the fumble cards are used by all. They enjoy it (because they have repeated told me so) but its good for this group. A different group may or will not enjoy it. And that's okay.
In homegames there's no universal right or wrong way to play the game because every group will have different tastes. The only universial right is everyone having fun (dm included) and the universial wrong is that nobodys having fun.
DM characters are a warning sign. DM characters that dominate a scene is a break point. DM characters that take the spotlight away from the PC's (the actual heroes of this tale), are "stand up and walk away" points.
My first DM ran a DMPC that definitely didn't take the spotlight away from the characters.
The DMPC was a character optimized for knowledge and was sent along with the party to provide any knowledge they needed to complete their task. Pretty much, both stat-wise and roleplay-wise, he was a walking library. Every single skill point spent on knowledge, rogue for the skill points, Int was the only high statistic, kept back and let the party handle combat without getting in the way, didn't demand treasure...
About the only times I remember that character involved in any sort of combat, we were rescuing him from hostage-takers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh dear, I can already tell where this thread is going to end up.
But no matter.
My "rebellion point," though I am leery of the term, is railroading. I *hate* railroading, specifically when we (as players) do really well but the villain has a scripted cutscene to escape and there's nothing we can do about it. Why? To preserve the villain's role in the story of course. I am ticked off by certain computer/video games that do the same thing, such as Mass Effect (though I love the series overall for different reasons). Why? It's supposedly suspenseful! Except it's not after the first time, it's just annoying. And of all the genres, tabletop RPGs should suffer from it the least because they should not be limited to a pre-written code that mandates a certain path, because the people who run it are just that; people. They should be flexible and imaginative enough to compensate.
Anyway, with that little rant over, I want to throw my two cents in as a GM. There is a difference between equal respect and equal effort. As a GM and a longtime player, I can guarantee that I put in exponentially more work into my campaign than all of my players ever, combined, in all iterations of all characters. So yes, we all volunteer to play with each other, but just like if someone is hosting a dinner you still go up and thank them for it and for their time because they still did the work of cooking everything and providing for you.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If he says we're running low magic PF, I tell him I'm out.
If he doesn't make an effort to roleplay the NPCs (like having the Andoran's dialogue consisting of repeating the word 'freedom' over and over), I'm out.
If he has us wandering about talking about the weather and local gossip and never throws a combat at us, I'm out.
I also want to say that in this hobby of ours, no one is forced to GM a certain way or play a certain way. It's like roommates; if you are a player and their GMing style doesn't mesh with your playing style, find a different GM, or GM yourself. You shouldn't be forced to play a certain way.
It's all about striking a balance.
I generally am very cautious about playing with DMs who take the “DM VS Player” philosophy. I of course realize that part of the responsibilities of the DM is to present challenges for the PCs to overcome, but when the DM takes this personally it can lead to a game that I don’t have fun in.
I guess it’s largely about attitude, I know that the DM has more authority in the game, and I appreciate the amount of work required to run a game. I’ll just say I believe that the game works best when there is mutual respect among GM and PCs. If I believe that the GM looks down on me as a player or a person I won’t be sticking around. That’s not to say I should have as much say rule wise as the DM, I know the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, has rule 0, does more work etcetera, but I don’t think this gives the DM the ability to disrespect the players. The DM need to be firm when running the game, not beating down the players with the “I’m the DM” hammer, that doesn’t earn my respect as a player, instead it’s one of the fastest ways for a DM to lose it. It’s possible to be firm and polite IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If he has us wandering about talking about the weather and local gossip and never throws a combat at us, I'm out.
What, you don't like to play Midwife: The Knitting?
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally am very cautious about playing with DMs who take the “DM VS Player” philosophy. I of course realize that part of the responsibilities of the DM is to present challenges for the PCs to overcome, but when the DM takes this personally it can lead to a game that I don’t have fun in.
I guess it’s largely about attitude, I know that the DM has more authority in the game, and I appreciate the amount of work required to run a game. I’ll just say I believe that the game works best when there is mutual respect among GM and PCs. If I believe that the GM looks down on me as a player or a person I won’t be sticking around. That’s not to say I should have as much say rule wise as the DM, I know the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, has rule 0, does more work etcetera, but I don’t think this gives the DM the ability to disrespect the players. The DM need to be firm when running the game, not beating down the players with the “I’m the DM” hammer, that doesn’t earn my respect as a player, instead it’s one of the fastest ways for a DM to lose it. It’s possible to be firm and polite IMO.
Oh I agree. The office of GM, like any office of responsibility, must be handled with respect and persuasion. After all, you will have a much more smoothly-run table if the group has reached a consensus. Wielding the office like a blunt hammer does long term damage to a campaign, and should be avoided whenever possible.
The same applies to players, though. If you (the general you, not addressing you personally, ChaiGuy), are "that guy" who only ever plays elves, and there are no elves in the GM's world, you have two options: either work with the GM to find a race that fills a similar niche, or seek an elf-friendly game. Insisting the GM allow elves because you won't play anything else only creates resentment. Resentment is the grain of sand that works its way through a rope and causes it to snap at the least convenient moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... snip
Oh I agree. The office of GM, like any office of responsibility, must be handled with respect and persuasion. After all, you will have a much more smoothly-run table if the group has reached a consensus. Wielding the office like a blunt hammer does long term damage to a campaign, and should be avoided whenever possible.The same applies to players, though. If you (the general you, not addressing you personally, ChaiGuy), are "that guy" who only ever plays elves, and there are no elves in the GM's world, you have two options: either work with the GM to find a race that fills a similar niche, or seek an elf-friendly game. Insisting the GM allow elves because you won't play anything else only creates resentment. Resentment is the grain of sand that works its way through a rope and causes it to snap at the least convenient moment.
I agree 100% Kryptik, the players should respect the GM and work with them to make the game fun for everyone. That includes respecting the game that they are running by creating PCs that fit in it and roleplaying them aproapreiately for that game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except there is a mechanics issue for Paladins. They have an alignment restriction, and their source of divine power has to stay fairly close to that alignment.False. This is nowhere in the class write up. They have a personal code of behavior. There are zero restrictions on where their power can come from. I can see the inherent disconnect for evil gods and the various references to "holy" power and such and even the more corrupt neutral ones but any good god can make use of a LG servant and be consistent with their ethos.
Unless you are playing in Golarion, where the setting dictates that divine casters (Oracles being the exception) must get their power from a patron deity and that deity has to be within one step of their alignment. Since the CRB is setting neutral, it doesn't have this restriction within the class write up, but it isn't a big leap for any setting. Notice how Faiths of Purity doesn't have a paladin code write up for Desna.
Throwing the setting out the window is NOT cool. If you don't like the setting, you can talk to your GM to try and work out an exception, but breaking the setting after this conversation is my "maybe I'll have room for you in the next campaign (probably not)" moment. Show some respec to the person building a story for you and the other people in that story. It is a group game, and no player is bigger than the group. The GM, to a certain extent, is bigger, because (s)he has the task of staging everything besides the PCs, including the bulk of the plot.
There are plenty of things that can make a game difficult to play in, and I agree that critical fumbles are a big no for me and I absolutely, positively, CANNOT STAND DMPCs stealing the spotlight, as well as blatant DM intervention that undermines the success (or even failures) of the party.
Too bad "Don't be a jerk" is only a rule in PFS, because deliberately not following rules, also known as cheating, is a pretty jerky thing to do to the GM who is sacrificing a lot of time and energy to entertain you for free.Meh. I volunteer to play as he volunteers to run. It's a symbiosis. Neither role is greater than the other.
My assumption, based upon that dismissive statement, is that you don't do a lot of GMing, because no matter how much work you are putting into your character, I know a good GM is putting in a lot more everywhere else.
TLDR: Bruni sounds like my rebellion point as a GM.
I agree 100% Kryptik, the players should respect the GM and work with them to make the game fun for everyone. That includes respecting the game that they are running by creating PCs that fit in it and roleplaying them appropriately for that game.
Yay, two people agreed on the internet! A good start to the day.
Unless you are playing in Golarion, where the setting dictates that divine casters (Oracles being the exception) must get their power from a patron deity
1. We don't know if he is.
2. The GM is free to change that if desired.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
Thank you for your admonishment oh great and powerful Oz. I do, in fact, GM. I'm no more special than my players. Maybe you should double check how high that pedestal you're on has grown.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the question at hand ...
My big rebellion point is the 'beyond railroading' aspect of GMs who tell me my character must behave a certain way, especially if it's based on a mechanical aspect. If my dwarf hated goblins, he would be reacting appropriately. If my wizard jealously hoards spells, then I wouldn't be offering to share books with the other party wizard. Et Cetera.
My walk-away point is when I have to argue with a sparkle pony for ten minutes because they want to push their 'barely-conceivable', rule-bending, ridiculous ham-it-up maneuver to satisfy their "character concept".
Oh, wait player... right, right.
Well, I've already hit this one, so I maintain it as my standard. In a game where two of the players were new, and two were old hands, the GM decided to 'throw together' a campaign for us. The beginning of which involved a dual-wield monkey gripping greatsword barbarian/fighter mix to 'help us out'. Then the GM proceded to hamfist on the fly a dungeon (I'm so good even I don't even know where the corner is, much less what's around it) smashing and slashing all the way through with us peon players meekly trotting behind.
That wasn't the worst part. It was when we'd come upon a game trope (oh my locked dungeon door with scorch marks in front of it, or dark cavern with many "crags and nooks" you have to walk by). The GM would leave us old hats to it, but if the new players got into it, He'd lunge forward with a "haha! I've got you, how could you be so stupid to walk into it" act.
After two sessions I said some extremely rude suggestions and ensured I didn't get invited back.
so, for all those people who've posted here about how aaaadamaaaantly they're opposed to a GM with this limit or that GM's rejection, all I can suggest is maybe getting your nose out of your own book and see why the GM, who does expend his time, effort, and money (whether you care or not) to try and adjudicate 4+ people who've decided they're going to go their own way and to hell with rules and other players....well maybe just see that the GM is just trying to hold the group together and keep it enjoyable.
Back to the question at hand ...
My big rebellion point is the 'beyond railroading' aspect of GMs who tell me my character must behave a certain way, especially if it's based on a mechanical aspect. If my dwarf hated goblins, he would be reacting appropriately. If my wizard jealously hoards spells, then I wouldn't be offering to share books with the other party wizard. Et Cetera.
Yarr, in any social situation there are boundaries and trust. In table top one of those is what you can and can't do to a PC and setting and who owns how much of what property. Telling someone how to play and robbing them of characterization doesn't always go over well. Easily a walking point for me, situation pending.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the guys running a game I'm in uses the fumbles, and the fumble and crit decks. My hate for those burns as hot as a thousand blazing suns, so I only play characters who don't make attack rolls, neatly sidestepping the issue.
So, pretty much means I'll have a string of sorcerers in that game.
Yep. That's the way to go. When the DM wants to turn Conan into a Stooge, it's time to play a class that never rolls a D20 for attacks... and which is pretty darn powerful too. As I always say "How often does the Wizard fumble his Fireball?".
I won't play some things: DM's who have you run Pregens from a book or something: I got SOOOO freaken tired of the DM from the Dragonlance campaign saying "No, that's not how xxx would act here.".
PvP games.
Uber DMPC's.
Crazy stuff, Tom!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't play some things: DM's who have you run Pregens from a book or something: I got SOOOO freaken tired of the DM from the Dragonlance campaign saying "No, that's not how xxx would act here.".
PvP games.
Uber DMPC's.
Hey, it's good to find things we agree on for once! :)
I agree 100% Kryptik, the players should respect the GM and work with them to make the game fun for everyone. That includes respecting the game that they are running by creating PCs that fit in it and roleplaying them aproapreiately for that game.... snip
Oh I agree. The office of GM, like any office of responsibility, must be handled with respect and persuasion. After all, you will have a much more smoothly-run table if the group has reached a consensus. Wielding the office like a blunt hammer does long term damage to a campaign, and should be avoided whenever possible.The same applies to players, though. If you (the general you, not addressing you personally, ChaiGuy), are "that guy" who only ever plays elves, and there are no elves in the GM's world, you have two options: either work with the GM to find a race that fills a similar niche, or seek an elf-friendly game. Insisting the GM allow elves because you won't play anything else only creates resentment. Resentment is the grain of sand that works its way through a rope and causes it to snap at the least convenient moment.
And if a DM does have restrictions they should have some good reasons they can openly expound on. While I try not to design worlds where there are restrictions if you have built a world with some explain them, and be willing to work with players to mitigate them.
I try not to have many restrictions, one I do have is magic, and other neat items are usually not found on store shelves. Therefore I give out a lot of magic in treasure, and I provide options for the party to work with others to have things made. That way players aren't short of magic, and I don't have Big Box Magic Marts all over my world.
But for me the biggest red flag is alignment foolishness. A GM or party where people are obsessing over alignment gets me right out the door. I love alignments, and think they are the heart of creating a character. If they are brought down to cartoon concepts based on the most extreme example of a single action then I know neither me nor my character are going to last long in that game.
Direct actions from gods is another big warning light for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But for me the biggest red flag is alignment foolishness.
"We enforce alignment" is always a big red flag for me.
I enforce alignment insofar as good character's don't randomly kill people without reason and chaotic neutral isn't an excuse to play an evil character. Then, there are paladins. They're mechanically special, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Randomely making up house rules on a constant basis. I need consistency to enjoy a game. :)