So there was a thread a few days ago about what kind of red flags DMs look for in bad players before they accept them...

So there was a thread a few days ago about what kind of red flags DMs look for in bad players before they accept them into their groups, so I wonder what you DMs consider to be signs of GOOD players?

Hmm and what would make you allow someone to play an evil alingment?

I want to say that there are aspects that show a distinction between just an "okay" player versus a good one. I want that, because it implies that the vast majority of players aren't awful, and that we don't just see people who aren't awful as very good players.

The problem is that I cannot. There is no such that as a sign of a good player. There are only players who don't have red flags.

>Hey can you tell me about some of the surrounding countries other than the one we are starting in? I want to make a character who has some knowledge of the larger world, and feels more fleshed out and in line with the rest of the campaign setting.

I didn't think players could make me physically aroused in a non sexual way before I was asked that.

Shit, that just gave me a boner

>shows up early, on time, or less than 30ish minutes late; if later, calls to inform the group
>if late, says why (traffic, had last-minute stuff to do, forgot something at home, etc.)
>goes with it when the dice don't roll their way; accepts unlucky streaks
>doesn't make a mess if there is food or drink; keeps hands clean and doesn't get the books dirty
>willing and able to contribute to snack fund
>understands that actions have consequences

But the most important thing is open-mindedness. I like players who are willing to try anything once. If we're between campaigns and someone pulls out some obscure RPG book and says "Hey, let's play this" then if someone whines that it's not "muh favourite system" (usually motherfucking D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder), then that's a great big red flag. If they sit up and get enthusiastic and go "shit yeah bro let's play" then that's a good sign.

>Player wants to be Solaire
>sure m8.jpg
>nation the PCs are from happens to have a god of the sun, light, fame, and music
>his character is on a holy mission to get famous and praise the sun
>player loves it
>praise the sun

>Player is playing a government agent
>Instead of a few paragraphs of backstory, he made a complete dosier of his character along with some case files of assignments he's done
>One was even covered in coffee stains and rings where somebody placed their mug on the file

Oh man. I feel like I usually have to pull teeth to get even a single paragraph backstory out of my players. Please tell me it was in a manila folder to complete the aesthetic.

>willing to embrace failure

Bonus points is that this pisses off That GM if he ever wants to run a session.

>Player: hey man I wrote this homebrew class that I think would add a lot of flavour to the game, I think it fits with your setting
>Me, GM: (oh boy here we go, I bet this is some overpowered garbage that he'll want to play and will use it to break the game) lemme look
>Me: Oh, this is actually pretty good and seems balanced on paper, will you be playing it?
>Player: Nah bro I wanted someone else to playtest it for me, I'm gonna play a different class

If it's an online game, anime avatars are a good sign.

This but unironically because then I can rate their taste and if we match, we're more likely to get along. Pic related, it's best girl.

Players that are willing to work together with other players. I can't tell you how many groups I've either DM'd or been apart of where everyone wanted to play out these insanely fleshed out characters that wound up all hating one another and accomplished nothing.

Also, players that realize failure is okay and fun. Too many players want to be superhumans, understandable, but it takes a good roleplayer to fail and enjoy that failure.

For example, I was DM'ing a group and one of them wound up in trouble with a group of Paladin's. I explained to him prior to his actions (stealing their Holy Relic) would bring about fatal consequences. He went along with it and wound up cornered and died.

He accepted this fate as a natural consequence. Other players I've DM'd for would have bitched and moaned endlessly about it.

This

Players who WANT TO KNOW the setting and make the character a part of it are the best.
Not whining/feeling hopeless. Even decent-good players do this from time to time. If a player takes shit luck and shitty consequences like an adult and rolls with it, then that's a real keeper.
Players who make wildly different characters from game to game.

Actually this makes sense. It's not quite a 'Blue flag' but Anti-anime fags are way more disruptive and obnoxious than anime fags.

>Players who make wildly different characters from game to game.
I like this one the best.

I've had lots of bad experiences with players who just play the same type of character or, god forbid, try to recreate the same character over and over again. It's like they drag around a security blanket long after they've stopped being children, and it just keeps picking up dust and dirt and sweat and gets filthier and filthier every year and everyone is like "dude why are you still carrying that fucking thing around, let it go" and they throw an autistic shitfit and lash out with "WHAT DO YOU CARE WHAT I PLAY" or some stupid shit.

I give all of my players the following rules weeks before we build characters. The best players have always been enthusiastic about these rules.


1. Be on time. Respect the DM and other players by showing up and starting on time.
2. Spend time playing D&D. It is up to players to show restraint and police themselves. No one feels happy after, having set aside 5 hours to play D&D, they look back and realize that they only got 30 minutes of actual gameplay. Let’s try to stay on task.
3. The DMs decision is final. No arguments, no temper tantrums. Shit happens, reroll a new character and move on. This is about having fun, not obsessing over your avatar.
5. The DM is the rulebook. If a rule is in question, the DM will make a judgement on the spot, and it stays that way for the next (real world) 24hrs. There is nothing less fun than waiting for a DM or a player to search through rulebooks to find a specific rule.
6. Know Your Shit! If you have some special ability that only your class gets, memorize it or print it out on a note card, because I will kill you if you have to look it up every time.
7. Special permission is required to be a caster. Remember Rule 4: Know Your Shit!; casters have a lot more to know than most other classes. If you want to be a caster, speak with me one on one, and we’ll discuss what it takes to be a good caster and still have fun with the game.
8. Give the DM some slack. Think about all of the things you need to remember to play. The DM has to remember all of those things for each player that is playing. The DM has to be familiar with every skill, every ability, every spell, and every feat.
9. If you don’t like your DM, don’t play. I have been DMing for over a decade, and sometimes DMs and players just don’t get along for whatever reason. If your DM is not doing it for you, that’s ok. Politely tell him, or offer to DM a game yourself so that you can gain some perspective on what he has to deal with.

>7. Special permission is required to be a caster. Remember Rule 4: Know Your Shit!; casters have a lot more to know than most other classes. If you want to be a caster, speak with me one on one, and we’ll discuss what it takes to be a good caster and still have fun with the game.

I'm glad this is so much easier in D&D 5e. They changed how spells are memorized and cast, so instead of the wizard having to memorize magic missile three times, instead they just memorize magic missile and can cast it three times if they have the spell slots for it.

You joke, but I've had more problems with casters holding up the game or not being familiar with the limitations of their spells. Then I am forced to remind them, and it turns into a rules discussion rather than a game.

>Special permission is required to be a caster.
If the DM doesn't want me to be a caster I have to roll something else? That sound arbitrary as fuck.

Wait so it works like sort of sorcerer meets wizard?

Is there a different slot limit for which spells you memorise? Like... Can memorise 6 and cast 4?

That's fair. Being a caster in a D&D game does require a hell of a lot more reading than playing any other class.

Sort of, I guess? How it works with wizard is that you've got your spellbook and you pick a number of spells equal to your wizard level + your Intelligence bonus that you can have memorized at once, and they have to be for levels that you have spell slots for. So if you were a level 3 wizard with an Int of 16 (+3) and you can cast 1st and 2nd level spells, you'd be able to memorize 6 spells total of 1st and 2nd level, in any combination.

Plus, you can use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell, often with enhanced effect (like more damage or more targets) without needing a special feat to do it.

Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are similar in how they prepare spells but their entire spell list is their "spellbook," while bards, sorcerers, and warlocks still have a limited list of spells known.

It's pretty great.

Things I look for:
1: Shows interest in the setting/world we decide on or I pick.
2: Tries something new or willing to leave comfort zone.
3: Tries their best to roleplay.
4: Gives me a paragraph describing their character with some background/asks if they can do that.
5: TEAMWORK
6: Readily check plothooks and leads or gives me ammunition with their backgrounds.
7: Roll a character and have them make fucking sense I.E. proper equipment, sensible skills/feats, not going out of their way to optimize/design a char around a single function.
8: Not plan out every single level and let their character grow organically. Nothing drives me more crazy than a character 'optimized' for an ability or technique they won't see till lvl X.
9: Good names. This is often too much to ask for.

>good names
I named my Fighter Rindle Kross, does that make it sound like he's trying too hard to be cool?

It's not as bad as it sounds. In order to get permission, I usually let the player roll the character and then provide me with a copy. The player has two weeks to take notes and brush up on any rules that might influence his character. Before play starts I usually quiz the player with questions like, "Would that spell work on a construct?" or "Does the spell have a save (Reflex, Will)?" and "Does the save negate the spell?"

If the player gets all butthurt about failing the quiz, I tell them to try again in a week or I refer them to rule 9 and encourage them to DM, because I would much rather play than be a DM.

You sound like you've never been a GM who has had to argue with players who don't understand particular spells. Or try to stretch particular rules and descriptions. Or watch them tell you they wanna cast a spell then stare dumbly at you when you ask what does it do. Or wait five or ten minutes for the caster to check three references because he forgot what book his spell came from while everyone just needs 30 or so seconds to do their turn.

I'm patient and willing to work with people on whatever they want to play. I like to facilitate a player's vision, to a degree. If they wish to go caster and get complicated, I'll sit down with them and tell them straight: Know your shit.

They won't have fun if being the caster is a pain in everyone's ass, including their own.

Nah, that's cool. Often times my players wanna use a name from the latest game they just played or movie they just seen. Got one guy who picks the same name over and over and over.

Usually if I know them personally, and I know that they understand that having an evil alignment doesn't mean "lol I burn down your orphanage for no other reason than that I'm evil."
An Evil character still (probably) won't go out of their way to inflict harm unless they believe it benefits them. The key is that they primarily do what benefits them, and put themselves first, without feeling pity for others, unless they're just totally insane.
Usually this works best with a Lawful Evil character, though, as they still have a sense of loyalty and concordance, although they may lack compassion. Generally, though, it's impossible to tell how a player will tend to roleplay their Evil character without knowing them beforehand.

>player is a draw friend
And not just "weaboo in middle school drawing his Naruto Oc" drawfag, but a drawfag that actually studies art and has a basic understanding of the fundamentals of art.
one like me

What is it?

Kaz

Did he try to open a burger joint?

Nope but I would have gladly accepted that bit of fun!

>good names
Player makes an elf. Names him Lore. I tell him to pronounce it Lor-ay and he's got an actual elven name. Feels good man.

>7: Roll a character and have them make fucking sense I.E. proper equipment, sensible skills/feats, not going out of their way to optimize/design a char around a single function.
>8: Not plan out every single level and let their character grow organically. Nothing drives me more crazy than a character 'optimized' for an ability or technique they won't see till lvl X.

This shit is exactly why I don't play D&D 3.5 / Pathfinder anymore, partly because the system is garbage but also because the general player base doesn't seem to give a shit about roleplaying and is more interested in finding new and exciting ways to break the system. Coherent narratives are for faggots, apparently.

It's high on my list on why I quit Pathfinder in general. I liked it, enjoyed the features, and can find some fun in it all. It was just that I was always surrounded by people who would plan out their first 10 levels so they can attain a campaign breaking character. No one wants to sword and board anymore, they wanna use some esoteric weapon or focus into a very particular ability.

As if there are heroes out there who tell themselves that they are going to be able to X because of Y in two months or be able to do Z just after the fifth orc he kills. As a GM, I tell people just play and see what they do naturally. What the player decides to do as a course of action or how well the character plays out. Nothing harms teamwork more than characters who only want to do one or two things in the heat of combat and leave their fellow heroes in peril because of their selfish 'build' they read about on a forum.

Anecdotal, but recently I've been seeing GMs online that don't want to give out that info before the game starts. Like it's going to ruin chargen or something, idk.

Also a lot of players that have "their" character to play in X system. One guy that even has set names for for each chapter he plays in Deathwatch.

>Also a lot of players that have "their" character to play in X system. One guy that even has set names for for each chapter he plays in Deathwatch.

>DM with a group where half of them are artists
>Keep getting scene depictions and NPC portraits

Artists make the DM's life worthwhile.

gr8 b8 m8s

This is not a good player. This a normal human being. The bare minimum to play.

Which should go to show you how low my expectations are.

I'm the only one unfortunately, but damn its fun collaborating with the players on making character designs.

Seriously, we are you "playing" with people that come an hour later? I don't get it.

>8: Not plan out every single level and let their character grow organically. Nothing drives me more crazy than a character 'optimized' for an ability or technique they won't see till lvl X.
I certainly hope you're using a system where you aren't required to plan that shit out if you want to be able to contribute at high levels.

Because sometimes you end up inviting people who are flakes, without realizing they're flakes. And sometimes you don't have the guts to man up and tell them you're tired of that shit.

I mean, I do these days, but you get the idea.

So, anything that isn't motherfucking 3.pf

>mfw only one of my players has a car and he's my roommate
>I pick them up on game night
none of those motherfuckers are ever late

>TFW this is literally my whole group Including me We are all a bunch of munchkining faggots and I wouldn't have it any other way. I personally like to use justifying a broken disjointed character as inspiration for what he is fluffwise.

>good names

I have yet to meet a person that consistently comes up with good names for any characters

I don't really mind the guy that does the same name over and over. It's actually a fun running gag at this point.

Different people like different things.

I have one player that is really just around for tactics games with some added sandbox.

I have on player that doesn't really care what going on as long as he can loot things, doesn't matter that money is irrelevant. Weirdly, this player is the only one to ever actually give me background. I like him.

I'm actually a little worried that I might get someone into the narrative one day, I'm a fucking hack....

I do not understand why this is at all necessary. What is the point?

Because there are people that despite owning the actual books, don't actually read anything and have no idea how their character functions. And sometimes those people want to run spellcasters.

Oh, true. I guess fuckwits who have to leaf through the spell section of the rulebook all the time are annoying. Fair enough.

I'm seeing a lot of Araki influences in your art.

I like it.

That is the fucking dream right there. I've been wanting something like that for so long now, but none of my group are artists.

Hell yeah, Araki is my god alongside Kentaro Miura.

>"Hey, user, I know it's just character creation today but I brought some snacks to share anyway, is that cool with you?"