Which is the biggest red flag, Veeky Forums?

Each is worse than the last.

None of them.
The red flag is not in concept, because conceptually literally the instant you have tried to think of something original you have immediately failed; someone, somewhere has thought of something identical or so similar as to render the differences pointless in execution. None of us are nearly as clever and as original as we think we are, and when you grow up and accept that GMing suddenly gets a lot easier because you comprehend that the important parts of GMing lie not in conception but execution.

The red flags come from human interaction, gauging how the GM talks and acts while he GMs, how he does his game, how he treats or does not treat his players; all that interpersonal stuff that Veeky Forums doesn't want to admit that is equally as important in our tabletop games as it is in every other aspect of life.

I know you want there to be an easy fix-all answer you can use to identify problem situations before they happen, but there ISN'T one and you ARE going to have to work at actually getting good at this just like in every other aspect of life.

Really shitty post, OP. You're basically asking: "Which kind of shit tastes the best?" And of course the answer is no one. Every single one of your descriptions is a red flag. Next time you create this thread, try to at least pretend to recognise the positives.

>Which is the biggest red flag, Veeky Forums?

All of it because all of it adds up to nothing more than "RANDUMB LOL" and "FOR TEH LULZ".

>when everyone just describes their taste instead of answering the question

Grimdark and gonzo are the only real red flags.

Also, what this guy said:

even grimdark and gonzo can be done well, it all depends on the GM's talent

>>The GM's game setting is bog-standard medieval high-fantasy set in a faux Europe with woodland elves, orc hordes, wizard towers, and dwarf mines. Effectively indistinguishable from Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms, save a bunch of new proper nouns to learn and some new geography to put on the map.
I look for this in DMs

1 is fine, if bland.
2 and 3 are pretty much never good.
4 and 5 are risky, but have potential.

I agree with you, to a point. I believe there are definitely red flags for a bad game, but most of these red flags are things that the DM says or does rather than the setting. If the fm told me that the setting was scifi horror then that sounds great, but if he forces everyone to play a female character that is a red flag. In the later I would assume that he will want to have a bunch of alien inpregnations or something.

Damn it, I'm am not op sorry I just left that on there from a former thread. Sorry.

...

#1 is fine if well executed. However forgotten realms and dragonlance are over-developed, shit settings that are inflexible and full of mary sues.

#2 is okay. Magitek elves and floating city dwarves are kind of cool but honestly at that point I'd prefer homebrew races. Even if they are literally just "the sky people" and are not!elves. Also post-pocalyptic fantasy and steampunk are god-tier genres, they are just shittily executed most of the time.

#3 is cool if it's actually done well but if it's just cheap "moral dillemmas XD" then it is going to be shit. Peaceful orcs / gnolls are among my favorites.

#4 is pretty cool. I actually like dark fantasy so long as it is well described and isn't fucking gay.

#5 is pure cancer. Unfortunately, due to shit like Critical Roll, and the normie/roastie invasion of RPGs, it's going to become more and more common.

Heretic . . .
PURGE THE UNWORTHY
IMPERO AKBAR

>Also post-pocalyptic fantasy and steampunk are god-tier genres
This so much
>Dark Sun
>Spelljammer
>Arcanum
If you slander these you're worse than a plebeian

>Number 1
Perfectly fine for starting a game, depending on the GM the setting will evolve into something more interesting with time and play input. All in all a good baseline
>Number 2
This in is tricky because you either end up with Talislanta or garbage, for me this is the one to be the most cautious of while still giving it a shot
>Number 3
Self Aware anything is 99% of the time garbage because the person who created it tends to have no awareness of himself. Definite red flag
>Number 4
This on runs into the same sort of problem number 2 is in that it is one of the easiest to fuck up, if you succeed it can be great fun going up against impossible odds in a world that is at most indifferent to your and everyone else's suffering, if you fail you end up asking why should I care about any of this if my character is gonna be dead in 2 sessions and all the NPCs are assholes
>Number 5
NO

Almost all of these are fine. I mean the second option sounds tiring, but all the examples you gave (magitek elves, airship dwarves, layering post apoc or gaslamp over generic fantasy) all sound fun. Would play.

Gonzo is the only one that sticks out as a red flag, but even then it can work. It sounds like Discworld, kinda. I mean if my GM wrote a world as compelling as Pratchett's stuff I'd play it. You did say 'red flag' though, and it's definitely a red flag. It's the hardest to make good.

Only red flag settings are gonzo and dark fantasy. If you don't have a group that is sane and does not act like children these settings can be cool. I ran a Gonzo Forgotten Realms and it was not cancer, we all had fun playing it and fighting stuff like skeletons flinging each other and doing AoE damage when they break apart and scatter their bones.

Dark Fantasy fails because you as a DM have to add horror from time to time, if you do it too often they become numb to it. Another thing is everyone wants to run edgy pcs, and then it turns into a gonzo setting because they are measuring who has a bigger "goth gonzo cringe".

>My game is going to be all (combat/non-combat), so you should make your characters only for that.

I find any time I hear that, 9 times out of 10 it's either the other one, or we need both, so anyone who didn't build for both just gets to eat shit for the whole campaign(because these same DMs are also extremely against rerolling characters).

Chop campaign/settings are fine if the DM makes sure players have to spend resources smartly. If he gives them a crapton of items it gets boring pretty quickly. As he makes easy fights that they just swoop or hard shit they cant beat cuz hes a retard that does not know how to encounter build.

>I've got a really great story for you guys, you're gonna love it.

Red flag, I'm not here to listen to your story, I'm here to play a game and create a story. Write a book for Christ's sake.

I mean more the DM telling us it's going to be a mostly political diplomatic game, and "subtly" hints to us we should make characters optimized for dealing with that. Then first session involves us getting railroaded into discussions with NPCs who we can't influence in any way, shape, or form, and then getting locked in a dungeon fighting undead and constructs for the next 10 sessions.

I've had one game where this went well, if only because the DM was flexible and willing to shift gears whenever we fucked with the story.

Like when the game was supposed to be about escaped slaves freeing themselves and their brothers in bondage from slavery, but we heard a rumor of the slavemaster(who we unexpectedly murdered) having a ship, so we stopped at the exit, turned around, hijacked the ship, and became pirates instead.

The highlight of that session being when we were stealing supplies and got discovered by the slavemaster's bodyguard(who was way too powerful for us), with an NPC friendly guard taking him on to buy us time to escape, and it was supposed to be a sad moment...until the guard hit the guy with 3 critical hits and murdered the shit out of him. That guard became our new best friend for the rest of the campaign.

>It sounds like Discworld, kinda.
That's because OP's description makes it look like he means comedic fantasy.

The biggest red flag is none of those. It's:
>my campaign has heavy political things
At this point you should not only refuse to play, but also incapacitate the DM so that he can't traumatise other players with his shit.

How is that political ._, , Best way to do political is to have two PCs for the guys who do play as players on the political scene. One to play as a politician and the other one to assasinate, dig up dirt and do favours. Those campaigns are best done by having two parties in one party. Pretty much what you should do is have everyone control two PCs so people would not get bored or have to lead a "Charisma Bard" into a fucking dungeon.

>the player pitches a fit about the setting
That's my biggest red flag.

The first one. All of the options can be done badly, but the first one is the only one that can't be done well.

Generic fantasy is a creative dead end, and can you really expect a decent adventure out of someone who has poured all that effort into making a cookie-cutter setting? I'd be expecting cookie-cutter plotlines with cookie-cutter NPCs having cookie-cutter conversations with you about cookie-cutter quests.

>a player is such a pleb that they'll "play anything, lol"

Bigger red flag.

This teebee-aych famalam

>my campaign has heavy political themes
100% chase the the dm is either a raging liberal faggot or a Hitler did nothing wrong /pol/ock

Telling the GM to go fuck themselves and become pirates whenever you find a ship to steal. Classic.

People play Fire Emblem and enjoy it. You can make a stupid, cliche game with a cliche plot and still make something good anyway. Pop music only has a limited number of chords and such to draw on, essentially meaning people just want to hear the same shit over and over again but slightly different, so why not extend this depressing but true fact to other forms of art?

> Lovecraftian

Immediate turn-off. People who enjoy that stuff always do it wrong, and force the whole 'you're scared because it's impossible' aspect way too much.

People who extensively worldbuild at all tend to put up a red flag, it's usually to the detriment of player creativity. When someone goes "I want to play a bullywug" and the GM goes "those don't exist," all it does is suck the energy and excitement out of getting engaged in the game.

Most GMs who have run games long enough to know what they're doing will gauge what kind of game and characters the players want to play and then worldbuild after that to suit their needs. You really shouldn't even have a high concept in mind when you come together for session 0, the whole world should be built between the players coming up with characters and the first session in a competent game.

>the player is always right

Kys senpai-kun

>GM uses one of the AD&D 2E Historical Reference series without any modification

>green flag
>GM uses one of the AD&D 2E Historical Reference series with great modification, taking pains to create an amazingly historical campaign with a touch of low fantasy
>bonus points if it's The Glory of Rome

Players are peaces of shit, they don't deserve your time and effort.

>Telling the GM to go fuck themselves and become pirates whenever you find a ship to steal. Classic.

The campaign itself was fine.

Albeit the DM didn't seem to haved a grasp on distances, considering we had one ship chase that lasted for about 6 months wherein we both went about 20 miles.

>The GM's game setting is bog-standard...
sure why not, you need a black canvas for every story. 0/10

>The GM has set out to avoid...
Doesn't really seem necessary, "a rose by any other name" and all that.
sound's like "I want to be original and don't know how"
I'd give that a shot and see how it go's
3/10

>The GM's setting is "self-aware"...
Smells like first year literature student.
I'd go in primed to expect someone who thinks he's Aristotle,
But, It could be run by the spiritual successor to tolkien.
Make or break based on where they considerer "logical conclusion" to be
5/10

>The GM's game is set in a "dark...
It's either going to be call of cthulhu 2.0,
(which I can totally get behind)
or "teleports behind you" levels of awful
5/10

>The GM's setting is 'WACKY!'
now this... this is a trixy one.
because I like paranoia, and we've been known to play Time Wizards from time to time.
But you know how this is probably going to go...
so this one gets 2 answers
if it's with people I know
0/10
if it's with a random dude
11/10

>sure why not, every painting needs a black canvas

I don't know if this was intended or not but it screwed my perception of your rating system. Is a 10/10 a big red flag or a 10/10 game. Basically is 10 good or bad?

This. You should just write a book.

*blank
I was going for a 0 is none, and a 10 is problems incoming take cover.

And based on the fact that I can no longer proof read I should go to sleep.

Exactly.

That is why you don't build the entire world and all NPC stuff unless it is something so different than basic bread & butter fantasy. Players won't appreciate it, because they don't care. They don't want to read word files that explain the world or listen to you talk for hours.

If you want your spin on basic fantasy you have to make it with your players, not in the game, not by asking them what they want but to brainstorm and literally together make the setting, write its politics, flora, fauna and geography. If you can't do that just run something released by the company, and everyone is happy.

The GM could be totally self-less like that and make the adventure and world all about the players, rather than the players making characters in the GM's world.

But.

> 1

Do you really want that? Part of the fun of playing D&D is exploring the fantasy world, isn't it? You're exploring the world, the world wasn't made for you.

It's different if you're homebrewing a setting, but that still sort of applies.

> 2

A lot of the fun of GMing comes from making your own world, with your own stories. As a Forever GM, there is nothing more dissatisfying than sucking the player's dicks and making the world all about them and what they want. I came to the table to worldbuild and vent my anti-social tendencies with a petty power trip. Making the game all about the players is no fun.

1) Unforgivable.

2) Well. Maybe if these "elves" are called something else/basically have every trope turned on their heads.

3) Im' not sure I've ever seen one.

4) Pretty bad. Boring.

5) Probably the less shit. Could be pretty fun.

You some of the worst taste I have ever read. B8/10 you caught me, here's your (you).

>Generic world
On the plus side, it's a sign that the GM isn't getting over his head, but it pretty much kills off the chance that the campaign will be amazing

>Trying too hard to avoid conventions
Typically, the GM is compensating for something here

>Self aware
Fine for one-offs or short campaigns. Otherwise no

>Grim-dark
Red flag. Double red flag if explicitly inspired by ASoIaF.

>Wacky
See self-aware

All of the above CAN be pulled off well, but they are prone to fucking up, especially the grim-dark one.

>People play Fire Emblem and enjoy it.

Yes, plebs exist. Thank you for this astonishing revelation. However no-one is beholden to their low tastes, and you are not clever for pointing out that generic shit is generic.

Considering I wasn't baiting at all, thanks?

> Standard
As long as the DM is self-aware this is fine. Like, "we're doing standard fantasy and I don't want want to work with something with existing baggage" is great. "I'm the next Tolkein, revel in my worldbuilding" is no good.

> My elves are different!
If it all flows from a comprehensible theme, it's fine. Like, I've build a setting where everything was slightly flooded, all the nonhumans were kind of insane, and merfolk were always trying to kill everyone. And knowing just that much, we can play and you won't be surprised that elves hide in the treetops of mangrove forests.

> Self aware
Ugh. I mean this could be executed decently if the GM was up front about what the expectations are, but you know they won't be.

> Dark fantasy
Hell no. The set of people who I'd trust to run this and the set of people I'd expect to attempt to run this have basically no overlap.

> WACKY
"You know that thing where all the Discworld books distract you with puns until you care enough about the characters that dramatic tension is enough to keep you going? I want to do that in a campaign."

If the GM tells me that, I'm in. Otherwise hell no.

>bog standard
Good for first timers, and good for the experts who know it inside and out

>subversive
I always find that this ends up being more randumb than the gonzo, because at least in bog-standard all the wrinkles have been ironed out. Subversive flips it once and calls it a day.

>self-aware
Again, ends up more gonzo-than-gonzo, because 'logical extreme' more oft than not requires completely ignoring some other factor of the equation which prevented the logical extreme from existing in the first place

>dark fantasy
Somehow this always gets confused for 'everything is awful for everyone forever'. Shit is so ridiculous and over the top edgy that the entire setting can't even function. It's a shame, because I love a proper dark fantasy (though I guess Gothic might be a better term for it) whereas the people who run these settings are the same people who worship 40k's grimdarkness as the epitome of mature and intellectually stimulating writing because of all the rape and gore and constant death, and THEY don't get upset at it so if you do, your coddled and boring.

>gonzo
I've never seen this last more than half a session, or beyond a one-shot, because character progression/leveling enforces a sort of consistency and follow-through on the world that makes improv more and more difficult.

Biggest red flag for me?
The GM boasts he's prepared for anything, but quietly adds that he retains the final say on everything.

>The GM boasts he's prepared for anything, but quietly adds that he retains the final say on everything.

Literally the worst

Is there anything that ruins a game quicker than a political GM?

Generic isn't bad if it is made interesting. That may sound like an oxymoron but I'd rather have a world be detailed and vibrant, but following established customs, than a hastily put together snowflake world which isn't interesting nor well thought out.

bump

All of those could be excellent if done well. The only true "red flag" is a bad GM. Which brings up the question of why you're playing with one.

You have the narrowest mind that I've ever seen. The saddest thing is that you ain't even baiting.

I don't understand what you mean by option 5. For every other one, I can easily think of an example:
>The GM's game setting is bog-standard medieval high-fantasy
Dragonlance
>The GM has set out to avoid "generic fantasy" as hard as possible
Dark Sun
>The GM's setting is "self-aware."
The Last Ringbearer
>The GM's game is set in a "dark fantasy" world.
Warhammer

But what is
>The GM's setting is 'WACKY!'
?

>Standard cliché fantasy
Not very memorable. Hard to fuck up.

>Dark fantasy and deconstructed cliché fantasy
Could be really fun. The DM needs to have an idea what he's doing, otherwise it'll be respectively too edgy (muh hopelessness) or guilt-trippy (muh innocent goblins).

>Trying too hard to make your fantasy original
Subversion for subversion's sake is a major red flag. Would avoid.

>Gonzo fantasy
Potentially fun as hell as a one-shot between serious campaigns, otherwise please no.

>Deconstructed gonzo fantasy
If the DM can explain why the gnomes ride two-headed cats and how mushroom magic works, I'm on board.

Learning to say no is an important GMing skill. If the GM dislikes magitek settings and a player wants to be a crystal-powered robot, and that'd ruin his fun, he can and should forbid it.
The players' tastes matter, but so does the GM's. After all he's a player too, not a gaming console, and what's the point of playing with him if he's not having fun?

>But what is
>The GM's setting is 'WACKY!'
>?
Spelljammer?

GM's taste matters more. He's providing entertainment for other people for free. That should count for something.

In my opinion
you're both right
GM, Player, It's a compromise.

Player wants to be a bullywug
GM says they don't exist, but he could be a lizardfolk, as long as he doesn't mind X and Y.

>Wacky
Forgotten Realms, it is cancerous as fuck.

OP specifically listed FR as an example of standard fantasy.

Does not make it any less degenerate.

>The GM's game setting is bog-standard medieval high-fantasy

Boring, but I'm sure I could deal with it.

>The GM has set out to avoid "generic fantasy" as hard as possible, resulting in every imaginable convention being arbitrarily turned on its head

I feel like most of the settings I've liked are either this or:

>The GM's setting is "self-aware." He's set out to deconstruct all the "tropes" he can, often with some comment about "what if the implications of X in a fantasy setting were taken to their logical conclusion."

As long as the GM isn't too much of a tryhard, these two are great.

>The GM's game is set in a "dark fantasy" world.

That one ain't bad either. I'm no edgelord but I like to fight against very troublesome odds sometimes.

>The GM's setting is 'WACKY!'

Unless the group is okay with a session or two like that I don't mind. It's good to joke around a bit, especially if the GM is good at making something funny. I'd avoid it most of the time though.

So really in the end all of them are okay

>The GM's game is set in a "dark fantasy" world. The peasants are all dying of plague, the nobility is all greedy and inbred, the elves are bloodthirsty cannibals, and the magic is not-so secretly powered by "spoopy" Lovecraftian cthulhu monsters. Gods are either distant or dead. Your paladins will definitely be dead too in a few sessions.
What if it's Dark Fantasy because everyone is afraid? Peasants aren't all dying of plauge but they are deeply afraid of it so they a paranoid about "unclean" acts and have insane rituals to keep the plague away that may or may not be working.
Nobility is all greedy and inbred...only because they don't want to be stabbed in the back by the greedy and inbred cunts. Most are good or neutral, it's just that sociopaths succeed better in that kind of environment.
Magic is powered by spoopy lovecraftian cthulhu monsters...or so the spellcasters think. In actuality the monsters are 'normal', they just operate on different rules and the 'monsters' are just as spooped out at these other-dimensional creatures who can rape them of their magic as we are of them.
Why are they so scary? Well, you're facing a rape victim hopped up on reality warping...and you're the rapist.

Biggest ones for me are:
>Pathfinder
>Group is a bunch of "been there, done that" fat neckbeards who have played together for years.

>the DM talks tons about how refreshingly original, complex and refined his setting is, which it actualy is
>or: DM wants to go back to the roots because he is tired of all that forced subversion etc.

>NPCs are still boring and the DM's attempts at making the players emotionaly invested in the world fail completely

there is nothing as much of a red flag for me as GMs putting tons after tons of text walls about a setting into the dropbox and then ending up being inflexible in their planning and roleplay once it's being put into practice. those people care more about showing off a story rather than to create one together with the players

>Which is the biggest red flag, Veeky Forums?

The GM also has a tumblr page.

>boring generic
Whatever.

>opposite world
Opposing a trope is...another trope. If the gm can make it work, than cool. If it is extreme for the purpose of defying a trope then it becomes stupid.

>self aware
Doesn't work well in a game of fun, novels movies and a bit in games than yes. In tabletop than no it hardly works period.

>edgy
Again works in novels, movies and games otherwise it becomes pretentious and juvenile.

>WHACKY
A discworld-esque settingisn't bad, but most GMs think Deadpool is funny so it becomes absolutely stupid.

In short, depends on the GM.

Yeah, respecting the spirit of what the player wants is generally a good compromise. In a low fantasy game, I'd suggest the bullywug fan play a shaman worshiping some frog spirit, in return obtaining the ability to jump far, secrete poison, or turn into an actual frog.

Just imagine how much fun you could be having if you used your time and energy to get a group of friends, rather than making up hypothetical shitposts on a Chilean stamp-collecting BBS.

Red flags: kitsune, furries, Pathfinder, anime, weaboos, katanas, trenchcoats, atheist, anti-slavery, gay rights, trans, orphaned, good necromancer, -4 strength, lolsorandom CN XD.

>Generic fantasy is a creative dead end, and can you really expect a decent adventure out of someone who has poured all that effort into making a cookie-cutter setting? I'd be expecting cookie-cutter plotlines with cookie-cutter NPCs having cookie-cutter conversations with you about cookie-cutter quests.

For a lot of people, originality in the setting is relatively low on their priorities. If you're not looking to be amazed by a new world then there's comfort in being able to write up "elf ranger", "dwarf fighter", "human cleric" without worrying about going against the DM's vision of the world.

>> Lovecraftian
>Immediate turn-off. People who enjoy that stuff always do it wrong, and force the whole 'you're scared because it's impossible' aspect way too much.

The problem with lovecratian horror in games is that it, by design, has to stifle player's power and create an insurmountable threat.

If players are wiling to make that bargain, to go forward knowing that they will be ultimately powerless, then it can be an enjoyable and scary experience.

The DM also has to succeed in being actually scary, too, which is where the real problem lies. He can't just throw creepy things at the players and turn down the lights and BAM spooky, there has to be timing, mystery, and that glimmer of hope that becomes crushed by reality.

A good horror RPG relies on a talented DM and turning the paradigm of D&D style power trips on it's head.

>Boring cliche setting
Not really a problem. If anything it means that I don't have to learn a bunch of new shit about the setting.

>Arbitrarily different gimmick setting
No.

>Pretentious TV Tropes setting
Hell no.

>Edgegrim Darkmoor
Sounds like fun; I'd totally do this. I'd go full Requiem Chevalier Vampire.

>LOLRANDUMB XD
I'd give it a try. If they try to defend the constant Monty Python references by saying that the campaign is supposed to be funny, I'd just tell them that the references are no longer funny.

>Requiem Chevalier Vampire
That's much more "anything-goes wacky fantasy with a dark artstyle" than dark fantasy.

I think you're confusing "original" and "restrictive".

Man there's a lot of hate for the "self-aware" deconstructed setting. I find that quite surprising. What are you guys imagining when you condemn this?

My setting deconstructed magic as a technology that impacts the economy. Mage societies are fantastically wealthy with small populations and enormous amounts of slavery. Wizards- no sense of right or wrong and all that.

Speaking of morality, its not so much gray as it is polarized factions. Nobody is cacklingly evil- even the necromancers think they're an oppressed minority fighting the tyrannical gods. The wizards think there's nothing wrong with slavery the same way Hebrews, Romans, Aztecs, Ottomans, and literally every other society in premodern history didn't think it was a big deal.

Basically, rather than "everybody is a dick" I go with "everybody thinks they're the hero" which is more true to reality. Why is that so unpopular?

>I find that quite surprising.
You shouldn't find that surprising. The haters are all DragonHawk grognards who throw a hissy fit when their minuscule brains have to process something new.

The biggest read flag, can not hit the enter key twice in a row to separate out lists...

>read flag
kek

I dunno, that seems a little uncharitable don't you think? I think maybe they just have something different in mind, or have had some bad experiences? I'd like to know what went astray, if that's the case.

>pedant
>"read flag"
OH THE IRONING!

I know right?

But seriously, what's the issue here?

sometimes i wonder if my setting would raise red flags

>made my own monotheistic religion based on zoroastrianism for the setting, if clerics want more domains they can pick an angel or a daeva as their patron, wrote a few myths, created a church hierarchy and everything you would need for a proper religion
>there are your typical dwarves, but they live in the north, other kinds of dwarf kingdoms are similar to ancient samnites in the warm plains and berbers in the desert coast
>most humans live in a sasanid-like empire with several vassal kingdoms and republic all with different cultures, history and beliefs, except religious as there is one state religion in the empire
>high elves are a zealous warrior race
>made whatever is needed for the players as detailed as possible by writing short pages of text
>gnomes don't exist, because fuck 'em
>halflings are roaming nomads that live in the empire, they are tolerated but they are not allowed to enter cities

>Opposite of tropes is still letting tropes define your game.

Tell us more plz

>would rather stare at a wall and think about my many failures in life

I'm going to use this

>gnomes don't exist, because fuck 'em
>gypsy halflings
>Persian inspiration
As long as the empire isn't totally monolithic and there are other human polities with different cultures etc. then this is fucking solid

>Idea 1
Acceptable, might be a bit bland but can still easily be fun
>Idea 2
Probably a bad sign since the GM seems to both lack creativity (if you want unique races make them instead of making Elvish zeppelin pilots or Dwarvish sailors) and seems unsure what type of setting he actually wants.
>Idea 3
Not inherently bad and while it can be tiresome with a good crew and a good GM you can easily go full villain and laugh the entire time as minotaurs beg for mercy and trolls ask why you want to kill them.
>Idea 4
I have no problem with this, might end up a bit edgy but some grit makes things interesting and makes victories that much more meaningful. Actually improving a world feels better than just stopping someone who is trying to ruin a good world.
>Idea 5
Just walk away this shit is so tiresome.

>my setting is standard fantasy with a loose justification that ties together my list of "cool stuff to do" into a slightly cohesive lore that's expanded on as the campaign progresses on the fly
How many red flags?