Red flag thread? Red flag thread!

I want to be able to order a pizza with pork products on and run sessions on a saturday

They're usually neurotic and not fun to play with. Fuck em

>This will be an evil campaign
>DM uses alignments at all
>One or more (but not all) the players are the DM's IRL friends

Got these 3 going on, but everything's great

No is not
It's just him shoehorn in his imaginary waifu into everything, and listening to him argue with himself.

>"Dude, stop talking I want to roll already."

Not an immediate red flag and it depends on the situation. For example: if I'm playing with you, A and B, and you and B are having a loud, tangential conversation about milk duds in the middle of combat, then im going to tell you to shut up so I can give my action to the DM and roll my dice.

Things I find are red flags:
>Smoke pot at all
>drink more than 1 alcoholic beverage per hour during the session
>bring a completed character sheet to session 0
>uttering the phrase, "Well, in my old group, we did it like this...."
>your favorite superhero is Batman.

>your favorite superhero is Deadpool.

Fixed the last one for you.

>you read comic books at all
FTFY

>"What's the safe word for this campaign?"
>"I want to play a genderfluid kitsune."
>"Your depiction of trans persons in medieval England is extremely problematic."
>"Soo...which splatbooks are banned?"

I could add a laundry list of comic characters that are red flags.

People who don't read comics still have a favorite super hero and can still be annoying about it.

>Evil characters allowed
Despite the harping about this, I've never seen anyone except myself and someone who agreed to be in the GM's pocket play an evil character.

>>"What's the safe word for this campaign?"
>>"I want to play a genderfluid kitsune."
>>"Your depiction of trans persons in medieval England is extremely problematic."
No one ever says that.

>GM is disorganized
>GM is unable to accept criticism
>GM takes away XP if you miss a session, even if you give them a warning long before game starts.
>GM has an unhealthy obsession with backstory and won't accept that character development happens during play
>GM ignores or changes rules in the game and doesn't let anyone know until just before they try to use the rule.
>GM calls anyone who dislikes his house rules or wants to play the game normally a "rollplayer."
>GM is willing to kick out most of the party because "I have players lined up to take your place if you get out of line."
>GM creates balanced encounters where we always fight things that are at our level.
>GM accuses you of metagaming if you do logical actions without a knowledge roll (i.e. packing torches to hunt down a troll).
>GM injects his personal views (politics, religion, morality, etc.) into his campaign and punishes you if you don't share his opinion.

I could go on, Veeky Forums really is shit for gaming.

This every hive mind Veeky Forums meme in a single post, including the meme that the GM is the source of everything bad that can happen in a game.

>bring a completed character sheet to session 0
What exactly is wrong with this?
Unless you are radically changing from the established norm (which you should have told the players about from the word go), it's fairly easy to alter nearly any character concept.

>>>"What's the safe word for this campaign?"
>No one ever says that.

My RPG association, the only one in a very large city, has this as a condition of playing games and listing games on their site. They're called X-cards in some circles.

Just because you're not aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Let's just say threads like these are seldom very concerned with such trifles.

That's because the GM IS usually at fault with everything bad that can happen in the campaign. Even a problem player is the GM's fault because the GM didn't put his foot down and either talk to them or give them the boot.

It sucks but that's what happens when you step up to a leadership position, everything's your fault but you get to take the credit for someone else's input.

>>We're rolling for stats
Oh noooo, now you super perfect build you've memorized and mastercrafted might not come into fruition(or it might turn out you have better stats then you even planned to PB). Whatever will happen now? How will user survive?

Rolled 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 6, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 3, 3, 5 = 60 (18d6)

Either you end up with an outlier who fucks up the curve and imbalances the party or you reroll until you get the stats you want, which ruins the whole point of rolling for shit in the first place.

The people who do this are uncompromising when it comes to their character. They tend to be incredibly stubborn and confrontational when I ask them to change something. Maybe I've changed how a particular feat works or parts of their back story are unsuitable for the campaign I'm running. Also, we roll stats as a group (3d6 per stat per player. Everyone divides the dice as a group so stats are relatively even for each character), so we need everyone to participate in that. They also might not be aware of my house rules. These are the reasons I always have a session 0, so we can talk about all of this stuff.

If you bring a completed character to my session 0, be ready to change it and compromise (I usually don't outright say no, i say, "yes, but" or "yes, and".), or be ready to leave the table.

Rolled 6, 6, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 6, 4, 5, 1, 4 = 65 (18d6)

STR: 14 (+2)
DEX: 8 (-1)
CON: 12 (+1)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 9 (-1)
CHA: 11 (0)

Okay, so I the only thing I could possibly be is a shitty Fighter. I'm gonna reroll this.

The only people who were like that were people who I have thrown out of my group. I will have a strong concept, maybe even put it to pen, but accept that sometimes you need to change up how you go about your shit.
My gear grinder?
>You have your character concept greenlit by the GM and write it out, but have that green light revoked later because of another player
I was absolutely furious.

>Outlier who fucks up the curve
>My system can't handle having one player more powerful then the point buy
>My DM is incompetent and sees powerful players as difficulties, instead of using the opportunity to use more enemy/types of enemy's and have a little fun
>My system is fundamentally flawed enough that a player on the higher end will make a lower end player overshadowed
>DM doesn't allow stat rerolls
Shame.

Rolled 1, 4, 1, 3, 5, 4, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 6, 1, 6, 6, 1, 4 = 54 (18d6)

STR: 13 (+1)
DEX: 5 (-3)
CON: 14 (+2)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 15 (+2)
CHA: 10 (0)
Reroll

>Implying Deadpool fans read comic books

Rolled 4, 1, 5, 5, 3, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 4, 4, 2, 1, 3, 4, 5, 4 = 56 (18d6)

STR: 6
DEX: 12
CON: 5
INT: 8
WIS: 13
CHA: 11
Ech, even worse, reroll!

>rerolls

If you are going to reroll until everyone is happy with their stats, why fucking bother and just dispose of the whole rigmarole and do point buy and get on with the fucking game?

Rolled 6, 3, 6, 4, 6, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 5 = 63 (18d6)

STR: 10
DEX: 10
CON: 7
INT: 10
WIS: 6
CHA: 13
Reroll!

Only War did it, it turns out fine. Reroll but keep the second result, so it's a risk/reward for the players right off the bat. You don't like that lower stat? Well you might raise it, or loose out even more.

You're only succeeding in making yourself look stupid.

Rolled 6, 1, 6, 3, 2, 4, 4, 6, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2 = 52 (18d6)

STR: 15
DEX: 12
CON: 8
INT: 9
WIS: 8
CHA: 8

These are better stats then most of my characters have - I would probably reroll it only to get lower ones!

>Shows up at session
>Anime girl body pillow is in the DM's seat

I don't know what I would say or do to be honest.

Compare all the time that I spent rerolling just to get dicked over by RNG
to the time it would've taken to assign my stats from an array of 15/14/12/12/10/8 or point buy.

I could theoretically reroll an infinite number of times but at that point, I might as well just use point buy just so I don't start off play as a gimped character who probably won't survive their first encounter anyways.

Rolling just doesn't work in modern D&D like it did in 1e or 2e.

>DM makes us roll endowment of our characters

Except none of those characters are bad

I have not played Only War, does it use the same range in its rolls as the other 40k games (2d10 + Homeworld base that's between 15-25)? Also unlike D&D you can invest exp in stats to improve them. Unless the DM makes stat increasing items available rolling low at the beginning means you're stuck forever there.

The worst rolling scheme I've ever seen was the one in the original Deadlands. You can make character's that are literally hundreds of exp apart in effectiveness (in a game where you're expected to get 2-4 exp a session). I recently played it for the first time and the DM shit a brick when he saw difference in exp from a good draw and a bad one. For giggles we did the math for the best, worst, middle draws in our five man game. The best draw was about 350 exp better than middle guy and about 500 better than the low guy. Shit is insane.

They are in modern D&D as the game's math expects characters to be within certain ranges.

Deadpool is a litmus test. More enjoyable the story, more likely the main line story is shit

Yeah, you'd be cool at my table. These games are all built on mutual respect and compromise.

>green light revoked
That would poss me off to no end. Another that goes along with that
> talk with the GM about my character
>mostly play the party face, want a strong, silent type as a change of pace
>GM says okay
>knowing full well two other character concepts from players
>one is a monk who took a how vow of silence
>The other got into trouble, had his throat slashed by gangsters. Lived, but can't talk.

I ragequit that game. Granted, I overreacted, but why would you play something knowing full well it won't work at the table? If she had said, "look, that's cool and all, but you need to bring a different character because reasons" that would be fine. But don't laugh as all our characters realize at the same time that no one will be talking during this game.

>One of the players is consistently playing characters of the opposite gender.
>Not once in a while, not sometimes - nearly all of the time.
Always makes me think.

>Answers a challenge to an action's feasibility by talking about how cool it would be.

Except they literally are since more than half the stats are under 10 and the highest stat I've rolled after six separate rolls wasn't even higher than a 15. Hell, I couldn't even qualify for the bulk of classes if I wanted to in 5e since only like one or two stats are actually higher than a 13.

Compare with an array, where racial modifiers would allow me to either start off with a 17, two 16's, two 13's, or three 12's depending on where I assign them and what sorta modifiers I receive while still being even with the rest of the party.

>One of the players posts on Veeky Forums

Not really - There are a lot of ways to get away with lows stats - low dex or strength are easy ones for example.

A few from my short experience with Dark Heresy...

>"I want to play a psyker"
>"I want to be an [insert xeno race]?" Double points for Ork
>"Im with the inquisition why dont I get whatever I want?"
>constantly taking aggressive actions and then demanding they be undone the second things dont go their way
>player does some extremely in depth corrections to the GMs use of some rules
>players that demand rolls be made in the open
>people who intensly argue for rules as written over rules as intended/what makes sense

OH absolute red flag bro.

Absolute deal breaker

>One of the players is a janitor on Veeky Forums

Only War keeps it flat for everyone at 20+2d10, then normally each homeworld/regiment gives you flat bonuses of +/-3 to 1-3 stats.

Never played that system but, that seems like a concerning design flaw. I mean fuck, in OW at least being 500 xp apart would at most mean one guy is better in his distinct role (and not by much beyond 1k) then another guy is in his distinct role, or someone with a half-buy discount gets 2 tier one talents (nothing to brag about) or 1 tier 2 (again, also not too much of a big deal). At least no ones feels under powered.

Is the system fun though?

I really feel like online rollers have a wierd tendancy to roll towards the medium, so you'll never super high or low stats. Your rolls all seem to have a +/- 1 distribution of negative and positive bonuses. Isn't this fine?

Also, I'm not dismissing you, but you'd get a standard distribution after like, ~35 rolls. 6 times is enough that a bell curve hasn't been established yet. Which can lead to the point that sometimes you'll have better characters then other. At the end, it's the systems fault if rolling better/worse leads to players having such glaring discrepancies that someone has less fun.

There really isn't though.
>Can't qualify for a class if the requisite stat isn't a 13 or higher
>Shit STR means you can't fight in melee.
>Shit DEX means you can't fight at range or with DEX weapons, have shit AC, and shit initiative.
>Shit CON means you won't have much HP.
>Shit WIS means your passive perception is going to be crap.
>Shit INT/WIS/CHA means your spell DC's and spell modifiers are going to be garbage.
>Resources that work off of a stat will make it so said resource becomes scarce.
>Spells that gain a modifer from a stat become less effective.
>Saving throws tied to that stat are going to be garbage.
To say nothing on how the CR math for encounters assumes that everyone in the party has stats that are around the same level as the array.

It's just not feasible to escape a shit stat in modern D&D and if you think I'm lying, congrats, because the GM took pity on you and played with the kid gloves on to make sure you didn't die during your first encounter.

Had such situation occur in PvP situation - kobold with low stats nuked good stat paladin in two rounds - no crits or anything, just good play.

>uttering the phrase, "Well, in my old group, we did it like this...."
I do this sometimes, but I explicitly tell the GM that me saying that doesn't mean I want him to change his way of doing things. I bring it up when there are rule discrepancies and the GM wants input on how to solve them.
forcing your gm to do anything, though, is really shitty.

So are you going to explain how that happened? Because shit rolls doesn't constitute as "good play" and anything that he did could've been done easier with good stats.

>he's a "dungeon master"
>on the internet
>for random roll20 groups
>he does it for free
>he takes his "job" very seriously
>he does it because it is the only amount of power & control he will ever have in his pathetic life
>he deletes campaigns he doesn't like because whenever he gets upset he has an asthma attack
>he deletes campaigns he doesn't like because they interfere with the large backlog of little girl chinese cartoons he still has to watch
>he will never have a real job
>he will never move out of his parent's house
>he will never be at a healthy weight
>he will never know how to cook anything besides a hot pocket
>he will never have a girlfriend
>he will never have any friends

Are those like ~*trigger warnings*~ or something? I've seen "GMs" on roll20 talk about that sorta thing on their profile page.

Kobolds are small and can fit in small spaces - gave opportunity to avoid getting in range - rest was done by spells that do damage even on succesful save - also low stats make for best characters that might be first to die but one to survive for longest as well.

What is bounded accuracy for 20?

The Deadlands itself is pretty fun, we were just shocked at the power disparity between characters. The GM had everyone do multiple rolls and then we picked the sets that all had similar power levels.

Half his examples are bullshit, but the X card exists which is basically the equivalent of the safe word

Which makes those penalties all the harsher as bonuses are that much rarer....

>>GM creates balanced encounters where we always fight things that are at our level
I don't get it, what's the joke behind this user?

>Kobolds are small and can fit in small spaces - gave opportunity to avoid getting in range - rest was done by spells that do damage even on succesful save
Okay, how could this have only been done with shit stats though?
>also low stats make for best characters that might be first to die but one to survive for longest as well.
Okay, that has nothing to do with the argument though.

Because low stats make you think and get creative as usual ways are no longer available

The X card, as far as I remember, is a card all the players have around the table, and if a situation that makes them uncomfortable in some way pops up they can hold it up to stop the game and make the GM change it on the fly, which can be extra annoying if it's important to the game.

I've heard of it used for menial shit like a woman chained to a wall In a dungeon. Not a creepy sex dungeon, just a regular ass dungeon.

No joke, players shouldnt necessarily be balanced against every fight they come across. Some battles should be a lot more challenging and above their abilities to force them to think of different ways around the problem rather just face-fighting every encounter because everything is balanced around them

Sheesh, I'd avoid those kinda games like the plague, honestly. Not worth the trouble if you're playing with delicate children.

Balanced encounters means that you'll always fight enemies that can be taken out within 1-3 rounds using smart play and good luck, which means that no matter how many levels you gain or how many abilities you master, you're still just as strong at the end of the campaign as you are in the beginning.

It also encourages people to just spam the same no-cost moves over and over again at the cost of strategy since most of the enemies they fight will still fold in the same time frame regardless of what they do, barring skipping their turns for whatever reason.

Lastly, it makes the setting seem more artificial since everything you fight is always at your level, when in reality a large setting with a diverse ecosystem of creatures to fight would have creatures that are below or above your level to force you to consider how you approach each enemy.

Okay, that still has nothing to do with the argument since any creativity that a character with low stats could employ could just as easily be done by a character with high stats, probably to greater effect as well.

Can you honestly go through a day or two poking through the average thread on Veeky Forums and proclaim that anyone here is a functioning adult?

Depends on the player/characters. My character, the reluctant but savvy rogue will occasionally just completely overrun the decisions of the dumb sorceror and spineless paladin and its always a fun power dynamic.

I feel like in my RP experience, when we encountered fights that were "a lot more challenging and above [our] abilities", it typically ended up with us at least half dead. It'd blame the systems though, they weren't conducive for letting plays punch above their weight.

Nothing wrong with spicing up encounters though, making some of the players relied abilities mitigated or worthless, making them think outside the box generally. Had a really funny one in RT where some eldar farseer was slaughtering my RT in melee since I didn't have multi-attacks and she had 2 weapons that inflicted extra wounds. It ended up that someone had the great idea to grapple her and pin her, which she couldn't do dick about. We proceeded to punch/kick her until she finally passed out from exhaustion.

>taken out within 1-3 rounds using smart play and good luck
I don't think the DM in our 5e campaign has ever given us an encounter that didn't last for 5 rounds minimum. Guess we're extra lucky/cleaver then.

If people were adults who could approach people about things they disliked rather than veto-ing and making a fuss then they wouldn't be playing tabletop games

Yeah, that's true.

I have an evil character in my campaign and there's been no problem at all. He's a greedy and borderline sociopathic duergar that wants to get gems and whores.

>vow of silence

This is definitely the most frustrating "roleplay" I could think of. Like who the fuck thinks it's a good idea.

I feel like if that were discussed beforehand it would make for an absolutely hilarious campaign

My experience says otherwise - most high stat characters are generic and boring - flaws will always make for a better story.

>Sheesh, I'd avoid those kinda games like the plague, honestly. Not worth the trouble if you're playing with delicate children.

Which is exactly why it's a red flag. It's a warning sign you'll be playing with hyper-sensitive children who will complain about everything.

Once upon a time, a player in my party loudly hated the fact that my characters "talk too much". So for my next one, I've created a mute jedi.
I've expected to be bored and hate it myself - only bearing it long enough for him to take his words back - but I absolutely loved it. I could be very communicative, despite my character only being able to express himself through facial expressions, gestures and violence.

I don't think evil is necessarily a red flag if the player isn't a dick about it who thinks evil=constant need to rape and pillage.

A lot of evildoers don't want to be found, and act out awful things in secret. A lot of fun side activities in my last game involved a LE character dragging us around unwittingly through his schemes all while thinking he's a stand-up dude.

I live in Florida youd be surprised what can count as a functioning adult
>It ended up that someone had the great idea to grapple her and pin her, which she couldn't do dick about. We proceeded to punch/kick her until she finally passed out from exhaustion.
That is absolutely hilarious

>playing a child or not!child
>playing as the opposite gender
>playing monster/beastman races
>trying to ERP
>"homebrew" setting
>obviously copied, not inspired, from movie/book/comic/TV/etc.
>"homebrew" class
>X-cards
>anything referencing anime
>anything referencing movie/book/comic/TV/etc. in general really
>CE or CN characters
>not understanding rules
>railroading

>you can't use your own homebrewed ideas
>but you also can't copy others
>or reference anything ever

Man, you must be a lot of fun. Maybe I can come over some time for a six hour accounting party.

Are you really ignorant enough that I need to spell it out in specific detail why those things are red flags?

No. I already know you're a No-Fun-Allowed faggot. Why would I need you to explain that again?

...

>think you're a faggot
>obviously must be bait

Thanks for playing. Try again next week.

Player Character is trans, furry, serial killer, obese, "smells like cheese because she doesn't care about hygiene", is a cannibal. I never play online btw, seen em all IRL

>no action
>demons must be good and angels must be evil 90% of the time
>all NPCs must have quirky obscure interests

>when in reality a large setting with a diverse ecosystem of creatures to fight would have creatures that are below or above your level to force you to consider how you approach each enemy.
Not the one you're replying to but I'm having trouble with throwing unbalanced encounters at my players when we only get 2 to maximum three fights per game. I thinking they might not want to spend hours hitting on HP tanks.
If I want to up the difficulty I just throw more ennemies at them but somehow that feels unsatisfying (for me at least).
I just wonder how to properly balance everything while still keeping a good challenge