Forums of the Megaverse®

Before joining a game, many of us have a bit of an interview. Either as the GM, talking to a player about their gaming background, the kinds of characters they like to play and their general experiences. We're trying to get a handle on what they'll expect and what will be fun for them. As a player, we're asking the GM questions, often for the purpose of seeing what we can and can't do, and what will mess with the sensibilities of the group we're going into.

However...there are times when we're trying to get into a game and a GM says something that just makes you go, "Yeah, I think I'll pass on your game, but thank you for offering."

I'm curious what some of these warning flags or buttons are for anyone willing to share.

I'll go first: I wouldn't jump into a game where the GM says that it's okay if everyone makes god characters because story trumps all.

I ignored a warning sign for a super-hero sign that I should have heeded, as I'd built a fairly low-powered speedster (a particularly good race car could have outrun her on a straightaway) but had ended up selecting Immortality and Regeneration as I really don't find crippling injuries to be 'fun' (and had to take the Regeneration as he insisted that contrary to the basic default description of Immortality that it DIDN'T regenerate or heal any damage). He was really insistent on wanting her to have a vulnerability to be able to kill her and of course the nerfing of the healing ability of Immortality in general, in contrast to the rest of the group who were much more powerful especially his buddy who had the max powers available, nearly all at the top tier in power rank, and could have taken an Enraged Hulk I think given how many powers he had.

So he was nerfing me right and left even before the game started and when it did start it just felt wrong, just couldn't feel like I could trust him after that and just gave up on the game. Can't get much bigger of a red flag than a GM who seems intent on being able to kill your character before the game even begins, and 'GM's Buddy' payout to his friend to ice the cake.

#1 sign where I will just walk out is the GM saying it is a dice-less.

Any time the GM displays concern about not being able to cripple or hinder my character and/or their powers/abilities (assuming they have anything beyond human norm...) I hate the ones that want to take and take or give only to break. I'm not a masochist I don't enjoy being tortured on any level. Challenged yes, but not tortured.

Yeah, a GM's overzealous wish to control everything is a huge red flag, I agree. In a way, that's what mine was about as well. Essentially the GM saying, "It doesn't matter how strong or smart you are, the story is happening the way it's happening."

I cant say I've ever jumped out I've had great GM's, inexperience GM's, and then those who like to screw with the PC's. Oops that is a lie. I have jumped out on one. The GM's that like to screw with the PC's. I like to mess with them so I'll game with them trying to throw a monkey wrench into their plans. However that only works in games where the GM actually follows the rules and doesn't negate everything you do with lame explanations. Oh he had that power before, you just didn't know it. Oh they installed that field and upgraded it with illusions so you can't tell that objects are stopped by the field. Well this werewolf is immune to your silverbullets because someone put impurities when you were making them... By yourself.

Yeah, I once had someone have me shooting at the same target over and over with no effect...I used multi-optics in case it was a trick, but they said the rounds were hitting and exploding, so it was there as far as I could tell. Eventually an argument over something else brought the whole thing to a grinding halt and I pressed them about the shots.

They said it was an illusion, and that my character couldn't tell.

Couldn't see with multi-optics, couldn't tell the shots weren't just passing through.

They told me they were exploding on the ground...

...when I was calling and succeeding on head shots.

then there's the entire story in my sig, Operation Natural 20. Though that was kinda my fault.

I don't play in games where the GM has a predicted casualty/kill percentage of PCs, or with GMs say that everything the GM knows the bad guys know.

Oh, I've given predictions a plenty, but my players take it as a challenge. ...and maybe by now they've figured out my predictions don't mean anything because I really have no idea of what they're going to do.

Alrik Vas wrote:Oh, I've given predictions a plenty, but my players take it as a challenge. ...and maybe by now they've figured out my predictions don't mean anything because I really have no idea of what they're going to do.

You didn't try to meet the prediction by upping the power level of your monsters mid game or using undetectable over powered traps.

Yeah, I used to, long ago. Like high school. Games were a battle, we were all adversaries.

My red flags:

"My [spouse/sex-buddy/significant other] will be joining the campaign"

"We're playing [chosen game setting] but I've changed all the rules to conform to my experience in [esoteric subject]"

"The setting is like a cross between [awful game/anime] and [another awful game/anime]"

"[random rule] isn't realistic, so I've adapted a mechanic from F.A.T.A.L."

I'm going to guess that FATAL is one of the aforementioned awful games?

I don't generally mind adversarial GM's, but I actively dislike adversarial GM's who mock the players during the game. It's a game. Never make it personal.

Indeed, flatline, one of the better GMs I know is actually very much against the players. It's odd that even though he's actively trying to screw us over, it's still as fun as it is. Mostly because when we beat him, he admits it. It's respect.

First I will comment on these ones before adding my own instead of just posting the same stuff Tinker Dragon has.

Tinker Dragoon wrote:My red flags:

"My [spouse/sex-buddy/significant other] will be joining the campaign"

This is only a red flag for me if I'm gamed with them before and know how they behave. When my original GM had his GF play (luckily it was before I joined the game) I heard he gave her whatever she wanted and even created new things just for her. Yet I had another GM's significant other play and nothing like that happened at all.

Heck when my wife played she was the most antagonistic character in the group, she LOVED busting my cops. lol I never showed favourtism though. Heck I've had other GM's be more lenient with her because she was the only girl, and new(er) player at the time.

Tinker Dragoon wrote:"We're playing [chosen game setting] but I've changed all the rules to conform to my experience in [esoteric subject]"

I agree 100% with this. There's nothing worse then getting a character concept in your head and either A: Build the character and be told by the GM "Oh I don't like how that rule/power is written so here is my house rules on it. Even worse is B: You make your character and he tells you all about his house rules once the situation arises in game[/quote]

Tinker Dragoon wrote:"The setting is like a cross between [awful game/anime] and [another awful game/anime]"

Like the significant other one, not an instant deal breaker for me. It all depends on the GM.

Tinker Dragoon wrote:"[random rule] isn't realistic, so I've adapted a mechanic from F.A.T.A.L."

Like I said earlier, not a fan of GMs that use pretty much all house rules and leave no room for debate, or bring in rules from games nobody else has played.

One thing that sends up a red flag for me is "I always run this campaign for all my groups". It's like the GM has played the game over and over and alters it based on what previous players have done in order to "beat" the new set of players. To me it seems like a cop-out, come up with some new material and let the story unfold naturally.

When GMs ban skills or super powers simply because they do not like them/state that they are too difficult to contend with as a gm. (I'm talking normal book legal stuff like 'multiple selves' for example and not over the top munchkin things like 'sea inquisitor temporal mages' or something like that

When GMs remove things from your character that they don't like, i.e. I don't think a (insert o.c.c. here) should have (insert o.c.c. skill here) so I've removed it. Same thing with equipment. Book says you start with x number of weapons and they say no.

I once had a GM tell me that when I make my Gunsligner I had a choice between the pair of silver plated revolvers, automatic pistols or energy pistols even though the book says you get all 6 plus an extra one of choice. I let that one slide and played the game anyway, but when we played another game that was a higher power level and I was going to be a P.A. pilot and he informed me that I wasn't starting with a suit of PA I walked out when he wouldn't change his mind.

All the other characters were borgs, juicers, demigods and here I was just some chump strolling around (he wouldn't even let me start with a regular vehicle). He said my suit would mean more to me if I saved up and bought it 'in game'. I argued how was a P.A. Pilot mercenary supposed to earn money without a suit ?

Razz, I'm that GM who always runs, uses rules from other games, etc.

Though I'm always open to changing things if I'm convinced my way could be done better.

Alrik Vas wrote:Razz, I'm that GM who always runs, uses rules from other games, etc.

Though I'm always open to changing things if I'm convinced my way could be done better.

But are they rules from games that nobody else has ever played, because that was my point.

If we are playing Rifts then I would like to play Rifts and not the setting of Rifts but using the rules from Star Wars D6 (or something like that).

That or the entire game is house rules only. I don't mind some house rules but I see no point in rewriting the entire game.

Slight001 wrote:Any time the GM displays concern about not being able to cripple or hinder my character and/or their powers/abilities (assuming they have anything beyond human norm...) I hate the ones that want to take and take or give only to break. I'm not a masochist I don't enjoy being tortured on any level. Challenged yes, but not tortured.

I'm reminded of someone who had a GM for a super-hero game who had to deal with the GM ALWAYS promptly depowering everyone forcing them to play normal non-powered characters until the guy got fed up and as the GM didn't even bother reading the powers of the characters after a while since he was just going to remove them anyway chose powers that made it impossible to depower his character. So infuriated the GM he apparently promptly stopped running things in a huff.

Another guy after submitting his character came to game day and was told that his character prior to game start had been injured, in a coma, had lost his powers and memory so was basically not the same character anymore. He politely (so he said) told everyone he wouldn't be playing in the game since it looked like his character wasn't there.

Razzinold wrote:One thing that sends up a red flag for me is "I always run this campaign for all my groups". It's like the GM has played the game over and over and alters it based on what previous players have done in order to "beat" the new set of players. To me it seems like a cop-out, come up with some new material and let the story unfold naturally.

When GMs ban skills or super powers simply because they do not like them/state that they are too difficult to contend with as a gm. (I'm talking normal book legal stuff like 'multiple selves' for example and not over the top munchkin things like 'sea inquisitor temporal mages' or something like that

Based on these two criteria it seems as if you would likely not wish to play in one of my games. I would tell you that is your loss but it sounds as if you would disagree.

If I am running a game myself...I ALWAYS give the potential players my house rules (the vast majority of which are tweaks or adjustments to the actual rules so nothing overtly major at all) in order to have time to go over them and discuss any issue with me. if anything I am pretty lenient with what I will allow as long as you can convince me it makes sense (IE no you cannot have the particle Beam Cannon GB from Freedom Station unless you can actually come up with a plausible explanation of HOW you got it and no "uh a shuttle crashed" won't cut it)

I will also give full disclosure of the direction the campaign is "intended" to go and the environment it is likely to be in.

IE - If it is in NA then unless, again, you can convince me it makes sense, stick to NA books.

As a player I tend to ask questions in regards to the above.

If I get a bad vibe I'll usually just say thanks but no thanks.

I've got a few.

1) Game attendance is mandatory, like a job. Show up late or not showing (even with advanced notice) is shamed.
2) Making players feel bad because they aren't smart enough to figure out, "how to get out of a paper bag," much less your adventure.
3) Spending more game time on detailed logistics of a mission than actually playing the mission... with the looming threat of starvation and exposure rules that will be enforced strictly.
4) Allowing players to have adversarial characters that fight with each other more than the supposed enemy.
5) At the other extreme, showing up to roleplay in a group that wants to min/max powerplay.

I think the real read flag is the DM/GM that has is either Too Controlling/Limiting or at the other extreme says anything goes, but uses Surprise House Rules and Ex Machina plot devices to get their way. A lot boils down more to the personality to the DM and players meshing.

Some of the complaints above for example have not been issues if handled correctly:
1) Significant other: Sometimes a problem. Sometimes the best player in the room. Depends largely on whether she is a serious player or just there...
2) House rules. I've been playing and DM house rules and game rewrites since the beginning back in 1989/90. I love house rules, but you have to be upfront about them and everyone has to be ok with them before the game starts.
3) Mish-Mash campaigns depend entirely on artistic execution. It only takes a game or two to see if the DM has made a well thought out world or if it's a train wreck of make-it-up-as-you-go-along...
4) Building and introducing characters should be a collaboration between the DM and player. I actually make all the characters in my campaign, but I interview each player for their character concept in detail, let them role their ability scores and then give them a preview for their final approval before the first game. So far everyone has had their expectations exceeded, despite the fact that no one has any major cybernetics, MDC weapons or mechs, etc...

The GM says "I AM GOD!!! THIS IS MY GAME!!!"
I may have met the actual game designer...
Anyway, those ego-maniacs usually end up being the worst, combining features of rail-roader, inconsistent rules-maker, and favourites-player... amongst others.

I avoid, number cruncher games. The zero role-playing type. I feel story and player interaction are what makes a game fun. Not ludicrous bonuses and "lucky" dice.

say652 wrote:I avoid, number cruncher games. The zero role-playing type. I feel story and player interaction are what makes a game fun. Not ludicrous bonuses and "lucky" dice.

I like a nice balance between story/player interaction and rolling dice. I've had GMs in the past tell us not to bother unpacking our dice when we arrive at the table. This might be cool for a game or two but IMO if we are just sitting around the table talking then we may as well be playing cards, or I will sign up for the local theater

Seriously though. I love a good story, I am an avid reader, and I can't stand those dice only hack and slash games. Like I said before, balance.
I don't like never needing my dice ever and I don't like the GMs that are such hardcore rollers that they make you roll for everything!
No joke, I had a GM make me roll my pilot automobile check just to try and unlock the door and start my own car and it wasn't even a panic situation. I walked out of my house to the car and he made me roll all the same. Same GM had someone in the group roll to remember how to breathe, more than once, after failing a H.F. roll. What happened to just losing initiative ?

I had gotten all the way through char gen, even collaborated with other players on the design as we were all part of a team. We were up to the point of picking out which "mysterious happening" we were going to investigate first when the GM went silent for a couple of weeks. The next post that came was a link to his personal webpage/blog where he talked about having been really busy with psych and medical appointments as he got closer to the date of his gender reassignment surgery.

I bowed out gracefully and without comment (despite popular opinion I do have some tact) as that ain't my crowd of people to run with. It's a shame really because the game concept was awesome and the player collaboration was proving to add a level of humor to the game that I've not seen since.

My red flag is this (Actually had it happen)
<GM> "Oh yeah, I have a lot of house rules."
<Me> "Oh, cool tell me about them"
<GM> "Well there are too many to explain. I'll just cover them as they come up"
<Me> "No thanks" *put character sheet I had been looking at back on table and left*

Yeah ..... I post my house rules for everyone to see.

eliakon wrote:My red flag is this (Actually had it happen)
<GM> "Oh yeah, I have a lot of house rules."
<Me> "Oh, cool tell me about them"
<GM> "Well there are too many to explain. I'll just cover them as they come up"
<Me> "No thanks" *put character sheet I had been looking at back on table and left*

Yes there aren't too many who like it when the GM goes 'no sorry that doesn't work' and your response 'but that's what the rules say is okay' is met with 'oh that's now how that rule works in my game'. If you can't know whether or not what you decide is going to work because the GM doesn't let you know about how he's rewritten things until AFTER it's too late there's no reason to be playing. Like finding out 'oh yeah btw my vampires don't have problems with stakes or holy items or sunlight' after he's let you make the plans based on those limitations when you should have reasonably known they wouldn't work.

GM does not care if you play, you are an extra to his all important NPC!!

The reason I write fiction is so my main character(s) can be the star of the show. I dislike it when GM's runs a NPC as the only important character, your PC's are just tagging along. I have GMed for 30+ years and hopefully I am better now than when I started. I had to learn, if I want to run a NPC who stays with the group any length of time he/she needs to be a helper, not the star, let the Players star in these games. We did a lot of gaming in college, lots of GMs and lots of GM Game Styles, this let me see other GMs run their NPC as the important character. I decided then I would try (key word: try) to give every player an opportunity to shine in each story if I could. Sometimes players miss their opportunity to be the hero but that's on them

House rules...ok...but one fellow once handed me a print out of his house rules for Rifts (first time I was going to play Rifts instead of GM it). I said, hmmm this is going to take me an hour to read and understand, how did you add so much math to the game? Why? I was not trying to be rude, I was just stunned. His reply was "Are you to stupid to do math or something?" I laughed, told him I was not stupid enough to hang out with rude people and left. Was disappointing, I still have never been a player in Rifts.

( Oh not true, I am doing the online Rifts game: http://www.savagerifts.com/index.php )

Some one said above a warning sign for them was: Spouse in game. My wife and I have gamed together since 1992. We are gaming tonight. I guess I count my blessings I found the right lady

Fell wrote:GM does not care if you play, you are an extra to his all important NPC!!

The reason I write fiction is so my main character(s) can be the star of the show. I dislike it when GM's runs a NPC as the only important character, your PC's are just tagging along. I have GMed for 30+ years and hopefully I am better now than when I started. I had to learn, if I want to run a NPC who stays with the group any length of time he/she needs to be a helper, not the star, let the Players star in these games. We did a lot of gaming in college, lots of GMs and lots of GM Game Styles, this let me see other GMs run their NPC as the important character. I decided then I would try (key word: try) to give every player an opportunity to shine in each story if I could. Sometimes players miss their opportunity to be the hero but that's on them

House rules...ok...but one fellow once handed me a print out of his house rules for Rifts (first time I was going to play Rifts instead of GM it). I said, hmmm this is going to take me an hour to read and understand, how did you add so much math to the game? Why? I was not trying to be rude, I was just stunned. His reply was "Are you to stupid to do math or something?" I laughed, told him I was not stupid enough to hang out with rude people and left. Was disappointing, I still have never been a player in Rifts.

( Oh not true, I am doing the online Rifts game: http://www.savagerifts.com/index.php )

Some one said above a warning sign for them was: Spouse in game. My wife and I have gamed together since 1992. We are gaming tonight. I guess I count my blessings I found the right lady

I think the warning sign about the spouse is, too often the gm will play favourites or the spouse will run rough-shod over the party (I've seen both happen).

I think the warning sign about the spouse is, too often the gm will play favorites or the spouse will run rough-shod over the party (I've seen both happen).

I get it. Seen both too.

My first game group in High School broke up due to it.

I was just say'n: "Lucky me, it works for us."

Fell wrote:

I think the warning sign about the spouse is, too often the gm will play favorites or the spouse will run rough-shod over the party (I've seen both happen).

I get it. Seen both too.

My first game group in High School broke up due to it.

I was just say'n: "Lucky me, it works for us."

Same here, Mrs. Razz joined our gaming group like 15-16 years ago

Razzinold wrote:

Fell wrote:

I think the warning sign about the spouse is, too often the gm will play favorites or the spouse will run rough-shod over the party (I've seen both happen).

I get it. Seen both too.

My first game group in High School broke up due to it.

I was just say'n: "Lucky me, it works for us."

Same here, Mrs. Razz joined our gaming group like 15-16 years ago

Mine started a while ago, and GMs too... though I seem to get an unfair number of death-traps, as well as the occasional skillet to the head.

a couple bad experiences I had with a long time member and sometimes/often gm in our group were:
when he started adding templates in D&D 3.5 without actually reading the rules carefully.
It was a high level campaign (which was fine) and I had a young adult gold dragon as a char, I separated from the rest of the party (my character got bored) and ran into 2 wyverns with the "shadow template" and I had over a 25con based on the rules (as written) I would take 1 or 1d4 temp con damage IF they do an attack (like a vampire drain attack)and I fail a con check, he had them doing 1d4 con no save per hit. and even after I eliminated them he was like well these are only cr 17 so you get umm 500 xp I looked up what the DMG says and it should have been more like 5-10,000 xp EACH.

the other horrible experience (same GM) was we were going to play GURPS which CAN be a great change of pace. I made up an approved char, which was the equivalent of a tony stark/iron man in Marvel. One thing I spent a lot of my character points on was the "super tech" option where I can effectively have/ make gear that's 2 tech levels above the worlds tech. and he was running a Illuminati / conspiracy game. suddenly the Big bad (group) has all the tech I have access to in unlimited supply, AND they always knew exactly what we were going to do to, AND had the perfect counter even if there was absolutely no way they could have known (even parts of the team planning in character was compartmentalized) IE bob is suppose to hack the buildings security, and do x y and z he knows that he is supposed to do these things but (in character not why) which was because x was for plan A and y was partially for plan A and also setup part of the situation for plan B which he actually knows nothing about because it wasn't in his "need to know"

Fell wrote:GM does not care if you play, you are an extra to his all important NPC!!

I had that experience in a D&D game once. The NPC was a higher level than everyone else and always led the charge into battle.

I guess some of my warning flags are when a GM tells you to be ready to go into battle and that all of your gaming sessions will basically be one combat mission after another. Also when they have you roll up numerous characters so you have extras to play when your character dies.
I had one GM who insisted I play a specific race and gender even though I had already rolled up my character and had a god come down and transform the character into what he wanted me to play.

Stone Gargoyle wrote:I had one GM who insisted I play a specific race and gender even though I had already rolled up my character and had a god come down and transform the character into what he wanted me to play.

See, I didn't go that far. When the PC got killed in battle (he was a dwarf) the evil bastard GM (myself at the time) reincarnated him as an elf.

My red flag indicators:

1. The GM is disorganized
2. The GM has house rules...that aren't written down and/or shared with the players
3. (Oft repeated previously) Any indication that the GM is a control freak; standards are great, micromanagement is not

my red flag indicators..
1.) when asked to describe the game they want to do, they start talking about all their houserules but won't or can't actually pin down a location, timeperiod, and theme for the actual adventure. this usually means they are less interested in their story than they are about showing off "how cool" their rewrite of the game is. it is fine to say "i don;t know yet, give me a bit" when it comes to fine details, but if they can't at least say "i was thinking an Anti-CS game set in Texas before the Seige on Tolkien" or "an exploration game headed out west" or some other general "elevator pitch" for where, when, and what you are doing, it probably will end up a disaster.
2.) if the GM starts recruiting for a game shortly after a spiel about how bad other Gm's run games. (especially if it is about how other Gm's coddle players or how they always aim for a TPK, etc.)

My red flags:
- If the GM is in "love" with his main NPC, meaning that, the players can not win against that character, even if we roll 2 natural 20ties in one melee and the main NPC is still dodging.
- If the power level is not balanced. Meaning, one player has a munchkin character and the others have level one low power characters.

My red flags:
-Dice pools
-Metacurrencies
-Prestige classes
-Grimdark
-Equestria
-Abstract wealth systems

Vincent Takeda wrote:My red flags:
-Dice pools
-Metacurrencies
-Prestige classes
-Grimdark
-Equestria
-Abstract wealth systems

those are interesting preferences. I haven't seen a collection like that in a while. That's very old school. Very Palladium.

For me, it's when the GM says "You'll all be using pre-generated characters". If I am unable to make up my character myself, I get bored *very* quickly.

Vincent Takeda wrote:My red flags:
-Metacurrencies
-Prestige classes
-Grimdark
-Equestria
-Abstract wealth systems

Hey! Rogue Trader is awesome.

I kept nodding or saying "Yep, that one" the whole way thru this topic.

My biggest, aside from knowing that the GM and/or group are munchkin/powergamer/min-maxers, are a GM with a massive body count (there's not much for gamers locally, and one guy that I know runs a game has a reputation. I heard about him from the guys I game with and at least one other person, so I flat out refuse to game with him. Period, full stop.)

Second biggest is wife/gf/fookbuddy/female friend as group member. That's enough to make me Nope right the hell on out immediately. My group in high school imploded because one guy invited a female friend, and I briefly was in a Pathfinder group where everyone else was basically supporting cast for the GM's beast of a wife. Nope, nope, nope. I've got too many other things I could be doing to put up with that kind of crap.

As a GM if I will let almost any one join but after a set number of sessions the party can vote a disruptive player off. I make sure players are aware of this. I also introduce new people to RPGs.

It is a left over house rule from when I owned a game store and use to run games in the store to help sales.

Typically the trial period is done while gaming in public places such as a game store or college campus. Once the players know each other they can vote to change locations.

As a player I will leave any group where the GM tries to force his views on my PC actions. It is my job to RP my charter and if the GM wants to RP it then I will leave.

TeeAychEeMarchHare wrote:I kept nodding or saying "Yep, that one" the whole way thru this topic.

My biggest, aside from knowing that the GM and/or group are munchkin/powergamer/min-maxers, are a GM with a massive body count (there's not much for gamers locally, and one guy that I know runs a game has a reputation. I heard about him from the guys I game with and at least one other person, so I flat out refuse to game with him. Period, full stop.)

Second biggest is wife/gf/fookbuddy/female friend as group member. That's enough to make me Nope right the hell on out immediately. My group in high school imploded because one guy invited a female friend, and I briefly was in a Pathfinder group where everyone else was basically supporting cast for the GM's beast of a wife. Nope, nope, nope. I've got too many other things I could be doing to put up with that kind of crap.

I gotta speak up on behalf of the gals...

While I 110% agree about those gal-pals (or the rare gamer-gal's male SO that isn't into gaming as well) being a PITA & would be grounds to not join/leave...
There are a LOT of gamer gals that will only play in groups w/ their SO, because, frankly...

Guys can be some real crass a-holes.
-I'm there to game, not for a hookup.
-Yes, I do know about the game we're playing, and probably about some games you've never heard of you little squeaker
-I can hold a conversation about a fair bit of other geek-stuff.... oh wow! you hadn't heard that???

I have left games where the girl was there because she didn't trust her man; she resented his game time; 'she had nothing better to do'; etc.
Those kinds of broads I can do without.

Myrrhibis wrote:

TeeAychEeMarchHare wrote:I kept nodding or saying "Yep, that one" the whole way thru this topic.

My biggest, aside from knowing that the GM and/or group are munchkin/powergamer/min-maxers, are a GM with a massive body count (there's not much for gamers locally, and one guy that I know runs a game has a reputation. I heard about him from the guys I game with and at least one other person, so I flat out refuse to game with him. Period, full stop.)

Second biggest is wife/gf/fookbuddy/female friend as group member. That's enough to make me Nope right the hell on out immediately. My group in high school imploded because one guy invited a female friend, and I briefly was in a Pathfinder group where everyone else was basically supporting cast for the GM's beast of a wife. Nope, nope, nope. I've got too many other things I could be doing to put up with that kind of crap.

I gotta speak up on behalf of the gals...

While I 110% agree about those gal-pals (or the rare gamer-gal's male SO that isn't into gaming as well) being a PITA & would be grounds to not join/leave...
There are a LOT of gamer gals that will only play in groups w/ their SO, because, frankly...

Guys can be some real crass a-holes.
-I'm there to game, not for a hookup.
-Yes, I do know about the game we're playing, and probably about some games you've never heard of you little squeaker
-I can hold a conversation about a fair bit of other geek-stuff.... oh wow! you hadn't heard that???

I have left games where the girl was there because she didn't trust her man; she resented his game time; 'she had nothing better to do'; etc.
Those kinds of broads I can do without.

Well said, I have gamed with power couples, I have gamed with game bunnies who are just there to find new "friends" (especially at LARP games), and I have games with true lady games and I find that it is more fun to have Ladies around.

I really only have one group I game and normally its okay, but some red flags will be anything where we are likely to get transported by *insert long list of dimensional anomalies* or ships with the ability to dip into certain subspaces and pick up psychic crystals for power sources

That said...about 90% of my character ideas get shot down by the DM...I have a tendency to lean toward fey, demons or magic and well...

I shouldn't be allowed to play pixies

As a GM my red flags are:
1. Players who have no interest in the lore of the setting (and this is not some homebrew BS...I'm talking like people who don't know about Star Trek or Star Wars or Forgotten Realms and will NOT read up on it so all the NPCs are just bags of blood and loot.)

2. Players who don't know what their abilities or spells or equipment do...like not knowing the range, casting time, etc. I will NOT stop a game to flip through a book to find the PPE of a spell or how much damage a PLAYERS weapon does...I give a 30 second pause, then I skip that players action.

3. Powergaming concepts with no in-character rationale for anything. I am lenient for backgrounds and concepts and power level, as long as there is a logical reason for that character to have done that.
You got level 15 spells?
Sweet, how did you get them?
Uh...well, um, I found them?
Ok, where?
Uh, in a library?
Yeah, no, get out my group!

4. Showing up with a character already made...that their "last GM was cool with", is 30th level, and is a mish mash of BS that does not fit the setting, or the campaign. Bye.

5. Checking email, texting, or other crap with a cell phone. Especially true with online gaming...
Dude, are you playing STO?
Uh, no.
Bro, I see you are playing STO because you are on STEAM and it just told me! Are you bored? Well, bye.

6. Your action!
I attack *roll dice* a 9.
What are you attacking with?
A gun?
What are you shooting?
An enemy?
Which one, there are like four of them here?
Oh, I don't know, that one there...
Yeah, Bye...


As a Player:
1. The GM spends more time looking up rules than just making a decision. I don't even care if it is wrong, wrong, wrong, just decide and remember that next time.

2. Pointless combat...or enemies that are stupid and die, or fight to the last man for no reason, no tactics or other such BS. Combat MEANS something. This is life and death, it is not something to be entered into lightly. TACTICS, man!

3. Stories that have no rationale...I need a full setting, not random king A, some goblins and a McGuffin, repeat until campaign ends. I want more or I will leave.

4. MinMaxing characters that WANT to be the only useful player. Worst experience was a 30th level half-minotaur, half-dragon, dwarf...how? His last GM said it was cool...We left.

5. Rules Lawyers. If a player can't accept Rule Zero, we leave.

-STS

Full Disclosure: My wife and I co-GM. We switch off between Star Wars (both), RIFTS (me), Call of Cthulhu (both, I do pulp, she does horror), D&D (both) and a lot of random oneshots (both).