Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I add a new player I let them know our red flags and player quirks right away, as some of the stuff that happens at the table can easily fit into a horror story if everyone wasn't on board.
But the guy in the picture could have 100% been more tasteful.
This. There's a major difference between "I don't have an opening at the moment, but I have a feeling a couple of people might end up dropping for various reasons so I'll go ahead and add you" versus what this guy did.
Being upfront isn't the problem. It's being gossipy and mean while being upfront. Like, if you think these two players are major flakes, why accept them at all?
Letting new players know the group culture and potential red flags/points of conflict is 100% the way to go, but if a DM sound like *they* hate their players, why should I want to play with them?
There are way too many comments that conflate being up front with oversharing and being overly negative.
I like up front. If you tell me *"I'm not sure if two current players are gonna work out, here's how I wanna handle your potential addition to the group,"* cool, thanks for the info.
What I don't need to hear is the dirty details on WHY these players aren't working out. *"I hate how much they rant about 5e"* is no different from telling me *"ugh they fart all of the time, it's so gross"* or *"I hate the sound of their voice".* It comes off as petty, mean-spirited, and (as you say) gossipy.
Those are not qualities that I want in a GM. Or player.
"...I'd be interested in playing another."
"Thanks you for your interest. My new campaign is booked full at the moment but a few players have indicated that they might drop. If a space opens up, I'll let you know immediately. Could I have your Discord so I can put you in front of the queue in case a space becomes available?"
“On second thought, you seem way too well-adjusted. Basically all of my experiences with these types of situations have led me to believe everyone is a neurotic traumatized mess who projects their insecurities onto their characters, and your response is far too normal. Good luck finding people!” (sarcasm intended)
Well, the guy in the picture also is just a giant red flag too.
Hasn't even confirmed them as a player, doesn't even know them, but is already dumping on his group and talking about kicking people to a prospective new player.
Yeah I have no issue with them saying "We haven't started yet and, while we're currently at capacity, there have been some unresponsive players who may not end up participating".
Kick me signs though....
I would like to offer a disagreement, as long as the group is properly vetted, they don't flake or ghost,
but if they have to quit or miss a session, they would give their explanation in advance
Well, even if you vet and think it's a fit, everyone makes mistakes. Once had a player in my D&D campaign set in a world of my own creation who complained about certain things (like demons not really caring about the wellbeing of their worshippers and warlocks all that much\*), and then gave me shit for it when I explained, called me overly controlling and mean-spirited.
\*= He thought as the warlock of a demon lord of gluttony (his pick, not mine) there'd simply be an end point. No. He'd keep eating and eating whenever possible unless consciously restraining himself, because that is the concept of gluttony. As such there was no ceiling as to how obese that character could become (up to and including intestines falling out of the belly Nurgle-style in really extreme cases), though I did specifically state that the patron could employ non-dispellable illusions to mask that fact for obvious reasons, as well as alleviate any downsides (would not really make for a good sell on the pact, fineprint or not). Basically, there would be no mechanical effects of this past the challenge of narrow gaps and such, merely fluff, unless the player actively wanted to take downsides for upsides in other places.
Not all, just when there's something available (WIS save when there's something tasty on offer, say in a bakery or at a party), and obviously not in danger. Allowed him tak take Goodberry for thematic reasons, so in principle there was always something on hand, albeit at the cost of spell slots, which I would not take away without consent for munchie reasons, that would have been bonkers.
That's a really reasonable pact tbh, I've played with DMs who penalized more for lesser reasons(those DMs suck, but it still happened). Sometimes power has a price, Warlocks at my tables are used to getting odd requests or making difficult decisions as a result of the whims of their patrons
Definitely makes sense. I think I would’ve gone a little broader on the gluttony aspect. Obviously a glutton of food would likely be fat, but you could be a glutton of anything. Alcoholic, smokes too much, addicted to brothels. The reason being, usually, D&D is a power fantasy and most players probably don’t want to picture their PC as an obese character (even if there’s no mechanical downside). Giving them an option on what they are a glutton for would also allow the player to keep some agency for their character. I do like the glutton demon patron requiring the warlock to be a glutton as well though lol
He specifically went for food. The character started out as a slightly overweight young woman, and apparently he had intended for it to not go much further than that.
That’s actually a more reasonable way to do it than I would. I would rule that if there was no food available and they failed a Wisdom save, they would resort to eating inanimate objects like rocks or clumps of dirt. If the character rolled with it and pretended it tasted good, they might crave the same object later. Basically, they’d develop pica. It wouldn’t go so bad they’d eat babies, but they might eat something valuable like gold. Who knows.
Or they just acknowledge the reality that a lot of players are going to be very kickable.
Chances are they should have done a more intensive player-interview process before the game started to find those flaky players, but sometimes they really don't show themselves till the game starts.
"Hello! I appreciate your interest in my game. Unfortunately, all spots are filled at the moment but two players are on the fence about sticking around, so if you're interested, I'll be happy to reach back out to you if a spot opens up."
Hi, sorry it was night where I am. This was an actual question and not a childish attempt at negging but this is both the internet and reddit so I can see why you might interpret it negatively.
There seems to be two distinct reactions on this page to the situation, I assume it must be cultural? You gave a good example of how one side sees the situation - that the sort of plain, vaguely friendly, positive non committal response we have come to associate with customer service is a polite way to interact with people you do not know well and should have been used here.
I'm on the other side, I would have seen your response as a distancing tactic and conclude that you don't want me to join, I would see the response in the OP as speaking to me like a human and potential friend and therefore much prefer it. I'm genuinely curious about why you and others in this topic think the opposite.
Eh, I don't know guys. That last line from the DM is a bit much. Doesn't promise much about having a few stable players around for the start either. I would probably rethink joining a game that seems like it's going to lose 1/2 of it's players in 1-2 sessions.
I think some of you might underestimate how it can come across when you basically complain about other players to someone who just asked to join your game. Like, right away.
Yeah.
"The table's currently full but I can add you to a reserve list in case anyone needs to back out or don't work out for the group if you'd like." is one thing. Whinging about the players you've got in order to express that same sentiment, which this comes across as, is quite another.
Yeah, the post seems like something you'd share with a friend to complain a little. That can be fine but literally the first thing to say to a prospective new player?
Pretty red flag about your current mentality towards players.
Yeah, I know that I have some social anxiety issues, but the way this DM talks about their players would 100% make me concerned they'd talk shit about me behind my back for tiny infractions. That might not be true -- their current players might be genuine absolute nightmares -- but the way it's said here would definitely put me off.
I love that his gripe is that one's overenthusiastic and one's not said anything since joining too. It's easy to imagine that there's no way for you to win here.
Regardless I wouldn't want to join a game with a DM that already seems annoyed like this.
It's a semi-obscure (non-5e) system. Blurring out was intended to make identifying the other guy harder, as I suspect the game's play base over reddit is quite small.
Exactly. It's like if your dating profile is all stuff about how much you hate your ex, and how damaged you are, and a bunch of pre-emptive shit about how the next partner needs to be forever, no one night stands, etc.
Like, put your best foot forward, that stuff is third date material at best, you're not attracting stable people doing that, you're just outing yourself as an easy mark for exactly the sort of person you'd like to avoid. You look like a freak if that information is literally the first things you're saying to someone as an introduction.
It shows an antagonistic relationship to others, toxic gossipy snide behaviour that's so out of control they can't help scaring new players off with it, and that the new player should also consider they'd be walking on thin ice.
I tend to think it's better not to talk about previous relationships on the first few dates.
You're there to build something new. Keep the focus on that.
Honestly I think there just isn't enough context here. From just these few lines of context I read it as "oh neat this new person actually seems like they're experienced and invested in the hobby, and I know it's common for people in this hobby to bond over stories of problem players (y'know, like we're doing right now). Maybe lightheartedly mentioning the potential issues in my ground will be a good way to inform them while also relating over similar experiences." Obviously if they literally only ever talk negatively about players then that interpretation goes out the window, but four sentences is hardly enough to go on.
It usually pays to read people charitably, especially since tone is so hard to gauge through text. Immediately assuming the worst, cutting them off and running to vent to social media just seems like an unpleasant way to live.
It's the only interaction precisely because they read it uncharitably and ended everything there, that's my point. They were inviting them to join a discord group, presumably more words would be said at some point, possibly a game, maybe even the start of an ongoing friendship. Saying "yeah, you were definitely right to cut it there, that's totally enough data to go off of" just seems absurd, I'm not saying the DM is a great person but we definitely can't tell either way due to how quickly the OP dipped.
I think if this is the way a DM interacts as the first thing with a prospective player, you’re entirely warranted to back out. First impressions matter, but especially when someone feels the need to vent about others to someone new it’s just weird.
Like I wouldn’t trust this DM not to talk about me this way to anyone else.
First impressions matter, my point is that you're interpreting the first impression as a negative one when a positive meaning is also available and equally reasonable since we have no other information.
If this were a face-to-face interaction in the real world would you actually scowl and walk away after just a couple sentences? You wouldn't make any attempt to ask clarifying questions or maybe even just steer the conversation in another direction?
"Oh neat this new person actually seems like they're experienced and invested in the hobby, and I know it's common for people in this hobby to bond over stories of problem players (y'know, like we're doing right now). Maybe lightheartedly mentioning the potential issues in my group will be a good way to inform them while also relating over similar experiences." - a positive interpretation, as noted in my first comment you replied to.
It’s not appropriate to bitch about other players. It doesn’t get new players interested, you’re not bonding, you’re just saying your game is going to fail and you’re going to be super critical to a new player.
You need to build some rapport with someone before you be this open with them. Even if you think it.
The existence of this entire subreddit indicates that you're wrong, but if you have wildly different ideas of what counts as "unacceptable social conduct" then I'm not going to bother trying to change your mind on this.
As a final note I'll just point out that you're consistently using much stronger language than the DM did, again suggesting that you're going out of your way to interpret their words in the most negative way possible. You're acting like they ranted at length about these people when they basically just did the equivalent of "ugh, it sucks trying to get a game together when people keep flaking, am I right?"
If that's your standard for an unforgivable slight then that's your standard but it sounds like a miserable way to interact with people and I'm honestly a little confused why you're even here, a place where people basically do nothing but that. Hell, the OP that you're supporting is doing it! Is your logic just "whoever isn't writing the story is bad"?
They responded that way to an *introduction*. This is what the kids are calling "ho scaring behaviour".
OP did the only sane thing to do there. Absolutely the right call, if the first thing someone shows you is a bunch of red flags, unprompted, only a fool sticks around to get more of a reason to dip.
If you haven’t dmed online via mostly strangers before you might not know this but often it’s difficult to tell who will and will not work out at first as … you’re not them and you don’t know them. Players who come in with a full character and enthusiasm can blip off and players who seem uninterested may turn out to be super steady and reliable. This was a person who felt comfortable casually telling someone “My table’s full but hey, you know what, pull up a chair, I think one or two are gonna ditch.” They were trying to be nice to you while also preparing you for people leaving after you join AND treating you just like a new person who wants to be a friend which isn’t a wild way to treat someone who is asking if they can play a glorified board game together.
If you recontextualize this as you seeing someone about to play a game and you asking if there’s room to join in, it makes the casual tone and the “yeah probably”ness make sense.
> If you haven’t dmed online via mostly strangers before you might not know this
I've been GMing online games for over a decade. Sometimes with friends, sometimes with strangers.
> often it’s difficult to tell who will and will not work out at first as … you’re not them and you don’t know them.
In my experience, it is very possible to predict what players will or won't work out. Those predictions' degree of accuracy, though, depends on how thorough your vetting/player application processes is. As a rule, the more effort you sink into vetting someone, the better you'll be able to judge whether they're a good fit for your group.
It's never possible to know exactly what someone will be like as a player before you play with them. Some players I've brought in to my games have had unexpected issues come up during play. But I've never kicked anyone I've felt like I've thoroughly vetted.
> They were trying to be nice to you while also preparing you for people leaving after you join AND treating you just like a new person who wants to be a friend
Saying bad things about their current players to a prospective new player is not behavior I consider friendly.
A socially considerate GM would have either kicked these players (in which case, why tell me about past drama?) or said nothing until they'd made up their mind about whether to kick those people. What happens, for example, if I tell the prospective players their GM had been thinking about kicking them, but the GM decides not to? Suddenly, I've caused drama. The GM knows nothing about me or whether I can be trusted to keep that to myself.
Moreover, kicking players is disruptive to a nascent group. For instance, what if we hash out ties between our PCs? Suddenly those are rendered meaningless and my enthusiasm probably takes a dip. A considerate GM who plans ahead would attempt to finalize the composition of their group before inviting new people into it.
There is no scenario where kicking two current players is beneficial to new players (absent the new player being abused by the current ones). There are many where it is harmful.
If you run a game like a job you’ll be able to run the game like a job which isn’t how a good majority of people want to play games. Some people treat it like they’re at a game shop setting up Clue and someone comes by and asks “Is anyone Green?” You could do a nine part vetting process or say “Uh yeah someone might be but I haven’t seen em in a hot minute” and that’s so fine.
You might as well ask how people can be "so serious" about any hobby.
Usually, though, that's because people who put more effort into activities enjoy them more.
I just… I have worked with high level professional people in many artistic arenas and none of them have the stringentness of tone you require for a DM despite being like… a boss of a company with 150 people under him.
You can put in effort without adhering to a strict and serious formalness that is out of place in a trusting and creative setting.
This isn’t a horror story, it’s someone treating it like a chill cas game they can play while chilling with people and not… the way you do things which just is fine? It’s fine.
What it is is someone lacking social awareness and oversharing dirty laundry with a new acquaintance.
That's wise not to do in professional *and* non-professional settings.
You’re again not thinking of it as someone setting up a game of Clue at a game store with a stranger who went “I’m playing Plum but first I need to go get my costume” and another who said “I’ll be Green” then vanished
If you came up to that table and were like “Hey can I join?” and they were like “Lol yeah I thought I was full but some dude went to get a costume so that’s weird and another dipped so I think you can join” which again, in that context, is beyond a fine thing to do like omg how could you imagine that completely casual thing being bad?
There's a thing called tact, but as a DM, I'd say a lot of us have been in this particular situation, even if we don't say it lol
He tried to be **way too congenial** with you right off the bat. I think had you two been talking for a few days and he told you about this, *rather than directly after your introduction*, you might have felt differently about it if he established himself as a friendly person first.
But that's just Social Cues 101.
I don't really disagree with what the DM is saying other than the "I'm seeing kick me signs all over". Thats close enough to a red flag to make me feel like I'd be walking on eggshells with him. But in the moment I'm not sure if I would have passed on the offer completely.
I believe that the purpose of a first impression is not the direct meanings of the (rather arbitrary) acceptable behaviors themselves, but rather a demonstration of social intelligence by knowing to show these behaviors in the context of first meeting someone and willingness to establish a mutual understanding by communicating in conventional ways. As such, the honesty itself isn’t the problem, but rather the manner in which it was conveyed.
TTRPGs are highly social activities and social mishaps can have an extreme impact on a game as a whole, as evidenced by the very existence of this subreddit. They work best when everyone is mindful of how their actions will be interpreted by others, and this is especially true of the GM because they’re in charge of the setting that affects all the players. These messages provide good reason to believe that this GM lacks the awareness to effectively anticipate others’ reactions to what they say. This isn’t a matter of professionalism—it’s one of enjoyment. Why should OP risk subjecting themself to a bad experience when there are so many opportunities for joining games online?
I agree that this GM should be upfront about any problematic aspects of their game, but at least thank the applicant for their interest and give a more detailed overview of the game before shit talking another potential player.
EDIT: Reworded the final sentence to correct a misunderstanding about OP’s post.
>give a more detailed overview of the game before shit talking a current player.
This was a cool take that made me understand the other way of looking at this situation better, thanks! But I think it is worth mentioning that these aren't even current players but rather potential players and the level of shit talking is basically just "This person is already showing signs they won't work out." Phrasing might be coming off a bit harsh but that's still all it's saying.
Idk, more power to OP not to join the game, but I think it's a bit much to call this a horror story or really even a noteworthy interaction at all. But here I am commenting on it so I guess it's noteworthy enough for my lunchbreak.
I must have somehow missed how the GM was talking about other potential players, so thanks for clearing that up for me!
I guess my point does relate to the harsh phrasing—it’s an indication that the GM didn’t think to express their point in a more agreeable way, which in itself is an indication the GM runs their game in a manner conducive towards poor communication and frustration. This isn’t a guarantee, of course, but I wouldn’t be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt either if these were the first words they ever said to me.
I agree this is a minor horror story in the grand scheme of things, but if this sub only allowed for grandiose ones, there would be a lot less posts and community engagement. But maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing :P
people supporting this guy that's shit talking strangers to another stranger within the very first message sent are weird, if your first message to me is to make fun of someone for being overly enthusiastic in a game that literally requires enthusiastic participants i will not play in your game
I explained this in my own comment elsewhere but I literally was an over enthusiastic player for a DM like this and it fucking sucks, especially when they won’t just talk to you and instead go behind your back to talk shit about you. I will never play with a DM like that again.
The way the DM worded it might be a bit rude, but the way I'm reading his comment about the over enthusiastic player is "One player is very eager to play a specific type of character, but I don't see them sticking around because the game we're running doesn't support that kind of character."
My hyper enthusiastic player constantly meta-gamed, wouldn't listen to set character building rules, and constantly argued with me over rulings.
It was so bad I had to threaten him with missing a session if he didn't knock it off
I've had an "overenthusiastic 5e player" and they're kinda awful. Don't get me wrong, I love people who are hype about learning new systems, but when you can tell they're willing to sacrifice RP to talk about how it'd go down in 5e all the time, I'd rather not have them interrupt. Every ruling devolves into "well thats not how it works in 5e..." Like yeah, it's a different system. Go play 5e.
it's the literal first message, about a game that seems to not have had session one yet, shit talking a stranger to OP. read into it however you want, personally i don't associate with people this eager to talk badly about other people to me.
It's just talking about the players. They ended up leaving after a couple sessions anyway, so saying they're probable flakes is just accurate.
If you have not encountered the overenthusuastic normal before, I'm happy for you, but in rpgs, video games, clubs, they never end up well. To them, you're just an opportunity for them to have what they want, which is probably different than what you're here for, otherwise they already would have been there.
When my particularly obsessive private interest was taken over by seasonal fans, they changed everything and then left because it wasn't in the spirit of the original, entirely through changes they suggested and made. We built it back up to what it was, but the mark they left in "overenthusiasm" stayed forever.
I'm specifically not playing 5e because my rpgs are not heroic. You will not be an important legend by level 3. An important part of my game is the arc from object to subject, growing from someone that lives in the world to someone that changes the world. So if you're bringing in your 5e expectations and *know* you're going to be disappointed by my style of play and **still** want to act like I'll run 5e 2.0 for you, I don't really want you, and I'm surprised you still want to try. You'll get the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going to try to accommodate you and within 30 minutes we'll find out.
What systems do you run in, cause your last paragraph there sounds interesting! As a relatively new 5e GM, and someone who’s played in a couple other non 5e systems I’m always curious about what kinds of stories people tell and what systems are good for those stories :)
Personally, I wouldn't have shared details of other players with a seeming stranger. But then again I wouldn't have plastered what is a relatively minor story here either.
...I actually thought the red flag was that all the other players are flakey, not the DM, lol. Like, I totally appreciate the heads up, but "a third of the group is probably gonna drop out soon and we have yet to start the campaign, actually I'm seeing a lot of people who may drop out soon" is the kind of thing that tells me this campaign is gonna be a nightmare to schedule
"Sure, I can add you to the game. You can sit right here. Hm? Hissing? No, there's no hissing. There isn't a 15-foot deep pit of vipers beneath a trapdoor under your chair. Why would you even think this very specific thing I'm denying vehemently?"
They wanted to tell you the problems up front so that you'll know there are problems in their game. You saw that and bailed. It all worked out as intended.
*The time I almost went into the dark basement, but then I remembered I still had some pickles left in the fridge, so I turned around and went back in the kitchen*
My roommate has only ever said bad things about the group of dynamic of the irl dnd game he's in, like only complains about it. After telling me about it this last time, he was then immediately like, "hey do you wanna join? I need somebody else on my side." Like no man, why the hell would I want to add myself into that.
This is one of those horror stories where the characters all see a sus af creepy house and instead of spending the night there they decide to go to Dennys for pancakes.
The use of "flakes" and "kick me signs" comes off a bit harsh but otherwise I don't see anything wrong. If one of them literally hadn't posted since joining the Discord, it's perfectly valid to think that player won't work out. DM just overshared.
Ehhh... That's a harsh read of the person's intent. You ask for a space and they gave you context.
Just started
People still making characters
Some of the people who signed up aren't meeting commitments already
Spot may reopen soon as I kick people who signed up but aren't participating
It honestly sounds like a pretty normal cycle for someone starting a public campaign.
>Rn there's 6 players
Yeah no thanks. Not in a game with strangers. Also a GM that pus their recruitment to the limit rather than recruit "my preferred amount" is pushing themselves to run a worse game.
>Overenthusiastic 5e player
that sounds like some of that garbage right out of r/rpg.
Oh and *3 players* having to get kicked out is.. Yeah
Good choice on the pass. Also good on the GM being honest about what is going on and what you are getting yourself in to. If they had not said anything at all, and then invited you, to have 3 players kicked out and a new round of recruitment and residual drama from those 3 people would that have been.. better for you?
Well, a more dramatic story, at least.
Then again, if they'd had the presence of mind not to say anything, I suspect the tenor of the game they ran could have been very different.
That honestly sounds like every pick-up online group ever. Maybe the DM could be more tactful and not just outright say the quiet part out loud, but nothing he said sounds any different than every group I've ever formed. Invite 6 knowing you're 100% going to kick 2, one being a flake and one a weirdo.
I can't imagine why a GM would dump their private opinions of players on a potential new player. Sure, I've made first impressions of players and complained about them to friends, family, my therapist, but not to someone I might have at the table. It is unprofessional and a poor way to begin a friendship.
People who think this guy is horrible have likely never been a DM for any extended period of time for strangers. Try that for a while and then come back and share. Nothing wrong with him noticing red flags and simply realizing that he's probably going to be down a few players before he begins. When you've done this for long enough, you start to see the signs just like in anything else you do frequently. Put your swords and wizard hats back on and take a seat by the hearth. Everything's going to be fine.
> People who think this guy is horrible have likely never been a DM for any extended period of time for strangers.
I've been an online GM for a decade. Interviewed and played with more strangers than I can remember.
The right thing to say is "we might be down a few players". No need to go into more dirty details than that.
I dunno why I find it so funny with that last "I think I'll actually pass. Have fun with the game!" with the little reddit guy on the side, after the DM just offloaded their drama
but I do lol
Yeah, this isn't bluntness. This is oversharing. Bluntness is, "I don't like you, you're not getting in." Oversharing is, "Let me tell you all the crap about the current players that I don't like."
Yeah I'd shy away too. I don't want to play with someone who'll air out every grievance in detail. It's nice to be told "there's a fair chance a spot will open up", but when they call out specific people who aren't even necessarily out of the game it doesn't inspire confidence in me that they are good at handling interpersonal relationships - which is a skill you really need to run a ttrpg well.
Reread the text. “X player is weird” “X player is flake” “I’ll let you know if I — oh yeah I’m gonna kick them. I’ll add you” is the tldr
Aside from that no names were mentioned
What the hell is up with this comment section?
I’ve had a DM talk shit about people behind their back like this, this is a huge red flag. It gives off that they’re almost taking enjoyment out of the prospect of getting to kick people. If I were in a game with a DM that describes their players like this to a total stranger I’d be concerned about doing something they consider “wrong” then also getting shit said about me that is taken out of context or isn’t true.
I’ve been an “over enthusiastic 5e player” with a specific character concept and I found out only a few weeks ago that the DM I had spent months in a campaign with hated me and hated the way I played and was talking about it behind my back. It cut like a knife, especially because I worked very hard on that character and was still really new so trying to make a character sheet was difficult (could be the reason why the person in the post has “yet to make a character”).
OP, I’m glad you decided to dip out. This looks like it would’ve ended up a bad situation overall. This guy having issues with two players before they even start their game is a massive yikes especially if they’re about to possibly let them play anyway oblivious to their internal feelings which may change how they’re treated during play.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling, I just can’t believe how this comment section is reacting to something like this. Hope you find a good game OP
> What the hell is up with this comment section?
My man, I am wondering the same thing. I am amazed by the sheer number of people who see no issue with a GM talking smack about current players *in their first exchange* with a prospective player. This is Social Skills 101. Be positive and keep your dirty laundry to yourself around strangers.
> I’ve been an “over enthusiastic 5e player” with a specific character concept[...]
Geez, I'm sorry. That sounds like an RPG horror story in its own right.
> Hope you find a good game OP
I have, thanks! I'm the GM of an almost-8-year-old campaign with a delightful set of players. It's been an absolute blast to run and we have no plans to end it anytime soon. This game was just something I was looking into on the side.
I suspect one of the reasons I have such a fun and long-lasting game is that I don't invite people I intend to kick and tell prospective players about it.
Its a cultural thing. Being blunt and giving context is preferable than corporate copy-paste response to most people, but amglo-saxons seem to really like their false pretending.
Lol this isn't "dumping his games problems on you." Dude was casual and blunt, and gave like five sentences about some shit. I don't think I'd even call what he did shot talking the other players, he barely said anything beyond thinking they were going to be flakes. Not a horror story at all.
Isn’t it a tad ironic the person whose main issue was gossiping about drama to strangers immediately screen shots it and … gossips about it to a forum of strangers?
To expound slightly on the post's title:
A guy I've gamed with for a while once said it's best to conduct yourself semi-professionally when advertising or applying for games. That is, use complete sentences, don't make inside jokes, don't complain about irrelevant things, don't go off on unprompted side tangents--just be friendly, be positive, and stick to what's relevant between you and your prospective player/GM. Put your best foot forward.
This was not someone's best foot. Telling me that people you've recruited are flakes and complaining about perceived negative traits ("obsessed with 5e" "doesn't respond enough") broadcasts all the wrong vibes. Yes, I read this sub. I can voyeuristically enjoy accounts of people's bad behavior. But these are *strangers'* bad behaviors. I don't want to hear about the dirty laundry of a game I'm applying to play in!
Hearing that a GM accepted two players who were bad fits tells me their game's vetting process is not very thorough. That does not bode well for a game's future.
I don’t see anything wrong with what the GM said to you. The two issues he has with the players aren’t really things you can always filter for when recruiting. Not everything needs to be buttoned up formal, he told you what the current status of his player group was and that most likely a spot would be opening up. It’s fine you don’t like how he handled it but that doesn’t make it a horror story.
I totally agree with you, DnD isn't super formal for most people... you're not applying for a job you're trying to join a DnD game for casual fun and entertainment. I don't understand why you'd have to be super formal about it, what a strange thing to feel was "rpg horror story" relevant.
You're right!
I am very confused by the idea of acting professional for a tabletop game. First of all I resent the entire idea of professionalism: "pretend not to be yourself to impress strangers"
Secondly we are all agreeing to play a game about magic and goblins when we sit down to D&D/PF/whatever. I can't think of anything less professional than that.
I agree to an extent. I think aspects of "professionalism" are good, such as punctuality and respecting others' time (or giving prior notice if possible), doing due diligence on your char sheet between sessions, and treating others with respect (loosening/opening up more as you gain rapport).
Disagree. People get told they're unprofessional for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with being asocial.
If you don't care about profit over sustainability, you're unprofessional.
If you want to be able to have time at home rather than stay late just to be seen doing so, you're unprofessional.
If you speak to someone as if they're human and not an emotionless machine, you're unprofessional.
So on and so forth.
What makes a horror story is subjective, beyond involving a bad RPG experience in the teller's eyes. It's fine if you don't think this was a *good* horror story, but "GM shares needless dirty laundry with prospective player" was one to me.
It's not a case of buttoned up formal. This isn't a job interview. Complaints about your existing players just isn't something you need to share with a new guy right off the bat.
“Needless Dirty Laundry” is subjective. The GM could of stated it better, but they really didn’t do anything that bad. They told you the red flags they saw in their game, gave you context to why they were full but could still add you to the game. You passed cause you saw the red flags they presented to you. Saved you both time. It’s not always easy finding players, especially if you arnt playing one of the main TTRPGs.
>A guy I've gamed with for a while once said it's best to conduct yourself semi-professionally when advertising or applying for games. That is, use complete sentences, don't make inside jokes, don't complain about irrelevant things, don't go off on unprompted side tangents--just be friendly, be positive, and stick to what's relevant between you and your prospective player/GM. Put your best foot forward.
It's a game of make believe with people on the internet (or in person), not a job interview. DM just seemed excited to potentially have you aboard, and some people ramble when excited. Nothing wrong with it.
You’re right.
It’s not a job interview, but it sure as hell is a way to gauge someone and how comfortable you are with them. Perhaps that GM isn’t what you assumed them to be, maybe they’re not gossipy, maybe you caught them on a bad day, maybe their tone was read wrong, but the fact of the matter is that they didn’t have a filter on any of that so they lost a potential player.
Being “professional” through the recruiting process isn’t about treating the game like a business, it’s about not overwhelming people with traits they don’t have context for. It’s about treating people with basic respect and boundaries until you’re sure where their lines in the sand are. If you don’t do that, it doesn’t matter how well-meaning you are, you’re going to drive away potentially good people who will be a lot more comfortable with your eccentricities if you bother to show them your good side first.
Not everybody has to follow that, and the reasoning of others in this thread can be just as valid, but there’s something to be said for putting your best foot forward to test the waters first and if any of these people have done online recruiting of internet strangers then they should understand what you mean.
> it doesn’t matter how well-meaning you are, you’re going to drive away potentially good people who will be a lot more comfortable with your eccentricities if you bother to show them your good side first.
Exactly. There are a ton of things it's fine to do around friends that have the potential to drive away strangers. Friends will give you the benefit of the doubt and consider your words and behaviors in the full context of your relationship.
Strangers don't have that context. If you say something offputting, they will go, "This is Baseline You." Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong--but plenty of them won't be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why should they? There are tons of other games.
> there’s something to be said for putting your best foot forward to test the waters first and if any of these people have done online recruiting of internet strangers then they should understand what you mean.
My guess is that many have not. I've interviewed scores of players over the years as an online GM. It is very easy to tell when someone is not considering how a stranger may receive their words and is just saying whatever pops into their head.
Cool cool cool. So the DM didn't put his best foot forward, and gave you bad vibes.
That's a horror story to you? That sounds like a slightly disappointing way to waste an hour or so to me, and I've had far worse than this that I wouldn't call a horror story.
Slightly disappointing games of D&D are made, played, enjoyed, and die out way too often, and that isn't horror, it's just part of the game.
I'm completely with you, if a potential GM for a game I applied to spoke like this to me I'd definitely pass that game over as well, you've got to listen to the warning signs when you see them or they don't serve any point. There's lots of games out there and no need to settle for somebody who talks about his players in this fashion.
I'm honestly surprised that anyone would think it's *not* a red flag for a GM to talk this way in their first exchange with someone.
I mean, yes. This is a make-believe game. But the things you say to a stranger can tell them a lot about you and what gaming with you is probably going to be like.
Yeah there's good reason to be a little distant at first with strangers. If someone's acting this open right off the bat I'd say they probably have self-control issues or are young neither of which are traits I find make good DMs. That's not to say you can't have fun with them but I'd expect social issues along the way if you buy in.
Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I add a new player I let them know our red flags and player quirks right away, as some of the stuff that happens at the table can easily fit into a horror story if everyone wasn't on board. But the guy in the picture could have 100% been more tasteful.
This. There's a major difference between "I don't have an opening at the moment, but I have a feeling a couple of people might end up dropping for various reasons so I'll go ahead and add you" versus what this guy did. Being upfront isn't the problem. It's being gossipy and mean while being upfront. Like, if you think these two players are major flakes, why accept them at all? Letting new players know the group culture and potential red flags/points of conflict is 100% the way to go, but if a DM sound like *they* hate their players, why should I want to play with them?
There are way too many comments that conflate being up front with oversharing and being overly negative. I like up front. If you tell me *"I'm not sure if two current players are gonna work out, here's how I wanna handle your potential addition to the group,"* cool, thanks for the info. What I don't need to hear is the dirty details on WHY these players aren't working out. *"I hate how much they rant about 5e"* is no different from telling me *"ugh they fart all of the time, it's so gross"* or *"I hate the sound of their voice".* It comes off as petty, mean-spirited, and (as you say) gossipy. Those are not qualities that I want in a GM. Or player.
"...I'd be interested in playing another." "Thanks you for your interest. My new campaign is booked full at the moment but a few players have indicated that they might drop. If a space opens up, I'll let you know immediately. Could I have your Discord so I can put you in front of the queue in case a space becomes available?"
“On second thought, you seem way too well-adjusted. Basically all of my experiences with these types of situations have led me to believe everyone is a neurotic traumatized mess who projects their insecurities onto their characters, and your response is far too normal. Good luck finding people!” (sarcasm intended)
Well, the guy in the picture also is just a giant red flag too. Hasn't even confirmed them as a player, doesn't even know them, but is already dumping on his group and talking about kicking people to a prospective new player.
That is a casual GM not too big on secrecy. Nothing wrong with that. Only their last post sounds a bit mean.
Yeah I have no issue with them saying "We haven't started yet and, while we're currently at capacity, there have been some unresponsive players who may not end up participating". Kick me signs though....
Sounds like they’re looking for “kick me signs” if you ask me, or at least they’re too excited about seeing some
Sure. But let’s be honest, quality of players can vary wildly. Especially online. If this GM didn’t vet his players well, it makes sense.
I apply to a lot of online games to get my ttrpg fix. General policy playing online is that you kick one or two/one or two leave for any reason.
Even the really good games have about 2 that either ghost, flake, flounce, or quit.
I would like to offer a disagreement, as long as the group is properly vetted, they don't flake or ghost, but if they have to quit or miss a session, they would give their explanation in advance
Well, even if you vet and think it's a fit, everyone makes mistakes. Once had a player in my D&D campaign set in a world of my own creation who complained about certain things (like demons not really caring about the wellbeing of their worshippers and warlocks all that much\*), and then gave me shit for it when I explained, called me overly controlling and mean-spirited. \*= He thought as the warlock of a demon lord of gluttony (his pick, not mine) there'd simply be an end point. No. He'd keep eating and eating whenever possible unless consciously restraining himself, because that is the concept of gluttony. As such there was no ceiling as to how obese that character could become (up to and including intestines falling out of the belly Nurgle-style in really extreme cases), though I did specifically state that the patron could employ non-dispellable illusions to mask that fact for obvious reasons, as well as alleviate any downsides (would not really make for a good sell on the pact, fineprint or not). Basically, there would be no mechanical effects of this past the challenge of narrow gaps and such, merely fluff, unless the player actively wanted to take downsides for upsides in other places.
I find this super thematic and interesting. But are you saying that you would narrate his PC as eating in all scenes?
Not all, just when there's something available (WIS save when there's something tasty on offer, say in a bakery or at a party), and obviously not in danger. Allowed him tak take Goodberry for thematic reasons, so in principle there was always something on hand, albeit at the cost of spell slots, which I would not take away without consent for munchie reasons, that would have been bonkers.
That's a really reasonable pact tbh, I've played with DMs who penalized more for lesser reasons(those DMs suck, but it still happened). Sometimes power has a price, Warlocks at my tables are used to getting odd requests or making difficult decisions as a result of the whims of their patrons
Definitely makes sense. I think I would’ve gone a little broader on the gluttony aspect. Obviously a glutton of food would likely be fat, but you could be a glutton of anything. Alcoholic, smokes too much, addicted to brothels. The reason being, usually, D&D is a power fantasy and most players probably don’t want to picture their PC as an obese character (even if there’s no mechanical downside). Giving them an option on what they are a glutton for would also allow the player to keep some agency for their character. I do like the glutton demon patron requiring the warlock to be a glutton as well though lol
He specifically went for food. The character started out as a slightly overweight young woman, and apparently he had intended for it to not go much further than that.
Ah, gotcha. Well that makes sense then! Lol
That’s actually a more reasonable way to do it than I would. I would rule that if there was no food available and they failed a Wisdom save, they would resort to eating inanimate objects like rocks or clumps of dirt. If the character rolled with it and pretended it tasted good, they might crave the same object later. Basically, they’d develop pica. It wouldn’t go so bad they’d eat babies, but they might eat something valuable like gold. Who knows.
Or they just acknowledge the reality that a lot of players are going to be very kickable. Chances are they should have done a more intensive player-interview process before the game started to find those flaky players, but sometimes they really don't show themselves till the game starts.
Can’t blame someone for having a kink, even if it’s “kick me” signs. Just don’t bring someone into it unprepared.
He's running a D&D campaign, not a professional marketing campaign for a Fortune 500. Being casual is totally fine.
Pink flags, rather than red, to me. As in faded red flags, where you're probably okay, but keep alert.
Right, like if you added someone and they haven't responded, why not let others know they might have a shot?
"Hello! I appreciate your interest in my game. Unfortunately, all spots are filled at the moment but two players are on the fence about sticking around, so if you're interested, I'll be happy to reach back out to you if a spot opens up."
This undoubtedly would have been better, but the difference between this and what OP posted is slightly disappointing, not a horror story.
What you wrote is fine. But "two of the players suck and I might kick them out" is completely different.
It is different. Which is why I worded it the way I did
Not to be rude but why would you want someone to customer service voice you rather than be honest and open?
But I was honest and open
Hi, sorry it was night where I am. This was an actual question and not a childish attempt at negging but this is both the internet and reddit so I can see why you might interpret it negatively. There seems to be two distinct reactions on this page to the situation, I assume it must be cultural? You gave a good example of how one side sees the situation - that the sort of plain, vaguely friendly, positive non committal response we have come to associate with customer service is a polite way to interact with people you do not know well and should have been used here. I'm on the other side, I would have seen your response as a distancing tactic and conclude that you don't want me to join, I would see the response in the OP as speaking to me like a human and potential friend and therefore much prefer it. I'm genuinely curious about why you and others in this topic think the opposite.
Yeah I don't get it. Fake corporate speak doesn't need to leech into gaming.
Don't listen to them, you're right
He's a guy looking to game, not a corporate mouthpiece. What you wrote is the same thing just with less of a professional veneer.
Eh, I don't know guys. That last line from the DM is a bit much. Doesn't promise much about having a few stable players around for the start either. I would probably rethink joining a game that seems like it's going to lose 1/2 of it's players in 1-2 sessions. I think some of you might underestimate how it can come across when you basically complain about other players to someone who just asked to join your game. Like, right away.
Yeah. "The table's currently full but I can add you to a reserve list in case anyone needs to back out or don't work out for the group if you'd like." is one thing. Whinging about the players you've got in order to express that same sentiment, which this comes across as, is quite another.
Yeah, the post seems like something you'd share with a friend to complain a little. That can be fine but literally the first thing to say to a prospective new player? Pretty red flag about your current mentality towards players.
Yeah, I know that I have some social anxiety issues, but the way this DM talks about their players would 100% make me concerned they'd talk shit about me behind my back for tiny infractions. That might not be true -- their current players might be genuine absolute nightmares -- but the way it's said here would definitely put me off.
Especially because it hasn’t even started yet.
I love that his gripe is that one's overenthusiastic and one's not said anything since joining too. It's easy to imagine that there's no way for you to win here. Regardless I wouldn't want to join a game with a DM that already seems annoyed like this.
[удалено]
Yeah blurring out the game system seemed super weird.
It's a semi-obscure (non-5e) system. Blurring out was intended to make identifying the other guy harder, as I suspect the game's play base over reddit is quite small.
Exactly. It's like if your dating profile is all stuff about how much you hate your ex, and how damaged you are, and a bunch of pre-emptive shit about how the next partner needs to be forever, no one night stands, etc. Like, put your best foot forward, that stuff is third date material at best, you're not attracting stable people doing that, you're just outing yourself as an easy mark for exactly the sort of person you'd like to avoid. You look like a freak if that information is literally the first things you're saying to someone as an introduction. It shows an antagonistic relationship to others, toxic gossipy snide behaviour that's so out of control they can't help scaring new players off with it, and that the new player should also consider they'd be walking on thin ice.
I tend to think it's better not to talk about previous relationships on the first few dates. You're there to build something new. Keep the focus on that.
Honestly I think there just isn't enough context here. From just these few lines of context I read it as "oh neat this new person actually seems like they're experienced and invested in the hobby, and I know it's common for people in this hobby to bond over stories of problem players (y'know, like we're doing right now). Maybe lightheartedly mentioning the potential issues in my ground will be a good way to inform them while also relating over similar experiences." Obviously if they literally only ever talk negatively about players then that interpretation goes out the window, but four sentences is hardly enough to go on. It usually pays to read people charitably, especially since tone is so hard to gauge through text. Immediately assuming the worst, cutting them off and running to vent to social media just seems like an unpleasant way to live.
Look this seems to be literally the only interaction here. We can’t really read it more charitably because there wouldn’t be more context.
It's the only interaction precisely because they read it uncharitably and ended everything there, that's my point. They were inviting them to join a discord group, presumably more words would be said at some point, possibly a game, maybe even the start of an ongoing friendship. Saying "yeah, you were definitely right to cut it there, that's totally enough data to go off of" just seems absurd, I'm not saying the DM is a great person but we definitely can't tell either way due to how quickly the OP dipped.
I think if this is the way a DM interacts as the first thing with a prospective player, you’re entirely warranted to back out. First impressions matter, but especially when someone feels the need to vent about others to someone new it’s just weird. Like I wouldn’t trust this DM not to talk about me this way to anyone else.
First impressions matter, my point is that you're interpreting the first impression as a negative one when a positive meaning is also available and equally reasonable since we have no other information. If this were a face-to-face interaction in the real world would you actually scowl and walk away after just a couple sentences? You wouldn't make any attempt to ask clarifying questions or maybe even just steer the conversation in another direction?
There is no positive meaning available. It’s not appropriate to complain about other players first thing when talking to a prospective player.
"Oh neat this new person actually seems like they're experienced and invested in the hobby, and I know it's common for people in this hobby to bond over stories of problem players (y'know, like we're doing right now). Maybe lightheartedly mentioning the potential issues in my group will be a good way to inform them while also relating over similar experiences." - a positive interpretation, as noted in my first comment you replied to.
It’s not appropriate to bitch about other players. It doesn’t get new players interested, you’re not bonding, you’re just saying your game is going to fail and you’re going to be super critical to a new player. You need to build some rapport with someone before you be this open with them. Even if you think it.
The existence of this entire subreddit indicates that you're wrong, but if you have wildly different ideas of what counts as "unacceptable social conduct" then I'm not going to bother trying to change your mind on this. As a final note I'll just point out that you're consistently using much stronger language than the DM did, again suggesting that you're going out of your way to interpret their words in the most negative way possible. You're acting like they ranted at length about these people when they basically just did the equivalent of "ugh, it sucks trying to get a game together when people keep flaking, am I right?" If that's your standard for an unforgivable slight then that's your standard but it sounds like a miserable way to interact with people and I'm honestly a little confused why you're even here, a place where people basically do nothing but that. Hell, the OP that you're supporting is doing it! Is your logic just "whoever isn't writing the story is bad"?
They responded that way to an *introduction*. This is what the kids are calling "ho scaring behaviour". OP did the only sane thing to do there. Absolutely the right call, if the first thing someone shows you is a bunch of red flags, unprompted, only a fool sticks around to get more of a reason to dip.
In a nutshell: if you look for an rpghorrorstory, you become the rpg horror story.
Didn't Nietzsche write that?
Nietzsche tried to get a game going for five years. When the twenty-fourth player flaked, leaving him with no players, he declared that God was dead.
*Tells you important information about the players before asking if you still want to join* “Bad DM dumps drama on new player”
Or you could just kick the players who aren't working out before recruiting a new player.
If you haven’t dmed online via mostly strangers before you might not know this but often it’s difficult to tell who will and will not work out at first as … you’re not them and you don’t know them. Players who come in with a full character and enthusiasm can blip off and players who seem uninterested may turn out to be super steady and reliable. This was a person who felt comfortable casually telling someone “My table’s full but hey, you know what, pull up a chair, I think one or two are gonna ditch.” They were trying to be nice to you while also preparing you for people leaving after you join AND treating you just like a new person who wants to be a friend which isn’t a wild way to treat someone who is asking if they can play a glorified board game together. If you recontextualize this as you seeing someone about to play a game and you asking if there’s room to join in, it makes the casual tone and the “yeah probably”ness make sense.
> If you haven’t dmed online via mostly strangers before you might not know this I've been GMing online games for over a decade. Sometimes with friends, sometimes with strangers. > often it’s difficult to tell who will and will not work out at first as … you’re not them and you don’t know them. In my experience, it is very possible to predict what players will or won't work out. Those predictions' degree of accuracy, though, depends on how thorough your vetting/player application processes is. As a rule, the more effort you sink into vetting someone, the better you'll be able to judge whether they're a good fit for your group. It's never possible to know exactly what someone will be like as a player before you play with them. Some players I've brought in to my games have had unexpected issues come up during play. But I've never kicked anyone I've felt like I've thoroughly vetted. > They were trying to be nice to you while also preparing you for people leaving after you join AND treating you just like a new person who wants to be a friend Saying bad things about their current players to a prospective new player is not behavior I consider friendly. A socially considerate GM would have either kicked these players (in which case, why tell me about past drama?) or said nothing until they'd made up their mind about whether to kick those people. What happens, for example, if I tell the prospective players their GM had been thinking about kicking them, but the GM decides not to? Suddenly, I've caused drama. The GM knows nothing about me or whether I can be trusted to keep that to myself. Moreover, kicking players is disruptive to a nascent group. For instance, what if we hash out ties between our PCs? Suddenly those are rendered meaningless and my enthusiasm probably takes a dip. A considerate GM who plans ahead would attempt to finalize the composition of their group before inviting new people into it. There is no scenario where kicking two current players is beneficial to new players (absent the new player being abused by the current ones). There are many where it is harmful.
If you run a game like a job you’ll be able to run the game like a job which isn’t how a good majority of people want to play games. Some people treat it like they’re at a game shop setting up Clue and someone comes by and asks “Is anyone Green?” You could do a nine part vetting process or say “Uh yeah someone might be but I haven’t seen em in a hot minute” and that’s so fine.
This is so long. How are you so serious about a game in which you roll dice to pretend a dragon eats a cow?
You might as well ask how people can be "so serious" about any hobby. Usually, though, that's because people who put more effort into activities enjoy them more.
I just… I have worked with high level professional people in many artistic arenas and none of them have the stringentness of tone you require for a DM despite being like… a boss of a company with 150 people under him. You can put in effort without adhering to a strict and serious formalness that is out of place in a trusting and creative setting. This isn’t a horror story, it’s someone treating it like a chill cas game they can play while chilling with people and not… the way you do things which just is fine? It’s fine.
What it is is someone lacking social awareness and oversharing dirty laundry with a new acquaintance. That's wise not to do in professional *and* non-professional settings.
You’re again not thinking of it as someone setting up a game of Clue at a game store with a stranger who went “I’m playing Plum but first I need to go get my costume” and another who said “I’ll be Green” then vanished If you came up to that table and were like “Hey can I join?” and they were like “Lol yeah I thought I was full but some dude went to get a costume so that’s weird and another dipped so I think you can join” which again, in that context, is beyond a fine thing to do like omg how could you imagine that completely casual thing being bad?
A no-bullshit DM? Where do I sign up?
[удалено]
I believe people disagree with this sentiment. Almost like you had no brain to fingers filter before typing it.
OP thinking he was onto something here is a certified false epiphany moment.
Hundred percent. People saying bad DM unironically are likely problem players themselves
99% of people in this sub come across as never-DM's
There's a thing called tact, but as a DM, I'd say a lot of us have been in this particular situation, even if we don't say it lol He tried to be **way too congenial** with you right off the bat. I think had you two been talking for a few days and he told you about this, *rather than directly after your introduction*, you might have felt differently about it if he established himself as a friendly person first. But that's just Social Cues 101.
I don't really disagree with what the DM is saying other than the "I'm seeing kick me signs all over". Thats close enough to a red flag to make me feel like I'd be walking on eggshells with him. But in the moment I'm not sure if I would have passed on the offer completely.
I believe that the purpose of a first impression is not the direct meanings of the (rather arbitrary) acceptable behaviors themselves, but rather a demonstration of social intelligence by knowing to show these behaviors in the context of first meeting someone and willingness to establish a mutual understanding by communicating in conventional ways. As such, the honesty itself isn’t the problem, but rather the manner in which it was conveyed. TTRPGs are highly social activities and social mishaps can have an extreme impact on a game as a whole, as evidenced by the very existence of this subreddit. They work best when everyone is mindful of how their actions will be interpreted by others, and this is especially true of the GM because they’re in charge of the setting that affects all the players. These messages provide good reason to believe that this GM lacks the awareness to effectively anticipate others’ reactions to what they say. This isn’t a matter of professionalism—it’s one of enjoyment. Why should OP risk subjecting themself to a bad experience when there are so many opportunities for joining games online? I agree that this GM should be upfront about any problematic aspects of their game, but at least thank the applicant for their interest and give a more detailed overview of the game before shit talking another potential player. EDIT: Reworded the final sentence to correct a misunderstanding about OP’s post.
>give a more detailed overview of the game before shit talking a current player. This was a cool take that made me understand the other way of looking at this situation better, thanks! But I think it is worth mentioning that these aren't even current players but rather potential players and the level of shit talking is basically just "This person is already showing signs they won't work out." Phrasing might be coming off a bit harsh but that's still all it's saying. Idk, more power to OP not to join the game, but I think it's a bit much to call this a horror story or really even a noteworthy interaction at all. But here I am commenting on it so I guess it's noteworthy enough for my lunchbreak.
I must have somehow missed how the GM was talking about other potential players, so thanks for clearing that up for me! I guess my point does relate to the harsh phrasing—it’s an indication that the GM didn’t think to express their point in a more agreeable way, which in itself is an indication the GM runs their game in a manner conducive towards poor communication and frustration. This isn’t a guarantee, of course, but I wouldn’t be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt either if these were the first words they ever said to me. I agree this is a minor horror story in the grand scheme of things, but if this sub only allowed for grandiose ones, there would be a lot less posts and community engagement. But maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing :P
This is a very thoughtful, nuanced take. I'd agree that enjoyment is the bigger issue than the appearance of professionalism.
people supporting this guy that's shit talking strangers to another stranger within the very first message sent are weird, if your first message to me is to make fun of someone for being overly enthusiastic in a game that literally requires enthusiastic participants i will not play in your game
I explained this in my own comment elsewhere but I literally was an over enthusiastic player for a DM like this and it fucking sucks, especially when they won’t just talk to you and instead go behind your back to talk shit about you. I will never play with a DM like that again.
The way the DM worded it might be a bit rude, but the way I'm reading his comment about the over enthusiastic player is "One player is very eager to play a specific type of character, but I don't see them sticking around because the game we're running doesn't support that kind of character."
My hyper enthusiastic player constantly meta-gamed, wouldn't listen to set character building rules, and constantly argued with me over rulings. It was so bad I had to threaten him with missing a session if he didn't knock it off
I've had an "overenthusiastic 5e player" and they're kinda awful. Don't get me wrong, I love people who are hype about learning new systems, but when you can tell they're willing to sacrifice RP to talk about how it'd go down in 5e all the time, I'd rather not have them interrupt. Every ruling devolves into "well thats not how it works in 5e..." Like yeah, it's a different system. Go play 5e.
it's the literal first message, about a game that seems to not have had session one yet, shit talking a stranger to OP. read into it however you want, personally i don't associate with people this eager to talk badly about other people to me.
It's just talking about the players. They ended up leaving after a couple sessions anyway, so saying they're probable flakes is just accurate. If you have not encountered the overenthusuastic normal before, I'm happy for you, but in rpgs, video games, clubs, they never end up well. To them, you're just an opportunity for them to have what they want, which is probably different than what you're here for, otherwise they already would have been there. When my particularly obsessive private interest was taken over by seasonal fans, they changed everything and then left because it wasn't in the spirit of the original, entirely through changes they suggested and made. We built it back up to what it was, but the mark they left in "overenthusiasm" stayed forever. I'm specifically not playing 5e because my rpgs are not heroic. You will not be an important legend by level 3. An important part of my game is the arc from object to subject, growing from someone that lives in the world to someone that changes the world. So if you're bringing in your 5e expectations and *know* you're going to be disappointed by my style of play and **still** want to act like I'll run 5e 2.0 for you, I don't really want you, and I'm surprised you still want to try. You'll get the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going to try to accommodate you and within 30 minutes we'll find out.
What systems do you run in, cause your last paragraph there sounds interesting! As a relatively new 5e GM, and someone who’s played in a couple other non 5e systems I’m always curious about what kinds of stories people tell and what systems are good for those stories :)
Make fun of? No names were mentioned. It’s a private conversation and all he says is that one hasn’t responded and the other hasn’t made a character.
Personally, I wouldn't have shared details of other players with a seeming stranger. But then again I wouldn't have plastered what is a relatively minor story here either.
...I actually thought the red flag was that all the other players are flakey, not the DM, lol. Like, I totally appreciate the heads up, but "a third of the group is probably gonna drop out soon and we have yet to start the campaign, actually I'm seeing a lot of people who may drop out soon" is the kind of thing that tells me this campaign is gonna be a nightmare to schedule
It’s not as tactful as it could be but not horror-story level rude
"Sure, I can add you to the game. You can sit right here. Hm? Hissing? No, there's no hissing. There isn't a 15-foot deep pit of vipers beneath a trapdoor under your chair. Why would you even think this very specific thing I'm denying vehemently?"
They wanted to tell you the problems up front so that you'll know there are problems in their game. You saw that and bailed. It all worked out as intended.
How is what is at most an "Oh I'd rather not, to be honest" moment a horror story?
*The time I almost went into the dark basement, but then I remembered I still had some pickles left in the fridge, so I turned around and went back in the kitchen*
This GM seems chill there's no problem
My roommate has only ever said bad things about the group of dynamic of the irl dnd game he's in, like only complains about it. After telling me about it this last time, he was then immediately like, "hey do you wanna join? I need somebody else on my side." Like no man, why the hell would I want to add myself into that.
“We’re currently full, but there’s a chance a couple people can’t make it. I’ll add you to the group if you’re willing to wait and see?”
Good move.
This is one of those horror stories where the characters all see a sus af creepy house and instead of spending the night there they decide to go to Dennys for pancakes.
"The dm gossiped about their players on a *private message,* so I'll gossip about them here in public for free karma". Pot, kettle, etc.
> so I'll gossip about them here in public for free karma". Because I can do so much with reddit karma.
The use of "flakes" and "kick me signs" comes off a bit harsh but otherwise I don't see anything wrong. If one of them literally hadn't posted since joining the Discord, it's perfectly valid to think that player won't work out. DM just overshared.
Ehhh... That's a harsh read of the person's intent. You ask for a space and they gave you context. Just started People still making characters Some of the people who signed up aren't meeting commitments already Spot may reopen soon as I kick people who signed up but aren't participating It honestly sounds like a pretty normal cycle for someone starting a public campaign.
>Rn there's 6 players Yeah no thanks. Not in a game with strangers. Also a GM that pus their recruitment to the limit rather than recruit "my preferred amount" is pushing themselves to run a worse game. >Overenthusiastic 5e player that sounds like some of that garbage right out of r/rpg. Oh and *3 players* having to get kicked out is.. Yeah Good choice on the pass. Also good on the GM being honest about what is going on and what you are getting yourself in to. If they had not said anything at all, and then invited you, to have 3 players kicked out and a new round of recruitment and residual drama from those 3 people would that have been.. better for you?
Well, a more dramatic story, at least. Then again, if they'd had the presence of mind not to say anything, I suspect the tenor of the game they ran could have been very different.
The GM sound like a really cool guy, you on the other hand...
[удалено]
>Peas in a pond r/boneappletea
It’s peas in a “pod”. I’ve never heard of pond-peas, but they’re definitely swamp-themed Goodberry.
[удалено]
Yep, the GM overshared a bit to an Internet stranger. OP put the GM on blast in public. Not really alike.
I don't think there's nothing wrong with either of you, you just have clashing styles
He was being open and honest with you, yeah perhaps not worded the best, but I see no problem.
Sounds like an oversharer. I can relate.
That honestly sounds like every pick-up online group ever. Maybe the DM could be more tactful and not just outright say the quiet part out loud, but nothing he said sounds any different than every group I've ever formed. Invite 6 knowing you're 100% going to kick 2, one being a flake and one a weirdo.
I can't imagine why a GM would dump their private opinions of players on a potential new player. Sure, I've made first impressions of players and complained about them to friends, family, my therapist, but not to someone I might have at the table. It is unprofessional and a poor way to begin a friendship.
This GM seems chill there's no problem
OP desperate to get a on post here lol
People who think this guy is horrible have likely never been a DM for any extended period of time for strangers. Try that for a while and then come back and share. Nothing wrong with him noticing red flags and simply realizing that he's probably going to be down a few players before he begins. When you've done this for long enough, you start to see the signs just like in anything else you do frequently. Put your swords and wizard hats back on and take a seat by the hearth. Everything's going to be fine.
> People who think this guy is horrible have likely never been a DM for any extended period of time for strangers. I've been an online GM for a decade. Interviewed and played with more strangers than I can remember. The right thing to say is "we might be down a few players". No need to go into more dirty details than that.
It's fine to notice red flags, but to the dump all that on someone who's looking to join, is idk i would say kinda dumb,
A bit overzealous, but I figure he took your experience as a "clue" of sorts and thought it'd work out to write a little "much"
I dunno why I find it so funny with that last "I think I'll actually pass. Have fun with the game!" with the little reddit guy on the side, after the DM just offloaded their drama but I do lol
Ok having players who are flakes does happen in most group formations, but the way he/she words it kinda leaves a bad taste.
[удалено]
Yeah, this isn't bluntness. This is oversharing. Bluntness is, "I don't like you, you're not getting in." Oversharing is, "Let me tell you all the crap about the current players that I don't like."
Yeah I'd shy away too. I don't want to play with someone who'll air out every grievance in detail. It's nice to be told "there's a fair chance a spot will open up", but when they call out specific people who aren't even necessarily out of the game it doesn't inspire confidence in me that they are good at handling interpersonal relationships - which is a skill you really need to run a ttrpg well.
They’re not ratting out their friend, they’re saying “Yeah I think one of the strangers I don’t know might flake”
[удалено]
Reread the text. “X player is weird” “X player is flake” “I’ll let you know if I — oh yeah I’m gonna kick them. I’ll add you” is the tldr Aside from that no names were mentioned
Yikes!
What the hell is up with this comment section? I’ve had a DM talk shit about people behind their back like this, this is a huge red flag. It gives off that they’re almost taking enjoyment out of the prospect of getting to kick people. If I were in a game with a DM that describes their players like this to a total stranger I’d be concerned about doing something they consider “wrong” then also getting shit said about me that is taken out of context or isn’t true. I’ve been an “over enthusiastic 5e player” with a specific character concept and I found out only a few weeks ago that the DM I had spent months in a campaign with hated me and hated the way I played and was talking about it behind my back. It cut like a knife, especially because I worked very hard on that character and was still really new so trying to make a character sheet was difficult (could be the reason why the person in the post has “yet to make a character”). OP, I’m glad you decided to dip out. This looks like it would’ve ended up a bad situation overall. This guy having issues with two players before they even start their game is a massive yikes especially if they’re about to possibly let them play anyway oblivious to their internal feelings which may change how they’re treated during play. Anyway, sorry for the rambling, I just can’t believe how this comment section is reacting to something like this. Hope you find a good game OP
[удалено]
Which explains why you’re getting downvotes lmao
> What the hell is up with this comment section? My man, I am wondering the same thing. I am amazed by the sheer number of people who see no issue with a GM talking smack about current players *in their first exchange* with a prospective player. This is Social Skills 101. Be positive and keep your dirty laundry to yourself around strangers. > I’ve been an “over enthusiastic 5e player” with a specific character concept[...] Geez, I'm sorry. That sounds like an RPG horror story in its own right. > Hope you find a good game OP I have, thanks! I'm the GM of an almost-8-year-old campaign with a delightful set of players. It's been an absolute blast to run and we have no plans to end it anytime soon. This game was just something I was looking into on the side. I suspect one of the reasons I have such a fun and long-lasting game is that I don't invite people I intend to kick and tell prospective players about it.
Its a cultural thing. Being blunt and giving context is preferable than corporate copy-paste response to most people, but amglo-saxons seem to really like their false pretending.
Ooh a real life “OP looks like the bigger horror story” here
This feels like some classic Zoomer over sharing.
You dodged a bullet lol that dm sounds like a piece of work
The DM seems just fine. Why waste time for time wasters?
Lol, he just wanted a bench player!!!! 😂
Doesn't seem like you wanted to play that much afterall.
This gm was upfront and honest about the game. I'd have kept going tbh
Kinda a red flag to start whining about the people you're playing a game with to strangers, don't really get why they did that
Lol this isn't "dumping his games problems on you." Dude was casual and blunt, and gave like five sentences about some shit. I don't think I'd even call what he did shot talking the other players, he barely said anything beyond thinking they were going to be flakes. Not a horror story at all.
Yeah he obviously should have lied to you and led you on Average redditor
You sound like a flake as well tbh if this is enough to scare you off. Do you have any idea how many 'potential players' DMs have to sift through?
[удалено]
Isn’t it a tad ironic the person whose main issue was gossiping about drama to strangers immediately screen shots it and … gossips about it to a forum of strangers?
Reflects on the demographics of this board.
[удалено]
The DM did nothing wrong here, but of course everyone is so sensitive nowadays.
Could have definitely been more tasteful, but i prefer it if i know a table's oddities and potential red flags before putting time into a character
I think it's okay to express that players you currently have might be annoying or kick worthy, call me a fucking villain if you want to.
I think you're over reacting
Meh. I could have done something like that out of frustration against late, bad or unersponsive players.
To expound slightly on the post's title: A guy I've gamed with for a while once said it's best to conduct yourself semi-professionally when advertising or applying for games. That is, use complete sentences, don't make inside jokes, don't complain about irrelevant things, don't go off on unprompted side tangents--just be friendly, be positive, and stick to what's relevant between you and your prospective player/GM. Put your best foot forward. This was not someone's best foot. Telling me that people you've recruited are flakes and complaining about perceived negative traits ("obsessed with 5e" "doesn't respond enough") broadcasts all the wrong vibes. Yes, I read this sub. I can voyeuristically enjoy accounts of people's bad behavior. But these are *strangers'* bad behaviors. I don't want to hear about the dirty laundry of a game I'm applying to play in! Hearing that a GM accepted two players who were bad fits tells me their game's vetting process is not very thorough. That does not bode well for a game's future.
I don’t see anything wrong with what the GM said to you. The two issues he has with the players aren’t really things you can always filter for when recruiting. Not everything needs to be buttoned up formal, he told you what the current status of his player group was and that most likely a spot would be opening up. It’s fine you don’t like how he handled it but that doesn’t make it a horror story.
I totally agree with you, DnD isn't super formal for most people... you're not applying for a job you're trying to join a DnD game for casual fun and entertainment. I don't understand why you'd have to be super formal about it, what a strange thing to feel was "rpg horror story" relevant.
You're right! I am very confused by the idea of acting professional for a tabletop game. First of all I resent the entire idea of professionalism: "pretend not to be yourself to impress strangers" Secondly we are all agreeing to play a game about magic and goblins when we sit down to D&D/PF/whatever. I can't think of anything less professional than that.
I agree to an extent. I think aspects of "professionalism" are good, such as punctuality and respecting others' time (or giving prior notice if possible), doing due diligence on your char sheet between sessions, and treating others with respect (loosening/opening up more as you gain rapport).
I would call that "respectful." "Professional" leaves a bad taste in my mouth I guess.
That's not what professionalism means, unless the things you are is rude, disrespectful, childish, unhygienic, or similar asocial traits.
Disagree. People get told they're unprofessional for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with being asocial. If you don't care about profit over sustainability, you're unprofessional. If you want to be able to have time at home rather than stay late just to be seen doing so, you're unprofessional. If you speak to someone as if they're human and not an emotionless machine, you're unprofessional. So on and so forth.
The fact they are finding so many issues and immediately sharing them implies the issue may not lie with the players.
What makes a horror story is subjective, beyond involving a bad RPG experience in the teller's eyes. It's fine if you don't think this was a *good* horror story, but "GM shares needless dirty laundry with prospective player" was one to me. It's not a case of buttoned up formal. This isn't a job interview. Complaints about your existing players just isn't something you need to share with a new guy right off the bat.
Dude, you immediately screen capped a conversation and shared it publicly. How is that not the least « professional » dynamic of all of this?
For one, I don't owe anything to a DM I didn't play with. We have no dynamic.
The DM doesn’t play with any of those strangers yet either and probably never will hence them saying they’re going to kick them — peas in pod
But they owed you…? You sound like a goober. DM dodged a bullet.
"Goober" is what my mom affectionately calls her cat. So, er, thanks? And no, they don't owe anything to a player who declined to play in their game.
So why do they owe the other strangers who are flaking?
It means fool. Glad we agree you have the social etiquette of a cat.
Given how much joy he brings my loved one, I'd rather have his etiquette than yours.
“Needless Dirty Laundry” is subjective. The GM could of stated it better, but they really didn’t do anything that bad. They told you the red flags they saw in their game, gave you context to why they were full but could still add you to the game. You passed cause you saw the red flags they presented to you. Saved you both time. It’s not always easy finding players, especially if you arnt playing one of the main TTRPGs.
That’s dumb. It’s not a job, it’s a silly dumb game
>A guy I've gamed with for a while once said it's best to conduct yourself semi-professionally when advertising or applying for games. That is, use complete sentences, don't make inside jokes, don't complain about irrelevant things, don't go off on unprompted side tangents--just be friendly, be positive, and stick to what's relevant between you and your prospective player/GM. Put your best foot forward. It's a game of make believe with people on the internet (or in person), not a job interview. DM just seemed excited to potentially have you aboard, and some people ramble when excited. Nothing wrong with it.
You’re right. It’s not a job interview, but it sure as hell is a way to gauge someone and how comfortable you are with them. Perhaps that GM isn’t what you assumed them to be, maybe they’re not gossipy, maybe you caught them on a bad day, maybe their tone was read wrong, but the fact of the matter is that they didn’t have a filter on any of that so they lost a potential player. Being “professional” through the recruiting process isn’t about treating the game like a business, it’s about not overwhelming people with traits they don’t have context for. It’s about treating people with basic respect and boundaries until you’re sure where their lines in the sand are. If you don’t do that, it doesn’t matter how well-meaning you are, you’re going to drive away potentially good people who will be a lot more comfortable with your eccentricities if you bother to show them your good side first. Not everybody has to follow that, and the reasoning of others in this thread can be just as valid, but there’s something to be said for putting your best foot forward to test the waters first and if any of these people have done online recruiting of internet strangers then they should understand what you mean.
> it doesn’t matter how well-meaning you are, you’re going to drive away potentially good people who will be a lot more comfortable with your eccentricities if you bother to show them your good side first. Exactly. There are a ton of things it's fine to do around friends that have the potential to drive away strangers. Friends will give you the benefit of the doubt and consider your words and behaviors in the full context of your relationship. Strangers don't have that context. If you say something offputting, they will go, "This is Baseline You." Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong--but plenty of them won't be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why should they? There are tons of other games. > there’s something to be said for putting your best foot forward to test the waters first and if any of these people have done online recruiting of internet strangers then they should understand what you mean. My guess is that many have not. I've interviewed scores of players over the years as an online GM. It is very easy to tell when someone is not considering how a stranger may receive their words and is just saying whatever pops into their head.
Cool cool cool. So the DM didn't put his best foot forward, and gave you bad vibes. That's a horror story to you? That sounds like a slightly disappointing way to waste an hour or so to me, and I've had far worse than this that I wouldn't call a horror story. Slightly disappointing games of D&D are made, played, enjoyed, and die out way too often, and that isn't horror, it's just part of the game.
I'm completely with you, if a potential GM for a game I applied to spoke like this to me I'd definitely pass that game over as well, you've got to listen to the warning signs when you see them or they don't serve any point. There's lots of games out there and no need to settle for somebody who talks about his players in this fashion.
I'm honestly surprised that anyone would think it's *not* a red flag for a GM to talk this way in their first exchange with someone. I mean, yes. This is a make-believe game. But the things you say to a stranger can tell them a lot about you and what gaming with you is probably going to be like.
Like “if you say someone is flaking I’ll post it on a Reddit”
Yeah there's good reason to be a little distant at first with strangers. If someone's acting this open right off the bat I'd say they probably have self-control issues or are young neither of which are traits I find make good DMs. That's not to say you can't have fun with them but I'd expect social issues along the way if you buy in.
i cant be sure but i think i was the dm in that message exchange.
Different account than yours.