PDA

View Full Version : Those things that just irk you



Pages : [1] 2 3

Silus
2011-10-06, 12:20 AM
Everyone's got them. Those little buttons people tend to push that just makes you sigh and facepalm. So, what are your buttons?

I personally can't stand "silly" or "cute' characters (when not game appropriate). We're supposed to be out one some serious quest (Save time and space, stop the overlord, fight back the forces of Hell, ect.). Everyone's made a campaign appropriate character (With just a little sillyness here and there, which is fine. I've no problem if you want to name your character "Grievous Bodilyharmsworth"), but there's that one guy that decides to play something....inappropriate.

Like we have a dwarf, a pair of elves, a human, and the last guy decides to play a talking animal (Or, for OWoD, three werewolves, two mages and a vampire and he wants to play a Changling in a murder mystery game).

Bearpunch
2011-10-06, 01:03 AM
When my group rolls a million percetion/religion/arcana/any check "just in case they missed something."

Or when players clearly metagame when rolling a check: "I roll perception!" "No! My characters is higher!" It would be different if they said: "Hey, (character)! You know much more of religion than I, do you know anything about this?" Because then they are at least making some effort.

Kol Korran
2011-10-06, 02:11 AM
a few things that irk me as a DM:

1) if a player cncles arriving a few hours before the meeting. we're a very small group of grown ups, and when that happens, it cancles the game. worse- we barely get to play, and people take the time to play specialy, so this really bugs.

2) a player who barely remember what his character can do, or pays so little attention that s/he comes up with stupid questions showing he doesn't know where they s/he is. "so? we're done with this battle? i'm going to the bar" ... "you're in the underdark" "really? when did we get here?" ... "two session ago".
i no longer play with such players. if The DM spens time on the adventure, and if others can take the gaming time seriously, so should you.

3) players that try to find the "perfect win button"/ "game breakers". i'm not talking powerfull, i'm talking infinite loops and that sort of thing. i don't play with them either.

4) player's greediness: they've just been given generous treasure, but they want more, and will go to great lengths to achieve it: after a long adventure the stone dragon guardian of the vault is willing to award them one of the five treasures guardin he's guarding, which are quite impressive each on their own. but no- the players want them all, even willing to attack the guardian which proves to be a deadly fight.

5) player changing characters every 2-3 sessions. but i just try and find the player some character s/he will like and settle on. it irks me a bit, but i understand it.

6) players making fun of the most important NPCs and villains. i've come to accept it as part of the game, but it irks me just the same. not much, but it does.

Earthwalker
2011-10-06, 02:12 AM
Or when players clearly metagame when rolling a check: "I roll perception!" "No! My characters is higher!" It would be different if they said: "Hey, (character)! You know much more of religion than I, do you know anything about this?" Because then they are at least making some effort.

This links to my, "this just irks me"

The "Oh me too" player. The players describe what they are doing.
Player 1 "I look at the alter see if I can work out what the symbols mean"
Player 2 "I will have a look at the swords over the fire place see if they are real or just fakes"
Player 3 "Well then I will have a look at the book case, I am looking for any books on demon summoning or things of that nature"
Player 4 "I will Watch the hall way, and keep an eye on the group"

Ok player 1 role knowledge religion. Players 2 and 3 roll perception.

Then at this stage I get from player 4, "Oh I have knowledge religion I will roll it, and I have perception so I will roll that too."

Me: "You said you were watching the hall"

Player 4 "Yeah and keeping an eye on the group".

Neo
2011-10-06, 02:39 AM
For me when it's people decide to create character names that are puns. It just smacks horribly of not taking the game seriously enough for everyone to have a good time.

HFool
2011-10-06, 02:50 AM
When dudes be trippin' on my awesome characters! Like this one time I was an animal in a D&D game, and this other time I was a mystery-solving Changeling...

But really, people are weirdly abbrasive and competitive at sessions bug the hell out of me. I mean, come on guys, it's a RPG, not a weight lifting competition.

Tytalus
2011-10-06, 03:48 AM
For me its people woh are not interested in the game. If you've been playing 3.5 in the same group for four+ years, you shouldn't have to ask - each session - what your character can and can't do. Neither should it surprise (yet again!) you that moving past an enemy draws an attack of opportunity.

DementedFellow
2011-10-06, 04:45 AM
For me it is players whose idea of roleplaying is having a vast portfolio of characters already made up based on various ideas but they all have the same personality. This personality is usually some dark brooding character with a wangsy past. But by that same token, I've never been able to play a serious character. That probably irks some people.

Also, our group spent 30 minutes real time discussing the logistics of getting a slab of obsidian out of a dungeon when it wasn't even what we were going after in the first place. It was in a throwaway room.

Eldan
2011-10-06, 05:04 AM
Also, our group spent 30 minutes real time discussing the logistics of getting a slab of obsidian out of a dungeon when it wasn't even what we were going after in the first place. It was in a throwaway room.

I've always loved that kind of thing. Unless there's something really pressing, players finding their own goals was always fascinating to me as a DM. Even if the goals seem a bit silly.

Totally Guy
2011-10-06, 07:23 AM
I cannot stand it when a player rolls dice without saying what they are doing or what they intend to happen. The foundation of the game sits upon the communication of what the rolls mean in the context of the situation presented in the game.

Kurald Galain
2011-10-06, 07:47 AM
People who say "I will roll <skill> to do <something mostly unrelated to that skill>", then roll the die before finishing that sentence, and claim success before anyone can interrupt them. Of course, the skill they call for is almost without exception their best skill, and they're trying to do something implausible that would immediately end their current trouble.

(it doesn't help that at least one popular RPG has mechanics that actively encourage this behavior...)

Terazul
2011-10-06, 08:05 AM
The "oh me too" thing has always been a constant irk for me, regardless of system. Of course the game isn't competition, but it's still annoying to be, say, a master <insert skill here>, and every time it comes up for you to use it, everyone who put a cross class point/spent BP on it/whatever wants to join in... as long as it isn't obviously dangerous to them. Was it an Ancient Language? Then anyone who knows how to ask for the bathroom will be huddling over your shoulder at that altar. But if it's trying to leap over a chasm with your mad jumping skills? Nope. I lump it in there with another scenario:

DM: "You enter a room, there is <stuff> and <some other stuff>"
P1: "I go and investigate <stuff>."
P2-4: "I go and <do exactly what P1 did but worded slightly different>."

Follow-The-Leader Syndrome bugs the crap out of me. Though it's not always the players faults, if there's legitimately nothing else to do (and sometimes you do want to stick together in the smaller dungeons). But most people who fall into this category do it ad nauseum. Lastly there's the rules-lawyer in me. I get so tired of understanding how other people's characters work better than they do. Case-in-point with a recently finished campaign. We had been working with a new system (to all of us). In the last 3 sessions I was still telling people the same things I had been since day one regarding their bonuses/equipment/abilities. Seriously, put some effort into understanding the game. Not even that much. :smallannoyed:

Totally Guy
2011-10-06, 08:15 AM
The "oh me too" thing has always been a constant irk for me, regardless of system.

I used to have this problem. But now I always ask who is testing and who is helping (and how they are helping). And helpers are tied into the failure complication.

Most games don't write rigorous enough rules for this kind of thing and my advice ends up being in that void between playstyle and houserule.

Knaight
2011-10-06, 08:17 AM
Most games don't write rigorous enough rules for this kind of thing and my advice ends up being in that void between playstyle and houserule.

That and for those of us without these problems, rigorous enough rules can be an impediment. Wading through pointless stuff is a waste of everyone's time.

Kurald Galain
2011-10-06, 08:19 AM
Most games don't write rigorous enough rules for this kind of thing and my advice ends up being in that void between playstyle and houserule.

That's a very good point. Every RPG ought to have rules to deal with either every PC trying the same task so that somebody will succeed, or one PC repeating the same task over and over again until he gets it right.

And it's not like that's difficult. The former is dealt with by either increasing the DC on anything that can be tried by the entire group, or by letting only the best PC roll (possibly with bonuses for assistance). The latter is dealt with by disallowing retries: if you fail your check to climb a wall, then trying again will simply not change anything.

I find that such rules reward creativity: if you fail at some task, you get to try something else instead of repeating it until you roll high.

Choco
2011-10-06, 08:40 AM
Oh man, y'all got quite a bit of mine covered already...

Guy who always plays an inappropriate character? check

Guy who always cancels at the last minute, or with no warning at all? check

Guy who's been "playing" for 5 years and has yet to crack open a rulebook or even pay attention at the table? check

Guy who has 100 characters all of the "dark and brooding insufferable douchebag with a tragic past" variety? check


May as well add one that is definitely very near the top of my list:

Guy who always plays Chaotic Stupid characters and throws fits whenever there are consequences for his actions.

Mastikator
2011-10-06, 08:59 AM
For me its people woh are not interested in the game. If you've been playing 3.5 in the same group for four+ years, you shouldn't have to ask - each session - what your character can and can't do. Neither should it surprise (yet again!) you that moving past an enemy draws an attack of opportunity.

This, I get that newbies will not have encyclopedic knowledge of the game and deserve all the help they ask for, but if you've played for a year or more you should've learned the basic rules simply by observing the game being played.

Another thing that irks me is when the players haven't decided on what kind of character they're going to play even after we've started. How hard is it to have a clear idea of the character? I'm not even talking about specific stats and numbers, just the general idea, you should at least have that before the game begins. It's especially bad when you haven't completed doing the character sheet, and make everyone wait, it steals precious game time. We meet like once a month, you have an entire month to come up with something good, don't wait until AFTER the last second before you even begin!!

A third thing that irks me that I am sometimes guilty of is showing up without your character papers, especially if you don't even remember the important facts about your character.

NOhara24
2011-10-06, 09:01 AM
The experienced player who fudges the rules for his own benefit, because he knows no one will question him.

Example. The party is level 7-8, fighting a boss that's supposed to "end the chapter" in a sense, so it's a tough encounter. The Monk's turn comes up (keep in mind he's small sized, so he's only rolling 1d6 for damage) without explaining what he's actually doing, he calls out his attack rolls (three of them, flurry of blows I guess), then rolls a ton of dice. He then claims he did 56 damage, and claims massive damage. The monster we were fighting had a ridiculous fort save, so it wasn't an insta-kill, thankfully. The DM and I scratched our heads on that one after the game, shortly thereafter learning the ACTUAL mechanics of Massive Damage, being that 50+ damage must take place via a single attack.

The player who sweet talks the DM to get around certain requirements.

The rogue in my party didn't have to kill a worthy opponent using daggers, etc. to start taking levels in Invisible Blade. Just didn't have to. Why? She said "Well I didn't want to actually do it becausea solo fight would be boring to the party." Ok, does that mean my Paladin doesn't have to kill a Red Dragon when I want to start taking levels in Vassal of Bahamut?

The player who finds out that they're breaking the rules, and then tries to get it ok'd by the DM.

No, Druid X. Your wolf does not roll 3d8 for hp every time you level. No, the DM will not approve it.

The rules lawyer that enforces the rules on everyone...except himself.

Informing the party cleric that a certain spell requires a specific arcane component is all good and fine. It does reflect poorly on you though, when you cast a spell without the necessary components and try to get away with it.

/rant.

Choco
2011-10-06, 09:11 AM
It's especially bad when you haven't completed doing the character sheet, and make everyone wait, it steals precious game time. We meet like once a month, you have an entire month to come up with something good, don't wait until AFTER the last second before you even begin!!

Oh man, that brings up another one...

Players who wait until they level up before they bother thinking about what they want to do, and by extension players who wait until they have a chance to go shopping before they even look at what items they may want. Of course they always do this during the session, despite the DM telling them repeatedly to do it in between sessions (and no, none of them have legitimate excuses to not do this between sessions, half of them literally spend 3+ hours a day doing nothing but chatting on IRC and surfing the web). So here I am, showing up to the session all leveled up and kitted out, only to sit there drooling on myself for 6 HOURS while the rest of the party gets leveled up and does their shopping (and of course every time me or the DM tries to help one of em or give advice, they snap and tell us to stop telling them how to play their character, etc.). Seriously, AT LEAST have the decency to warn me ahead of time so I don't have to show up and waste my time....

hookbill
2011-10-06, 11:23 AM
:smallmad:

- last minute canx'rs

- waiting until it's thier turn to look up a spell, see where the map is, etc (especially in large groups, takes forever) cause you were bs'ing, texting, etc

- min/max'rs/munchins/optimizers - for the love of *(%(* you're a hero, not a god of the universe, just play the game as intended, your wood club isn't supposed to do 1d6+136, or you to have a strength of 28 at lvl 1.. quit ruining it for everyone. because of your dumb^&$ we'll be fighting ancient red dragons at lvl 5 and then you'll whine cause it was too easy (while the other members of the party are smoldering ashes)

- the "I know it better" guy... no matter what the party suggests, they always know it better, planning, loot, rules, everything.. don't even try to tell them a thing.. and they will tell you you're playing it wrong.. "what you should do is..." play your own character..

- the "mime" that character no matter how hard you try to include them, they are reluctant to do any rollplaying, speak, take any action that isn't what the group is doing. they kinda shrug, roll a dice.. feel bad for them

valadil
2011-10-06, 11:49 AM
To followup the players who declare rolls, I had one player who would do this. When I told her the roll was incorrect or unnecessary, she tried to save the results, but only if they were good. And by save I mean tell me that that 16 would apply to her next roll.

Pseudo middle English really bothers me. I've never seen anyone do it well.

Pets with actions bother me. I don't like players taking more turns than the rest of the party. I can live with it if the player knows what he's doing and doesn't ask too much of the pet, but if there's a conversation about whether badgers are smart enough to flank, every single combat, we've got a problem. The worst I ever saw was a druid with a pet who took leadership to get a second druid with a pet.

Show
2011-10-06, 11:53 AM
My only true pet peeve is when someone plays every game using the same playstyle. They choose one system that they enjoy, and play every game as if it was [system]. If their favorite system is high fantasy, they'll play every game as if it were high fantasy, just given the trappings of gritty realism, ridiculous anime settings, etc.

Shpadoinkle
2011-10-06, 11:58 AM
This goes along with "people who don't know the first thing about the rules despite playing every Saturday for a year straight;" players who have no idea which dice are which or when to roll what.

PC1: I want to attack the monster next to me. What do I roll for that?
PC2: A d20 and add your attack bonus with your weapon.
PC1: *rolls* I got a 31.
DM: ... You're level 2. How the hell did you get a +11 to hit?
PC1: Uh, I rolled a 19 on the d20 and it says here my greataxe gets another 1d12+3 to hit, and I rolled a 9 on that, plus 3 makes 12, so I got a 31.
PC2: The 1d12+3 is the damage you do, not the attack bonus. Your attack bonus with it is written right there, it's +4. You got a 23.

There's also this situation:

PC1: I want to attack the monster next to me. What do I roll for that?
PC2: A d20 and add your attack bonus with your weapon.
PC1: *rolls a d12*

Mastikator
2011-10-06, 12:00 PM
Oh man, that brings up another one...

Players who wait until they level up before they bother thinking about what they want to do, and by extension players who wait until they have a chance to go shopping before they even look at what items they may want. Of course they always do this during the session, despite the DM telling them repeatedly to do it in between sessions (and no, none of them have legitimate excuses to not do this between sessions, half of them literally spend 3+ hours a day doing nothing but chatting on IRC and surfing the web). So here I am, showing up to the session all leveled up and kitted out, only to sit there drooling on myself for 6 HOURS while the rest of the party gets leveled up and does their shopping (and of course every time me or the DM tries to help one of em or give advice, they snap and tell us to stop telling them how to play their character, etc.). Seriously, AT LEAST have the decency to warn me ahead of time so I don't have to show up and waste my time....

God I hate that so much. DM's of the world should introduce a new rule: if you didn't level and kit yourself before session then you're just gonna have to stay behind during play.
They probably won't learn, but at least the responsible players won't be the ones being punished.

Lord Il Palazzo
2011-10-06, 12:16 PM
This happened (to a lesser extent) in my group last night. One player showed up without having leveled up, even though I emailed a week ago and again two days ago reminding everyone to level up in advance. The player is still pretty new and leveled up quickly, so I can kind of excuse it, but still, two reminders didn't get through to him.

Also, for about a session when my current (and first) campaign as DM started, the players would immediately follow every fight by running out of the dungeon and back to town to sell all the loot even if they had no immediate need or use for the gold. Every single time. It got to where I might as well have had no continuity at all between encounters as every time something happens, the dungeon's inhabitants would have to wait about an hour for the party to leave, sell their stuff and come back. The guards hear a trap go off in the next room and prepare an ambush? They'll be waiting a while, I guess. One enemy scout escapes and goes to get backup from the main force? They won't find anything; the party's back in town. My players quickly realized how much this bugged me and stopped.

Anderlith
2011-10-06, 12:51 PM
I always hate man-child characters, that are full grown men playing awesomely powerful characters... but they act like retards. They always want to poke the dangerous objects, & feint childlike ignorance to their dangerous decisions "I cast a fireball in the marketplace to hit that thief", oh & for good measure they talk to dragons like their puppies & ask if they can house-train a Warg. It's much more annoying than inappropriate, or pun named characters like Minmax.

Basically give Adam Sandler or Will Ferrel a big sword or access to fireballs & spiderclimb

Lord Il Palazzo
2011-10-06, 01:21 PM
Basically give Adam Sandler or Will Ferrel a big sword or access to fireballs & spiderclimbYou, sir, have just provided me with weeks worth of nightmares.

Andreaz
2011-10-06, 01:58 PM
I've always loved that kind of thing. Unless there's something really pressing, players finding their own goals was always fascinating to me as a DM. Even if the goals seem a bit silly.

I enjoy it, even as often as it throws me off.

What irks me is when a player is disconnected from the others.
You want silly? we can give you silly
You want serious? I can make you cry for weeks.
You want over the top action? We can have a Paranoia game that could shame Dawn Caste Solars.

But for Woden's sake do not roleplay Jim Carrey in a Bladerunner game.

INDYSTAR188
2011-10-06, 02:53 PM
Two things bother me more than anything else mentioned here.

1) The rules lawyer. If I'm DMing I always say at the start of the game, if I mess up a rule or I forget something please point it out to me. That does NOT mean that I'm going to defer to how you FEEL it should be. If I modify a rule that's it, it's house ruled and applies to both PC's and Monsters. That makes me so mad!

2) PC's in 4e who try to use their encounter and daily powers more than once. It's just a game, there's no need to cheat. Add as a parallel to this the person who always always always rolls a 27 to hit at 4th level.

hangedman1984
2011-10-06, 04:06 PM
- the "I know it better" guy... no matter what the party suggests, they always know it better, planning, loot, rules, everything.. don't even try to tell them a thing.. and they will tell you you're playing it wrong.. "what you should do is..." play your own character..

and most of the time they are completely wrong

Eldan
2011-10-06, 04:29 PM
Oh man, that brings up another one...

Players who wait until they level up before they bother thinking about what they want to do, and by extension players who wait until they have a chance to go shopping before they even look at what items they may want. Of course they always do this during the session, despite the DM telling them repeatedly to do it in between sessions (and no, none of them have legitimate excuses to not do this between sessions, half of them literally spend 3+ hours a day doing nothing but chatting on IRC and surfing the web). So here I am, showing up to the session all leveled up and kitted out, only to sit there drooling on myself for 6 HOURS while the rest of the party gets leveled up and does their shopping (and of course every time me or the DM tries to help one of em or give advice, they snap and tell us to stop telling them how to play their character, etc.). Seriously, AT LEAST have the decency to warn me ahead of time so I don't have to show up and waste my time....

Uhm... you can't always know beforehand what you will level into. I mean, you don't know what your character will do during the session, who knows what he'll learn next.

NNescio
2011-10-06, 04:35 PM
Critical fumble rules. Especially if the offender tries to claim that they are RealisticTM.

Lord Il Palazzo
2011-10-06, 04:42 PM
Uhm... you can't always know beforehand what you will level into. I mean, you don't know what your character will do during the session, who knows what he'll learn next.If you haven't planned ahead at least until your next level up (especially when it's close), I really don't see how this is any excuse.

Also, it sounds like the players were told to have their levelling done prior to the session (as per the players who did that) and some of them just didn't bother.

Orsen
2011-10-06, 05:50 PM
The guy who's only there to hear himself talk, and watch himself be a hero.
In a one shot recently, played with a guy who:
- rolled a couple ones in our first fight, which sucks of course. After his turn, he calculated out loud the probability of rolling three ones in a row(he'd rolled one on three separate occasions) and then announced interrupting somebody else in the middle of there turn.
- On his turn he would read over his power cards (4e) almost every time trying to decide what to do when he had a good ten minutes in between each turn to do this.
- On my turn, he told me I should give up my turn so he could go first, cause he had something to do a lot of damage planned.

Poil
2011-10-06, 06:38 PM
Also, for about a session when my current (and first) campaign as DM started, the players would immediately follow every fight by running out of the dungeon and back to town to sell all the loot even if they had no immediate need or use for the gold. Every single time. It got to where I might as well have had no continuity at all between encounters as every time something happens, the dungeon's inhabitants would have to wait about an hour for the party to leave, sell their stuff and come back. The guards hear a trap go off in the next room and prepare an ambush? They'll be waiting a while, I guess. One enemy scout escapes and goes to get backup from the main force? They won't find anything; the party's back in town. My players quickly realized how much this bugged me and stopped.

This actually sounds really hilarious, but it'd get old quick.

Darkomn
2011-10-06, 06:59 PM
Oh man, y'all got quite a bit of mine covered already...

Guy who always plays an inappropriate character? check

Guy who always cancels at the last minute, or with no warning at all? check

Guy who's been "playing" for 5 years and has yet to crack open a rulebook or even pay attention at the table? check

Guy who has 100 characters all of the "dark and brooding insufferable douchebag with a tragic past" variety? check


May as well add one that is definitely very near the top of my list:

Guy who always plays Chaotic Stupid characters and throws fits whenever there are consequences for his actions.

When all those guys are the SAME guy.

Kaun
2011-10-06, 07:29 PM
Ok one that irks me is when the PC's need an NPC to tell them they are making the right decision before they will do anything.

Choco
2011-10-06, 09:10 PM
When all those guys are the SAME guy.

Lol, nice! That must hurt..... I'll be praying for your sanity.

Luckily for me, the only 2 that are from the same guy are the inappropriate character and chaotic stupid ones.

Mikeavelli
2011-10-06, 09:27 PM
Critical fumble rules. Especially if the offender tries to claim that they are RealisticTM.

On that note, anything at all introduced into the game as an alternate rule because it's "realistic."

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-06, 09:32 PM
Lol, nice! That must hurt..... I'll be praying for your sanity.

Luckily for me, the only 2 that are from the same guy are the inappropriate character and chaotic stupid ones.

That just makes it harder to get rid of the problem. It's much easier to kick just one guy.

Silus
2011-10-06, 10:35 PM
After 4 years of playing WoW, I've become accustomed to the "Don't loot in combat" rule. Drives me mad when someone decides to loot that pile of gold while we're still fighting monsters.

A magic weapon or item, sure, if you're going to use it in the fight, but I've had one guy (Same guy as the Pooka in the OP) run to the treasure hut of this goblin camp and, while everyone else is risking their butts trying to finish off the goblins, tells the DM that he wants to loot "the most expensive looking thing there". Cue a round of "Dude, WTF?".

This has happened a few times (among other annoying and creeper worthy actions). Needless to say, nobody liked the guy.

icefractal
2011-10-08, 05:21 AM
God I hate that so much. DM's of the world should introduce a new rule: if you didn't level and kit yourself before session then you're just gonna have to stay behind during play.
They probably won't learn, but at least the responsible players won't be the ones being punished.Next time I run a game, I think I'll do this. People have been forgetting to update their stuff way too much and it's getting annoying as hell.

Eldan
2011-10-08, 05:23 AM
If you haven't planned ahead at least until your next level up (especially when it's close), I really don't see how this is any excuse.


Depending on how a session goes, your character may learn to be tougher, or be more skilled, or faster. He might discover religion and learn divine spells. The group mage may die and he could pick up his spellbook out of interest.

Dragor
2011-10-08, 05:34 AM
Everyone's got them. Those little buttons people tend to push that just makes you sigh and facepalm. So, what are your buttons?

I personally can't stand "silly" or "cute' characters (when not game appropriate). We're supposed to be out one some serious quest (Save time and space, stop the overlord, fight back the forces of Hell, ect.). Everyone's made a campaign appropriate character (With just a little sillyness here and there, which is fine. I've no problem if you want to name your character "Grievous Bodilyharmsworth"), but there's that one guy that decides to play something....inappropriate.

Like we have a dwarf, a pair of elves, a human, and the last guy decides to play a talking animal (Or, for OWoD, three werewolves, two mages and a vampire and he wants to play a Changling in a murder mystery game).

You think you've got it bad? We have a Jamaican Warforged in our campaign at the moment... :smalleek:

Terazul
2011-10-08, 07:03 AM
Depending on how a session goes, your character may learn to be tougher, or be more skilled, or faster. He might discover religion and learn divine spells. The group mage may die and he could pick up his spellbook out of interest.

:smallconfused: What? Maybe if you just kinda futz around in base classes, but most people tend to have some sort of plan for what they want their character to do, since y'know, prerequisites. Also being competent.

...And even if you think the next kobold stabbing might magically make your character find that he was missing Pelor in his life, if I told you two weeks ago to level up, you should have leveled up based on what your character had been doing up until then. Save it for next time.

Andreaz
2011-10-08, 07:13 AM
Depending on how a session goes, your character may learn to be tougher, or be more skilled, or faster. He might discover religion and learn divine spells. The group mage may die and he could pick up his spellbook out of interest.

I don't know any player who levels up randomly if he's acquired a dint of interest in building his character. Either the story bends to build our characters the way we planned or just disconnect the story from the growth. The last dm who said "but then it won't make sense with the story" got a "and then there won't be a story. No one wants that."

Anderlith
2011-10-08, 01:34 PM
:smallconfused: What? Maybe if you just kinda futz around in base classes, but most people tend to have some sort of plan for what they want their character to do, since y'know, prerequisites. Also being competent.

...And even if you think the next kobold stabbing might magically make your character find that he was missing Pelor in his life

Not really, I had a Wild Elf Barbarian who, after killing a wizard (that almost annihilated him) he thought that he should become a wizard to be strong, this was after a month or three of weekly game sessions. (I even thought that I might later take Rage Mage). So I take my newly acquired spellbook filled with shiny spells (& a little bit of wizard blood) to the team cleric (our only spellcaster, we had no arcane). I can't read (I'm an illiterate Barbarian) so I ask him to teach me it's words & to help make me a wizard. Instead he teaches me his faith. So I became a Barbarian Cleric, instead of a wizard. Not everything happens to plan & sometimes being in character trumps what's mechanically best Prereq's be damned

gomanfox
2011-10-08, 05:27 PM
People who ask the DM what the results of an action would be, who get annoyed when they are told "You'll have to try it and find out." We're playing a roleplaying game, not reading a choose-your-own-adventure book where you can leave your finger on the last page and pretend you didn't really choose that really bad action.

People who metagame when they roll poorly on skills.
Rogue: I search for traps *rolls a 2, gets a total of maybe 11 and finds no traps* Hey, OtherRogue? I'm not so confident in my own abilities, would you search for traps too?
This happens quite a bit in our games and what irks me more is that the DM doesn't allow it and yet they still try it occasionally. Although what's really strange is that we play with critical failures, so rolling a 1 searching for traps makes the person find this amazing set of traps in an untrapped room, and they play along with that instead of trying to get someone else to search the room again...

Mastikator
2011-10-08, 05:52 PM
Not really, I had a Wild Elf Barbarian who, after killing a wizard (that almost annihilated him) he thought that he should become a wizard to be strong, this was after a month or three of weekly game sessions. (I even thought that I might later take Rage Mage). So I take my newly acquired spellbook filled with shiny spells (& a little bit of wizard blood) to the team cleric (our only spellcaster, we had no arcane). I can't read (I'm an illiterate Barbarian) so I ask him to teach me it's words & to help make me a wizard. Instead he teaches me his faith. So I became a Barbarian Cleric, instead of a wizard. Not everything happens to plan & sometimes being in character trumps what's mechanically best Prereq's be damned

Nice, talk about sneaky conversion!

Caphi
2011-10-08, 05:56 PM
Not really, I had a Wild Elf Barbarian who, after killing a wizard (that almost annihilated him) he thought that he should become a wizard to be strong, this was after a month or three of weekly game sessions. (I even thought that I might later take Rage Mage). So I take my newly acquired spellbook filled with shiny spells (& a little bit of wizard blood) to the team cleric (our only spellcaster, we had no arcane). I can't read (I'm an illiterate Barbarian) so I ask him to teach me it's words & to help make me a wizard. Instead he teaches me his faith. So I became a Barbarian Cleric, instead of a wizard. Not everything happens to plan & sometimes being in character trumps what's mechanically best Prereq's be damned

Your table thinks that to convert to a religion, you have to actually take a level of cleric? That doesn't sound like superior roleplay. Quite the opposite.

Kurald Galain
2011-10-08, 06:00 PM
Your table thinks that to convert to a religion, you have to actually take a level of cleric?

No, that's not what he says. His barbarian showed the cleric the spellbook and asked the cleric to teach him how to cast that; and the cleric taught him to cast cleric spells instead.

Caphi
2011-10-08, 06:10 PM
So he also convinced the barbarian that cleric magic makes you stronger than wizard magic, causing the barbarian to give up on learning to be a wizard. Not that it doesn't make you stronger than wizard magic from a fightin' perspective, but it sounds like the barbarian wasn't thinking that at the time. It still feels like a leap to make.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-08, 06:17 PM
So he also convinced the barbarian that cleric magic makes you stronger than wizard magic, causing the barbarian to give up on learning to be a wizard. Not that it doesn't make you stronger than wizard magic from a fightin' perspective, but it sounds like the barbarian wasn't thinking that at the time. It still feels like a leap to make.

No, the cleric lied to him. He told the barbarian he was teaching him the wizard's secrets.

bloodtide
2011-10-08, 06:21 PM
1.The character with the BIG BACK STORY. It's so big and so important that the player will refuse to do anything else. They want to do something with their past, but don't want to go on a 'random' adventure.

2.The Character with the limiting back story. Their family was killed by orcs and now they want to kill all the orcs...but only the orcs. Again they don't want to adventure, they just want to kill orcs.

3.Players that don't understand the rules, but when asked if they need and help just brush it off...then cause a big deal later in the game when something does not work the way they think it should.

Knaight
2011-10-08, 06:23 PM
I don't know any player who levels up randomly if he's acquired a dint of interest in building his character. Either the story bends to build our characters the way we planned or just disconnect the story from the growth. The last dm who said "but then it won't make sense with the story" got a "and then there won't be a story. No one wants that."

Outside of D&D, letting characters grow naturally works just fine, and is the default. Of course, outside of D&D, if your investigator gets injured its pretty trivial to buy some body armor, take a gun course, and buy a pistol skill, as opposed to futzing around with a messy class based system where everything is either planned in advance or gets weird and uncooperative quickly. Its not the only way, sometimes you have a specific story arc planned with the GM and follow it, which leads to changes that are pre-planned, but that usually has less to do with system and more to do with preferences regarding planning and spontaneity.

Anderlith
2011-10-08, 06:39 PM
Your table thinks that to convert to a religion, you have to actually take a level of cleric? That doesn't sound like superior roleplay. Quite the opposite.

Nah the cleric taught me cleric spells & told me they were wizard spells. As I was a barbarian & don't have Knowledge Arcana, or any reason to distrust my cleric (In game at least)


I came out with a different spell list than him, as D&D lets you worship an idea instead of a patron, I did that. I think I had War & Strength as domains & I didn't have to pay lip service to my sneaky cleric's god (thankfully).

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-08, 06:44 PM
1.The character with the BIG BACK STORY. It's so big and so important that the player will refuse to do anything else. They want to do something with their past, but don't want to go on a 'random' adventure.

To be fair, if you completely ignore the multitude of plot hooks in their backstory for the entire game and basically make it like they've been teleported to an alternate reality where their backstory doesn't exist, that's bad DMing.

Sucrose
2011-10-08, 08:32 PM
To be fair, if you completely ignore the multitude of plot hooks in their backstory for the entire game and basically make it like they've been teleported to an alternate reality where their backstory doesn't exist, that's bad DMing.

Doesn't sound like that's what's happening, though, but like the player is refusing to do anything at all that is unrelated to his backstory. Unless every single character has a personal stake in every single mission (which is wildly improbable), that's just spotlight-hogging.

As for things that bother me in-session:
-People who insist on classes all being in-setting groups, rather than collections of abilities that can be learned in various ways. I like playing with the system, and I see no reason to make every character with the Rage mechanic an uncultured brute.

Caphi
2011-10-10, 11:42 AM
No, the cleric lied to him. He told the barbarian he was teaching him the wizard's secrets.

Oh. That cleric is a bastard.

The Glyphstone
2011-10-10, 12:27 PM
Oh. That cleric is a bastard.

Sounds like he was a cleric of a thief/trickster/sneaky god though, so very much in-character to do so.

big teej
2011-10-10, 01:23 PM
Not really, I had a Wild Elf Barbarian who, after killing a wizard (that almost annihilated him) he thought that he should become a wizard to be strong, this was after a month or three of weekly game sessions. (I even thought that I might later take Rage Mage). So I take my newly acquired spellbook filled with shiny spells (& a little bit of wizard blood) to the team cleric (our only spellcaster, we had no arcane). I can't read (I'm an illiterate Barbarian) so I ask him to teach me it's words & to help make me a wizard. Instead he teaches me his faith. So I became a Barbarian Cleric, instead of a wizard. Not everything happens to plan & sometimes being in character trumps what's mechanically best Prereq's be damned

preach it brother!

-ahem-

tax:

this is, off the top of my head, my GREATEST pet peeve at the gaming table.

to the point where I almost packed up and left the third time it happened.

situation x arises, DM (me) is not 100% sure on the rules (has never come up before).

DM states both options, considers them for a moment.
Player speaks up demanding that the option that helps the party be taken.
DM informs player he'll make his own call and then review the rules later for future reference.
DM says "I don't wanna bog down the game looking up a rule... soooo -makes call-"
player gets huffy and immedietly jumps up from the gaming table to go find the appropriate rulebook from the "book table"

player sits back down and begins leafing through book
DM: dude, I already made my call, and I don't wanna bog down the game looking for it.
Player: I just wanna make sure that's how it works.
DM: dude.... I don't want to bog down the game looking for it.
Player: I just wanna make sure we're doing it right
DM: why are you disputing a call I made in your favor? :smallconfused:
player: I just wanna make sure that's how it works.
DM: why are you disputing a call I made in your favor? :smallannoyed:
Player: "I just wanna make sure that's how it works"
DM: WHY ARE YOU DISPUTING A CALL THAT HELPS YOU! :smallfurious:
Player: -looks up at me- -pause- "oh..." -puts down book-

anyways.... my other one is actually one I don't feel comfortable talking about, as it's more of my problem rather than a legitimate grievance... but here it goes.

in my group, I am the only one with access to sourcebooks (with the exception of one player who has a few completes he can't use* and a PHB or 2 floating around)

so to help my party make informed decisions with all their resources at hand I have made several "master lits" of important things and posted them on our group's site so they can get to them. so far I have completed
a list of every race they can play
a list of every class they can play
a list of every armor and weapon enchantment we have
a list of houserules
a list of chargen rules
a list of special materials

I also have several more lists in the making, including
a list of all templates (weapon/armor or creature)
a list of all PrCs
a list of all weapons/armor
et.c et.c et.c

have any of my players used these lists?
no.

this is on top of the fact I send out 3 or 4 emails a week keeping the group up to date on what's going on in the campaign, and asking what they want to do next (I don't prepare an adventure until we've finished the one before it) making sure nobody is forgetting anything and that everyone is kept up to speed and the campaign is going where the party wants it too.

do I get any replies to these emails?
no.

I constantly ask (more like beg) the party for feedback, so that I can improve the game for them, make sure everybody's having a blast from week to week, and to make myself better as a DM.

do I ever get any feedback?
not really, it can usually be summed up as "it was fun" or "I liked this"


now, let me be clear, I DO NOT DM to feel appreciated. I DM because I want too...

but it would be nice to feel appreciated once in a while :smalltongue:


*can't use due to my allowed sources, if I don't have it in hardcopy, can't use it.

DoctorGlock
2011-10-10, 03:06 PM
"You're doing it wrong!/Optimization is bad" player: I decide I want to run a high optimization epic game. I get the following "No! Optimization is doing it wrong, you are breaking the game! It was meant to be low fantasy and you may not play it any other way!" Look, maybe optimization isn't right for you, but when you tell me that an extraordinarily versatile system cannot emulate low fantasy and high cosmic (when it can), or that the setting i chose was never meant to be played (cosmic scale plane hopping demigods, where the player in question believes that epic levels should still be low fantasy), or that the balance point i set the game around is unbalanced (yeah, internally balanced doesn't matter because the wizard isn't casting fireball and the monk sucks). Look, I understand that there is a time for optimization and a time to lay off on it, but to yell about it being anathemetical to the nature of the game for hours is a bit crazy.

Flat Characters: I quote "So, what's your new character going to be?"
"I'm a mage hunter!"
"Ok, so tell me a bit about your character"
"I hunt mages!"

The person who knows nothing of game mechanics: The GM that decides that wizards need buffing because they "only get spells and run out quickly" and that "warlocks are amazingly overpowered, they can blast all day, lets nerf it. Wait, why do you want to change characters, I already wrote you in as a warlock!" or (and yes, same person as the first example) Why would you cast black tentacles? Fireball would damage them" "Because the mage hunter is about to shock trooper them into next week so it would be inefficient" "Stop metagaming!"

Maybe I just have problems with my specific group.

Edit: Evil Dice. I went 4 sessions where my highest roll was a 4, and that was a one time occurrence. 60% 1s, 30% 2s, the rest were threes. Yet on any other table they would act random. The DM refused to allow a computer based RNG

Andreaz
2011-10-10, 03:13 PM
"You're doing it wrong!/Optimization is bad"

That bit is hard to not find everywhere because most of the real optimization is not immediately visible. Like how the wizard is at his most powerful when he is doing seemingly useless things to his enemies (i.e.: not killing them).

DoctorGlock
2011-10-10, 03:20 PM
That bit is hard to not find everywhere because most of the real optimization is not immediately visible. Like how the wizard is at his most powerful when he is doing seemingly useless things to his enemies (i.e.: not killing them).

The player could see that BC spells shut down the encounter, the problem for this player was the imbalance when said player intentionally made a character who could do nothing in combat

we had only 2 players capable of dealing with threats, only one of which could deal damage, and when we actually did that better than said player, this player got pissy.

I told said person "the infiltrate the castle quest becomes irrelevant by 8th level because teleportation makes it trivial" the player then had a fit when i teleported us into the castle... at level 12
player's response: You're breaking the game!

This seems like a disconnected ramble. Sorry, it just reeeeaaaalllly irks me, which is the topic. The player in example one of my first post isn't even in the game in question!

Brauron
2011-10-10, 03:41 PM
I have a player...

Absolutely refuses to play anything except an Evoker or a Druid, on the grounds that she "doesn't know how they work." Even with her chosen classes, she never has any idea what any of her chosen spells do, and has to look them up every time. She almost had a fit with my current game when she found out another player had already rolled up an Evoker, and Druids were rare. I told her she absolutely could play an Evoker if she wanted to -- I'm not terribly concerned with filling party roles. She waffled and agonized for days over which of these two classes she should play, finally decided on druid, and then WHINED when I told her that, no, the city the campaign is starting in does not have special "Druid Animal Companion Kennels" for her to keep her tiger in while she's in town.

***

When I start a campaign and send out background material on the homebrew world -- what races are present, what classes are allowable, what gods influence the world, what equipment is available, what the geography is like -- she doesn't read any of it, then asks me questions that the background material answered. And I'm not sending out Tolkien-esque missives here.

***

She never shows up for game with dice. If we play at her apartment, she'll ask to borrow dice, since she just got comfortable and doesn't want to get up and walk to the next room to get her dice. And it's not that she doesn't have dice -- I've seen them. They're real.

***

She missed all sessions from the month of August, as she was on vacation with her boyfriend. She let me know ahead of time, and we arranged that her character would go on a little solo side-quest and when she came back she'd present a quick written description of where her character was and what they did.

We missed September because on top of my normal work schedule I've been taking vocational training on weekends, and I haven't had much time to prepare a game or energy to run. At the beginning of September, I told her about the big scary omen comet that appeared in the sky in the game-world, and reminded her that she needed to give me details on where her character was.

Two weeks ago, one of my other players ran a one-shot for the group -- for which this player showed up completely unprepared, despite having a month to make a character (and having not bothered to read the email detailing level and restrictions for the one shot). So we sat around for two hours while she finished her character, and as a result had to squeeze our game into three hours.

As I drove her home after the one-shot, she said to me, "So you'll tell me where my character was while I was gone in August, right?"

I reminded her a third time that we'd established that it was her responsibility to decide where her character had been in her absence.

So now one of my other players (the one who ran the one-shot) have a bet as to whether she'll have something actually prepared by the time we meet to resume my campaign this Saturday. If she actually shows up with what I asked for, and asked for, and asked again for, then he owes me a beer.

Kaun
2011-10-10, 05:16 PM
anyways.... my other one is actually one I don't feel comfortable talking about, as it's more of my problem rather than a legitimate grievance... but here it goes.

in my group, I am the only one with access to sourcebooks (with the exception of one player who has a few completes he can't use* and a PHB or 2 floating around)

so to help my party make informed decisions with all their resources at hand I have made several "master lits" of important things and posted them on our group's site so they can get to them. so far I have completed
a list of every race they can play
a list of every class they can play
a list of every armor and weapon enchantment we have
a list of houserules
a list of chargen rules
a list of special materials

I also have several more lists in the making, including
a list of all templates (weapon/armor or creature)
a list of all PrCs
a list of all weapons/armor
et.c et.c et.c

have any of my players used these lists?
no.

this is on top of the fact I send out 3 or 4 emails a week keeping the group up to date on what's going on in the campaign, and asking what they want to do next (I don't prepare an adventure until we've finished the one before it) making sure nobody is forgetting anything and that everyone is kept up to speed and the campaign is going where the party wants it too.

do I get any replies to these emails?
no.

I constantly ask (more like beg) the party for feedback, so that I can improve the game for them, make sure everybody's having a blast from week to week, and to make myself better as a DM.

do I ever get any feedback?
not really, it can usually be summed up as "it was fun" or "I liked this"


now, let me be clear, I DO NOT DM to feel appreciated. I DM because I want too...

but it would be nice to feel appreciated once in a while :smalltongue:


*can't use due to my allowed sources, if I don't have it in hardcopy, can't use it.

Ok i more or less had the same problem and i have fixed it some what and i will tell you how in the hope that it might help you.

Firstly i made a forum on one of those free forum sites for my group to use. I found it better then emails because some people reply and some reply all and people miss parts of conversations blah blah, long story short i much prefer the forums.

Secondly to get my players onto the forums i started posting the session experience up there every week rather then telling them at the session. In addition to this if my session finished right after a fight (i was running 4e at the time so it generally did 4e long fights blah blah) i would post the loot up there also.
You would be surprised how quickly this gets players checking a forum at least once between sessions if they are close to leveling or there was some particularly interesting pieces of loot found.

Now that they are checking the forums getting them to post is the next hurdle which i solved with two steps.

Step 1 i started putting up a new thread on the forums for every session with the details such as time/date/location + a brief overview of what was happening in the game. In this thread i requested the players signed up for the coming session to confirm they were attending and after the session i would post the exp in the thread as well.

Step 2 i started posting up the exp in the form of a spread sheet. It was broken down into a column for each player and then rows detailing each chunk of exp received with quantity and a brief description of what it was for.

example.

Grog
300xp - Fight with Orc's in cave.
200xp - Finding hidden treasure chest
500xp - Session total

Now that i had these exp breakdowns in place i started awarding the players a nice chunk of exp for signing up to the session on the forums and another chunk for turning up on time. The first time i asked for them to sign up on the forums i got 2 responses but after they had seen the exp breakdown i got 5 of the 6 of them signing up the second time.
Now i know some people might say "why should i give them exp for doing things they should do anyway?" and in response i say well if it gets them doing what you want then who cares, its not like your paying for the exp.

That was 3 campaigns ago and now i no longer need to reward them for signing up or turning up on time they do it as a habit.

So what step am i up to... Fourthly ?!?.. anyway at this point if things are going to plan you should hopefully have them checking the forums and posting at least once per session. Encouraging them to post about other things won't be so difficult anymore, use the session threads to ask them who is taking what loot or what their plans are for next session. It is a snowball effect so once you get it rolling you will get more and more input as time goes on.
Its to the point now my average session thread hits about 4 pages and i run a session every couple of weeks. The players now use them to do a lot of game related stuff to stop it holding up the actual session.

The exp breakdown sheets are an awesome tool for encouraging different aspects of the game. If you want to see your players role play more pick the player who is doing the best in your mind and give him a nice chunk of "role play" experience. If your players are anything like mine they will be looking at that chunk of exp he got and trying to figure out how to get it themselves.

Anyway hopefully that was of some use, any questions don't hesitate to ask :smallsmile:.

Anderlith
2011-10-10, 06:06 PM
Sounds like he was a cleric of a thief/trickster/sneaky god though, so very much in-character to do so.

I believe it was Garl Glittergold, but it might have been Olidammara. & yes he was a sneaky bastard, but he was very loyal

bloodtide
2011-10-10, 06:19 PM
To be fair, if you completely ignore the multitude of plot hooks in their backstory for the entire game and basically make it like they've been teleported to an alternate reality where their backstory doesn't exist, that's bad DMing.

I'm talking the extreme, where the player wants to 'hunt down goblins' and refuses to do anything else(or in other words play unless the game revolves around them)



--Homebrew stuff...especially anime crap home brew stuff. Ok, guess there are cartoons with 'vampire/ninjas that have mini black holes inside of them and can project more energy then the Death Star. Whatever. But you can't make a crazy class with crazy abilities and play in my game. (''My guy has lazer punch, he charges it up and for every round he holds it it does 10^ damage'' or ''when my guy sneezes he shoots 100d6 lightning bolts.

big teej
2011-10-10, 06:30 PM
Ok i /snippy


okay I dunnow what happened, the forum ate my reply...

so in summary "where do you have your forum?"

I use obsidian portal and you have to pay extra for a forum there.


I'm talking the extreme, where the player wants to 'hunt down goblins' and refuses to do anything else(or in other words play unless the game revolves around them)



ya know, I have a standing policy on how I handle crap like this.

if the party has put forth an appropriate amount of effort to include the character, and I also have attempted to entice the player/character to the adventure, and they still maintain "no, this would not interest scouty McOrc-killer"

my response is simple, preplanned, and utterly effective.

"excellent, Mc-Ork-stabber stays in the tavern getting drunk and noming, the rest of you proceed to the forest where..."

every 15 or 20 minutes or so (the uncooperative player is not allowed to interupt unless they've changed their mind)

I will look over at them and say "does mc-ork-stabber continue to wait at the bar, or would you like to join us on the adventure?"

otherwise, they can sit there all night for all I care, my job takes up enough of my time and attention without catering to someone who want's to solo the game.




--Homebrew stuff...especially anime crap home brew stuff. Ok, guess there are cartoons with 'vampire/ninjas that have mini black holes inside of them and can project more energy then the Death Star. Whatever. But you can't make a crazy class with crazy abilities and play in my game. (''My guy has lazer punch, he charges it up and for every round he holds it it does 10^ damage'' or ''when my guy sneezes he shoots 100d6 lightning bolts.

I also have two responses to this sort of nonsense, or at least, 2 kneejerk reactiosn presented themselves.

the first is "Okay fine" and the first time it happens "cool, roll a new guy, you're sneeze just obliterated your brain"

the second is to turn and look at whoever found my players and calmly state "-ogranizer-, what have I done to so offend you that you would bring such a moron to my table?"

for the record, the second response only comes up if I honestly feel like that has occured, in the sense of the organizer has purposely brought someone who would irritate me.

Kaun
2011-10-10, 07:02 PM
okay I dunnow what happened, the forum ate my reply...

so in summary "where do you have your forum?"

I use obsidian portal and you have to pay extra for a forum there.


http://www.forumotion.com/

Terazul
2011-10-10, 07:05 PM
--Homebrew stuff...especially anime crap home brew stuff. Ok, guess there are cartoons with 'vampire/ninjas that have mini black holes inside of them and can project more energy then the Death Star. Whatever. But you can't make a crazy class with crazy abilities and play in my game. (''My guy has lazer punch, he charges it up and for every round he holds it it does 10^ damage'' or ''when my guy sneezes he shoots 100d6 lightning bolts.

You hate wizards and warlocks (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10832.0)? :smallconfused:

big teej
2011-10-10, 07:17 PM
http://www.forumotion.com/

I may just have to look into this.... though I'm more likely to implement it for my off-campus group to be honest...

I see the players of my school group every day. :smalltongue: and admittedly, alot of the "extra work" I'm doing "for my players" also exists for my own convienience.

ArcGygas
2011-10-10, 07:34 PM
Oh, by the maker. I've got one player that just irks me to no end. He's a cool guy outside of game, but being in a game with him makes my head hurt. Just goes to prove that good friends don't make good players.

1) Every game that we play starts with him ignoring the campaign setting, the other characters, the general outline of the adventure, and playing whatever he wants to play. This includes playing a Drow Necromancer when the party spent the last three sessions fighting off hordes of undead and Drow. Needless to say, the party jumped him. He complained the rest of the evening, saying that they never gave him the chance to introduce himself... (which, to be fair, it's perfectly fair to attack the very obviously Drow Caster with absurd amounts of death motif when you've been fighting lots of them.)

2) Character generation with him always starts with the same questions; "Can I play a Drow? Can I play a lizardman? Can I play a Necromancer? Can I play a half-drow half-lizardman necromancer? Why not?" Unless he can play a Drow or Lizardman Necromancer with aspirations of becoming a Lich, he spends the entire game bitching about his character.

3) The same character every game. Well, not so much the EXACT same character, but they all play the same. He will always play Chaotic Evil even when his character sheet says something like Neutral Good of Lawful Neutral. And if he's not a Necromancer, he's a Ranger who focuses on ranged combat. And it's either a lizardman, Drow, or an elf if the other two are not allowed.

4) Unwillingness to learn the rules. And "forgetting" how they work. One game, he was playing a Wizard (Necromancer) and had spells for every occasion. Just happened to have it prepared. At first I thought it was lucky, but then he said "I've only got one spell left, should I cast x or y?" I paused for a moment and looked at him, asking him what he meant. As it turns out, for the past two sessions, he "thought" Wizards were spontaneous casters.

5) When he's GMed, he's either a Monty Haul style of GM or a Killer GM. It's always one or the other. He can't find the middle ground and when we try to help he tells us it will all work out. An example of Monty Haul is when he gave everyone 700k gold as first level adventurers. You read that right. 700 thousand gold for first level. As for the latter, he once sent an Ancient Red Dragon at a group of 5th levels who had just barely survived against the chapter boss and declared a TPK, game over.

There are more, but those are the key points. That's not limited to just that player, but any player that does those kind of things. He just happens to do all of them at once.

Tsuzurao
2011-10-10, 10:06 PM
God I hate that so much. DM's of the world should introduce a new rule: if you didn't level and kit yourself before session then you're just gonna have to stay behind during play.
They probably won't learn, but at least the responsible players won't be the ones being punished.

Some DMs hold onto the character sheets between sessions though. I know that both of my DMs do that.

TheRinni
2011-10-10, 10:26 PM
May as well add one that is definitely very near the top of my list:

Guy who always plays Chaotic Stupid characters and throws fits whenever there are consequences for his actions.
I'm going to add a twist onto this one:

DMs who insist that I must be Chaotic Stupid or not Chaotic at all. I cannot tell you how much my current DM irks me with this. If I put even the slightest foresight into my thoughts and actions, I am committing a Lawful act and must change alignments. It's absolutely ridiculous, and no amount of arguing will change his opinion over the matter.

Anderlith
2011-10-10, 10:40 PM
I'm going to add a twist onto this one:

DMs who insist that I must be Chaotic Stupid or not Chaotic at all. I cannot tell you how much my current DM irks me with this. If I put even the slightest foresight into my thoughts and actions, I am committing a Lawful act and must change alignments. It's absolutely ridiculous, and no amount of arguing will change his opinion over the matter.

Ask him if the Joker (from Batman) is Chaotic, then ask him if he can't set up an elaborate doomsday scenario

Jay R
2011-10-10, 11:04 PM
For me, it's almost always the secondary, not the primary, irksome issue.

A player who never learns the rules? Fine - I'll help him. If he gets mad because he didn't know all his options, though ...

Rules lawyer? No problem. But when he then gets annoyed when we won't relax the rules in his favor, ...

The paladin doesn't like my thief? I understand. But shouldn't she wait until he steals something?

The DM won't describe the room until we ask what's in the room? OK - I'll ask, but if I say I look at the furniture, that should include the only table in the room.

The NPC is suspicious of me? Understandable. But how many times do I have to save his life before he'll at least consider the possibility that I'm on his side?

You won't tell us that you aren't coming? Fine. But don't get mad that we ran the game without you.

Paseo H
2011-10-11, 08:49 AM
When you deliver what you hope is a Wham Line and the players focus on an unrelated part of what was just said.

GM: The belly dancer is that one chick you heard about...and that little girl is the daughter of one of the major villains!

Player: The belly dancer is that one chick?

GM: *facepalm*

big teej
2011-10-11, 09:36 AM
When you deliver what you hope is a Wham Line and the players focus on an unrelated part of what was just said.

GM: The belly dancer is that one chick you heard about...and that little girl is the daughter of one of the major villains!

Player: The belly dancer is that one chick?

GM: *facepalm*

to be fair... I'd say 90% of the gamer's I've met (men and women) would have focused on the belly dancer statement.

TheRinni
2011-10-11, 10:09 AM
Ask him if the Joker (from Batman) is Chaotic, then ask him if he can't set up an elaborate doomsday scenario

We've actually had this argument before, at length. He insists that the Joker is at least Neutral Evil - borderline Lawful. Have you ever heard such a ridiculous statement? It drives me crazy. Chaotic is my favorite alignment to play.


Another irk:
Lawful Neutral Douchebags. I've seen this alignment played really, really well without said character being a complete *******. It is possible.

And Another:
People who are too preoccupied with other things to listen to the DM. We have one, current player who absolutely drives me crazy with this. If she's not on Facebook playing flash games, she's playing cards Yes. Cards. She actually brought playing cards.

She doesn't know the game mechanics, and refuses to learn. As a Cleric, she doesn't know what spontaneous spellcasting is.

And, yet, all of this would be fine by me, if she would just pay attention when the DM explains something. It disrupts the game when you have to recap every last detail at least four times.

Unfortunately, this woman is the mother of the DM, and my mother-in-law. It has been made clear to me that she isn't subject for removal. >.>

Draconi Redfir
2011-10-11, 10:12 AM
1. Rule of cool/drama failure. You think up this elaborate plan that will pin the baddy that just killed three of your buddies to the floor, and you are required to make a dice roll for it. That dice roll will never ever ever EVER work. Throwing your sword in a desperate attempt to cut the rope holding up the chandelier and crush the dragons head, saving the day? NOPE. gotta make a dice roll at like minus eleven or something, then it fails, you die, and the only surviving party member stabs the dragon in the foot a few more times with a 1d4 dagger and kills it. How exiting.


2. People who interrupt me when i am explaining a plan.

The following is a true story;

We enter a room, we see three chests. One is made of a strange silver metal, has large handles, and looks to be easily moveable. another, has a tongue painted to it. a third, has a dagger painted on it. A character opens the chest with the dagger on it, and the dagger comes to life and begins flying around and stabbing him, everyone else begins throwing spells around.

me? i remember the first chest, and tell everyone i have an idea.

"Ok the DM says this chest looks easily movable right? So let's pick it up a-" "Put it back down when we find it's too full of stuff to lift, which we most likely will."

i was quite literally about to say "and pour it out if there is anything inside it, then try and capture this magic eitheral dagger in it" but rather then letting me finish my freaking sentence the guy just interrupts me and doesnít even let me finish!

Needless to say i got pretty upset and told him (and the rest of the group) how annoying it was and how much it upset me, it wasn't even the first time either, there have been multiple times were this has happened, this is just the first time i snapped.

if someone is talking, Let. Them. finish. TALKING!:smallfurious:

Choco
2011-10-11, 11:08 AM
Some DMs hold onto the character sheets between sessions though. I know that both of my DMs do that.

I would hope those DM's don't expect their players to level up in between sessions then :smallwink:. I do this myself, kinda. The players have their paper character sheets, and I have the "master copy" on my computer.


DMs who insist that I must be Chaotic Stupid or not Chaotic at all. I cannot tell you how much my current DM irks me with this. If I put even the slightest foresight into my thoughts and actions, I am committing a Lawful act and must change alignments. It's absolutely ridiculous, and no amount of arguing will change his opinion over the matter.

UGH, DM's who insist that you play your alignment (based on their narrow interpretation of said alignment) as opposed to your character.... Yeah, you have my sympathy :smallfrown:.


When you deliver what you hope is a Wham Line and the players focus on an unrelated part of what was just said.

Oh God that happens too many times for me to remember, I think it's universal among all groups. I've experienced this from both sides of the screen, and I have learned to just go with it and enjoy the results.


Rule of cool/drama failure.

To be fair, most DM's should let you get away with describing your attack however you want, as long as you mechanically roll just the normal attack dice, with a few exceptions of course. It works well enough in Exalted.

May as well contribute again:

Players who take forever coming up with pointlessly intricate plans, IN THE MIDDLE OF COMBAT (and by extension DM's that don't crush this behavior early).

So you already have the tactical advantage, the melee types are perfectly shielding the casters, and the battle will be won in the next 2-3 rounds. Everyone knows what to do, but there is always ONE person that spends 10+ minutes on their turn trying to come up with some overly intricate Rube Goldberg-esque thing to do that even if it was allowed to work would be less effective than most anything else they could have done (most of it involves VERY liberal interpretations of certain spells and their abilities). Don't get me wrong those suggestions are all OK during the planning stage, but NOT in the middle of combat when you got 6 seconds to act, especially if it is a combat that you are already winning.

Tyndmyr
2011-10-11, 11:08 AM
1) The rules lawyer. If I'm DMing I always say at the start of the game, if I mess up a rule or I forget something please point it out to me. That does NOT mean that I'm going to defer to how you FEEL it should be. If I modify a rule that's it, it's house ruled and applies to both PC's and Monsters. That makes me so mad!

I really, really hate when a DM is like "please point out the correct rules to me if I'm wrong", and then, when you do exactly that, he just house rules it to his way on the spot.

This is actually my #1 hated thing about games. If you have house rules, awesome. Tell them about me before the game. My char will be built accordingly, or if I really, really hate them, I won't play. Any necessary discussion about them will be had when I'm told about them. If you do this in the pregame time, fantastic.

If you don't tell me about your new house rule until it comes up in a game, and I've been assuming you'll follow the actual rules, I'm going to talk about it then. And it's entirely your fault for not bothering to learn the rules or discuss your house rules at an earlier opportunity.

Amphetryon
2011-10-11, 11:22 AM
Players who spend half the session or more talking about, asking the DM about, and planning for some circumstance that could well happen in the future, instead of dealing with the situation that's in front of them for the current session. :smallfurious:

Basket Burner
2011-10-11, 12:03 PM
Story lawyers. I hate them. I can deal with rules lawyers, as annoying as it is to stop the game for a meta discussion they probably have a point, and if they can get to that point quickly it's not much of an interruption. Story lawyers though are just trying to bully the DM into getting free advantages. Typically because they can't get anywhere any other way, such as by having their characters defeat their opponents.

Anderlith
2011-10-11, 04:37 PM
1. Rule of cool/drama failure. You think up this elaborate plan that will pin the baddy that just killed three of your buddies to the floor, and you are required to make a dice roll for it. That dice roll will never ever ever EVER work. Throwing your sword in a desperate attempt to cut the rope holding up the chandelier and crush the dragons head, saving the day? NOPE. gotta make a dice roll at like minus eleven or something, then it fails, you die, and the only surviving party member stabs the dragon in the foot a few more times with a 1d4 dagger and kills it. How exiting.

I've been on both sides of this issue. I once tried to lasso a bone devil that was fleeing with the wounded BBEG & a kidnapped party member-with a grappling hook, & by jumping out of a three story building (I know but it was the only shot I had) I missed my Jump check by 5ft & fall & go unconscious surrounded by undead (my party saved my life just barely)

Another time we are surrounded by giant flying insects & everyone is wounded I can't reach the last one for melee & I don't have a bow ready to shoot- so I pull out a warhammer & throw it at the giant bug, despite the many chances of failure for throwing a weapon that wasn't supposed to be thrown to hit an enemy surrounded by your own party, I did it. It was awesome. Mechanics are there for a reason, find showman's-ship within the material & you will feel more accomplishment.

Also, I took over a Star Destroyer in StarWars (Saga) with a single Comp Use check, but I won't talk about that...

Kaun
2011-10-11, 05:03 PM
Yeah +1 to the above, if those kind of epic feats happen all the time they rapidly become less and less impressive.

bloodtide
2011-10-11, 07:59 PM
You hate wizards and warlocks (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10832.0)? :smallconfused:

Of course not! I hate the Anime crap:

''My character is a 1st level ninja, a tiny 14 year old elf girl, but she has a strength of 18, but still looks like a tiny girl with no muscles. She is not a bard but has a super awesome music voice that when she sings is like a super duper charm anything both creatures and objects and for every round she sings they get a -1 to the save"

OR

''My character is a 1st level dragon knight, kinda like a half dragon but I look all human but get all the cool half dragon abilities. And I can channel my breath weapon at will into my giant super sharp kantana sword that can already cut through anything so I can do like 100 damage, but, um, only when I'm like really angry."

Bearpunch
2011-10-11, 08:12 PM
One of my players does something similar. It makes me rage.

I'm all for creative characters, I commend them and usually allow them, but when you want to be "Bender, but with a hellboy fist" (A warforged chaotic stupid jackass that has a massive fist) that gives you extra damage to grabs/punches, etc. AND free powers? You are getting ridiculous.

Double points for him wanting ME to homebrew the stuff.

Dr.Epic
2011-10-11, 08:12 PM
Playing a martial class decked out in steel gear and facing one of these:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/designdev_rust3rd.jpg

Kiss your masterwork sword and armor goodbye. That's why I want to train one of them to be my mount.:smallwink:

Anderlith
2011-10-11, 08:25 PM
One of my players does something similar. It makes me rage.

I'm all for creative characters, I commend them and usually allow them, but when you want to be "Bender, but with a hellboy fist" (A warforged chaotic stupid jackass that has a massive fist) that gives you extra damage to grabs/punches, etc. AND free powers? You are getting ridiculous.

Double points for him wanting ME to homebrew the stuff.

Maybe he just wanted to CHEESE IT!
*Singing & walking away
"Bender is great, oh Bender is great"

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-11, 08:34 PM
Of course not! I hate the Anime crap:

''My character is a 1st level ninja, a tiny 14 year old elf girl, but she has a strength of 18, but still looks like a tiny girl with no muscles. She is not a bard but has a super awesome music voice that when she sings is like a super duper charm anything both creatures and objects and for every round she sings they get a -1 to the save"

OR

''My character is a 1st level dragon knight, kinda like a half dragon but I look all human but get all the cool half dragon abilities. And I can channel my breath weapon at will into my giant super sharp kantana sword that can already cut through anything so I can do like 100 damage, but, um, only when I'm like really angry."

What? Anime stuff's great! Now the problem is when your players insist that Rock Lee during the chuunin exams is a level 1 character.

Paseo H
2011-10-11, 09:01 PM
to be fair... I'd say 90% of the gamer's I've met (men and women) would have focused on the belly dancer statement.

To be more specific, here is what happened:

Me: Headmaster smirks. "The woman is Kaname. The girl..." he folds his hands, "is Saya. Or as she now calls herself...the Angel of Judgement."

Him: so the belly dancer was Kaname? And she doesn't look like a cyborg at all?

context: The only other person in the game who calls herself an 'angel of' something is one of the major villains, a psychopathic borderline Complete Monster who calls herself the Angel of Cruelty, and is Saya's mother, which I was very strongly hinting at there.

It's not that Kaname has no importance, in fact she's quite important, but the revelation about this at-best Heroic Sociopath and at-worst Force of Hatred And Cruelty major villain having a daughter should be of more moment, I would think.

bloodtide
2011-10-11, 09:30 PM
What? Anime stuff's great! Now the problem is when your players insist that Rock Lee during the chuunin exams is a level 1 character.

It's not Anime that is the problem...it's the way people homebrew it. It's not like they come with a well balanced feat for the 'channel breath weapon kantana', they just say 'my character is special and get it for free.

And they always want to break the level limits. Games have power level limits. An effect at low level does less damage then a high level effect(most things do damage/per level). But they try to break it with thing like 'oh when my character gets mad he does 2d10 more rage damage' or 'every round I hold the charge then blast fist does +1d10 damage'.

Or things like silly penalties for balance.....'After I do 100+ damage with my sword my swim speed is reduced to 5 for an hour.'

NNescio
2011-10-11, 10:51 PM
It's not Anime that is the problem...it's the way people homebrew it. It's not like they come with a well balanced feat for the 'channel breath weapon kantana', they just say 'my character is special and get it for free.

And they always want to break the level limits. Games have power level limits. An effect at low level does less damage then a high level effect(most things do damage/per level). But they try to break it with thing like 'oh when my character gets mad he does 2d10 more rage damage' or 'every round I hold the charge then blast fist does +1d10 damage'.

Or things like silly penalties for balance.....'After I do 100+ damage with my sword my swim speed is reduced to 5 for an hour.'

Oh... 'story'-lawyers.


Story lawyers. I hate them. I can deal with rules lawyers, as annoying as it is to stop the game for a meta discussion they probably have a point, and if they can get to that point quickly it's not much of an interruption. Story lawyers though are just trying to bully the DM into getting free advantages. Typically because they can't get anywhere any other way, such as by having their characters defeat their opponents.

AKA make up stuff that grant mechanical advantages on the fly for roleplaying reasons just because.

big teej
2011-10-11, 10:57 PM
To be more specific, here is what happened:

Me: Headmaster smirks. "The woman is Kaname. The girl..." he folds his hands, "is Saya. Or as she now calls herself...the Angel of Judgement."

Him: so the belly dancer was Kaname? And she doesn't look like a cyborg at all?

context: The only other person in the game who calls herself an 'angel of' something is one of the major villains, a psychopathic borderline Complete Monster who calls herself the Angel of Cruelty, and is Saya's mother, which I was very strongly hinting at there.

It's not that Kaname has no importance, in fact she's quite important, but the revelation about this at-best Heroic Sociopath and at-worst Force of Hatred And Cruelty major villain having a daughter should be of more moment, I would think.


hm...........

alrighty, I have 2-3 players who would pay attention to the whole "angel of unpleasentness" thing..... and EVERY OTHER player (men and women) would focus on the belly dancing thing, (granted, for various reasons... but hey)

Basket Burner
2011-10-12, 06:47 AM
Oh... 'story'-lawyers.

AKA make up stuff that grant mechanical advantages on the fly for roleplaying reasons just because.

While not the sort I was thinking of, yes that is a good example of people trying to story lawyer up some free advantages. It's the main reason why I play strictly by the rules. They might be the official rules, they might be houserules, but if it's not there you don't get it.

Terazul
2011-10-12, 08:04 AM
It's not Anime that is the problem...it's the way people homebrew it. It's not like they come with a well balanced feat for the 'channel breath weapon kantana', they just say 'my character is special and get it for free.


I'd honestly suggest looking around at places that simply aren't dandwiki, because there's plenty of good homebrew out there.

Also most of those things you listed could be made without homebrew. Just get a Haunting Melody/Inspire Awe/Fear Bard going if you want penalties. If you want her to always look like an elf girl play a Changeling (or Elan!). Half-Dragon dude is a Dragonfire Adept. Or a silly warlock with Hideous Blow/Eldritch Glaive and no concept of damage. The problem you're listing isn't so much a problem with homebrew or anime at all, but just players lacking a level of power understanding (also the ability to reflavor things) and trying to create their favorite characters from level 1. Sometimes it takes more than that. And the Bender guy is just a Warforged with a Battlefist. Maybe slap a flaming enchant on it and go into Artificer or some crap.

But yeah, I see where you're coming from; players who expect to be able to do every part of their concept from level 1, rules be damned.

Paseo H
2011-10-12, 08:07 AM
hm...........

alrighty, I have 2-3 players who would pay attention to the whole "angel of unpleasentness" thing..... and EVERY OTHER player (men and women) would focus on the belly dancing thing, (granted, for various reasons... but hey)

Hmm...I just realized, what I could do is have the Headmaster lampshade that. "Oh right, you're such a ladies man, of course you'd be focused on the hot belly dancer than the major reveal I just gave you."

Totally Guy
2011-10-12, 08:12 AM
Hmm...I just realized, what I could do is have the Headmaster lampshade that. "Oh right, you're such a ladies man, of course you'd be focused on the hot belly dancer than the major reveal I just gave you."

If there's going to be major revealing going on maybe it should be a headmistress.:smalltongue:

jedipilot24
2011-10-12, 08:17 AM
What really irks me are the players who use a Chaotic Neutral alignment as an excuse to be a jerk. The samee player did it in my games with two different (but very similiar) characters.

Bearpunch
2011-10-12, 08:46 AM
Maybe he just wanted to CHEESE IT!
*Singing & walking away
"Bender is great, oh Bender is great"

And get this, his entire schitck it:
"I smoke cigars and I call people fleshbags and just be a jackass to everyone cuz imma robot, and get this, I hoard food, even thought I don't need it lololololololololololololololol!"

Kurald Galain
2011-10-12, 09:16 AM
What really irks me are the players who use a Chaotic Neutral alignment as an excuse to be a jerk. The samee player did it in my games with two different (but very similiar) characters.

Or, the classic variant: a player who uses the fact that his character is a jerk to act like a jerk when out of character.

Paseo H
2011-10-13, 04:57 AM
The "Stop Having Fun Guys" variety of gamer.

A few words that should give you an idea what I'm talking about: "Tyranny of Fun"

Totally Guy
2011-10-13, 05:39 AM
The "Stop Having Fun Guys" variety of gamer.

A few words that should give you an idea what I'm talking about: "Tyranny of Fun"

Fun is good but satisfaction is better.

hewhosaysfish
2011-10-13, 06:56 AM
This is actually my #1 hated thing about games. If you have house rules, awesome. Tell them about me before the game. My char will be built accordingly, or if I really, really hate them, I won't play. Any necessary discussion about them will be had when I'm told about them. If you do this in the pregame time, fantastic.

If you don't tell me about your new house rule until it comes up in a game, and I've been assuming you'll follow the actual rules, I'm going to talk about it then. And it's entirely your fault for not bothering to learn the rules or discuss your house rules at an earlier opportunity.

I feel this one.
When I've seen GMs create a new house-rule in the middle of a session, it's often a knee-jerk reaction to something that cropped up in that session but is incredibly unlikely to happen again... and the proposed "fix" will have knock-on effects on other parts of the rules.
And it always *is* in the middle of a session, it's never "OK, so after this session we'll be instituting this new rule". So if you want to try to convince him that he's using a hand-grenade to kill a fly (in a china shop, no less) then you have to bring the whole game to a halt for this big rules argument.
And sometimes a second argument about whether you should be allowed to repick this feat/spell/item because it now doesn't do what it said it should when you picked it.
And sometimes a third argument about whether or not you can change your mind about the action your character just performed.
:smallfurious:

Paseo H
2011-10-13, 07:25 AM
hm...........

alrighty, I have 2-3 players who would pay attention to the whole "angel of unpleasentness" thing..... and EVERY OTHER player (men and women) would focus on the belly dancing thing, (granted, for various reasons... but hey)

Update: The wham has been salvaged, I shouldn't have worried, he really did just focus too much on the "hot dancer chick." :p

Kurrel
2011-10-13, 08:56 AM
This is more rage than irk, but sticks with me as the most outstanding piece of bullying I have ever overheard.

While I was talking with one player about appropriate equipment for his character, there were two other players discussing stories and characters. Player A, with more experience, tells Player B that fighters are bad and that if Player B insists on taking one, Player A will kill the character and continue to kill any remade fighters until Player B understands.

That led to an explosive discussion.

big teej
2011-10-13, 09:15 AM
Update: The wham has been salvaged, I shouldn't have worried, he really did just focus too much on the "hot dancer chick." :p

never under estimate the power of the female form.






This is more rage than irk, but sticks with me as the most outstanding piece of bullying I have ever overheard.

While I was talking with one player about appropriate equipment for his character, there were two other players discussing stories and characters. Player A, with more experience, tells Player B that fighters are bad and that if Player B insists on taking one, Player A will kill the character and continue to kill any remade fighters until Player B understands.

That led to an explosive discussion.

big teej's response to plans to pvp

step 1 - inform offending player of pvp policy

step 2 - inform offending player of the consequences of disrupting my game.

step 3 - insure offending player does not return if steps 1 and 2 are ineffective.

Paseo H
2011-10-13, 09:24 AM
never under estimate the power of the female form.

Oh trust me, that is not a problem. If anything is a problem, it's the lack of male npcs in the game. :p

I just hope that I don't spook the hero away from Saya too much, right now I'm in "allow him to assume the worst about her through omission and half-complete tales" mode.

KineticDiplomat
2011-10-13, 11:54 AM
I solve it with MAGIC!

I mean really, creative thinking is good. Being able to throw fireballs with your mind and other magics is pretty much a staple of...well the majority of RPGs, unless your playing mouse guard, cyberpunk 2020, or that one I can't remember because I never played but you could totally be a tanker without a tank in a post apocalyptic world. Creatively using spells is also encouraged.

Its when every problem, no matter how small or epic, or what skillset might be required, is reduced to "find appropriate spell, or vaguely appropriate spell, apply." Then it becomes irksome. Hard as it may be to believe, things can be entertaining, nay, even fulfilling, without a list of I WIN buttons.

Silma
2011-10-14, 02:39 AM
When people don't respect the work you do as a DM.

Now one of my players is a human wizard focusing on pyromancy, and he has a backstory that he was raised by a red dragon. But, he has amnesia, so his character doesn't really know about his past. So, we agreed that I would let him gradually find out about his past throughout the campaign.

So, the party was about to face a red dragon
So I sit for an extra hour before the session and think of a series of phrases in the dragonic language (not an actual language, they were just meaningless phrases) wrote them down, and translated them to whatever I wanted every time the dragon spoke. Then I gave the translation to the wizard because he was the only one who spoke dragonic.

Instead of appreciating the fact that I sat an extra hour, for the sake of HIS character, he started laughing at how the phrases sounded funny.
Now, I don't argue that, if you just casually hear them they may sound funny indeed, but if you just imagine that a red dragon speaks to you, I suppose it's not so funny. I mean it IS a game of imagination.

I don't remember the exact phrases, but they sounded like
"Mesh-bellek, vahn isth drakash, melhmezhar, bahn venderkh" or something.
Is it so hard to visualize a red dragon talking like that?

Steward
2011-10-14, 06:59 AM
A red dragon can talk like anything you want it to, and as far as made-up languages go that one doesn't even sound ridiculous. It was rude of your player to break character just to make fun of your world-building. The only solution I can think of is just to hand him the English (or whatever language you all really speak) translations directly, without translating them into Draconic.

Terazul
2011-10-14, 08:16 AM
I don't remember the exact phrases, but they sounded like
"Mesh-bellek, vahn isth drakash, melhmezhar, bahn venderkh" or something.
Is it so hard to visualize a red dragon talking like that?

...Hard to visualize or not, if a dude finds it funny, he finds it funny. I think this has little to do with a lack of respect. Heck, it's not even necessarily breaking character if he legitimately finds the Draconic language (even if he knows it) hilarious. One time my DM came up with an elaborate dungeon puzzle involving magic orbs. I quickly made the allusion to Mr. Bucket. We all laughed because we realized we were, in fact, playing the dungeon equivalent of Mr. Bucket. It's quite possible to find humor in alot of things. This is a game, we're playing, after all. Also, Draconic is an actual language with it's alphabet and several things written out in one of the books. How's he supposed to know it took you an hour to do several strips of paper?

And yeah, it does sound funny.

big teej
2011-10-14, 08:16 AM
When people don't respect the work you do as a DM.

Now one of my players is a human wizard focusing on pyromancy, and he has a backstory that he was raised by a red dragon. But, he has amnesia, so his character doesn't really know about his past. So, we agreed that I would let him gradually find out about his past throughout the campaign.

So, the party was about to face a red dragon
So I sit for an extra hour before the session and think of a series of phrases in the dragonic language (not an actual language, they were just meaningless phrases) wrote them down, and translated them to whatever I wanted every time the dragon spoke. Then I gave the translation to the wizard because he was the only one who spoke dragonic.

Instead of appreciating the fact that I sat an extra hour, for the sake of HIS character, he started laughing at how the phrases sounded funny.
Now, I don't argue that, if you just casually hear them they may sound funny indeed, but if you just imagine that a red dragon speaks to you, I suppose it's not so funny. I mean it IS a game of imagination.

I don't remember the exact phrases, but they sounded like
"Mesh-bellek, vahn isth drakash, melhmezhar, bahn venderkh" or something.
Is it so hard to visualize a red dragon talking like that?

glad I don't play with you, I would have punched him :smalltongue:

I did something similar with a dwarf NPC recently. I purposely made his accent and voice ridiculous (and I suck at accents I haven't had much exposure too)

here is is one line.




If it nae to big an inconvienece for ye, Iíd rather preciate ye takin this hammer here with ye. Tis a gift to the goliath chieftan in exchange for his continued tenacatae and suppart.

translation:

if it's not to big an inconvience for you, I'd rather appreciate you taking this hammer with you. it's a gift ot the goliath chieftan in exchange for his continued tenacity and support.

I got more than a few funny looks over that one, on purpose. :small tongue:

another dwarf leaned in and whispered "He's from one of the northern holds"

Zombimode
2011-10-14, 08:31 AM
Also, Draconic is an actual language with it's alphabet and several things written out in one of the books. How's he supposed to know it took you an hour to do several strips of paper?


Meh. I never found the idea that true dragons actualy speak with their mouths compelling.
MY dragons speak with their aura of Awesomenes. Using lungs, lips, tongues is a sign of inferiority. :smalltongue:

The language that those hairless apes and other lowly creatures call "draconic" is just a simplified mock-up version.

:smallwink:

Choco
2011-10-14, 10:28 AM
So, the party was about to face a red dragon
So I sit for an extra hour before the session and think of a series of phrases in the dragonic language (not an actual language, they were just meaningless phrases) wrote them down, and translated them to whatever I wanted every time the dragon spoke. Then I gave the translation to the wizard because he was the only one who spoke dragonic.

Instead of appreciating the fact that I sat an extra hour, for the sake of HIS character, he started laughing at how the phrases sounded funny.
Now, I don't argue that, if you just casually hear them they may sound funny indeed, but if you just imagine that a red dragon speaks to you, I suppose it's not so funny. I mean it IS a game of imagination.

I have similar problems. No matter what names I use for NPC's, nations, weapons, whatever, at least one of the players (not always the same one, it's like they take turns) always laughs about it and makes fun of it. I do my best not to show my frustration and just move on, mostly because I am that guy as a player....


I solve it with MAGIC!

I mean really, creative thinking is good. Being able to throw fireballs with your mind and other magics is pretty much a staple of...well the majority of RPGs, unless your playing mouse guard, cyberpunk 2020, or that one I can't remember because I never played but you could totally be a tanker without a tank in a post apocalyptic world. Creatively using spells is also encouraged.

Its when every problem, no matter how small or epic, or what skillset might be required, is reduced to "find appropriate spell, or vaguely appropriate spell, apply." Then it becomes irksome. Hard as it may be to believe, things can be entertaining, nay, even fulfilling, without a list of I WIN buttons.

Oh man, I actually got the exact opposite situation with my group. I think it's just that they seem to forget EVERYTHING (definitely including what their spells are capable of), but they spend hours trying to solve a problem, often using other spells, that they could have used a specific spell to solve (and I expected them to). It doesn't irk me and I have a lot of fun watching them, and the looks on their faces when I remind them of the spell usually make my day. It however leads into something that DOES irk me:

Players who don't know their own spells/abilities and try to interpret them however they see fit, usually based entirely on the spell name and other times trying to do things specifically mentioned as not being allowed in the spell description. Some gems:

"Wait, if you just cast Ray of Frost to freeze this lake, then we can cross without difficulty..."
"I cast create water inside of his stomach to make him explode..."
"Since he failed his save against my Charm Person spell, I make him turn around and kill his friends..."

DrDeth
2011-10-14, 03:37 PM
okay I dunnow what happened, the forum ate my reply...

so in summary "where do you have your forum?"

I use obsidian portal and you have to pay extra for a forum there.



ya know, I have a standing policy on how I handle crap like this.

if the party has put forth an appropriate amount of effort to include the character, and I also have attempted to entice the player/character to the adventure, and they still maintain "no, this would not interest scouty McOrc-killer"

my response is simple, preplanned, and utterly effective.

"excellent, Mc-Ork-stabber stays in the tavern getting drunk and noming, the rest of you proceed to the forest where..."

every 15 or 20 minutes or so (the uncooperative player is not allowed to interupt unless they've changed their mind)

I will look over at them and say "does mc-ork-stabber continue to wait at the bar, or would you like to join us on the adventure?"

otherwise, they can sit there all night for all I care, my job takes up enough of my time and attention without catering to someone who want's to solo the game.



e.
Great! I also do this when one guy wants to sneak off and ďscoutĒ thereby splitting the party.

Me to the party: You find a room filled with hobgoblins, roll for init. (Combat ensues, then looting & healing.)

Me to sneaky guy all by himself :you find nothing of interest.
Me to main party: next encounter,

Me to sneaky guy all by himself :you find nothing of interest. Want to rejoin the main party?


And so forth. In other words, I continue the encounters for the main party, and the sneaky guy all by himself never finds anything. Oh, once in a while I say ďRoll your search/perception= you find a bent and corroded copper piece.

Jay R
2011-10-15, 10:59 AM
Great! I also do this when one guy wants to sneak off and ďscoutĒ thereby splitting the party.

...

And so forth. In other words, I continue the encounters for the main party, and the sneaky guy all by himself never finds anything. Oh, once in a while I say ďRoll your search/perception= you find a bent and corroded copper piece.

This is one of the few situations in which I like CRs. The sneaky guy should occasionally (not often) find a threat that would be reasonable for the whole party - a bunch of undead if he left the priest behind, for instance.

Ideally, he will be found and rescued by the party, with some of his stuff used up.

(And if he can beat them by himself, fantastic! He justified the solo jaunt.)

DrDeth
2011-10-15, 11:05 PM
This is one of the few situations in which I like CRs. The sneaky guy should occasionally (not often) find a threat that would be reasonable for the whole party - a bunch of undead if he left the priest behind, for instance.

Ideally, he will be found and rescued by the party, with some of his stuff used up.

(And if he can beat them by himself, fantastic! He justified the solo jaunt.)

Naw. You see, you still have one group of players sitting around doing nothing while one player grandstands. Even if it's only his death.

maximus25
2011-10-16, 02:26 AM
Players that are ***** in real life, and they focus on you that day to be especially dickish to. For example, his old character died, don't remember how, but I might have been involved somehow (Was like a year or two ago.)

He made a character focused around killing mine. It was a ranger, favored enemy humanoid (Halfling) since that's what I was. He described to me how he was buying torches and oil and rope and other **** and was going to light my character on fire as soon as he saw me. I didn't think of complaining to the DM at the time, but I think we ended the campaign or he got bored later, because I never saw that character show up or kill mine.

But seriously? That's super metagaming and not even cool at all.

This is the same person who bullied me in and out of character for months in one game so badly that I had to leave the game it was so awful. Every friday he would just be a major **** to me no matter what I said, interrupting me while I was talking, calling me names, trying to get my character killed. One time, before the session even started, I got a phone call from my mom and couldn't easily get out of the room, as I was between two people and one the easiest path was past him, didn't feel like poking the bear as it were. So I asked them if they could please be quiet for a little while, I would have probably been on the phone for 30 seconds to a minute. He didn't listen to anything I said, was talking while I was on the phone and being quite loud. I banged my cup on the table lightly to get his attention, and made like a shushing motion and pointed to my phone. He started punching me in the arm for no reason, while I was still on the phone, so I grabbed his arm and pushed it away from me. He decided to push me, full body, from my chair and onto the floor. I landed on the bucket we used to contain our books, knocking it over. There were like 3 or 4 books on the floor scattered about. I got pissed, as he had been bullying me as I said, so I took the PHB and ****ing chucked it at him, hard as I could. Missed him by inches, hit the wall, and stormed out. The DM didn't even care that I threw the book at the guy, just that I threw his book and may have damaged it.


The guy still talks about it, saying it was my fault. Yes, it's my fault my mom called me on the phone and then you pushed me over out of my seat, I'm so sorry.

God, that made me angry, my hearts pumping so fast right now, and I'm mad. I didn't realize I had so much pent up anger...

Brauron
2011-10-16, 07:36 AM
Players who treat NPCs accompanying the party as flanking bonuses at best, and nuisances the rest of the time. Heck, I'll extend that to "Players who won't talk to NPCs, or treat them as anything other than a stat block behind my screen."

One of my players, playing a Cleric of Pelor, took the Leadership feat at his last level-up, and recruited a human fighter cohort (since the party had no dedicated meleeists). This fighter was recruited after he voluntarily helped the party defend a tavern from a Scrag and two Merrows, and kicked some righteous buttock in doing so.

Later, while raiding a goblin-infested dungeon crawl, our Wizard very nearly hit the Cohort with a fireball because he was within range of where the wizard wanted to throw said fireball. "Well, if he's going to be stupid and stand in my way, he's going to be hit with a fireball." He was eventually talked into delaying his action until after the Cohort's, so that the NPC could get out of his way.

The worst involving this cohort was when the PCs were trying to figure out how to get through a hallway lined with arrow-slits, behind which were goblins with crossbows and readied actions. One of my players looked at me and said, "What's the Cohort's strength, I want to know if he can carry me down the hallway so I don't get shot at." She proceeded to get huffy when I suggested she try asking the cohort nicely to carry her.

The worst I've ever seen as a DM was in Call of Cthulhu, when a player repeatedly referred to a four-year old boy he was trying to rescue from cultists as "it." "I pick it up and carry it out of the room." "You mean to sobbing, terrified little boy?" "Yeah, it."

Knaight
2011-10-16, 08:07 AM
Instead of appreciating the fact that I sat an extra hour, for the sake of HIS character, he started laughing at how the phrases sounded funny.
Now, I don't argue that, if you just casually hear them they may sound funny indeed, but if you just imagine that a red dragon speaks to you, I suppose it's not so funny. I mean it IS a game of imagination.
It doesn't change whether or not they sound funny, and expecting everyone to take everything seriously at all times isn't reasonable with most groups. For that matter, why would your player appreciate the time you spent doing phrases? One needs to be aware of the time spent to appreciate it, and spending an hour on pre made phrases is way out of line with what can be reasonably intuited as prep time. A five minute syllable chart used as a basis for improvisation is much more what should be expected, if any preparation should be assumed at all.


Naw. You see, you still have one group of players sitting around doing nothing while one player grandstands. Even if it's only his death.
Hardly. Its entirely reasonably to have party splits happen, and its not even that difficult to handle as a GM, provided that the players refrain from sending every single character off on their own to some remote area with completely separate goals and no contact. Someone who goes off to scout, or to negotiate, or in general leaves briefly to perform some task or series of tasks is well within what can be handled. I could see it not working with some play styles, but a term like "grandstands" is just unnecessary.

Krazzman
2011-10-16, 10:01 AM
Naw. You see, you still have one group of players sitting around doing nothing while one player grandstands. Even if it's only his death.

You wouldn't probably last the introduction in our games.

But I've got something that irks me too. Houseruling selling as Official Ruling.

Example since I sort of began playing with a standing group I started to read the rules out of boredom last year. But even after asking here I personally know the true rules about Weapon Enchantments but was told that I was wrong because Enchanting a weapon with +1 should const only 400 GP :smallconfused:
I mean it makes more sense since Special Abilities are most likely better than bonuses but why don't you say it's houseruling....

Additionally Our DM's most likely just say we play on that day, you plan and upon arriving you get told no that books are not allowed... Even if we have rapidly changing groups and only played one-shots, would it be that bad to tell in before?

Thanks for listeing...

Draconi Redfir
2011-10-16, 10:13 AM
Got two new ones for you after yesterdays meetup.

1. Inconveniently placed informant NPC's. All through last week i had been planning a small interrogation scenario to get information from the next hobgoblin we saw, we were in an old dwarvish city full of hobgoblins, looking for some kidnapped kids and other folk. i had all kinds of questions and proposals ready, were are the kids? who is your boss? Cooperate and i will personally ensure that you will see your family again safely, that kind of thing.

Well near the end of the session we finally enter a room full of hobgoblins, while the rest of the party rushes in and starts bashing them to pieces, i pin one to the wall with my sword and tie him up after an arrow from our resident elf pierced his ear and made him pass out. i was read i was pumped a lay on hands spell and he would wake up and wait what?

lo and behold three more baddies burst into the room from the next room over and start getting beat up, allright I wait around a little, tie the ropes around the prisoner to make sure he doesnít escape that kind of thing. ALLRIGHTY now those guys are dead, time to get to interrogai-WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE IS A PRISONER IN THAT OTHER ROOM THAT JUST TOLD US EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW!?

So there we are talking for a good thirty minutes with this kidnapped elf lady who is telling us were the other prisoners are, who's running the show, were the kids would be, and pretty much everything i was just about to ask the hobgoblin! All the while Iím mentally slamming my head into the table out of frustration! i worked so hard to keep this guy alive and out of the reach of the raging dwarf who is foaming at the mouth, and every reason i had to do so was just swept out from under me ever worse still is that Iím a lawful good paladin, i can't just leave the guy tied up or kill him while he's KO'ed or anything!

Finally i get so frustrated that i just turn to the dwarf and say "know what? go nuts" and the dwarf then releases the prisoner, who proceeds to run away, and conveniently get shot to death by his own allies.

All that work planning an interrogation to try and play into that "judge dread" mold everyone keeps saying Iím a part of and it's ruined the moment the DM mentioned a tied up elf who knows everything.




And 2. Inappropriate times of inappropriateness. Remember everything i just said up there? Well while explaining to the party why i wanted to capture a hobgoblin alive, i said something along the lines of "and if he cooperates, i will personally escort him out of town to ensure he is safe" when Iím interrupted (again) by one of my team-mates joking "really? How much do you charge?" and just... WHY!!? here i am being serious and explaining a plan, and the most gutter-minded member of the party interrupts me and makes a prostitute joke! Un-necessary! You could at least wait until i am finished talking!



Now don't get me wrong i love the game and i love these people, but the things they do and that happen are just so frustrating sometimes! They interrupt me, make crude jokes when i'm trying to be serious, roll and conform criticals every fifth round when i'm lucky to even roll a twenty on a creature that can't be crit, i never get my moment of awesome, everything i plan is either interrupted, goes wrong, or is against the rules for some arbitrary reason, and Iím starting to wonder what exactly it is that i provide for the team if anything! Just... just... GAHHH!!!

Randomguy
2011-10-16, 02:22 PM
I never get my moment of awesome, everything i plan is either interrupted, goes wrong, or is against the rules for some arbitrary reason, and Iím starting to wonder what exactly it is that I provide for the team if anything! Just... just... GAHHH!!!

Sounds to me like you need to play a heavily optimised wizard for a brief period of time.

Bearpunch
2011-10-16, 06:48 PM
I've got a new one for you guys: The player that (without fail) falls asleep EVERY SINGLE SESSION. This one may not be very common, but there is a player in my group (the same one I have been complaining about) that falls asleep every session, no matter what. He had a 20 oz red bull one time and was out before the session was half over. It was only a 6 hour session, too. I've gone so far as to take him out of the session and ignore him, and he always wakes up (for about a minute) and whines, before falling back asleep. And yes, we play on chairs. folding chairs.

Another one made me really mad last night is the player that ONLY wants to play one role and refuses to paly any other. This particular instance is from my 4e group. In the campaign I run, one of my players plays a Hexblade Warlock, a Striker. In the campaign my friend runs, he plays a Paldin, a defender. He CONSTANTLY whines on and on abot not doing enough damage, and refuses to use his defender powers to help me, instead attacking like a dumb barbarian. This wouldn't be all that bad, but I play a monk with 18 AC and 27 hp. I need some support or I am boned. I used ALL of my healing surges because he always refuses to heal/buff/help me, instead opting for attacking, even though his attacks are not suited for defending (he is a Cavalier).

THAT pisses me off.

hiryuu
2011-10-16, 08:00 PM
The person that does play tabletop games, but comes just to mooch off the internet and refuses to make a character because they "don't have any ideas."

The person who makes a character that doesn't have any family, goals, motivations, or even tries to do what his class or archetype does (I.E. makes a Tortoise clan member who walks away from gaijin materials or underworld plot hooks).

The person who answers when someone asks the GM a question (I am guilty of this myself and working to try and stop, because I know how annoying it is to me).

The person who makes the inappropriate or bizarre character and doesn't try to fit it into the campaign or the setting, or who doesn't read setting material.

The person who complains when he's not allowed to optimize to his content and/or is forced to build a character organically or complains when the rest of the party's optimization throttle isn't set on 11. Like it or not, optimization is on a throttle that is related to what the GM and the other players are comfortable with.

Edit:

The person with the complicated plan. This is a plan with so many bells and whistles and gadgets and wingdings that something totally unrelated to what the plan is supposed to do can swoop in and destroy it, such as using too many magical items or a chain of ten or eleven spells to do something that a skill check can do.

Draconi Redfir
2011-10-16, 08:04 PM
i just wanted to say... i like this thread. uit lets me rant about my own game sessions while simultainiusly teaching me what not to do myself:smallbiggrin:

Paseo H
2011-10-16, 09:33 PM
Optimization is metagaming, anyway.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-16, 09:58 PM
-snip-
Are you still in that group? If so, talk to everyone else in the group about it. Also, with permission from the DM, next time he pushes or punches you, fight back with full force, since chances are he won't be expecting a hard punch.

Optimization is metagaming, anyway.

So wait, when you decide to be a warblade instead of a fighter, or have your extremely intelligent wizard pick spells that give more bang for your buck, that's metagaming?

Knaight
2011-10-16, 09:59 PM
Optimization is metagaming, anyway.
http://fastfoodies.org/wp-content/uploads/Head-desk-1.jpg
Any and all character creation is not in character play, and thus "metagaming" is entirely acceptable. Its character creation, you're interfacing with the game and not the game world anyways. Moreover, "metagaming" is only an issue within a certain narrow style of play anyways. Its an issue in Actor Stance, its just fine in Author Stance, and it doesn't even make sense outside of the task based, striving for accomplishment paradigm.

MagnusExultatio
2011-10-16, 10:53 PM
Optimization is metagaming, anyway.

Metagaming isn't inherently bad.

Paseo H
2011-10-16, 11:05 PM
Out of character knowledge is out of character knowledge.

Trying to choose your character based on who is more likely to survive a campaign is acting on out of character knowledge, and therefore is metagaming.

MagnusExultatio
2011-10-16, 11:10 PM
Out of character knowledge is out of character knowledge.

Trying to choose your character based on who is more likely to survive a campaign is acting on out of character knowledge, and therefore is metagaming.

Again, you're saying this as if it were a bad thing.

hiryuu
2011-10-16, 11:12 PM
Any and all character creation is not in character play

I beg to differ. Hell, Traveler's character creation system is based entirely on this.


, and thus "metagaming" is entirely acceptable.

I will definitely agree to this, though, and it's a fun device to play with, especially since back and forth metagaming can create some interesting situations: knowing how a player might react to a situation is practically required for most horror games to work.


Its character creation, you're interfacing with the game and not the game world anyways. Moreover, "metagaming" is only an issue within a certain narrow style of play anyways.

If you're not interfacing at least partially with the game world during character creation, something is dreadfully wrong.

Paseo H
2011-10-16, 11:12 PM
The preponderance of DMs have spoken: metagaming is bad.

Knaight
2011-10-16, 11:31 PM
I beg to differ. Hell, Traveler's character creation system is based entirely on this.

...

If you're not interfacing at least partially with the game world during character creation, something is dreadfully wrong.

Traveler's character creation system is highly random, and is a gambling game, but its not inside the game. As for not interfacing at least partially in the game world, its only the mechanical side of character creation being discussed, and that almost never directly interfaces with the game world. Now, is there a translation phase into the world with some stuff (e.g. contacts)? Yes, but there is still a fundamental difference between playing a character in a world and creating a character for a world, and much of that is that the former involves direct interface, and the latter involves reference more than anything else.

FatJose
2011-10-17, 12:44 AM
Yay, derailment...I guess.

What irks me is when some *snip* tells me I'm metagaming for making a balanced or "gaspo" optimized character that fits a concept and is helpful in play.

Quietus
2011-10-17, 02:01 AM
The preponderance of DMs have spoken: metagaming is bad.

In the sense of creating a character? Not at all. I can take any character theme, build an optimized character around it, AND still tie it into the game world. That's not unreasonable, and even if you consider it metagaming (I don't), then that's actually a *good* thing. I *require* my players to have characters that are at a certain level of competency. If they weren't, then I would be limited in what I was capable of throwing at them in terms of challenges.

Which would you rather provide a set of encounters for? A team including a wizard (with smart spells selected), a druid with a decent but not overpowering animal companion, a cleric with useful domains, and a warblade who's put a little thought into his maneuver selection? Or a Sorcerer who takes only blasting spells and no metamagic, a bow-using rogue with no means of causing opponents to be flat-footed, a healer (the class), and a Fighter with a longsword, shield, and all the weapon focus feats? Personally, I'd rather run a game for the first group. It's a little more work to ensure I can challenge the players, but it does mean that I can do more than just send monsters that full attack at them. Hell, the second group might even have trouble with that. A troll would tear that second group apart, while the first would take some damage, possibly even see one member go into negatives from Rend if they're unlucky, but would likely come out victorious.

Vknight
2011-10-17, 02:33 AM
Vknight guiding the rails.

I hate these things and they irk me

The player that has a problem with things going on in the campaign, either story, background, character restrictions, or notes on the setting. But worse is the guy that only says something after they have made a character and we are 3sessions in.
Example
Warforged Fighter, in a Eberron style setting. Except the Warforged are made and controlled by the one religious organization outside demon and/or devil worshipers. Yup because in this setting their was one god(Long Story dealing with this being the previous campaign 1million years later). So keep that in mind. Next he wants to have been made by some women in the woods for no real purpose just to be not connected to the church. I say that his character will have several flaws. One he can't take Warforged feats including my homebrew ones. 2 he has to make an Endurance check 1every day or lose a healing surge that day. Not to nasty but a threat nonetheless.
In game he freaks at this as he wanted to be a fighter that could fire alchemical items as a move action. Heck I throw him a bone in a rival Monk Warforged that is basically a part of the police(Which he knew and still stopped him causing the monk to lose the criminal he was chasing) and was willing to get his character parts for high costs(His character had provided assistance at a later date acquiring an old 'Fey War' artifact. basically pay 100gp(Or so) and you can get a Warforged feat. Said money going straight to the church. Later similar instance with a Gungan Jedi.

The guy who writes about the campaign.. I don't mean a campaign journal no I mean what he thinks should have happened Ala fanfic. Especially the person who does this at the end of a campaign and goes out of his/her way to subvert all the notes you were willing to lend them because it does not go with their preconcieved notions or beliefs in how the setting works.... The Homebrew Setting YOU WROTE THE SETTING YOU WROTE THEIR QUESTIONING HOW IT WORKS AND SAYING NO TO IT!:smallfurious:
Yes this is actually happening the campaign has ended(2years or so ago) but the Fanfic continues somewhere out in the web.

The person who has a problem with a different person in the group but when they leave they put the blame of all the bad things that person caused onto a new person. The player from the warforged story is no longer in are group. Why because he did that with me a guy(Lets call him B shall we. Warforged guy will be warforged guy) which stayed with us for 2-3sessions before I believe something about breaking a chair-leg. (Which is Ironic why? Here you go- because I later accidentally snapped a steel chair-leg off of the chair it was connected to) The chair-leg comment I'm not sure how it came about or who said it but the 2were going to fight. Yeah had to break it up as B would probably beat warforged guy senseless. Warforged guy blamed me claims everything I've done has been to ruin his characters. B on the other had a year after the incident apologized for his behavior, 4months later Warforged guy 'quit'.... I stopped inviting him until he accepted either his mistake or would talk.

Warforged guy irks me. Why we did have that talk things were beginning discussed with a civil manner and then he commented "I should still be angry at you so I guess I will be!"..... Or something similar. 10minutes later we continued the talk discussing what annoyed him and how much it influenced the game and what has happened in the past 8months and how the game had changed and I grew as a Dm(Finally had played CoC with 1/2the group with me as the Keeper). He then said he's still angry because I haven't apologized and then states something B did... I point this out and he says something about it being partially my fault and that he could haven beaten him...:smallsigh:
For reference B had the occasional practice with me in fencing, before he started boxing(at a more regular basis). He picked this up before the incident with Warforged guy 6months before.
Warforged guy is are pudgy guy.

People who have to play within their own gender thinking there is something special and unique that they won't understand if playing the opposite gender. Same for people not comfortable trying less humane races or people unwilling to play humans, halflings, dwarves.

People without goals or agendas for their character someone who merely goes with the flow and only taking interest in a fight etc.

Choco
2011-10-17, 08:39 AM
People who allegedly have had their backstories written for months/years, yet keep "forgetting" to bring them in, email them, or otherwise provide me with them. I've had the pleasure of running into 2 of them. The first time I was another player in the group, so it didn't bother me much then but the DM was clearly irritated. The ironic thing is, the second time it was when I was DM'ing for the same group, and this time IT WAS THE PREVIOUS DM that did it. As much as he whined about it when it was happening to him, he did the same **** as a player in my game.... That being said my solution for that is to just not give personalized quest hooks to that character unless he specifically seeks them out, seems to have not exploded so far.

hiryuu
2011-10-17, 10:39 AM
Same for people not comfortable trying less humane races or people unwilling to play humans, halflings, dwarves.

Hey, I'd certainly have trouble playing a Grell. Or a Phasm. Doesn't mean I won't try, I just don't think I could do it justice. Totally agree with you about gender, though.
________________________

I'll add to the voices irked at people who alter or don't look at homebrew setting material. I had someone once bring me a robot assassin who didn't believe in magic, in a setting whose primary religions have guardian spirits/spirit guides that drop by to have dinner with the family every once in a while, and the in-universe energy supply that his robot would have been using is the literal magically charged blood of the planet. If he even was a robot. Given the setting, it's more likely that he'd have been a technology spirit or something left over from a previous age. Even so, it would have been like being a human and not believing in humans.

I also learned that expedience in character generation as it pertains to the world is also not often that great of an idea. I said "deiselpunk-lite based on Native American mythology, tall tales, and hobo legends as much as Tolkein is Nordic and European. If you want magic, go in a shaman direction. I am making the price so high only a moron would buy healing powers because of its place in the mythology and its rarity, and it always comes with a price," then I gave them a week and a binder full of setting material, and the guy came back with a shapeshifter with all kinds of crazy forms. Not only is this generally considered evil with a capital SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD, it steps on the toes of everyone in the group (he had a skill monkey form, a combat form that was more devastating than the combat character, a whole mess of stealth forms, and a ranged attack form). He gets indignant when he's questioned about it, but the group is too small to lose him. So I dig around in my head and give him a good kharmic excuse, but limit his shapeshifting powers so the rest of the group has stuff to do.

Another player comes to me with, surprise, a healer. She does not tell me what price her character paid to get this power. So I do the same thing I make very clear that I do when I get presented with any other character with no backstory: I fill it in. I have to. Someone with healing magic in the setting is like someone walking around pre-Fallout Earth with a Fat Boy strapped to their back. She, of course, gets indignant about the whole thing and sets about trying to kill the spirit who gave it to her originally. Which fails miserably, because spirits can't really be "killed."

So yeah, new people who don't read the material you give them.

DrDeth
2011-10-17, 11:03 AM
It doesn't change whether or not they sound funny, and expecting everyone to take everything seriously at all times isn't reasonable with most groups. For that matter, why would your player appreciate the time you spent doing phrases? One needs to be aware of the time spent to appreciate it, and spending an hour on pre made phrases is way out of line with what can be reasonably intuited as prep time. A five minute syllable chart used as a basis for improvisation is much more what should be expected, if any preparation should be assumed at all.


Hardly. Its entirely reasonably to have party splits happen, and its not even that difficult to handle as a GM, provided that the players refrain from sending every single character off on their own to some remote area with completely separate goals and no contact. Someone who goes off to scout, or to negotiate, or in general leaves briefly to perform some task or series of tasks is well within what can be handled. I could see it not working with some play styles, but a term like "grandstands" is just unnecessary.

1. Good points about the voice thing.

2.The problem with party splits is that while one player is off grandstanding the other players have nothing to do. Yes, once in a great while a trap will split the party, and sure, sometime when the party gets into town or something you can go around the table and have each player tell you what heís doing (shopping, temple visits, etc). But D&D is a cooperative team game, not a solo game.

Each player should get about the same amount of table time

DrDeth
2011-10-17, 11:04 AM
You wouldn't probably last the introduction in our games.

...



Maybe. But I have been playing & DMing since 1974.

Anderlith
2011-10-17, 11:34 AM
1. Good points about the voice thing.

2.The problem with party splits is that while one player is off grandstanding the other players have nothing to do. Yes, once in a great while a trap will split the party, and sure, sometime when the party gets into town or something you can go around the table and have each player tell you what heís doing (shopping, temple visits, etc). But D&D is a cooperative team game, not a solo game.

Each player should get about the same amount of table time

Why can't we have both? *cue mariachi band & hoisting of the little girl

If you have five player's each character should get roughly 1/5th of your time, regardless of if he is in the group or went off on his own.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-17, 01:13 PM
Out of character knowledge is out of character knowledge.

Trying to choose your character based on who is more likely to survive a campaign is acting on out of character knowledge, and therefore is metagaming.

Alright, so I want to play a warrior who can march long distances and is good with a greatsword. So I make a fighter with Endurance and Weapon Focus. How is that metagaming less than making a warblade who takes Power Attack instead of Weapon Focus, spends his level 5 bonus feat on Endurance, and takes Steadfast Determination at 6th level?

Also, with your definition of metagaming, EVERYTHING dealing with the crunch is metagaming.

That's the wrong definition of metagaming. Metagmaing is using OOC knowledge to have your character know things, like if you buy the Eberron Campaign Setting book and sudddenly your character knows the king of Karrnath is a vampire.

Anderlith
2011-10-17, 01:52 PM
Metagame vs Non Metagame.

If I know of your character & I feel like making a character that solely compliments yours , for the purpose of complementing yours(a rogue/fighter tag team combo). Is that metagaming? What if I design a character strictly built to kill your character? Do you see where it starts to get hazy?

Sucrose
2011-10-17, 02:15 PM
Metagame vs Non Metagame.

If I know of your character & I feel like making a character that solely compliments yours , for the purpose of complementing yours(a rogue/fighter tag team combo). Is that metagaming? What if I design a character strictly built to kill your character? Do you see where it starts to get hazy?

In the latter case, it isn't the metagaming that is the issue. The issue is the player of the PVP character specifically acting in the accepted metagame of character creation (regardless of how you create your character, you are doing so out of the game, i.e. metagaming, performing a game related to the game you wish to eventually play) in order to diminish someone else's enjoyment of the game. In other words, it's a straightforward violation of the 'don't be a dink' rule.

Paseo H
2011-10-17, 02:19 PM
The point is, stern DMs have forbidden it entirely (and sternly), and speak of it as a four letter word, therefore all must follow suit.

Krazzman
2011-10-17, 02:28 PM
The point is, stern DMs have forbidden it entirely (and sternly), and speak of it as a four letter word, therefore all must follow suit.

Only because one organisation forbids condoms all have to stay away from condoms?
Or another example: Only cause one dog killed a child all dogs will kill children?

You are on really thin ice with this interpretion since it is utterly wrong how you argue about it. Metagaming may be bad or good but only cause one dm forbids it entirely and let your fighter roll his feats randomly doesn't mean the other dm will such a "di*k".

Sucrose
2011-10-17, 02:31 PM
The point is, stern DMs have forbidden it entirely (and sternly), and speak of it as a four letter word, therefore all must follow suit.

Stern DMs have made the game unplayable. The entire process of character creation, by definition, is metagaming. Your character cannot enter a booth and tick off the feats that they wish to acquire; they are abstractions of personal abilities that your character possesses.

Paseo H
2011-10-17, 02:38 PM
{{Scrubbed}}

DrDeth
2011-10-17, 02:38 PM
Why can't we have both? If you have five player's each character should get roughly 1/5th of your time, regardless of if he is in the group or went off on his own.


Ah, but when the five players are acting as one group, they not only get their own 1/5th but get to participate in the other 4/5th.

Draconi Redfir
2011-10-17, 02:59 PM
Ah, but when the five players are acting as one group, they not only get their own 1/5th but get to participate in the other 4/5th.

You could also make the argument that every character should get his moment of awesome, or that some things require the party to split up to work effectively. I.E. perhaps there is a gate that will not open unless a button on the other side of a field of unstoppable fire is pressed, and even then the door is only open for a second or two. No point in having multiple characters risk their lives, so the fighter braves the fires while the rest of the party waits by the gate to rush on through when he pushes it. He's badly burned and wont be able to leave without some assistance further down the line, but he ultimately helped the party by leaving it and got his own moment of awesome at the same time.

Sucrose
2011-10-17, 03:01 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Leecros
2011-10-17, 03:08 PM
Fortunately for me, the worst player that irks me is moving away tomorrow and it's unlikely that he'll rejoin the group(that's been together for two years). I know it's unfortunate to lose a "Skilled" player, but now that he's gone i feel that our D&D sessions will go infinitely smoother.

He causes trouble and strife in just about every session we get into. He constantly attempts to rule lawyer launder the game's rules into his favor(to the point of directly contradicting himself in certain occasions). He stubbornly argues his points even after someone pulls out a book and reads the rule on it verbatim. Of all of the times he has attempted this i can only recall a handful of times he has actually been right. The most outrageous claims stating that "Because there's no rules for Water Pressure it, essentially, doesn't exist" when the ship he was on began to sink. Well, there are rules to water pressure which i did research on to find out.

He also argues alignments. I was DMing and we were playing an evil campaign. I generally let my players decide what general type of campaign to play and they all decided that playing an evil campaign would be a nice change of things(most of the players were actually more neutral than anything). The player in question decided to play a neutral evil Half-Dragon blahblahblah(i forget exactly). In the span of two sessions, he had started a barfight, continued 'said barfight after the guards broke it up(leading him to be put in prison for the night), blasted a hole in the Tavern where the barfight was held, lifted a table and put it in front of the hole when the guards demanded that he fixed it and called it 'fixed', blasted another hole in the wall for the sake of doing it, lit a mansion on fire while the rest of his party was in it, burned high value art loot for the sake of burning it, even after being warned that he was being dangerously Chaotic he jumped into a deep well after being told that one of his party members was down there with no way out. After which his alignment changed to Chaotic Evil. This sparked a whole hour long argument where the entire basis of his argument was built around "I thought this was an evil campaign, if you couldn't handle it then you shouldn't have DM'd one" . Now, we weren't even talking about whether his actions were good or evil and his alignment shift would have changed nothing. He didn't have any special "If you're this alignment you can do this" or anything like that, we weren't mad at him or anything like that. In fact some of it the rest of the party found somewhat amusing(except the part where he lit the mansion that they were in on fire). Had he just settled down and changed his alignment he could have gone around and still act Chaotic Stupid and i wouldn't have batted an eye...although i couldn't promise something horrible and gruesome wouldn't happen to him eventually.

Another time where he wasn't happy with the rules was when we were playing a steampunk campaign. We were on a ship nearing the coastline when we were attacked by cannons on the shore. His first comment

"cannonballs can't fire that far"
DM: "They definitely can" DM tells him exactly how far out to sea he is
"Cannonballs still can't fire that far, not in the real world during the approximately technology level of the world we're in" he then goes on his laptop and looks up Renaissance cannons on ships.
DM: "Okay...whatever, they're MAGIC cannonballs" This was the DM attempting to stave off the argument
"What? No...they still wouldn't fire that far"
Dm: /facedesk

This led into an argument for the rest of the session about cannons and how they worked...

Another thing that's slightly annoying is that he always attempts to create a character that can do everything using whatever backwards class he can find in some obscure sourcebook. This is only a mild issue compared to him causing trouble, but in a game where you're in a party with several other people; Knowingly attempting to become the Master of All and making the rest of the party essentially along for the ride is just plain selfish.


With that said i am a little sad losing him, he caused trouble yes, but locally D&D players are so hard to find. On top of that i can't say he wasn't fun playing D&D when he wasn't arguing about something.

Paseo H
2011-10-17, 03:09 PM
So, Sucrose, your plan is to cling stubbornly to your point and deny when it has been refuted, eh? Fair enough, show me a tabletop game that requires no character creation or selection.

Also, I did not misspeak, it's not 'refuse to roll with the punches.' It's 'roll with the punches' exactly as I said.

Krazzman
2011-10-17, 03:30 PM
So, Sucrose, your plan is to cling stubbornly to your point and deny when it has been refuted, eh? Fair enough, show me a tabletop game that requires no character creation or selection.

Also, I did not misspeak, it's not 'refuse to roll with the punches.' It's 'roll with the punches' exactly as I said.

No, you cling to your stubbornly misguided argumentation.
You said that a few dms forbid something and now ALL DM's are forced by Nature Itself to do so. While the thing you call Metagaming is just preperation. Nothing more nothing less. If your DM wouldn't let you choose your class what would you do?

Anderlith
2011-10-17, 03:36 PM
In the latter case, it isn't the metagaming that is the issue. The issue is the player of the PVP character specifically acting in the accepted metagame of character creation (regardless of how you create your character, you are doing so out of the game, i.e. metagaming, performing a game related to the game you wish to eventually play) in order to diminish someone else's enjoyment of the game. In other words, it's a straightforward violation of the 'don't be a dink' rule.

So in the other case where I know what your character is but I decide to complement his playstyle is not metagaming, but if I know what your character is but decide to hinder you is metagaming? That does not make logical sense.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-17, 03:56 PM
Paseo H, your point doesn't make sense.

Your latest argument about how thinking about what the best choice mechanically would be? It basically boils down to "if you're not rolling on a table with an equal chance of hitting everything on there with all options presented for all your choices, whether for race, class, feats, skills, or stats, you're metagaming. You rolled a half-orc wizard who put his lowest stat in intelligence by random chance? Tough it out, I don't care if you're a glorified commoner".

Sucrose
2011-10-17, 04:27 PM
So, Sucrose, your plan is to cling stubbornly to your point and deny when it has been refuted, eh? Fair enough, show me a tabletop game that requires no character creation or selection.

Also, I did not misspeak, it's not 'refuse to roll with the punches.' It's 'roll with the punches' exactly as I said.

You have not demonstrated any reason it would be refuted. I stated that character creation is a metagame that is necessary to play a roleplaying game. When you are creating a character, you are, by definition, not playing the role of the character, because the character does not yet exist. Ergo, the character creation is a game outside the game, a meta-game. I know that all games require that meta-game. In fact, that is why 'stern DMs' who try to force all metagaming out of the game, by definition, render the game unplayable.

And your statement was that the game was rendered unplayable by said stern DMs 'Only for spoiled, willful players who roll with the punches.' Therefore, the subset of players who are unable to play a game that removes the ability to play the meta-game of character creation is spoiled, willful players who roll with the punches, by your argument. This subset excludes spoiled, willful players who refuse to roll with the punches. Therefore, you were claiming that somehow spoiled, willful players who refuse to roll with the punches are able to play a roleplaying game without character creation. This claim is, shall we say, dubious.

Sucrose
2011-10-17, 04:37 PM
So in the other case where I know what your character is but I decide to complement his playstyle is not metagaming, but if I know what your character is but decide to hinder you is metagaming? That does not make logical sense.

Both of them are metagaming. Character creation, by definition, is metagaming. It's just that in one case, you are decreasing the enjoyment of others, and in the other, you are not. That is why one is acceptable and the other is not.

Anderlith
2011-10-17, 05:07 PM
Both of them are metagaming. Character creation, by definition, is metagaming. It's just that in one case, you are decreasing the enjoyment of others, and in the other, you are not. That is why one is acceptable and the other is not.

You totally missed my point. Headdesk

Hyudra
2011-10-17, 05:24 PM
Getting back on topic:

The silly character thing really gets to me. The ridiculous game thing does too, when it's not expected.

Silly character example: Half gnome, half copper dragon illusionist named Binky McGlimmerpants, or something like that. For a serious game. I turned that character sheet down.

Silly game example: Game concept is laid out; It's a short adventure arc where we're adventurers hired to deal with a dragon plaguing a village. Game starts and first thing that happens, right off the bat, is we get crapped on by said dragon. No save, we're just buried, literally, in dragon-doo. I quit within an hour.

Aside from the 'out there' character concepts (like Binky, above), there's also the overly common characters. I once had a game start in a tavern and five gloomy strangers each entered the room and sat alone in a dark corner to observe what went on. Square room. Does not compute.

Sucrose
2011-10-17, 05:27 PM
You totally missed my point. Headdesk

I think that you are missing mine. The entire process of character creation is a meta-game. So whether one sort of meta-gaming is more acceptable than another is determined by other factors, such as whether you are being a dink.

Kaun
2011-10-17, 05:28 PM
I once had a game start in a tavern and five gloomy strangers each entered the room and sat alone in a dark corner to observe what went on. Square room. Does not compute.

Yeah there seems to be a stage that most players go through where they want all their characters to fit into that mold, thankfully they generally grow out of it.

But some never do ...

Anderlith
2011-10-17, 07:07 PM
Metagame vs Non Metagame.

If I know of your character & I feel like making a character that solely compliments yours , for the purpose of complementing yours(a rogue/fighter tag team combo). Is that metagaming? What if I design a character strictly built to kill your character? Do you see where it starts to get hazy?

Sucrose, please read this again.:smallsigh: Now do you understand my point???

Heatwizard
2011-10-17, 07:30 PM
Guys, guys.


Only by choosing what you get without daring even the least regard for how they will benefit you in the future is it legitimate.

My finely tuned senses detect the forgotten eldritch magicks of Sarcasm.

Born from the ancient lands of Sarcasia, the Sarcasites led their troops into battle with deadly Sarcasmal barrages, burning away at their foe's self-esteem.

Jay R
2011-10-17, 09:08 PM
The point is, stern DMs have forbidden it entirely (and sternly), and speak of it as a four letter word, therefore all must follow suit.

If they are actually DMs, then they don't have to follow suit. The final authority at any game is the DM of that game, not any other.

"Metagaming" is not a well-defined term, and not all games are the same. Some aspects of metagaming are acceptable at some games but not others.

The DM who rules at my game is me, not those stern DMS. The DM in the game I'm playing is Dirk, not anybody else, stern or not.

FatJose
2011-10-17, 09:08 PM
Guys, guys.
My finely tuned senses detect the forgotten eldritch magicks of Sarcasm.
Born from the ancient lands of Sarcasia, the Sarcasites led their troops into battle with deadly Sarcasmal barrages, burning away at their foe's self-esteem.

Truly the most darkest and twisted forms of magic.

Mikeavelli
2011-10-17, 10:36 PM
Honestly, the two of you appear to have been agreeing with each other for the past page, all the while vehemently insisting that you are disagreeing with each other.

Which is something that gamers do a lot.

Well, it's something that people do a lot.

And that's one of those things that just irks me.

Claudius Maximus
2011-10-17, 10:36 PM
Sucrose, please read this again.:smallsigh: Now do you understand my point???

I seriously can not see how Sucrose has not addressed this perfectly several times by now.

Is this more of that Sarcasm I've been hearing about?

Anderlith
2011-10-17, 10:49 PM
I seriously can not see how Sucrose has not addressed this perfectly several times by now.

Is this more of that Sarcasm I've been hearing about?

Well first Sucrose missed my point entirely to discuss something else (PvP PC's) Then he thought I was going against his stance on the issue.

I'm just saying that character creation isn't metagaming. But you can metagame during character creation, & no matter what, it's going to be murky. Look at Traveller, every round you go through character gen, you are asked to generate more back story & to attach yourself to other characters. But then there is D&D which is just a collection options for what do you want to do once you start playing the game.

It's not sarcasm, but maybe defiant exasperation? (Is that even a thing? Well yes, because I said it!)

Dread Angel
2011-10-18, 06:40 AM
I absolutely hate it that a lot of my players over the last couple years absolutely refuse to think outside the box, and get really, really angry at me when they fail to figure it out in time.

Example 1 - they had gotten a pendant from the leader of a group of evil clerics. In the dungeons beneath their church, they find a HUGE room with a HUGE summoning circle, and a door that will not open on the other side. In a side room, they find a slot that looks like the pendant. Player A puts the pendant in, and when nothing happens, gives it a twist. It turns and locks into place, and the summoning circle starts glowing. He tries turning the pendant back, but since its locked in place till the summoning is finished, it doesnt work. So, it summons this HUGE demon that they just cannot hurt (which was the point..). At this point, the pendant could be turned back to unsummon the creature...and open the door. But instead they tried to fight the demon. They got battered around, and eventually tricked it into punching through the door, which they then ran through. No problem, XP all round for solving the puzzle in a creative manner...

...they asked me later what my solution was. I told them, and they immediately started howling that "how were we supposed to figure that out!"



Same group managed to get the whole party killed in one fell swoop by a very very simple trap. Large room. Nothing in it but two doors and a lever in a small recess in the wall. Rogue, of course, pulls the lever. Portcullises slam shut and the ceiling begins descending. They tried all sorts of stuff to stop it, ranging from simple to highly creative desperation, and they died. Why? Because nobody thought to.....pull the lever back up....-.-



I've got one guy who's managed to get the entirety of the D&D community here very unwilling to play with him for one reason. He NEVER. STOPS. COMPLAINING. EVER.

He fudges rules, interprets them wildly and loosely, and tries the best he can to break the game. Min-maxing doesn't even begin to describe it. I mean, making an effective character, sure. Focus on the use of a particular mechanic, like tripping, sure, of course.

Another thing he does is, he'll make the same damn character for every game, a Warlock with dragon-descendant stuff. And he will constantly have Fly on, Invisibility on, and NEVER EVER participate in combat or anything. And as soon as someone else does something cool, he bitches and whines that it shouldn't have been allowed because of X rule, page XX, subsection 3.54, sentence 21, word 3. And the character is always angsty and aloof.

Its pretty damn annoying. He's 22, an adult, and yet the 13-year-old we had for awhile played more maturely and creatively.

-.-

Hyudra
2011-10-18, 08:23 AM
I absolutely hate it that a lot of my players over the last couple years absolutely refuse to think outside the box, and get really, really angry at me when they fail to figure it out in time.

Example 1 - they had gotten a pendant from the leader of a group of evil clerics. In the dungeons beneath their church, they find a HUGE room with a HUGE summoning circle, and a door that will not open on the other side. In a side room, they find a slot that looks like the pendant. Player A puts the pendant in, and when nothing happens, gives it a twist. It turns and locks into place, and the summoning circle starts glowing. He tries turning the pendant back, but since its locked in place till the summoning is finished, it doesnt work. So, it summons this HUGE demon that they just cannot hurt (which was the point..). At this point, the pendant could be turned back to unsummon the creature...and open the door. But instead they tried to fight the demon. They got battered around, and eventually tricked it into punching through the door, which they then ran through. No problem, XP all round for solving the puzzle in a creative manner...

...they asked me later what my solution was. I told them, and they immediately started howling that "how were we supposed to figure that out!"


...

Same group managed to get the whole party killed in one fell swoop by a very very simple trap. Large room. Nothing in it but two doors and a lever in a small recess in the wall. Rogue, of course, pulls the lever. Portcullises slam shut and the ceiling begins descending. They tried all sorts of stuff to stop it, ranging from simple to highly creative desperation, and they died. Why? Because nobody thought to.....pull the lever back up....-.-

-.-

Can't tell if joke.

In case it isn't, be aware there's a specific subset of DM that is notorious for expecting players to read their minds and only allowing for that one solution to fix a problem. It doesn't matter if the answer is effectively easy, if it's one in 20 possible answers the players could be reasonably expected to try.

Rather than expecting X answer, try setting an obstacle in their path (ie. a moat filled with alligators, with treasure on the other side) and allowing them to come up with the solution, instead of deciding what the solution should be ahead of time. Better yet if you don't know what the solution should be, if the game doesn't grind to a half if they don't come up with one, and if you take the first reasonable answer they give.

Lord Il Palazzo
2011-10-18, 08:46 AM
Can't tell if joke.

In case it isn't, be aware there's a specific subset of DM that is notorious for expecting players to read their minds and only allowing for that one solution to fix a problem. It doesn't matter if the answer is effectively easy, if it's one in 20 possible answers the players could be reasonably expected to try.

Rather than expecting X answer, try setting an obstacle in their path (ie. a moat filled with alligators, with treasure on the other side) and allowing them to come up with the solution, instead of deciding what the solution should be ahead of time. Better yet if you don't know what the solution should be, if the game doesn't grind to a half if they don't come up with one, and if you take the first reasonable answer they give.Er, Dread Angel did say he (or she) let them get through the demon room by tricking the demon into punching through the door. It hardly seems like he (or she) demanded that the PCs read his (or her) mind for the One True Solution.

As for the room with the crusher ceiling, I can't say whether killing them was fair or not as "highly creative desperation" is a pretty vague description. I will say, however, that I don't see anything particularly wrong with pulling the lever again being the only way to stop the ceiling. Most players should be familiar with the idea of devices being both activated and deactivated by the same switch/button/lever. (I'm assuming here that at least one of Dread Angel's players has used a light switch at some point in their life.)

Paseo H
2011-10-18, 08:50 AM
Just remember, and I read this in another poster's blog recently:

Your players are not Sherlock Holmes.

Sucrose
2011-10-18, 08:57 AM
Well first Sucrose missed my point entirely to discuss something else (PvP PC's) Then he thought I was going against his stance on the issue.

I'm just saying that character creation isn't metagaming. But you can metagame during character creation, & no matter what, it's going to be murky. Look at Traveller, every round you go through character gen, you are asked to generate more back story & to attach yourself to other characters. But then there is D&D which is just a collection options for what do you want to do once you start playing the game.

It's not sarcasm, but maybe defiant exasperation? (Is that even a thing? Well yes, because I said it!)

Show me how character creation, a process that you cannot possibly replicate in-game, is not a metagame, a game outside the game.

I dealt with the point that you brought up. You tried to use two different character creation processes, one of which is objectionable and the other of which is not, in order to try to point out some sort of grey area between metagaming and not metagaming when creating characters. There is, only and always, metagaming, but some metagaming is acceptable, while other metagaming is not. Which metagaming is acceptable is based upon further rules of conduct, such as:
-Thou shalt make characters that can fit within the game world
-Thou shalt make characters within the rough power level of the group
-Thou shalt not deliberately antagonize another player

Hyudra
2011-10-18, 09:08 AM
Er, Dread Angel did say he (or she) let them get through the demon room by tricking the demon into punching through the door. It hardly seems like he (or she) demanded that the PCs read his (or her) mind for the One True Solution.

As for the room with the crusher ceiling, I can't say whether killing them was fair or not as "highly creative desperation" is a pretty vague description. I will say, however, that I don't see anything particularly wrong with pulling the lever again being the only way to stop the ceiling. Most players should be familiar with the idea of devices being both activated and deactivated by the same switch/button/lever. (I'm assuming here that at least one of Dread Angel's players has used a light switch at some point in their life.)

All I can say is that while such a DM style may work for some, it doesn't work for others, and it sounds like Dread Angel's players may be those others.

If I was in that game, and I was struggling to find answers to situations like that & getting TPKed when we couldn't, I'd be posting here about it as one thing 'that irks me'.

Choco
2011-10-18, 09:17 AM
Rather than expecting X answer, try setting an obstacle in their path (ie. a moat filled with alligators, with treasure on the other side) and allowing them to come up with the solution, instead of deciding what the solution should be ahead of time. Better yet if you don't know what the solution should be, if the game doesn't grind to a half if they don't come up with one, and if you take the first reasonable answer they give.

That's exactly how I do it, and it works out well enough. And ironically the players STILL think that I had "one ultimate solution" in mind when I threw the obstacles at them, despite me telling them repeatedly that I don't (they seriously think I'm lying...).

Though I HAVE done things like the "pull lever again to stop deathtrap" example before, but never for things that would outright kill the PC's unless they were being insanely stupid.

And while I'm here, something that irks me:

Players who assume that an encounter is impossible as soon as it gets to be challenging. These people basically can't tell the difference between a balanced fight and an overpowering curbstomp, and as soon as something puts up a decent fight they start speculating how they must have pissed me off, how they were not supposed to attack that thing, how they are supposed to lose this fight, etc. I wouldn't mind if they were just overly cautious in character and started talking about retreating, but the fact that they instantly start metagaming like that just irks me.

And on the flipside:

Players who assume that everything in the world exists for them to attack, and will suicidally attack even the most overpowering foes because since you placed them there, OBVIOUSLY they were meant to fight. And even after the "warning shot" almost wipes out the whole party, they are even more resolved to fight. Bonus points if they still haven't learned after the 5th TPK. I guess some people are stuck in the "video game world" mindset, where as long as you follow the normal progression everything in your immediate vicinity will always be level appropriate to you.

Lord Il Palazzo
2011-10-18, 09:19 AM
All I can say is that while such a DM style may work for some, it doesn't work for others, and it sounds like Dread Angel's players may be those others.Again, what makes you think Dread Angel has "such a DM style"? Clearly letting the players find another way out of the demon room indicated that he (or she) is completely inflexible.


If I was in that game, and I was struggling to find answers to situations like that & getting TPKed when we couldn't, I'd be posting here about it as one thing 'that irks me'.Again, the crusher room may have been a bit too much or it may not have. We know next to nothing about what the players tried, so it seems a little silly to call Dread Angel a bad DM, given that all we really know is that his (or her) players failed to check the single most obvious way to turn off something that's been turned on (i.e., pulling the lever back).

Personally, I would probably have let the players sweat for a while before calling for a wisdom check to have someone notice that they could still reach the switch, but then I'm rather averse to killing off characters.

Anderlith
2011-10-18, 09:20 AM
Show me how character creation, a process that you cannot possibly replicate in-game, is not a metagame, a game outside the game.

I dealt with the point that you brought up. You tried to use two different character creation processes, one of which is objectionable and the other of which is not, in order to try to point out some sort of grey area between metagaming and not metagaming when creating characters. There is, only and always, metagaming, but some metagaming is acceptable, while other metagaming is not. Which metagaming is acceptable is based upon further rules of conduct, such as:
-Thou shalt make characters that can fit within the game world
-Thou shalt make characters within the rough power level of the group
-Thou shalt not deliberately antagonize another player

Okay then, one last attempt to get you thinking in the right direction & then I"m done. If I create a level one human fighter that grew up in a generic small town & became a guard then decided to adventure, this is as deep as his backstory goes. I am NOT using anyone's game as a base line. I have created this guy & there is no game being played. Then six weeks from now I find a game. The DM accepts my fighter. Did I metagame?

Sucrose
2011-10-18, 09:26 AM
Okay then, one last attempt to get you thinking in the right direction & then I"m done. If I create a level one human fighter that grew up in a generic small town & became a guard then decided to adventure, this is as deep as his backstory goes. I am NOT using anyone's game as a base line. I have created this guy & there is no game being played. Then six weeks from now I find a game. The DM accepts my fighter. Did I metagame?

Yep. You played a game outside the game. Therefore, you metagamed. It saddens me that you honestly do not seem to know what metagaming is. Furthermore, by applying to the DM's game with said Fighter, you are making the implicit assumptions that he will be roughly balanced with the party, and that there will be small towns that can spring for training in heavy armor.

On-topic, a thing that irks me is a player who honestly believes any publisher's propaganda with respect to the strengths of their system, rather than analyzing it for themselves. Someone who thinks that Pathfinder leads to more balanced games than 3.5, or that 3.5 is particularly balanced in the first place, or that Exalted Solars really play like demigods immediately.

Lord Il Palazzo
2011-10-18, 09:33 AM
To elaborate on character creation as meta-gaming, using Anderlith's post as a basis. Let's say you've created a level 1 human fighter. Just to pick the class, you have used prexisting, out-of-character knowledge both of your own preferences and of the game itself. You may know that you prefer to play a fighter, or just enjoy it from time to time, or you may typically play a wizard and wanted a change of pace. You also know that fighter can (to whatever extent is applicable) be a viable character class to use, that it fills a necessary role in an adventuring party and that there will almost certainly be enough combat in the campaign to justify playing as a combat oriented character class. This is all out-of-character knowledge that you relied upon to create your character and that's just chooseing a class, never mind picking your race and feats, assigning skill points and the like.

Anderlith
2011-10-18, 09:34 AM
Yep. You played a game outside the game. Therefore, you metagamed. It saddens me that you honestly do not seem to know what metagaming is. Furthermore, by applying to the DM's game with said Fighter, you are making the implicit assumptions that he will be roughly balanced with the party, and that there will be small towns that can spring for training in heavy armor.

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.
In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon.

No, I know exactly what it is. Do you?

Sucrose
2011-10-18, 09:53 AM
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.
In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon.

No, I know exactly what it is. Do you?

Metagaming is broader than your in-game actions. For example, a Magic: The Gathering player designing his decks to be able to confront popular archetypes is metagaming, despite the fact that he's not even playing the game at that point, but preparing his deck for the opportunity to do so.

Similarly, a chess player who acts extravagantly in an attempt to set his opponent on edge, but otherwise plays the game normally, is metagaming.

Analogous situations, such as designing your characters together with the other players so that you have the archetypal roles acceptably covered, or so that you do not overshadow them, or do not have precisely mechanically identical characters, are metagaming.

By designing your Fighter character, you are assuming that you will be able to find a group that could find use for such a character. You are assuming that they will approve of your stat generation method. You are counting on out-of-game factors in your creation of a Fighter, and you are therefore metagaming. It does not matter if you have no game lined up at a particular time.

If you were designing this Fighter purely as a thought experiment, then it is possible that it would not be metagaming, applying with said character to the game would be. You would then be playing the Theoretical Optimization game, rather than Dungeons and Dragons. However, you were not making it as an exercise; you are making it with the assumption that it will eventually be played. Once you make that assumption, several out-of-game assumptions become evident.

For elaboration upon some of these out of game assumptions, see Lord Il Palazzo's post directly above yours.

Anderlith
2011-10-18, 10:18 AM
Well folks, it looks like we are all dirty metagamers because we assume gravity works, before we are told that gravity works!!! Surcose I am done. You are inventing your own definitions. Metagaming is when PLAYER KNOWLEDGE transcends CHARACTER KNOWLEDGE.

Sucrose
2011-10-18, 10:27 AM
Well folks, it looks like we are all dirty metagamers because we assume gravity works, before we are told that gravity works!!! Surcose I am done. You are inventing your own definitions. Metagaming is when PLAYER KNOWLEDGE transcends CHARACTER KNOWLEDGE.

Again you assume that metagaming is inevitably a deficiency.:smallsigh:

D&D is not always a dungeon crawl. If the campaign is one of diplomacy and intrigue, then the DM may feel that your Fighter wouldn't have anything to do. Maybe you've made a character too well-built for a campaign of newbies, or the DM is planning a Commoners game. Maybe you just used too many dice, or arranged them, and the DM wants 3d6 down the line.

Krazzman
2011-10-18, 10:41 AM
Well folks, it looks like we are all dirty metagamers because we assume gravity works, before we are told that gravity works!!! Surcose I am done. You are inventing your own definitions. Metagaming is when PLAYER KNOWLEDGE transcends CHARACTER KNOWLEDGE.

So you say: As long as it is common sense it's not metagaming?

Fine for you to be done. But with what? Did you finally realize how wrong you were these last two pages?

We have plenty of food in our 1st-World Economy, right? Let's assume you build a "fat" Wizard before reading through the setting. This means you assumed: That a) mages can get enough to eat, b) don't have any exercise and c) your character had enough money for it.

All Metagaming indicators. What if the DM starts with a campaign where all Mages have to have execise because their perfect mind has to be in a tolerable shaped body? Or the livestock isn't that good provided?

Metagaming begins with thinking about a character you could play in Campaign X and hopefully ends when you introduce your character at the table.

Totally Guy
2011-10-18, 11:00 AM
I think we need a topic about why metagaming is ace.

Mikeavelli
2011-10-18, 11:08 AM
Well folks, it looks like we are all dirty metagamers because we assume gravity works, before we are told that gravity works!!! Surcose I am done. You are inventing your own definitions. Metagaming is when PLAYER KNOWLEDGE transcends CHARACTER KNOWLEDGE.

Your definition of metagaming seems to be locked in the idea that it's intrinsically a bad thing, so any "good" or "normal" part of the game cannot be metagaming.

But, take a step back and look, character creation fits any reasonable definition of metagaming.

Anderlith
2011-10-18, 11:11 AM
So you say: As long as it is common sense it's not metagaming?

Fine for you to be done. But with what? Did you finally realize how wrong you were these last two pages?

We have plenty of food in our 1st-World Economy, right? Let's assume you build a "fat" Wizard before reading through the setting. This means you assumed: That a) mages can get enough to eat, b) don't have any exercise and c) your character had enough money for it.

All Metagaming indicators. What if the DM starts with a campaign where all Mages have to have execise because their perfect mind has to be in a tolerable shaped body? Or the livestock isn't that good provided?

Metagaming begins with thinking about a character you could play in Campaign X and hopefully ends when you introduce your character at the table.

My original point is that the difference between player knowledge & character knowledge is murky. You can make a character with no player knowledge of the world & as long as the DM excepts it, can you say you metagamed?

Sucrose
2011-10-18, 11:16 AM
So you say: As long as it is common sense it's not metagaming?

Fine for you to be done. But with what? Did you finally realize how wrong you were these last two pages?

We have plenty of food in our 1st-World Economy, right? Let's assume you build a "fat" Wizard before reading through the setting. This means you assumed: That a) mages can get enough to eat, b) don't have any exercise and c) your character had enough money for it.

All Metagaming indicators. What if the DM starts with a campaign where all Mages have to have execise because their perfect mind has to be in a tolerable shaped body? Or the livestock isn't that good provided?

Metagaming begins with thinking about a character you could play in Campaign X and hopefully ends when you introduce your character at the table.

Well, there's still a limited degree to which metagaming is useful even at the table. For example, Deciding to React Differently, as laid out in The Giant's article on Making Tough Decisions (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) is ultimately metagaming. You are deciding between two equally valid options per your character's personality, but you will never end with a 50:50 split in which way you act, because of issues that you are considering outside of the gameworld- namely, what would make a fun game for everyone else.

Similar cases can be made for deciding to follow plot hooks, and accepting new party members perhaps a bit more easily than one strictly has to.

In short, metagaming at the table is acceptable only when it increases net enjoyment for the others in the game. Those cases, however, may be more common than many think.

Traab
2011-10-18, 11:51 AM
/snip


At that point you should put those skill points you placed in 2 handed weapon mastery to good use by taking that phb in both hands, winding up, and smashing it into his nose. Dont throw it, use it as a bludgeoning device. Books suck for accuracy as thrown weapons. A nice hardover book can do massive damage in melee. This would have been the proper way to end the confrontation.

/dumbass bully shoves you over.

"Hold on a second mom"

/put down the phone, pick up the book.

"Outside of the room there is heard a mighty thud"

/pick the phone back up

"Sorry about that mom, had to handle some business. Whats that? You say you can hear someone crying like a little girl? Oh thats just some roleplaying going on. Yeah, he is really selling that girlish sobbing. Hope the Dm gives him some extra exp for the snot bubbles."

hewhosaysfish
2011-10-19, 07:13 AM
I will say, however, that I don't see anything particularly wrong with pulling the lever again being the only way to stop the ceiling. Most players should be familiar with the idea of devices being both activated and deactivated by the same switch/button/lever. (I'm assuming here that at least one of Dread Angel's players has used a light switch at some point in their life.)

I would assume that they used the light switch to switch on the light when they needed light to see by.
And when they no longer needed light to see by, they switched the light off using the same switch.
The light switch was made that way because the designers presumably foresaw these changing needs.

So why was the crushing ceiling trap designed that way? Was it specifically intended that curious adventurers/kobolds/children would trap themselves in it while the ceiling descended and then let themselves safely out again?

Or maybe it's not a trap at all: maybe it's an automatic bee-hive hairdo flattening device. Or an adjustable limbo-dancing corridor. Or, um.... that's all I've got...

Draconi Redfir
2011-10-19, 07:16 AM
I would assume that they used the light switch to switch on the light when they needed light to see by.
And when they no longer needed light to see by, they switched the light off using the same switch.
The light switch was made that way because the designers presumably foresaw these changing needs.

So why was the crushing ceiling trap designed that way? Was it specifically intended that curious adventurers/kobolds/children would trap themselves in it while the ceiling descended and then let themselves safely out again?

Or maybe it's not a trap at all: maybe it's an automatic bee-hive hairdo flattening device. Or an adjustable limbo-dancing corridor. Or, um.... that's all I've got...

Obviously the designers were just dumb:smallcool:

Seatbelt
2011-10-19, 07:45 AM
Burt Reynolds. He gets on my nerves.

Hyudra
2011-10-19, 08:44 AM
I would assume that they used the light switch to switch on the light when they needed light to see by.
And when they no longer needed light to see by, they switched the light off using the same switch.
The light switch was made that way because the designers presumably foresaw these changing needs.

So why was the crushing ceiling trap designed that way? Was it specifically intended that curious adventurers/kobolds/children would trap themselves in it while the ceiling descended and then let themselves safely out again?

Or maybe it's not a trap at all: maybe it's an automatic bee-hive hairdo flattening device. Or an adjustable limbo-dancing corridor. Or, um.... that's all I've got...

Yeah, it's just not a reasonable thing to expect, that the lever would reset the trap. Since it's not intuitive. A different lever might, but that's hardly the concern of the adventurers when the ceiling is falling.

Traps in general are sort of an irksome thing.

Mixt
2011-10-19, 08:54 AM
Maybe they were using reverse psychology?

"Hey, maybe pulling the lever again deactivates the trap?"
"Nah, too easy, that can't be it"
"Yeah, only an idiot would design a trap like that!"

And then the intruders are squashed.

Pretty clever actually, to place the solution right under their noses, making them think "Nah, that's way to easy, that can't be it" thus causing them to ignore the solution, resulting in their deaths.

Clearly, deactivating the trap could not possibly be that easy, there must be some hidden mechanism or something!

Traab
2011-10-19, 01:17 PM
Thats why randomly I make pulling the lever a second time doubles the speed of the trap. Now THAT causes paranoia! "Oh god, I cant figure out a way to stop this. We can pull the lever again and it might work, but if it doesnt itll cut our remaining time in half!"

Starbuck_II
2011-10-19, 01:24 PM
Maybe they were using reverse psychology?

"Hey, maybe pulling the lever again deactivates the trap?"
"Nah, too easy, that can't be it"
"Yeah, only an idiot would design a trap like that!"

And then the intruders are squashed.

Pretty clever actually, to place the solution right under their noses, making them think "Nah, that's way to easy, that can't be it" thus causing them to ignore the solution, resulting in their deaths.

Clearly, deactivating the trap could not possibly be that easy, there must be some hidden mechanism or something!

It makes sense in the: "my minions will get caught in my traps so I'll make things simple for them" thought.

I mean, traps are usually in either:
ancient dungeons no one lives in.
Evil mastermind's fortress

The ancient one might have had minions before being abandoned, and the Mastermind definately does.

Knaight
2011-10-19, 07:04 PM
Traps in general are sort of an irksome thing.

I'd make an exception for things like pits, ropes strung across corners designed to take people off horses, and similar things that actually make sense and actually saw some use historically, along with stuff in sci fi settings that react to intruders. Still, I much prefer ambushes anyways.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-19, 08:31 PM
Things that just irk me?

People irk me.

Nexaduro
2011-10-19, 08:46 PM
They always want to poke the dangerous objects, & feint childlike ignorance

I, regrettably, am this to some degree. My character is biologically twelve with a negative Wisdom modifier and some reality issues.:smalleek:

But honestly, even when the GM tells you to 'just run,' who wouldn't take that last Lightning Bolt fatality? It's not like a standard action while being carried makes you escape any slower.

On to my personal pet-peeves: Players who don't even bother making a Perception check to see their comrades getting mauled by [encounter], much less try to heal or assist them, and deign to just keep walking regardless of alignment.

JohnnyCancer
2011-10-20, 10:26 AM
I know people who've been with the hobby since the beginning, I know incredibly crusty, grognardriffic edition warriors; those people are fine. What irks me is the type who will insist that they've played in fifty million campaigns, all of which ran from apprentice level to godhood, all of which were beautiful and divinely inspired, run by a genius' genius and played by a crack team of elite badasses who were either coordinated to the point of precognition and telepathy or continually back-stabbed each other with no impact on their ability to win. Yet somehow, despite their vast recollection of every one of these millions of perfect campaigns, this ace can neither run anything particularly inspired, be bothered to play in any kind of a fashion that exceptionally helps the group, or even teach us mere mortals how to have these games of the gods.

hangedman1984
2011-10-20, 12:34 PM
Yet somehow, despite their vast recollection of every one of these millions of perfect campaigns, this ace can neither run anything particularly inspired, be bothered to play in any kind of a fashion that exceptionally helps the group, or even teach us mere mortals how to have these games of the gods.

I've played under that dm

Draconi Redfir
2011-10-20, 01:20 PM
I've played under that dm

Iíve been playing under his evil twin brother and his minions, the guy who sets a switch in a room, which when activated, triggers a trap in the hallway all the non-rogue party members were hiding in.

Or the grease-pit trap with hooks to grab onto your nose and gank you

Or the seven-foot hole which is really ten foot across and the remaining three feet are covered and hiding razor blades.

Needless to say we've learned a healthy dose of paranoia is good.

hewhosaysfish
2011-10-21, 07:14 AM
It makes sense in the: "my minions will get caught in my traps so I'll make things simple for them" thought.

But the only was to activate the trap is by pulling the Squash-You-Flat-Lever; any minion that get caught in the trap deserves to. (Unless the lever is confusingly mixed-in with a bunch of other levers, I guess...)

Dimers
2011-10-21, 11:04 AM
I once had a game start in a tavern and five gloomy strangers each entered the room and sat alone in a dark corner to observe what went on. Square room. Does not compute.

Maybe one or more were on flying chairs? Assuming a cubical room, there are eight corners, not four.

Traab
2011-10-21, 11:19 AM
Yeah, some taverns have a sort of indoor balcony for extra table space. 5th player obviously sat there and got a birds eye view of the whole place.

Anderlith
2011-10-21, 04:52 PM
Maybe one or more were on flying chairs? Assuming a cubical room, there are eight corners, not four.

Or a balcony. Just because it's D&D you don't always have to think with magic.:smallbiggrin:

Traab
2011-10-21, 06:14 PM
Or a balcony. Just because it's D&D you don't always have to think with magic.:smallbiggrin:

I ninjaed you so bad you still didnt notice! MWAHAHA!

Shadowknight12
2011-10-21, 06:18 PM
I ninjaed you so bad you still didnt notice! MWAHAHA!

The forums didn't show your post. Technically, you cheated. :smallamused:

Traab
2011-10-21, 06:19 PM
The forums didn't show your post. Technically, you cheated. :smallamused:

My post was there, it was just stealthy. LIKE A NINJA! /throws down a smoke bomb and vanishes

Dimers
2011-10-21, 06:59 PM
Things that irk me: ninjas in my D&D. See also, OOTS comic 23a (too stealthy for anyone to see online, apparently, so I hope you have the book).

Anderlith
2011-10-21, 07:23 PM
Things that irk me: ninjas in my D&D. See also, OOTS comic 23a (too stealthy for anyone to see online, apparently, so I hope you have the book).
Things that irk me; ninjas ninjaing me in my D&D related forums.


Touche' Ninja Traab

big teej
2011-10-21, 09:50 PM
DMs that won't let me play a psychic character and/or incarnate class....

or a goliath....

or a raptoran...

or an ork

or.....

gah! I'm sick of playing in standard stuff!!!! :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

Draconi Redfir
2011-10-22, 07:25 AM
DMs that won't let me play a psychic character and/or incarnate class....

or a goliath....

or a raptoran...

or an ork

or.....

gah! I'm sick of playing in standard stuff!!!! :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

Make a monsterous race that is poorly disguised as a human and don't tell him?:smallbiggrin:

Iceforge
2011-10-22, 08:17 AM
People who discuss things but cannot or will not settle a common definition of important words to the discussion prior to discussing it.

As demonstrated in this threat, where Anderlith and Sucrose has at length discussed a subject, but due to difference in definition of "meta-game" their discussion is entirely pointless.

Sucrose sticks to the actual definition of the word.
Anderlith only accepts the roleplay definition of the word coloured by his own position of metagaming being an exploitiative action and thus never a good thing, as evident by when he tried to define it.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-22, 08:56 AM
People who discuss things but cannot or will not settle a common definition of important words to the discussion prior to discussing it.

As demonstrated in this threat, where Anderlith and Sucrose has at length discussed a subject, but due to difference in definition of "meta-game" their discussion is entirely pointless.

Sucrose sticks to the actual definition of the word.
Anderlith only accepts the roleplay definition of the word coloured by his own position of metagaming being an exploitiative action and thus never a good thing, as evident by when he tried to define it.

Two can play that game! :smallbiggrin:

It irks me when people try to summarise an argument from an allegedly neutral standpoint, but a mere passing glance makes it obvious how heavily biased they are. Just like journalism! :smallwink:

The Glyphstone
2011-10-22, 08:59 AM
Great Modthulhu: It irks me when a thread is derailed along a topic of discussion that will get it locked and/or infractions handed out.

Hint hint.

Iceforge
2011-10-22, 10:02 AM
Two can play that game! :smallbiggrin:

It irks me when people try to summarise an argument from an allegedly neutral standpoint, but a mere passing glance makes it obvious how heavily biased they are. Just like journalism! :smallwink:

Yeah, I wasn't being neutral at all, if I came out as trying to be neutral, I apologize.

And it wasn't meant as an excuse to comment on their debate, it is really something that irk's me, as I have repeatedly experienced the same when trying to discuss subjects, and Im usually in Sucrose's position, so thats the one I empathized with

EDIT: And with that, im done with that subject, hope it is alright to reply to Shadowknight, mr. mod

starwoof
2011-10-22, 10:09 AM
It really irks me to no end when the DM refuses to give me at least a HINT as to what were fighting so I can pick a favored enemy that isn't worthless. I mean if they have a hatred of rangers they could just tell me not to play one. It amounts to the same thing.

Iceforge
2011-10-22, 10:11 AM
It really irks me to no end when the DM refuses to give me at least a HINT as to what were fighting so I can pick a favored enemy that isn't worthless. I mean if they have a hatred of rangers they could just tell me not to play one. It amounts to the same thing.

Uh, and from a DM perspective:

I hate how the rangers class feature can sometimes mean I either have to let a PC gimp himself by selecting in the blind (which is stupid, you got a very good point) or make me have to reveal things I am not intending to reveal yet.

Thats why I like improv games tho, I can always just make sure to include some of those favoured enemies at some point

starwoof
2011-10-22, 10:31 AM
Uh, and from a DM perspective:

I hate how the rangers class feature can sometimes mean I either have to let a PC gimp himself by selecting in the blind (which is stupid, you got a very good point) or make me have to reveal things I am not intending to reveal yet.

Thats why I like improv games tho, I can always just make sure to include some of those favoured enemies at some point

I like to give my players very broad strokes for what kind of enemies they face. It helps more than just the ranger when you say that, for example, Undead and Giants will feature prominently. Creature types are broad enough that, unless you're talking about humanoids or you are very predictable as a GM, they don't mean much when given without other information.

Iceforge
2011-10-22, 10:42 AM
I like to give my players very broad strokes for what kind of enemies they face. It helps more than just the ranger when you say that, for example, Undead and Giants will feature prominently. Creature types are broad enough that, unless you're talking about humanoids or you are very predictable as a GM, they don't mean much when given without other information.

Hence the qualifier "sometimes" :)

starwoof
2011-10-22, 10:56 AM
My favored enemy is qualifiers now. +2 to spot checks!

Zombimode
2011-10-22, 12:28 PM
It really irks me to no end when the DM refuses to give me at least a HINT as to what were fighting so I can pick a favored enemy that isn't worthless. I mean if they have a hatred of rangers they could just tell me not to play one. It amounts to the same thing.


Maybe he doesnt know yet. Or he cant without destroying the suspense.
Either way, when in doubt just take one of the staples: Humanoids (Human), Undead or Magical Beasts.
Those are fairly common in most campaigns.

big teej
2011-10-22, 01:11 PM
Make a monsterous race that is poorly disguised as a human and don't tell him?:smallbiggrin:

I'm too Lawful for that unfortunately :durkon:


Great Modthulhu: It irks me when a thread is derailed along a topic of discussion that will get it locked and/or infractions handed out.

Hint hint.

a very large part of me wants to add this to my signature soooo badly....


but then the rest of my brain reminds me that it probably wouldn't change anything. :smalltongue:




It really irks me to no end when the DM refuses to give me at least a HINT as to what were fighting so I can pick a favored enemy that isn't worthless. I mean if they have a hatred of rangers they could just tell me not to play one. It amounts to the same thing.

when I run into situations like that, the only time I interfere is if I know the picked creature will not be present in the campaign.

by the same token, I would warn a player if they played a sneak attack focused rogue, and I intend to run an undead campaign.

I would warn a player pumping his Turn Undead if he'd be lucky to see a deadite every 3 sessions.

I would warn a ranger if he picked something that WON'T show up.


but if the choice falls under the "it might, it might not" category..... I view that as taking a gamble on the class, and not my problem at all.

Anderlith
2011-10-22, 02:13 PM
My group goes with the favored terrain variant, it's a lot more forgiving (as long as you aren't plane hopping or on a world tour)

Earthwalker
2011-10-22, 02:47 PM
I like to give my players very broad strokes for what kind of enemies they face. It helps more than just the ranger when you say that, for example, Undead and Giants will feature prominently. Creature types are broad enough that, unless you're talking about humanoids or you are very predictable as a GM, they don't mean much when given without other information.

Oddly what favoured enemy you take changes the kind of monsters / foes you will encounter. When you pick a race you can bet that race is going to start taking a larger role in the campaign, or that would be the case in my games.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-22, 02:48 PM
when I run into situations like that, the only time I interfere is if I know the picked creature will not be present in the campaign.

by the same token, I would warn a player if they played a sneak attack focused rogue, and I intend to run an undead campaign.

I would warn a player pumping his Turn Undead if he'd be lucky to see a deadite every 3 sessions.

I would warn a ranger if he picked something that WON'T show up.


but if the choice falls under the "it might, it might not" category..... I view that as taking a gamble on the class, and not my problem at all.

The problem with that approach, even though it seems very fair at first glance, is that it encourages players to play T1 classes because they don't have a "might, might not" aspect to them. They can very easily end any encounter of any kind, without worrying about what it actually entails.

Niek
2011-10-22, 02:53 PM
When one is a narrativist GM, but some of the players are gamists dead-set on D&D as a system and insist on changing the setting to fit, rather than finding a system that better suits what the GM is trying to accomplish.

When player characters refuse to respect the authority or dignity of NPCs. In my group's latest session, they encountered some halfling miners who were apparently possessed by a magical statue. To capture them alive, the cleric bound them and stuck them in sacks. Then, once they had been removed from the mine, refused to let them out. When the foreman protested, the cleric then attempted to stuff him into a sack. The miners were only released the next day after the cleric dragged them the 6 hour journey back to their employer and dumped them on his doorstep.

On a related note, when players see their success as a foregone conclusion, and get frustrated whenever an NPC actually manages to stand up to them. An example from the above situation, the foreman managed to repeatedly resist the cleric's attempt to bag him, and the player acted incredulously and asked if I was fudging the dice.

Drekk
2011-10-25, 06:37 PM
What bugs me as a DM is when my players write into their backstories super powerful NPC's as their parents, or mentors, or whatever to try and gain a free Leadership feat/Get Out of Jail free card.

Lhurgyof
2011-10-25, 06:57 PM
What irks me?
When PC's expect ME as the DM to make up their back stories for them.
And when DM's do it in their games...

When players come up with rules that make sense to them, but aren't a part of the rules. (off hand attacks should add full strength! Hand-and-a-half weapons [What the hell are those, anyways?] should add 2x strength on damage!)

When people get pissy about psionics but are okay with wizards. PSIONICS ARE TEH BROKEN, PLAY SOMETHING ELSE! Especially when it's due to ignorance.

People who play Kender. Well, namely the ONE player in our group who plays a Kender. And roleplays them as griefing annoyances that we can't deal with because "it'd be evil".

Players who "protect" themselves using the DM and point fingers. "He can't steal from me or lie to me, that's EVIL, but it's okay for me to steal from him, I'm a Kender."

Players who make useless characters. On purpose:
"I'm a locksmith."
"Do you do anything? Why are you even adventuring with us then?"
"Well, if you'd rather I can go back to town."
:smallconfused:

People who try to super-optimize in a game full of unoptimizing players.

People who cheat! God damn, this pisses me off. We have a person who does it (same problem player that hides behind the DM and plays Kender). We have since been watching him and doing our best to keep the books off of the table.

People with poor hygiene. =\

People who play the same character over and over and over and over.



/rant :smalltongue:

Paseo H
2011-10-25, 06:57 PM
When one is a narrativist GM, but some of the players are gamists dead-set on D&D as a system and insist on changing the setting to fit, rather than finding a system that better suits what the GM is trying to accomplish.

When player characters refuse to respect the authority or dignity of NPCs. In my group's latest session, they encountered some halfling miners who were apparently possessed by a magical statue. To capture them alive, the cleric bound them and stuck them in sacks. Then, once they had been removed from the mine, refused to let them out. When the foreman protested, the cleric then attempted to stuff him into a sack. The miners were only released the next day after the cleric dragged them the 6 hour journey back to their employer and dumped them on his doorstep.

On a related note, when players see their success as a foregone conclusion, and get frustrated whenever an NPC actually manages to stand up to them. An example from the above situation, the foreman managed to repeatedly resist the cleric's attempt to bag him, and the player acted incredulously and asked if I was fudging the dice.

Well I can get behind respecting dignity, but what precisely do you mean by 'authority?' I know my feelings on the matter but I don't want to make false assumptions as to what you may mean by such a word.

Suffice to say, however, to quote Belkar:


I'm Chaotic.

EDIT: To avoid a doublepost, to the thing above about psionics...I dislike them simply because they make it too easy to figure out who all the bad guys are.

big teej
2011-10-25, 07:01 PM
The problem with that approach, even though it seems very fair at first glance, is that it encourages players to play T1 classes because they don't have a "might, might not" aspect to them. They can very easily end any encounter of any kind, without worrying about what it actually entails.

well.... given that my druid player is being out performed by our fighter, our paladin, our.......

well, everybody.

and our cleric knows to keep it toned down.


and that NOBODY else has thus far expressed interest in even tier 2/3 characters.


I'm gonna label this a "non-issue" for me.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-25, 08:49 PM
well.... given that my druid player is being out performed by our fighter, our paladin, our.......

well, everybody.

and our cleric knows to keep it toned down.


and that NOBODY else has thus far expressed interest in even tier 2/3 characters.


I'm gonna label this a "non-issue" for me.

Well... good for you?

The Glyphstone
2011-10-25, 09:08 PM
EDIT: To avoid a doublepost, to the thing above about psionics...I dislike them simply because they make it too easy to figure out who all the bad guys are.

I'd think it would make it harder. It's trivial for even a low-level Psion to manifest powers without a display, while a wizard who wants to cast spells unnoticed needs both Silent Spell and Still Spell, making it much harder to attack the PCs undetected from the middle of a crowd, for example.

Or if you mean using psionics instead of playing against them - casters get all the relevant divinations/enchantment equivalents at or before manifesters, and they get more and better divinations until you cap at 9ths with Hyperfaculty.

Silva Stormrage
2011-10-25, 09:19 PM
I'd think it would make it harder. It's trivial for even a low-level Psion to manifest powers without a display, while a wizard who wants to cast spells unnoticed needs both Silent Spell and Still Spell, making it much harder to attack the PCs undetected from the middle of a crowd, for example.

Or if you mean using psionics instead of playing against them - casters get all the relevant divinations/enchantment equivalents at or before manifesters, and they get more and better divinations until you cap at 9ths with Hyperfaculty.

Depending on how much the DM works with hypercognition it could also be better at divination. However, you are right contact other plane makes it easy to find out who the bad guys are and BoVD has a spell identify transgressor which basically answers any question such as "Who stole that artifact from the temple" or similar event.

Silus
2011-10-26, 09:54 AM
'Nother issue: Players that refuse to share OOC info on their character with other players.

You know, when you ask that one player "hey, how much HP you got left?" they give you that look and say something akin to "I'm not going to tell you". Now if the whole group is like that, that's fine, but when everyone else is sharing information, it causes problems (and headaches). I mean, if the cleric is asking you how much HP you have and you don't give him a definite answer, you're probably not getting healed.

Also, players that try to sneak things past the DM. Different from those that successfully do so. Same player in my group as above and in the OP tried to sneak a Phantasmal Killer spell past me when I DMed. The group ended up getting into a shouting match with the guy because the person he was casting it on (a fellow player) had this....thing that triggers a fire shield when an offensive spell is cast on them. Guy wouldn't say the name of the spell because it was OOC knowledge.

Seriously, nobody liked this guy. He was a jerk, a lousy player, a lousy DM and a creeper (Seriously. He called me "cute" once. No heterosexual guy should say that to another heterosexual guy).

Tyndmyr
2011-10-26, 11:35 AM
Optimization is metagaming, anyway.

Huh. Turns out, watching older wizards, it looks like Melf's Acid Arrow is less useful than Grease. I think I'm gonna learn Grease.

Also, those old dudes that focus on one spell for metamagic seem to be a lot better at it than other, less focused wizards. I'm gonna do my thesis on the most useful spell I can imagine.


The guy who writes about the campaign.. I don't mean a campaign journal no I mean what he thinks should have happened Ala fanfic. Especially the person who does this at the end of a campaign and goes out of his/her way to subvert all the notes you were willing to lend them because it does not go with their preconcieved notions or beliefs in how the setting works.... The Homebrew Setting YOU WROTE THE SETTING YOU WROTE THEIR QUESTIONING HOW IT WORKS AND SAYING NO TO IT!:smallfurious:
Yes this is actually happening the campaign has ended(2years or so ago) but the Fanfic continues somewhere out in the web.

Seriously? Why do you care?

If people elect to write things on the internet about a campaign I've finished years ago...kudos to them. It won't make the campaign any worse.

Shadowknight12
2011-10-26, 11:44 AM
Seriously? Why do you care?

Sums up the entirety of this thread.

Knaight
2011-10-26, 11:47 AM
Seriously? Why do you care?

If people elect to write things on the internet about a campaign I've finished years ago...kudos to them. It won't make the campaign any worse.

This has happened to me, and honestly? I was flattered. If people like my campaign so much they chronicle it then write fan fiction, it was clearly a massive success. Which, in this case, was probably caused by low standards, as I wouldn't call it a good campaign in retrospect.

Tyndmyr
2011-10-26, 02:49 PM
This has happened to me, and honestly? I was flattered. If people like my campaign so much they chronicle it then write fan fiction, it was clearly a massive success. Which, in this case, was probably caused by low standards, as I wouldn't call it a good campaign in retrospect.

Hey, still a win, imo. If players tell tales of my campaign, Im not gonna be worried about the details. Even if it just inspires a story, it's still a lot better than the campaign that just gets forgotten.

Hyudra
2011-10-26, 05:03 PM
Seriously? Why do you care?

If people elect to write things on the internet about a campaign I've finished years ago...kudos to them. It won't make the campaign any worse.

Just speaking for myself, I'd be 'irked' too. Especially when it's something you've worked on for tens or a hundred plus hours, it's kind of a slap in the face for someone to not only appropriate your work, but bastardize it, too.

Especially if they run in the same (online?) circles you do, and the setting/homebrew gets a bad rep because that someone else is taking it in a different direction.

Cannonsmack
2011-10-26, 08:10 PM
Things that irk me? Pff!

1) When every character one person plays is EXACTLY the same as their last, how can that be fun? Why would you do that, just sheer lack of creativity?

2) When people confuse player knowledge with character knowledge, I know this has been covered, but still... I. Hate. It.

3) When characters attempt to be infallible, again, how is this fun? How boring would an adventure be if a pc didn't get clubbed half to death on occasion? This especially angers me when I slyly pull a trap on a pc and they stand up and yell "WHAT?!?!? NU-UH?!?! UNFARE!!!" There goes my fun.

4) When characters have some contest with scores, if someone rolls low attributes, I might fudge some things in the game for them, besides, how stupid would it be if the barbarian had 18 int, no characters would be diverse, because someone wants to out-do the highest attribute, how do you think the lucky guy with good charisma feels then? Totally generic at that point, thats how! If everyone in the party wants high int because the first guy rolled a 16 and assigned it to intelligence, I try and restore balance to the game, maybe throw in a wizard that has ray of enfeeblement on that super-genius barbarian of yours.

Hyudra
2011-10-26, 11:03 PM
4) When characters have some contest with scores, if someone rolls low attributes, I might fudge some things in the game for them, besides, how stupid would it be if the barbarian had 18 int, no characters would be diverse, because someone wants to out-do the highest attribute, how do you think the lucky guy with good charisma feels then? Totally generic at that point, thats how! If everyone in the party wants high int because the first guy rolled a 16 and assigned it to intelligence, I try and restore balance to the game, maybe throw in a wizard that has ray of enfeeblement on that super-genius barbarian of yours.

I really hate DMs that insist on rolling for scores/HD. It absolutely kills the fun for me. To me, any amusement in getting good/bad rolls is vastly, vastly outweighed by the annoyance of having to alter my character concept to fit in multiple bad scores or wondering if my moment of awesome (or my fail comparative to the rest of the party) is because of ability score differences.

Doesn't help that I always roll terribly. I once had a DM, Mr. "I never use point buy. Never." give me a pass and let me use point buy after I rolled ability scores no less than six times, getting an average ability score of 10 or less each time. Every other person in the party had 2-3 scores above sixteen, prior to racial adjustments. That was with drop lowest.

Same applies to a lesser degree to HD.

So yeah. Long term character success/failure hinging on 2 minutes of dice rolling? Blah.

Anderlith
2011-10-27, 12:27 AM
I really hate DMs that insist on rolling for scores/HD. It absolutely kills the fun for me. To me, any amusement in getting good/bad rolls is vastly, vastly outweighed by the annoyance of having to alter my character concept to fit in multiple bad scores or wondering if my moment of awesome (or my fail comparative to the rest of the party) is because of ability score differences.

Doesn't help that I always roll terribly. I once had a DM, Mr. "I never use point buy. Never." give me a pass and let me use point buy after I rolled ability scores no less than six times, getting an average ability score of 10 or less each time. Every other person in the party had 2-3 scores above sixteen, prior to racial adjustments. That was with drop lowest.

Same applies to a lesser degree to HD.

So yeah. Long term character success/failure hinging on 2 minutes of dice rolling? Blah.Is this with your dice or all dice in general? Cause that seems to be a big problem.