PDA

View Full Version : The GM's Banes



Grinner
2012-08-06, 12:23 AM
GMs often have to put up with a lot of shenanigans from their players, whether those players realize it or not. So GMs, air what ails you here.

For me:

The Modern Group - It seems like three out of every five players in a modern era-set game want characters with military, ex-military, or law enforcement backgrounds. The appeal seems obvious. They've got guns; they're the modern badasses. But c'mon, really? I don't always want to run a game of psychopaths traveling the country with heavy weapons in hand.

Malak'ai
2012-08-06, 12:47 AM
I have two.

Players who have RL personal knowledge of something (eg; Architecture), even though you HAVE TOLD THEM that their knowledge check has revealed something but you are unsure of what, because their off the wall question has gone well beyond what you had researched and deemed an apppropriate amount of info, as YOU don't have the personal knowledge and that you'll need some time to look into it, expect the answer right then and there and derail the game as they b*@#h and moan because they want the info.

Players who sit there and argue that you can use a skill/feat/spell to do X even though you've held the rulebook in front of their face, pointing out EXACTLY what you ARE able to do with said skill/feat/spell and EXACTLY what you CAN'T.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-06, 12:58 AM
Players that whine about you not using kid gloves. I don't even own a pair of kid gloves. If you do something stupid in my game, it's gonna hurt, so stop doing stupid things and quit whining.

Wow...... that was kind of hostile..... :smallredface:

Grinner
2012-08-06, 01:24 AM
Wow...... that was kind of hostile..... :smallredface:

That's alright. :smallsmile:

The purpose of this thread is twofold: catharsis and public education.

Menteith
2012-08-06, 01:33 AM
Out of character problems have always been far more concerning to me that in game ones. I can deal with a person who plays anachronistic characters, or who steals everything that isn't nailed down in game, or who wants to burn down the city because they think it's funny (or whatever crazy, evil thing you can think of). I have a much harder time dealing with people who are hours late, who threaten or demean other players, or who do that crazy, evil stuff IRL (like trying to steal someone's iPhone and being hurt when the group won't game with you anymore).

Sidmen
2012-08-06, 01:39 AM
For Me:

Modern games: I don't like the modern world - its rigid, boring and everything everyone does is videotaped all the time. I can't stand it when someone asks me to run them a modern game - because I end up doing it, then constantly bash my head against the wall when my immersion is broken every second I don't descend on them with 100 SWAT officers to arrest them.

Morithias
2012-08-06, 01:43 AM
Players who play campaign settings like other campaign settings that have major differences. Yes I know people above level 5 in Eberron are rare, but this is World 1, where the average level of an NPC is 10, stop trying to intimidate the shopkeepers.

Hell one guy in a PbP tried to intimidate Recette into giving a better deal...needless to say the 20 other adventuring parties in her Wal-mart style store all intimidated him when she started to 'cry'.

Never assume you can beat up the NPCs in my setting, unless you're around level 15 you might lose, and even if you win, adventurers are so common you'll likely have a bounty on your head (the villains you can fight all you want, just stop threatening the bartenders and blacksmiths).

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-06, 02:14 AM
Out of character problems have always been far more concerning to me that in game ones. I can deal with a person who plays anachronistic characters, or who steals everything that isn't nailed down in game, or who wants to burn down the city because they think it's funny (or whatever crazy, evil thing you can think of). I have a much harder time dealing with people who are hours late, who threaten or demean other players, or who do that crazy, evil stuff IRL (like trying to steal someone's iPhone and being hurt when the group won't game with you anymore).

Those things are infuriating. Though I tend to get physical when someone tries to steal from me.

Tridax
2012-08-06, 02:39 AM
Oh I have one, heh. His character is evil-aligned and I think some of you guys know what happens when such a character travels with good-aligned.

'What, I can't pee into this chest with the mayors body inside?! What kind of roleplay is it?!

In the end everyone were tired struggling and allowed him to do that. I think in three encounters after that monsters were strangely focusing him.
Well he still lived.

Marlowe
2012-08-06, 02:44 AM
I have two.

Players who have RL personal knowledge of something (eg; Architecture), even though you HAVE TOLD THEM that their knowledge check has revealed something but you are unsure of what, because their off the wall question has gone well beyond what you had researched and deemed an apppropriate amount of info, as YOU don't have the personal knowledge and that you'll need some time to look into it, expect the answer right then and there and derail the game as they b*@#h and moan because they want the info.

Players who sit there and argue that you can use a skill/feat/spell to do X even though you've held the rulebook in front of their face, pointing out EXACTLY what you ARE able to do with said skill/feat/spell and EXACTLY what you CAN'T.

Hey! I resemble one of those remarks!:smallbiggrin:

NichG
2012-08-06, 02:45 AM
Since there have already been threads like 'problem players', what if we consider a 'bane' in particular to be a general type of behavior or tactic that interferes directly with the quality of the game the GM is able to provide? I think its a useful distinction in that it may not even be something annoying or that the GM personally disapproves of or even any kind of misconduct at all, but it tends to damage the game somehow. For instance:

- Prescient players: Someone who guess the next ten games of plot arc based on the fact that a guy in the tavern had two lines of description instead of just one, and had a moustache. This isn't bad play (it can come from metagaming, but it can also just be a clever player). However it does remove a lot of mystery solving, clue-finding, and discovery from the rest of the table that otherwise would have been in (or it forces the GM to try to salvage by introducing arbitrary twists that strain credulity and penalize the cleverness of the player).

- Long-lived Misconception: When a player mishears or misunderstands something and then cannot let it go (they may not even say anything until much later, or realize that something is wrong). I had a player do a 4-hour long downtime in which he infiltrated a castle, disrupted the nobility, manipulated the Inquisition and had several people jailed all so he could have a meeting with the ruler and ask her why she was going to go to war with another particular country. The problem? He had gotten two countries with similar names mixed up. He never mentioned that this was his plan (and there was a plausible reason for him to want to infiltrate the other country, so I didn't catch it either), so when he finally asked the queen 'why are you going to invade' I was kind of flabbergasted (and so was she).

- Inconsistency Spotter: Another positive behavior that is a GM's bane. This is the guy who is better at keeping track of your setting than you are, and figures out that this or that thing couldn't've happened, or shouldn't've gone the way it did or whatever because of some detail you forgot. This can derail game into a flurry of retcons, lead the GM to waste time trying to figure out how to explain away the inconsistency, or just degrade the immersion a little as the GM has to say 'whoops, just ignore that'.

- Habitual PvPer: This needn't be actual combat. Some players come from a background of competitive games, some players are just jerks, whatever. For these players, they like to antagonize other PCs: anything from plotting against them to outright attacks. In a game that is supposed to be somewhat competitive, this is fine. When it suddenly comes out of the woodwork in a game thats supposedly cooperative, it can tear things asunder.

- Party Splitter: The GM has one brain - running for one group is hard enough. Trying to multitask and run two separate interwoven scenes is hard. The party splitter could be the guy who goes off and scouts alone (could be reasonable or attention hogging, depending on context), the guy who goes off and does something else in town while the rest of the party is together (reasonable usually), or in very very bad cases the guy who sends his familiar to do X, his animal companion to do Y, his summoned monster to do Z while he goes and does W and the party does Q or whatever.

- The Fluctuating Optimizer: Its important for a GM to have some idea of the party's combined and also relative power level. Sometimes there's someone who's a good optimizer but holds back, then at some point decides not to hold back anymore (I've been this person, so I can't be too acrid here). The result is that suddenly the game goes out of whack for a few sessions as this guy dominates fights or situations all of a sudden (this can start an arms race with other players, who start to pull out the cheese to keep up, or it can make them feel useless, or whatever). This is different than someone with a consistent optimization skill, in which case the DM can plan for that and help the other players out if they're behind. In this case, the optimizer might appear behind (and receive balancing considerations) until he suddenly jumps out in front.

- Missing the Theme: Campaigns usually try to have some kind of theme (it might be as simple as 'kill things and take their stuff', or something like 'steampunk', 'post apocalyptic', etc). Sometimes a player either doesn't understand the theme, the theme wasn't clearly stated, or the player just doesn't care. The end result: their character not only doesn't fit the theme, but may force the setting to change in fundamental ways to allow for their existence. This can damage the quality of the game that the GM is able to provide, as it forces things to become inconsistent in perhaps glaring ways.

Marlowe
2012-08-06, 02:49 AM
Players who seem to start with assumptions about what's going on, and seem to put anything you say that doesn't fit in with it down to a mistake on your part.

Players that don't ask obvious questions of the people that are plainly there mainly to provide them with information, then run around in circles because they don't have this basic information.

JetThomasBoat
2012-08-06, 03:38 AM
I have a few. To start with, I'll say that I'm not a very experienced DM. I don't much care for DMing, as every campaign I try to start just to get a feel for everything usually falls apart within two or three sessions and I never learn anything.

The first problem relates to this. Due to my group being scattered to the winds, any time I get to run a game, it's always some new people and then the guy who's been playing D&D about a month longer than me (so he's played for ten years and one month, as opposed to ten years). What happens every time is that the veteran who's been with me this whole time ends up making this complicated character that's a lot more powerful than the other characters. Not only does this usually make the new people feel useless, but it kind of messes with what I want to do with the game. Like say they use some combo that involves some evocation spells. I see some obvious solutions, throwing them up against stuff with really high reflex saves and evasion and spell resistance or immunity, but my campaign had some semblance of story and that story wasn't to have the PCs fighting nothing but drow rogues and their golem army.

Another one for me happens when I try to run a published campaign setting. I don't want to start every campaign with them being old friends setting out from a bar to go on an adventure, only to quickly remember that their personalities and alignments make them hate each other. I want to have it be something interesting with story and so I would like them to put the barest thought into their back story. I'm not looking for them to know that the people of High Netheril in Forgotten Realms spoke Lorass or that in Eberron, the oldest druidic traditions were taught to the orcs by a black dragon. I just want for them to think about it a little bit. If they want to be a ninja in Forgotten Realms, they should come from...that country near Thay with the Shou in it (I forgot what it was called, to be honest) and not be someone who's never left IceWind Dale. Or in Eberron, if they're a druid, maybe have them NOT be from Sharn.

Last, I don't like it when the people I always used to play with would turn down a somewhat reasonable, if odd, request, then expect me to let them do what the hell ever in my campaigns. Like this one friend of mine, he was all about elaborate combinations of classes and PrCs, like one time he played a half-giant scout/psion/elocator. Which I get what he was trying to do with it, but it was impractical in a story sense, like the character's background was either stupid or non-existent, and on the other hand, he missed like at least fifty percent of the time, so it wasn't nearly as effective as the other characters. And then like the next time he was DM, he wouldn't let me duel wield tridents. He wanted me to come up with some really good story idea for it. And for why I was going to take the feat Close-Quarters Fighting (which, being honest, was because he was fond of monks and although they never grappled terrible well when he used them as a PC, I didn't want his luck to change).

After this, the next time I was DM, he picked to play the battle dancer from the Dragon Compendium. I was like "...sweet, dude."

Malak'ai
2012-08-06, 04:29 AM
Hey! I resemble one of those remarks!:smallbiggrin:

You resemble both to some degree dude :smalltongue:, but you at least know the rules, you just try to think of out of the box uses for them, explain your case then leave it to the DM to decided... NOT like one of the other people we play with **cough** G **cough**
And in regards to the knowledge, you let the DM have the chance to look things up and you don't keep whinging and moaning if they can't quote a whole textbook on the subject from memory **cough** G **cough**


Players who seem to start with assumptions about what's going on, and seem to put anything you say that doesn't fit in with it down to a mistake on your part.

**cough** G and D**cough**


Players that don't ask obvious questions of the people that are plainly there mainly to provide them with information, then run around in circles because they don't have this basic information.

**cough** G **cough**

... I should really get something for that cough... :smallamused::smalltongue:.

valadil
2012-08-06, 05:20 AM
Warm body. By which I mean the player who shows up and expects you to be the entertainment, providing no entertainment of he own. RPGs are collaborative. I want to see what story comes out when a half dozen imaginations collide. If I'm the only one imagining and my players just mod and smile I might as well just write a novel.

The Boz
2012-08-06, 06:18 AM
Anime ears.
Anime hair.
Anime guns.
Anime swords.
Anime angst.
Anime names.
The funny thing is, I actually like anime. But good god, the players are insufferable.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-08-06, 06:31 AM
- Missing the Theme: Campaigns usually try to have some kind of theme (it might be as simple as 'kill things and take their stuff', or something like 'steampunk', 'post apocalyptic', etc). Sometimes a player either doesn't understand the theme, the theme wasn't clearly stated, or the player just doesn't care. The end result: their character not only doesn't fit the theme, but may force the setting to change in fundamental ways to allow for their existence. This can damage the quality of the game that the GM is able to provide, as it forces things to become inconsistent in perhaps glaring ways.

I'm already running into this problem big time trying to run a game for a new group: I say "Okay guys, we're going to be running a cyberpunk campaign. Be back with your characters on Saturday." Note we all talked about what genre they wanted to play and cyberpunk is what all four of them agreed on.

3 out of 4 of them show up with Stone Age hunter-gatherer characters, two of which don't even speak the native language of the city the campaign is going to take place in. What the hell?


The funny thing is, I actually like anime. But good god, the players are insufferable.

A hot-headed 16 year old boy with spiky blue hair and who is the general of his nation's army regardless of his complete lack of experience. He uses a giant sword even though everyone else in the setting uses guns. He can't go two minutes without complaining about how much he wishes he could get girls to like him, yet he's completely oblivious to the harem of desperate girls who follow him around like lost puppies and fight over him constantly.

Everything annoying about anime protagonists wrapped up into a single character! It all really stems from that horrifically dissonant combination of wish fulfillment along with trying to make the character relate-able to a target audience of pre-teen boys.

DigoDragon
2012-08-06, 07:29 AM
Players who seem to start with assumptions about what's going on, and seem to put anything you say that doesn't fit in with it down to a mistake on your part.

THIS. Oh so much.

Currently another member of my RP group took up the GMing mantle and is running a generic "Justice League" heroics game using the GURPS system. My wife created a time traveler loosely based on the character of "River Song" from the TV series Dr. Who.
One of our players won't stop making Dr. Who references because he doesn't understand that "loosely based on" isn't the same as "directly copied". :smallannoyed:

Got worse when the team had a small magical unicorn join the party.

Grail
2012-08-06, 07:54 AM
I dislike it when players won't try something new, whether it be a character class, game concept, setting, system.

I also hate it when players decide to kill off their own character so they can get a new one.

Marlowe
2012-08-06, 08:01 AM
A hot-headed 16 year old boy with spiky blue hair and who is the general of his nation's army regardless of his complete lack of experience. He uses a giant sword even though everyone else in the setting uses guns. He can't go two minutes without complaining about how much he wishes he could get girls to like him, yet he's completely oblivious to the harem of desperate girls who follow him around like lost puppies and fight over him constantly.

Everything annoying about anime protagonists wrapped up into a single character! It all really stems from that horrifically dissonant combination of wish fulfillment along with trying to make the character relate-able to a target audience of pre-teen boys.

Ooo ooo! People who say "anime" and mean "shonen".:smallbiggrin:

Malak'ai
2012-08-06, 08:34 AM
I dislike it when players won't try something new, whether it be a character class, game concept, setting, system.

I also hate it when players decide to kill off their own character so they can get a new one.

"But it works!"
**Throws book at player**

Yora
2012-08-06, 08:48 AM
I hate it when players start putting each other in a frenzy about the cool character builds they should be making right before I am starting to explain the settig restrictions on races and classes.
I could write it down in advance, but I never have seen any player in my 15 years of GMing who had read any background material I provided.

Knaight
2012-08-06, 09:04 AM
- Prescient players: Someone who guess the next ten games of plot arc based on the fact that a guy in the tavern had two lines of description instead of just one, and had a moustache. This isn't bad play (it can come from metagaming, but it can also just be a clever player). However it does remove a lot of mystery solving, clue-finding, and discovery from the rest of the table that otherwise would have been in (or it forces the GM to try to salvage by introducing arbitrary twists that strain credulity and penalize the cleverness of the player).

- Inconsistency Spotter: Another positive behavior that is a GM's bane. This is the guy who is better at keeping track of your setting than you are, and figures out that this or that thing couldn't've happened, or shouldn't've gone the way it did or whatever because of some detail you forgot. This can derail game into a flurry of retcons, lead the GM to waste time trying to figure out how to explain away the inconsistency, or just degrade the immersion a little as the GM has to say 'whoops, just ignore that'.
I want more of these. I have a bad habit of letting everything get way too convoluted, and having players able to pick up on a few of the layers of background I've got going behind things tends to make things interesting. Similarly, being able to improvise up entire new bits that patch holes and tie into the rest of what is going on making a setting deeper depends on these holes being poked, and I absolutely love that. As an improvisational GM who likes the challenge of keeping a good setting going with good characters in it in the face of clever players, these sound downright heavenly.

Alas, as is I have the opposite problem - baby bird players. The sort who sit there, waiting for the game to be spoon fed to them, utterly reactive and not very creative in their reactions. This does tend to fade with particular groups, and there are a few in which the players are very proactive, but the baby bird mentality is infuriating. My GMing style depends on the players pushing the game forward, and when I have to drag the game it suffers. I can process lots of information coming in at once, sort it into place, and invent when needed. Staying focused while waiting for a group that demands railroading to notice the rails? That's significantly harder.


- Party Splitter: The GM has one brain - running for one group is hard enough. Trying to multitask and run two separate interwoven scenes is hard. The party splitter could be the guy who goes off and scouts alone (could be reasonable or attention hogging, depending on context), the guy who goes off and does something else in town while the rest of the party is together (reasonable usually), or in very very bad cases the guy who sends his familiar to do X, his animal companion to do Y, his summoned monster to do Z while he goes and does W and the party does Q or whatever.
I love split parties. GMing multiple groups keeps one thinking, as it adds spotlight balancing and forces more attention on scene use than whole party action. As long as one is thinking and racing to keep up, the improvisation flows well, and the game is fun. To use a juggling analogy: when I'm trying to keep a bunch of balls in the air, they will stay in the air. When there is only one ball, eventually I'll forget about holding it and it will roll out of my hand.

Rallicus
2012-08-06, 09:08 AM
Players who literally write out their proposed character builds when their characters are low level. I get that they're probably trying to give me an opportunity to see if anything is overpowered and needs tweaking, but it still bothers me.

Players that whine and argue over the rules, specifically 3.5e. I don't think I'll ever run a 3.5e game online again, simply because I had to break up petty arguments constantly in my online group. Always willing to DM in real life though.

Players who try to fight no matter what. If it's that character's nature to be stubborn until the very end, fine. But if ALL your characters are doing this and then you go on to complain about them dying... seriously, screw you.

Players who come late and then complain about not getting the same rewards as the players who came on time.

Believe it or not, I had a player that fit into every single one of these. As you can probably guess, I don't miss them one bit.

Yora
2012-08-06, 09:09 AM
Anime ears.
Anime hair.
Anime guns.
Anime swords.
Anime angst.
Anime names.
The funny thing is, I actually like anime. But good god, the players are insufferable.
What seems to be the problem here?
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c7bd2CRa1rud7mxo1_1280.jpg

http://littledailyprophet.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/seirei-no-moribito-03avi_000235443.jpg

http://www.shamefulotakusecret.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/druaga_03.jpg

http://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire2/1cf7aec8402e9c43e5c5bb0c95a667be1225174362_full.jp g

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c6q4tL7i1rud7mxo1_500.png

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c6m1ZppR1rud7mxo1_1280.jpg

Analytica
2012-08-06, 09:13 AM
What seems to be the problem here?
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c7bd2CRa1rud7mxo1_1280.jpg

http://littledailyprophet.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/seirei-no-moribito-03avi_000235443.jpg

http://www.shamefulotakusecret.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/druaga_03.jpg

http://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire2/1cf7aec8402e9c43e5c5bb0c95a667be1225174362_full.jp g

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c6q4tL7i1rud7mxo1_500.png

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c6m1ZppR1rud7mxo1_1280.jpg

What works are pics 3-5 from?

Yora
2012-08-06, 09:26 AM
#3 is Tower of Druaga, which actually is a shonen series that just has a more realistic art style. There's also a tiny girl with a giant bow in her hair who carries the wizards golfbag of magic wands (http://i.imgur.com/pXUJW.jpg). But for shonen anime it is very tame and almost manages to get into the "serious" category.
Except the first episode! That one is pure parodie. No clue why they put at at the beginning and not the end.

#4 is Rune Soldier, which is straight unapologetic comedy. Like Slayers.

#5 is actually from a PS3 game Valkyria Chronicles, but it has 100% anime style graphics and there also is an anime. And that's also the only female character with a cool uniform. The others are more like (http://www.zomgwtf.net/RandomPicturesNstuff/valkyria/rosie.jpg) this (http://www.videogamegirlsdb.com/Images/Valkyria_Chronicles/Selvaria_Bles/Selvaria_Bles_Valkyria_Chronicles_02.jpg).

Yeah, my argument wasn't really that strong. But at least visually and in terms of power, anime characters don't HAVE to be as awful as american superhero comic characters. :smalltongue:

only1doug
2012-08-06, 09:28 AM
GMs often have to put up with a lot of shenanigans from their players, whether those players realize it or not. So GMs, air what ails you here.

For me:

The Modern Group - It seems like three out of every five players in a modern era-set game want characters with military, ex-military, or law enforcement backgrounds. The appeal seems obvious. They've got guns; they're the modern badasses. But c'mon, really? I don't always want to run a game of psychopaths traveling the country with heavy weapons in hand.

The one and only time I made up a D20 modern character... He was a show magician / escapologist type, social skills, disguise, you name it (but no combat skills, I thought I'd be able to start as a mostly non-combatant and work them in gradually).... Then we started play and it turned out to be a zombie game... (warn us first T!)


On Topic:
My group suffers from one player who is mainly interested in combat, if there is a puzzle / social / whatever non-combat section then she isn't interested and will get bored.

Amphetryon
2012-08-06, 09:37 AM
The player who actively fights against and complains about any plot arc tooth and nail - including the plot arc caused by said player's actions.

Yora
2012-08-06, 09:45 AM
I also hate it when players decide to kill off their own character so they can get a new one.
Why don't you allow them to make a new one in other ways?

The Boz
2012-08-06, 10:07 AM
Ooo ooo! People who say "anime" and mean "shonen".:smallbiggrin:

Ooo ooo! People who correct others for using a set instead of a subset. :smallbiggrin:

Water_Bear
2012-08-06, 10:18 AM
Most of the previous responses make me thank my lucky d20 I've never had to deal with people that bad. Still, I have some personal banes;

The Curse of the Stupid Character Concept
When the Player has a really obnoxious character concept which they will. not. let. go. of. Once I ran a political intrigue game about oppression and revolution... and one of the PCs was a Githyanki Druid.

This goes double for anyone who wants to play a cat-girl, ever.

Son of Lack of Social Skills
As a DM you are running a game primarily for nerds; that's pretty much a given. But there always seems to be the one guy who goes above and beyond making everything super awkward. It's especially bad when there are women in the group; how hard is it to keep the creepy under control for a three hour game?

Revenge of the Cliche!
I don't care that much if your Paladin/Crusader has a Japanese name starting with Raiden in a Greek-inspired country. I also don't really care if he's 15 and already an expert with a bastard sword (which you call a katana). Or if he has a terminally-cute loli sister tied into his tragic backstory.

Wait, did I say I don't care? I meant stop this immediately.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-08-06, 10:28 AM
Ooo ooo! People who say "anime" and mean "shonen".:smallbiggrin:

EVERYBODY knows that the only animes that are ever produced are Shonen and the really, really creepy borderline-pornographic stuff like Highschool of the Dead, Beserk, and Legend of the Galactic Heroes. And the protagonists in the creepy stuff tend to act just like Shonen protagonists most of the time anyway. Everything else is stuck in Manga form.

NichG
2012-08-06, 11:41 AM
I want more of these. I have a bad habit of letting everything get way too convoluted, and having players able to pick up on a few of the layers of background I've got going behind things tends to make things interesting. Similarly, being able to improvise up entire new bits that patch holes and tie into the rest of what is going on making a setting deeper depends on these holes being poked, and I absolutely love that. As an improvisational GM who likes the challenge of keeping a good setting going with good characters in it in the face of clever players, these sound downright heavenly.

Alas, as is I have the opposite problem - baby bird players. The sort who sit there, waiting for the game to be spoon fed to them, utterly reactive and not very creative in their reactions. This does tend to fade with particular groups, and there are a few in which the players are very proactive, but the baby bird mentality is infuriating. My GMing style depends on the players pushing the game forward, and when I have to drag the game it suffers. I can process lots of information coming in at once, sort it into place, and invent when needed. Staying focused while waiting for a group that demands railroading to notice the rails? That's significantly harder.


Highly proactive players certainly exists. Actually, the best way to find this type is to recruit players from a pool of GMs, especially GMs whose games threw you for a loop. I like proactive players, but if you have any more laidback players you want proactive players who are 'nice people' and will try to get the others involved, rather than proactive players who leave everyone else in the dust. I'm fortunate to have a very helpful proactive player who very actively helps the other players and pulls them in, but if he didn't do that he would utterly break the group if I wasn't careful.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-06, 12:30 PM
I never have seen any player in my 15 years of GMing who had read any background material I provided.

I usually read through it, if it's all provided at the beginning of the campaign, or prior to character creation. If the DM adds stuff mid-game.. sorry, I'm not reading that.


Players who literally write out their proposed character builds when their characters are low level.

Players that whine and argue over the rules, specifically 3.5e


I'm guilty of both. Well, 3.5 basically requires you to write out the build from a low level, considering how hard it is to qualify for anything without that planning. Also, if you say "we're playing 3.5", I hear "we are using 3.5 Rules As Written unless I specify otherwise". DMs tend not to be very forthcoming in providing their house rules. That leads to lots of arguments.



- The Fluctuating Optimizer


I do this because people in my groups play really low-power or useless characters, and I don't want to outshine them. I pull out the stops when I see a villain take my PC from 90hp to 6hp in one full attack. I recall introducing my DM to Shivering Touch this way. The look on his face was priceless.

Mono Vertigo
2012-08-06, 02:47 PM
Players who insist on making their characters' powers focus exclusively around huge, potentially plot-destroying concepts (Fate, Rebirth, Time, etc) and not let the GM limit these powers to a reasonable extent.
I much prefer players who can take more narrow tricks and use them in creative ways, instead of pushing the insta-win button. Or tie them to other concepts to give them inherent limits. Of course, it tends to happen more in more rule-light systems, though they are not immune either. Ah, Changeling: The Lost's Talecrafting mechanics. Lose enough time on TVTropes, and you manage to avoid all unwanted consequences. I should rule that if you force reality to do your bidding that hard due to sheer knowledge of narrative causality, then you turn into a True Fae. On the spot.

BRC
2012-08-06, 03:09 PM
The Wolf among Sharks: This isn't so bad in DnD, which is built with the assumption that games are going to be largely based around combat, but with other games this can be a huge challenge for a DM.
I'll use Shadowrun as an example.
GM: Alright, who do you want to play as?
Player 1: I'll be the party face, a former member of a now-destroyed criminal syndicate with lots of connections and a good disguise skill to match.
Player 2: I'll be a hacker.
Player 3: I'll go with a physical-adept infiltrator.
Player 4: I'm going to be a troll with a minigun.

The Wolf among Sharks is optimized for a specific situation, which is fine if everybody is focused on that same situation, but in a party of generalists or people with different skillsets, it's a huge problem for the GM. If they send the party against something that falls within the "Wolf"s skillset, then it gets destroyed with no real challenge. If they make it a challenge for the Wolf, the rest of the party is useless.

If they send the party against anything else, the "Wolf" can't do much but sit in the van waiting for something to shoot.

The Chronic Amnesiac: This is usually an otherwise sound player who consistently forgets a basic rule. In my current group we have a player who built his character around getting lots of attacks on a full attack, but it seems like every time we sit down he has forgotten that you can't move AND make a full attack in one round.

Jay R
2012-08-06, 03:10 PM
I am annoyed by people who believe that a weird rules interpretation will allow them to do something that clearly makes no real-world sense.

I am equally annoyed by people who believe that an obscure real-world fact will allow them to do something clearly disallowed by the rules.

We are using these rules to attempt to simulate a world, and I will not allow people to use either the simulated world or the rules to break the other.

-------------------------------

I have one player who wants to play the simulation, but doesn't want to get involved in the rules. That's not a problem, and I'll even make his character sheet for him. But it does annoy me when he gets mad because he didn't know a rule.

-------------------------------

I really enjoy clever ways to use a character's abilities optimally. But I get annoyed at people trying to get more power than they're supposed to have.

In my last Champions game, my intro for the players included this (stolen researched from some Steve Jackson game: "I know most of the ways to try to build a character worth much more than the rules intend. If you come up with such a strategy, I will congratulate you on your cleverness and ruthlessly disallow it."

-------------------------------

People with real-world knowledge trying to use it to improve the game are wonderful. But people who try to use it to break the game are just a problem.

And worse yet are the people who think they know more than they do. I've had people try to tell me about a fencing move that cannot fail (I have won fencing tourneys) or about a physical law that just doesn't work that way (I have taught physics).

Exediron
2012-08-06, 03:12 PM
Here's a few of my personal least-favorites:


Players who lose focus when 'their character' isn't the center of attention.
Players who can't take the game seriously when it ought to be.
Players using Player Knowledge.

But my character isn't even there!: This is one of my all-time triggers in RPGs. The party splits up, and one player has a character who isn't with the rest. So what do they do? Talk to another player, use their laptop, play an annoyingly loud game on their i-thingy - anything but sit quietly and let the scene continue. Just because you aren't involved is no reason to make it worse for everyone else.

Heh-heh; how cheesy is this final battle? If the situation is supposed to be serious within the game, take it seriously (unless your character wouldn't, of course). I don't care if you think the voice the DM uses for the big bad is hilarious or not - the DM worked hard to make the scene tense and dramatic, and it's disrespectful of them and everyone else at the table to sabotage the atmosphere. This only applies in games which are meant to be taken seriously, of course.

I go left - the map has no space on the right: You know that - but how would your character? People who can't separate their knowledge from that of their characters. Rather it's specific to the campaign (my last character went through that door and died, so I know it's trapped; I'll come up with a cheesy excuse for this character to avoid it!) or more general (I know that a falling object will reach terminal velocity before hitting the bottom of that, so let's assume my uneducated medieval character knows that, too!), it doesn't matter if your character shouldn't know it.

--=-=--

I was going to offer some commentary on other things brought up in this thread, but I disagree with much of it and I'd rather the thread not turn into an argument.

EDIT:

I've had people try to tell me about a fencing move that cannot fail (I have won fencing tourneys)

I particularly hate that behavior. Some players don't seem to understand that combat is an abstraction; your character (at least in 3E) is assumed to be doing combat moves which make sense, and you can't just arbitrarily describe one which would work well and try to get a bonus for it. If your character is skilled and the move is actually a good idea, they're probably already using it - and if they're not skilled, or it isn't actually a good idea, using it won't get them anything. At best, such descriptions can be used for flavor.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-06, 03:40 PM
I go left - the map has no space on the right:


That specific example seems okay to me (looks like the player just doesn't want to give the DM more work if he can avoid it). Unless the DM has expressed willingness to improvise the map farther to the right, of course. In that case, you'd just ask the DM "what do I see to the right?" and let him sketch a building there or something.

Rallicus
2012-08-06, 04:48 PM
But my character isn't even there!:

I'm not sure what you expect someone to do when they're not involved. Watching people play tabletop could very well be one of the most boring things I've ever experienced, so I don't ever blame anyone for being distracting when they're out of the picture and most likely bored.

A good DM keeps everyone involved regardless of whether or not the party is ICly together. Throwing the missing character into the initiative during battle and shifting focus to them for a few minutes when it's their turn works wonders. Outside of combat, my current DM roleplays with the missing characters every five minutes or so.


Heh-heh; how cheesy is this final battle?

You can't force players how to feel or act. While I do agree that it's very rude and inappropriate to be so vocal about it, if the campaign is supposed to be serious and turns out cheesy, the DM messed up. Pull a Tommy Wiseau and pretend like that was your intention all along.


I go left - the map has no space on the right:

On the inverse, what would happen if the player did decide to go right? Would the DM sigh in frustration due to added work? I just don't see a DM throwing his arms up and saying, "Yes, I'm so glad you went into a space that I'll now have to draw and adjust on the map!"

Or maybe I just misread your complaint entirely. I don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with these to a certain extent. That extent is pretty much just "don't be rude," though.

Fiery Diamond
2012-08-06, 07:59 PM
The things in bold are my responses.


I'm not sure what you expect someone to do when they're not involved. Watching people play tabletop could very well be one of the most boring things I've ever experienced, so I don't ever blame anyone for being distracting when they're out of the picture and most likely bored.

If it bores you, don't intentionally separate your character from the party. Simple as that. I have no sympathy for this attitude.


A good DM keeps everyone involved regardless of whether or not the party is ICly together. Throwing the missing character into the initiative during battle and shifting focus to them for a few minutes when it's their turn works wonders. Outside of combat, my current DM roleplays with the missing characters every five minutes or so.

I agree, these are excellent ways the DM can keep the player involved, and when combat is happening, as a DM this is what I do - but out of combat interactions can take considerably longer: if you (generic you referring to such a problem player, of course) choose to exclude your character from participating in the war meeting/courtroom scene/diplomatic discussions with the king so that he can go to the tavern, I'm not switching over to the tavern in the middle of the involved scene for you, and expecting me to do so is both idiotic and entitled. You'll sit there and watch, maybe offering some OOC input, or you'll leave the room and do something else to occupy yourself elsewhere. You will not be disruptive in order to keep yourself entertained.

You can't force players how to feel or act. While I do agree that it's very rude and inappropriate to be so vocal about it, if the campaign is supposed to be serious and turns out cheesy, the DM messed up. Pull a Tommy Wiseau and pretend like that was your intention all along.

Incorrect. If EVERYONE thinks it's really cheesy, then yes, you can say that the DM messed up. If ONE PERSON thinks it's really cheesy and decides to be vocal (regardless of whether his response elicits similar ones from the other players who were successfully treating the scene seriously) then it is that player's fault, not the DM's.

On the inverse, what would happen if the player did decide to go right? Would the DM sigh in frustration due to added work? I just don't see a DM throwing his arms up and saying, "Yes, I'm so glad you went into a space that I'll now have to draw and adjust on the map!"

I don't throw up my arms or express great gratitude, no. But I routinely draw the specifics of dungeons on the fly (even if I know how many rooms and the contents of the rooms and their general locations, and I don't always get all of that for the corridors!) and end up redrawing and adjusting the map. All the time. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Or maybe I just misread your complaint entirely. I don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with these to a certain extent. That extent is pretty much just "don't be rude," though.


Well, yeah. But you seem to have more lenience for what's considered rude behavior in those categories then I do (for the first two) and seem to think that it's somehow an automatically bad thing to make it so the DM needs to redraw part of the map.


What seems to be the problem here?
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c7bd2CRa1rud7mxo1_1280.jpg

http://littledailyprophet.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/seirei-no-moribito-03avi_000235443.jpg

http://www.shamefulotakusecret.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/druaga_03.jpg

http://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire2/1cf7aec8402e9c43e5c5bb0c95a667be1225174362_full.jp g

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c6q4tL7i1rud7mxo1_500.png

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8c6m1ZppR1rud7mxo1_1280.jpg

What's the first one from?


My own input:

Players insisting that a particular use of the rules indicates that they can do whatever they want in character and get away with no consequences: diplomacy in 3.5, for example "Sure I can be rude and disrespectful to people I'm trying to get a favor from who are social elites! My high diplomacy means that even my farts smell pretty!" And yes, that was a specific example, with the second sentence being a direct quote (though I think she left out the "even") providing her reasoning for the first part.

Even when you tell them up-front before the game begins that certain troublesome rules are going to be handled differently to enhance roleplay and immersion and give examples, such as the aforementioned diplomacy which I had told her how I was going to handle so that it couldn't invalidate actual roleplay. :smallmad:

Kaun
2012-08-06, 08:00 PM
I'm not sure what you expect someone to do when they're not involved. Watching people play tabletop could very well be one of the most boring things I've ever experienced, so I don't ever blame anyone for being distracting when they're out of the picture and most likely bored.

Wut?

I mean i can understand if its for extended periods (say 15mins+) but if the game becomes "one of the most boring things I've ever experienced" in the five mins where the focus isn't on you then something is either very wrong with the game or maybe ...

I think Exediron point was more if you don't wish to pay attention then so be it but at least be polite enough not to distract the other players while they do their thing, you should be able to expect the same courtesy from them as well.

Vovix
2012-08-06, 08:45 PM
We are using these rules to attempt to simulate a world, and I will not allow people to use either the simulated world or the rules to break the other.

The simulated world and the rules will conflict with each other. Many rules are unrealistic, and many real-world situations are disallowed by the rules. You'll have to pick one over the other. What I hate is when a player shifts from rules to real-world physics every five minutes to gain an advantage. Example: First pushing down a snow floor because that's how real snow works, then trying to chop it with an axe, because it's an in-game object and has hit points.

Malak'ai
2012-08-06, 09:45 PM
The simulated world and the rules will conflict with each other. Many rules are unrealistic, and many real-world situations are disallowed by the rules. You'll have to pick one over the other. What I hate is when a player shifts from rules to real-world physics every five minutes to gain an advantage. Example: First pushing down a snow floor because that's how real snow works, then trying to chop it with an axe, because it's an in-game object and has hit points.

What's wrong with compacting snow and then using the axe to dig through it? It'd work similar to using a shovel, except it would be slower as you wouldn't be able to remove as much snow in each stroke.

If on the other hand they are treating it with a "the snow is a monster" and then try and claim that because the snow had X hp and they did Y damage they have just dug to the center of the planet, well, that's a problem.

Marlowe
2012-08-06, 09:50 PM
Ooo ooo! People who correct others for using a set instead of a subset. :smallbiggrin:
You mean, people that like precision, and who don't like to be stereotyped on the basis of a subset they don't actually belong to?:smallconfused:

In any event, this seems to be heading in the same direction of a few threads lately. A lot of these "Banes" are just "people wanting to play the game and not get messed around by a fussy DM".

Logic
2012-08-06, 10:00 PM
I hate it when players start putting each other in a frenzy about the cool character builds they should be making right before I am starting to explain the settig restrictions on races and classes.
I could write it down in advance, but I never have seen any player in my 15 years of GMing who had read any background material I provided.

My houserules I specifically tried to keep in a medium-largish font and on a single page. The same should be said of the setting notes. Don't be the DM of the Rings, and you should be alright.

As for players not reading the sheet, I specifically give incentives to having read it. Example:

DM (Me): Pop quiz! What deity is also known as "The All Father?"
Player 1: You mean I'm supposed to know that?
Player 2: How should I know?
Player 3: Odin?
Player 4: Arzul! (Homebrew Deity)
DM (Me): Okay, player 4, you get +250 XP.

Is this solution petty? Perhaps. But it ensures SOMEONE read my setting notes. In my opinion, one page is not too much to ask for.

Kaww
2012-08-07, 12:23 AM
Reading all this I think that most 'banes' presented fall in two categories: players being, well, jerks and inapt GMs. I think that, maybe, we should start making suggestions as to how to solve these problems people are having, since ranting helps nobody.

- Overly educated player - This is the player with good memory that has read all the books (no, they don't spend days memorizing the entries). It is very hard to surprise them with new monsters and such things.
So to handle this change the monster description. Bonus points if you use a description that makes the monster look like something tougher than it actually is.

- Rules lawyer -We all have one in our groups in one game or another. They are actually very helpful until a debate starts. When it does it can kill a person's desire to live, let alone game.
Solution - it takes two to argue, so don't. 'My ruling, it will not change the result much. I'll check it later, while we take a break.' If by some bizarre chance it's a life or death situation open the book and check it then and there. Reward him/her when he/she is right. Punish in the same way when they are wrong. If you know the rules to some extent this should not change the game much.

@Rallicus - As for playing a game on a laptop/whatever when the rp bores you. If you go to the movies/theater and find that a five minute scene is boring do you think you should start playing a game on a laptop?
Do you think that when the players start to bore a GM with their inactivity that he/she should start playing a video game/reading a book until the players figure out what to do?
A player of mine pulled out a laptop and played something on it a few years back. I asked her kindly not to. If she had done it again I would have taken all her fate points and if she had done it yet again I would simply not invite her to my table next time I GMed. After the game I warned her of what would happen if she persisted playing video games while we were gaming.

Knaight
2012-08-07, 12:31 AM
Reading all this I think that most 'banes' presented fall in two categories: players being, well, jerks and inapt GMs. I think that, maybe, we should start making suggestions as to how to solve these problems people are having, since ranting helps nobody.
I'd also add inept players to the list, as well as GMs being jerks. Fortunately, ineptitude usually fades fairly quickly.

Kaun
2012-08-07, 12:46 AM
I think that, maybe, we should start making suggestions as to how to solve these problems people are having, since ranting helps nobody.

Sound like fun let me have a crack.


- Prescient players: Someone who guess the next ten games of plot arc based on the fact that a guy in the tavern had two lines of description instead of just one, and had a moustache. This isn't bad play (it can come from metagaming, but it can also just be a clever player). However it does remove a lot of mystery solving, clue-finding, and discovery from the rest of the table that otherwise would have been in (or it forces the GM to try to salvage by introducing arbitrary twists that strain credulity and penalize the cleverness of the player).

I wish i had this now and then so stop complaining :smalltongue:

My advise is if they figure it out throw a couple of small curve balls in to catch them unaware. You don't want to punish them by changing everything up because if you do this they will likely stop putting any thought into the plot. But a couple of differing factors from what they guessed can make things interesting + still reward them for putting some thought in about the game.


- Long-lived Misconception: When a player mishears or misunderstands something and then cannot let it go (they may not even say anything until much later, or realize that something is wrong). I had a player do a 4-hour long downtime in which he infiltrated a castle, disrupted the nobility, manipulated the Inquisition and had several people jailed all so he could have a meeting with the ruler and ask her why she was going to go to war with another particular country. The problem? He had gotten two countries with similar names mixed up. He never mentioned that this was his plan (and there was a plausible reason for him to want to infiltrate the other country, so I didn't catch it either), so when he finally asked the queen 'why are you going to invade' I was kind of flabbergasted (and so was she).

This one has stung me a few times in the past and it can be horrible when it does because often you don't find out about it until way to late.

While these two suggestions won't fix the issue they may help prevent it;

Session recaps: Either go through all the key points from previous sessions before each session starts or post it up in a forum or send via email.
I used to give bonus exp to the player who could accurately recall all the key info from the last session. This encourages players to pay more attention while also hopefully stamping out any misunderstandings that have occurred. (remember if you give them bonus exp for it make sure they know why they got it. This will encourage the players less likely to pay attention.)

Simple and easily distinguishable names: This counts for anything in the game be it places, npc's, God's etc etc... While it might be fun to go all tolken and have Sauron and Saruman as key players in your plot line you can pretty much guarantee that most of your players will get the two confused at least once during the game.
Also make sure the names are easy enough to spell and pronounce as your players are much less likely to remember Baurontaynathor the wizard's name over Dave the Wizard. Sure you may think it kills the immersion some what but not nearly as much as him being forever referred to as "that wizard guy".

Anyway hopefully that helps

Riverdance
2012-08-07, 01:24 AM
Celerity Overuse of that spell has bitten me in the ass more times than I care to remember. It's always the same player too. :smallmad:

Silus
2012-08-07, 01:34 AM
Mr. Gimmick
The player that builds their character around one thing and basically makes them the best at that thing ever. Then they complain when you throw a situation at them when they can't pull off their gimmick.

Dump all your feats and magic items into Sneak Attack? Better not complain when you fight Undead and Constructs then. Ditto for stealthy stuff in situations when there are no enemies to fight.

Serious setting, funny characters
Issue with my first game I ran. It was sort of a 1408 Survival Horror game thrown into a plane-hopping game. And what does one of the guys make? A baby copper-dragon that's more of a kelpto than an army of Halfling Rogues and the personality of a little kid. And in another game, another guy made an Antro-Dodo named Sir Grievous Bodilyharmsworth. Just....ugh. *Facepalm*

DigoDragon
2012-08-07, 08:24 AM
This goes double for anyone who wants to play a cat-girl, ever.

...I'm not apologizing. :smalltongue:

Actually, while I admit that yes I have played a few of cat-girls, they were never the hyperactive whiney type I've seen in Anime. I always play them as intelligent and level-headed individuals, usually with a skillset in mechanics and electronics.
Of course if the GM says no, I'll let go. Then again, he never has. Yet.


Another bane that I was reminded of by another GM-- Sir Not Appearing in the Game.
He/she is the player that rarely shows up to sessions and then complains that they are lost with the plot and missed all the good parts of last session, etc. No real excuse either as to why they miss so many games-- they simply sleep in that day or choose to hang out with another group. This is by all means their choice, but please don't complain that the rest of the RP group didn't cancel the session just on the account of you. :smallsmile:

Slipperychicken
2012-08-07, 09:37 AM
Celerity Overuse of that spell has bitten me in the ass more times than I care to remember. It's always the same player too. :smallmad:

How? I know it's potent in combat..

Firewind
2012-08-07, 09:51 AM
"But I'm Chaotic Neutral"

Everyone probably knows someone like this who only wants to play an evil character when it's not an evil campaign in order to act like an even more annoying version of Belkar, but you don't allow evil characters, so they go Chaotic Neutral instead.

You usually spend half of the campaign with this guy whining at you because the city guard is always fighting them or he gets himself killed and the rest of the party don't want to raise him.

For the Evulz

When you actually allow evil characters and the above happens due to the rest of the party being Good.

""The Paladin did X he should fall!"

Usually the above guy who whines that the Paladin doesn't fall the instant something unlawful or not good goes on, even if the paladin allows it to happen because it would be for the greater good in the long run.

"You're all a bunch of Diplomancers"

When the above guy whines because the party found a way to say bypass an encounter or they manage to RP their way out of a situation (if they came up with a way that really impressed me I will reward the encounter's full XP to them and a little extra for a bonus).

This guy doesn't care about that, he just wants to stab things, even though say having a tribe of Orcs (I hate the Always Chaotic Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil) Trope) being friendly to you, or the Thieves' Guild owing you a favour is in itself incredibly useful.

"There's a square hole, where is the square peg?

When you throw a challenge or puzzle at the party where the answer either isn't immediately obvious or it requires a bit of thinking outside of the box and the entire group just doesn't get it.

Then the above guy tries to force the square peg in and sets off the very obvious trap and wonders why the entire party it upset with him.

Marlowe
2012-08-07, 10:51 AM
...I'm not apologizing. :smalltongue:

Actually, while I admit that yes I have played a few of cat-girls, they were never the hyperactive whiney type I've seen in Anime. I always play them as intelligent and level-headed individuals, usually with a skillset in mechanics and electronics.


I have a passing aquaintance of anime, but the only cat-girl characters I'm familiar with are the Liese twins from MGLN A's, who are lethal, dangerous, very sneaky LN badasses. What's the precise problem here?

Also, I'm familiar with the Diclonius in "Elfen Lied", who sometimes get called cat-girls even though they're humans with horns. They are, with two very specific exceptions, murderous, genocidal horrors. I wouldn't want to play one, but why are they worse as a concept than, say, Drow?

Amazo
2012-08-07, 12:01 PM
I have a passing aquaintance of anime, but the only cat-girl characters I'm familiar with are the Liese twins from MGLN A's, who are lethal, dangerous, very sneaky LN badasses. What's the precise problem here?

Also, I'm familiar with the Diclonius in "Elfen Lied", who sometimes get called cat-girls even though they're humans with horns. They are, with two very specific exceptions, murderous, genocidal horrors. I wouldn't want to play one, but why are they worse as a concept than, say, Drow?

My go-to example for the stereotypical catgirl in anime is Aisha Clanclan from Outlaw Star. With limited exception, she whines constantly, eats all their food, doesn't understand the seriousness of events around her, and is generally useless in any situation that doesn't directly involve shooting or punching something. This sort of completely-useless-with-maybe-one-exception catgirl is the more recognized version, though I haven't watched enough anime to know if this applies to a majority of them.

Zeful
2012-08-07, 12:23 PM
I have a passing aquaintance of anime, but the only cat-girl characters I'm familiar with are the Liese twins from MGLN A's, who are lethal, dangerous, very sneaky LN badasses. What's the precise problem here?
You must have missed their opening scene where they act all the world like very bubbly girls rather than the sneaky badasses they also are.

inexorabletruth
2012-08-07, 12:54 PM
IRL Games:
Dungeons & Discussions- It's mid-combat. An average turn last six seconds in-character, but my player has just spent the last five minutes discussing with himself or with the other players his various combat options. I've since fixed this with a minute timer. Each player has 60 seconds to finish his turn or his character is frozen with fear and therefore delays his initiative until the end of the round.
Oh, Is It My Turn?- The player who is always up getting a drink, a snack, taking a smoke break, or texting someone else when it's not their turn.
The Disinterested-Interested Player- They're almost always a good friend or a gf/bf of a good friend who keeps insisting that they're excited about the game and are enjoying it, but just have no enthusiasm for the game. They roll, perform the same action every time, then zone out until it's their turn again. These are often oh-is-it-my-turn people as well.
The Critic- No matter what call I make, it's up for judgment and criticism. I became the rules-lawyer I am because of snots like that.
The Superstar- I run low-op games. I prefer games that are noob friendly, because I want my friends to at least give the game a shot. But it never fails that someone doesn't care about common game courtesy. He's got to build some twinked out demi-god so he can be the group's alpha, bullying all the other PCs that were built appropriately.

PbP Games:
The Infrequent Poster- Nothing kills a game quite as effectively.
The God-Moder- Almost always a noob, which is more forgivable. But when a seasoned player does this, it feels like bullying. Post for your own PC and leave it at that, no matter how natural the reaction may feel.
The Soloist- Won't play with the team, but doesn't have a good RP reason for this. Players like this weaken the team and add unnecessary extra work for the DM. More often than not, these are also Superstars.
The Superstar- See my thoughts in IRL games.

Kalmageddon
2012-08-07, 12:55 PM
The player with special snowflake syndrome. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpecialSnowflakeSyndrome)

I don't understand the point of playing in a determined setting if you, well, don't want to play a character from that setting! And sometimes it gets worse, like when the player CAN play a character that fits a setting but goes out of his way to make the character unfit, even if it should be ok...
Let me explain: I was running a futuristic campaign set inspired by dystopic works of literature and movies, meaning everything was run by a fascist and oppressive governament that employed extreme methods to deal with even the smallest crimes. The players were supposed to be a police team of said fascist governament. Now, one of my players had recently seen the Watchmen movie and wanted to play a Rorschach-esque character. Meaning a fascist that punishes even small crimes with extreme methods.
Seems perfect, right?
No, because he wanted to be a vigilante, convinced that the governament was letting too many criminals on the streets. IN A SETTING WHERE YOU GET A LIFE SENTENCE FOR STEALING EVEN A PACK OF CIGARETTES.
I tried explaining to him that his character would have no reason to be dissatisfied with the way the police handled things and that, if anything, he should be one of the few policemen who do their job without any regret, but he simply wouldn't listen.

First session, his character, a vigilante as he wanted, gets exectued for interfering with the law.

Sturmcrow
2012-08-07, 01:24 PM
Here's a few of my personal least-favorites:

But my character isn't even there!: This is one of my all-time triggers in RPGs. The party splits up, and one player has a character who isn't with the rest. So what do they do? Talk to another player, use their laptop, play an annoyingly loud game on their i-thingy - anything but sit quietly and let the scene continue. Just because you aren't involved is no reason to make it worse for everyone else.
.

If the player is not being disruptive, is it really bad?
I had a DM that told us we couldnt do any table talk. So what are we supposed to do, sit for an hour or so quietly doing nothing? I started working on my archaeology on WoW (while talking to a friend I rarely saw) and the DM threw a fit on how I was disrespecting him because I was playing a game on my laptop.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-07, 03:16 PM
If the player is not being disruptive, is it really bad?
I had a DM that told us we couldnt do any table talk. So what are we supposed to do, sit for an hour or so quietly doing nothing? I started working on my archaeology on WoW (while talking to a friend I rarely saw) and the DM threw a fit on how I was disrespecting him because I was playing a game on my laptop.

I agree. If you're not going to involve a PC or his player for an hour (in particularly bad cases, four hours or more), don't whine when he starts doing something else. I have better things to do than watch my friends play without me.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-07, 03:47 PM
I agree. If you're not going to involve a PC or his player for an hour (in particularly bad cases, four hours or more), don't whine when he starts doing something else. I have better things to do than watch my friends play without me.

I think his digruntlement comes from players who do this to the extent of becoming disruptive. If you wanna hop on WoW for a bit while your character is seperated from the group, go right ahead, just keep the volume down or use the headphones.

Tantaburs
2012-08-07, 04:24 PM
The Twin Brother

I'm fine with you having a character planned out at lvl 3. Hell I'm even fine with you remaking that character if your character dies but atleast put some effort into it. if you have a plan to make a rogue/assassin and your rogue dies at lvl 4 don't just say "well my rogue has a twin brother who is also a rogue and my will gave all my stuff to him"

GeekGirl
2012-08-07, 04:35 PM
The Twin Brother

I'm fine with you having a character planned out at lvl 3. Hell I'm even fine with you remaking that character if your character dies but atleast put some effort into it. if you have a plan to make a rogue/assassin and your rogue dies at lvl 4 don't just say "well my rogue has a twin brother who is also a rogue and my will gave all my stuff to him"

I can only think of Landfill (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486551/)

Morithias
2012-08-07, 04:35 PM
The Twin Brother

I'm fine with you having a character planned out at lvl 3. Hell I'm even fine with you remaking that character if your character dies but atleast put some effort into it. if you have a plan to make a rogue/assassin and your rogue dies at lvl 4 don't just say "well my rogue has a twin brother who is also a rogue and my will gave all my stuff to him"

The League

Sadly I do this a fair bit and it annoys my Gms. I often have 3-4 characters pre-planned for a campaign, often with ties to each other and reasons for them taking up the next mission. It often lead to insanity when the rogue is suddenly replaced by a cleric.

Gamer Girl
2012-08-07, 04:46 PM
Professor Player: So this player is well educated in one thing or another, and that is all fine...until the game starts. Then you get:

The Historian: Who will go on and on about how a forge should look in the 12th century and how wrong you are about everything.

Or

The Worker: Who has made a fork out of tin at some point in their life, and will then tell you how wrong you are as it's not the way they did it.


In both cases, the Professor Player has a problem with the idea that it's only a game and not 100% accurate.

And to top it all off:

**Oh, It's great that in 12th century France they did this or that...um..ok, fine. But what did they do in the 9th, 10th or 11th century....or anywhere else in the world? And so they did it that one way in France, on Earth, way back when....that does not matter to much to an alternate reality of the game.

Cealocanth
2012-08-07, 05:02 PM
The Oblivious Player

They're great at roleplaying, they excell in their role in combat, but when it comes to gathering information from the description given to them by the GM, they couldn't have rolled worse on that check. It doesn't matter if the player is a veteran of the game, a twelve year old boy who just began, or a professor that can easily extract the most subtle details from century old novels. This GM's bane will fail to hear, or all out ignore the subtle details and clues to an upcoming event or plot twist until the event occurs, in which the player usually dies and complain that his GM is a killer GM, because there was "no warning that something like this would happen" or that "he wasn't given a chance to prepare."

Ranting Fool
2012-08-07, 05:52 PM
The Oblivious Player

They're great at roleplaying, they excell in their role in combat, but when it comes to gathering information from the description given to them by the GM, they couldn't have rolled worse on that check. It doesn't matter if the player is a veteran of the game, a twelve year old boy who just began, or a professor that can easily extract the most subtle details from century old novels. This GM's bane will fail to hear, or all out ignore the subtle details and clues to an upcoming event or plot twist until the event occurs, in which the player usually dies and complain that his GM is a killer GM, because there was "no warning that something like this would happen" or that "he wasn't given a chance to prepare."

Whats worse is that when it's only one player. You want to keep them involved but if you remove any subtlety then the it'll be like hanging a huge sign for the other players and could spoil their fun.

Ignoring/not listening when details are given I don't mind if players don't remember everything I say but sometimes it becomes clear that they weren't paying attention when they try to do something that would kill them such as
PC:"I charge the evil cultist guy".....
GM: "Errr over the river of lava?"
PC: "There is a river of lava?"
GM: *Facepalm*

Malak'ai
2012-08-07, 06:02 PM
Not hearing/Ignoring what the rest of the players have discussed:
This one really annoys me. When the time comes IC where you have to make a plan of action, be it something as simple as pick the door lock and then charge in to catch the enemy by surprise or something totally convoluted that relies on half a dozen spells, multiple skill checks and a whole lota luck. There seems to be in many cases one player who just sits back, doing their own thing while the others are discussing/planning how their characters are gunna handle the situation, then he pipes up and says "My characters going to do X, Y and Z" which then causes the other players to stare at him, mouths open and then facepalm themselves because he has just done the total opposite of what they have just discussed.

Kane0
2012-08-07, 07:33 PM
- Long-lived Misconception
- Inconsistency Spotter
- Habitual PvPer
- The Fluctuating Optimizer


When the rest of the group is fine, but one or two players are all these rolled into one. Especially so if he plays structured or convention D&D more than casual at-home style, increasing his power-player and competitive nature.

Also:
- Character cannot be anything but awesome and/or interesting. May or may not be a power player but cannot play an 'average' character, sitting back and being a quiet team player. He must be at the front of the action and is usually larger-than-life.

- Perceived wrongdoings: Not anything to do with the DM, mind you. The DM might have no problem with what the player wants to do, but since the group knows this player and has seen what his characters have done in the past (in other games) they automatically veto him because of that. I, being the new guy, don't necessarily have that knowledge so it irks me that they dont give him a chance.

dps
2012-08-07, 10:32 PM
GMs often have to put up with a lot of shenanigans from their players, whether those players realize it or not. So GMs, air what ails you here.

For me:

The Modern Group - It seems like three out of every five players in a modern era-set game want characters with military, ex-military, or law enforcement backgrounds. The appeal seems obvious. They've got guns; they're the modern badasses. But c'mon, really? I don't always want to run a game of psychopaths traveling the country with heavy weapons in hand.

What else do you expect them to want to play? Characters who are dentists, math teachers, and department store cashiers?

Menteith
2012-08-07, 10:40 PM
What else do you expect them to want to play? Characters who are dentists, math teachers, and department store cashiers?

I've run a chemistry professor in old World of Darkness. You'd be amazed what you can make with a decent Science roll and access to the black market.

Marlowe
2012-08-07, 10:47 PM
You must have missed their opening scene where they act all the world like very bubbly girls rather than the sneaky badasses they also are.

It's Nanoha. Half the cast are bubbly girls who are also badasses. The half that aren't are either more serious or boys. Also, they ask if they can eat Yunno.

Haven't seen Outlaw Star, but that description sounds a lot like Faye from Cowboy Bebop, a show with a similar premise. Yes, that character type would be annoying to be around, but why is it being a catgirl that's the unforgivable part?

Logic
2012-08-07, 10:50 PM
What else do you expect them to want to play? Characters who are dentists, math teachers, and department store cashiers?

I've run a chemistry professor in old World of Darkness. You'd be amazed what you can make with a decent Science roll and access to the black market.
I played a punch-drunk boxer in a Call of Cthulhu game once, and when he inevitably died, I replaced him with a Priest at a State Prison. Interesting characters need not be combat specific, especially in a modern setting.

The annoying players were using mob goons, police officers and army veterans. BACK TO BACK TO BACK after character death.

Knaight
2012-08-07, 10:54 PM
What else do you expect them to want to play? Characters who are dentists, math teachers, and department store cashiers?

I'm currently playing a homeless guy who is characterized primarily by having poor judgement and a propensity to borrow money from dangerous loan sharks. He's one of the most fun characters I've ever played, and is really not all that exceptional.

Arbane
2012-08-08, 01:07 AM
Also:
- Character cannot be anything but awesome and/or interesting. May or may not be a power player but cannot play an 'average' character, sitting back and being a quiet team player. He must be at the front of the action and is usually larger-than-life.

As long as they're not one of those people who MUST make the entire game self-destruct the instant the spotlight moves off of them, I'm really not seeing the problem with this one.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-08, 03:06 AM
It's Nanoha. Half the cast are bubbly girls who are also badasses. The half that aren't are either more serious or boys. Also, they ask if they can eat Yunno.

Haven't seen Outlaw Star, but that description sounds a lot like Faye from Cowboy Bebop, a show with a similar premise. Yes, that character type would be annoying to be around, but why is it being a catgirl that's the unforgivable part?

Aisha Clan-Clan, from Outlaw Star, could not be any more different from Fey Valentine, of Cowboy Bebop, if she tried.

I honestly don't see a problem with cat-girls either, I just couldn't let that misconception live.

Mono Vertigo
2012-08-08, 04:23 AM
I've run a chemistry professor in old World of Darkness. You'd be amazed what you can make with a decent Science roll and access to the black market.
This.
Walter White, from Breaking Bad. Chemistry teacher. Sickly. Not the fighting kind of guy. And yet, he survives many traps and horrifying encounters, thanks to his brain and creativity.
Don't underestimate non-fighting skills. You don't need to be a pro killer, especially in a modern setting, to have fun situations to roleplay.

Marlowe
2012-08-08, 05:39 AM
Aisha Clan-Clan, from Outlaw Star, could not be any more different from Fey Valentine, of Cowboy Bebop, if she tried.

I honestly don't see a problem with cat-girls either, I just couldn't let that misconception live.

No problem with correcting me about something I knew nothing about.:smallsmile:

DigoDragon
2012-08-08, 07:41 AM
I have a passing aquaintance of anime, but the only cat-girl characters I'm familiar with are the Liese twins from MGLN A's, who are lethal, dangerous, very sneaky LN badasses. What's the precise problem here?

None from what I Googled. I never heard of them, but they sound like pretty cool concepts I'd like to see more of. Less whiney and more winning! :smallbiggrin:


Another I thought of-- "It Works This Way in My Games!"
Recently I had the big finale of a long-running D&D campaign. The party was fighting off a few god avatars, including one of St. Cuthbert. The party bard was getting walloped by that mace, so when his next turn came up he said:

"I'm going to tell St. Cuthbert that I gave up my girlfriend to help save this world and if he's really St. Cuthbert than my appeal will work to his mercy and he'll stop fighting!"

I had St. Cuthbert respond with a left hook. :smallannoyed:
See, the bard's player was using knowledge of how St. Cuthbert works in the games he ran, assuming that it would work in mine. I've already defined how the gods' personalities work and players from the very beginning. I get annoyed when players start using mechanics from outside my defined world thinking its going to work (Pro tip: it doesn't).

Another example-- I had created a rogue goddess of merriment, laughter, and jokes. The goddess' dogma is about having fun in life and not taking things too seriously. Have fun instead of fighting. Party on!
One of the rogues on the team kept trying to become an assassin in the name of this goddess. Now, NPCs would think he's joking and he couldn't understand why. I kept trying to explain it to the player that he should go with one of the more assassin friendly gods I have, but he just kept going for this one goddess. It took most of the campaign for me to figure out why he's so darn attached to her--

The goddess is a red-head. In his little world, red-head gods are sneaky assassin-like.
**Headdesk**

RandomNPC
2012-08-08, 08:54 AM
I've only got two, I'll start with the one that was already mentioned because he actually managed to build on the idea and make it worse.

Outcast myself so I can bring something new in
This guy either goes on a suicide mission, picks a fight with a party member, or gets angry and leaves the party. All over some stupid half remembered slight from a month ago. Then he turns into:
Player telling the story
So *my old character* storms off in a random direction, I don't care that it's a desert and there's a city just over there. Then you all hear "Hey guys, I'm a healer! My nomadic tribe doesn't need me, can I sign up with you?" without a second thought the player just assumes everyone's cool with it, with the old character still well within hearing range, and quite possibly not even out of camp yet.

Doesn't help that said nomadic tribe had just been spotted on the horizon and an intro was planned within the next five minutes, not just for him but for two other people, a new player and another "replacement because I got bored"


Second one:
Spouse
Has to be there because, well, they do, they are important on some non-game level, and for some reason have the idea that doing EVERYTHING together is the only way to stay together. Never mind that they often turn into the bored gamer, distracted gamer, and clueless gamer, they also fill the "What's going on?" "What are my abilities?" and "What are the rules?" complaints perfectly. Ten years in and unable to fill in a character sheet, they "Love" the game, and get sad, making "Wish I was there" comments whenever you get invited to a game with just one more spot.

I've lost gamers to the spouse because said spouse didn't like my game. I'll admit seven is a large party and you aren't getting much spotlight, but you also were never invited into my house. You just followed someone in and I decided not to be rude because you brought a baby with you. Bleh.

only1doug
2012-08-08, 11:01 AM
Second one:
Spouse
Has to be there because, well, they do, they are important on some non-game level, and for some reason have the idea that doing EVERYTHING together is the only way to stay together. Never mind that they often turn into the bored gamer, distracted gamer, and clueless gamer, they also fill the "What's going on?" "What are my abilities?" and "What are the rules?" complaints perfectly. Ten years in and unable to fill in a character sheet, they "Love" the game, and get sad, making "Wish I was there" comments whenever you get invited to a game with just one more spot.

I've lost gamers to the spouse because said spouse didn't like my game. I'll admit seven is a large party and you aren't getting much spotlight, but you also were never invited into my house. You just followed someone in and I decided not to be rude because you brought a baby with you. Bleh.

You've met my wife then?

Fortunately she's not this bad, she's just short attention span and violent psychokiller (of NPCs fortunately)
She does still need help knowing what to roll some of the time (but she's got combat down to a T).
We play at our house, because then we don't need babysitting once a week.

NichG
2012-08-08, 01:09 PM
This brings up a good one:

Encouraging DM Distraction

Everyone has something that'll distract them (as in, get them to engage with something else, not just annoy). For me, it'd be discussions about game metaphysics, cats roaming about the game table, etc. For another GM I've played with, it'd be people bringing family or kids by - he's a very good host, which means he goes and greets them and talks to them and so on (which means he's not running game). Table talk that draws the GM in can be another source of this (if the GM likes a certain movie and hears two players talking about it, or whatever).

The bane in this case is not only the distraction, but specifically players who tend to bring them into play. The GM may not feel its a bane if he's having fun talking about this or that non-game thing, but the other players are likely sitting there rolling their eyes and waiting for the GM to just get back to running already (or at least I was whenever this happened).

yougi
2012-08-08, 01:57 PM
IRL Games:
Dungeons & Discussions- It's mid-combat. An average turn last six seconds in-character, but my player has just spent the last five minutes discussing with himself or with the other players his various combat options. I've since fixed this with a minute timer. Each player has 60 seconds to finish his turn or his character is frozen with fear and therefore delays his initiative until the end of the round.

I'm pretty happy of what I did with this. I ran my party through an encounter trap (Dungeonscape, basically a trap that goes off every round and where everyone has to act to disable it). I thought, meh, this is supposed to be chaos, right? Every 6 seconds, there are lightning bolts firing in every direction, no way you're taking the time to talk strategy. So what I did is I gave my players X seconds for their round, where X is their int score, to decide what they're doing: after the timer, you can still roll dice and stuff, but not dictate your action. In the end, we applied that rule to every round-by-round encounter.


What else do you expect them to want to play? Characters who are dentists, math teachers, and department store cashiers?

That would actually be a very interesting RP opportunity. A dentist forced to become an action hero? Sold!


This brings up a good one:
For another GM I've played with, it'd be people bringing family or kids by - he's a very good host, which means he goes and greets them and talks to them and so on (which means he's not running game).


Who BRINGS family to a game? If one of my players was to bring a kid or a wife to my game, I honestly don't know how I'd react, but letting them in would not be an option, because if they brought them, it's either because (1) they didn't tell me ahead of time, or (2) they brought them despite the fact that I said no, this is a terrible idea, which I would.

The DM of a game I play in invites his 9 year old son to watch, as he is a huge fan of the game. The rule is "if you disrupt the game, you're off to bed". Kid stays up to 9, we play up to 11, so we still have some time for more "adult" parts of the game after. Kid is of the calm kind, but he's still 9, and sometimes, he gets a bit... loose, especially in the summer, but in a year, I've seen the "go to bed" pulled once only, and for his at-school behavior. I can only guess how troublesome it must be to have someone else's kid at your own table...

NichG
2012-08-08, 02:28 PM
Who BRINGS family to a game? If one of my players was to bring a kid or a wife to my game, I honestly don't know how I'd react, but letting them in would not be an option, because if they brought them, it's either because (1) they didn't tell me ahead of time, or (2) they brought them despite the fact that I said no, this is a terrible idea, which I would.


It was fortunately never quite this bad, but I was in a game where the wife and kid of one of the players would come by almost exactly at the time when the group had finally gotten its stuff together and decided what to do that day. They'd only stay a bit, but it generally derailed game for about a half-hour and scrambled us somewhat, and it kind of got annoying.


The DM of a game I play in invites his 9 year old son to watch, as he is a huge fan of the game. The rule is "if you disrupt the game, you're off to bed". Kid stays up to 9, we play up to 11, so we still have some time for more "adult" parts of the game after. Kid is of the calm kind, but he's still 9, and sometimes, he gets a bit... loose, especially in the summer, but in a year, I've seen the "go to bed" pulled once only, and for his at-school behavior. I can only guess how troublesome it must be to have someone else's kid at your own table...

I've since left the area, but the DM for that game I mentioned above is now sharing that house (where game takes place) with another person who has a kid. I can't imagine that's going to help the focus situation.

Exediron
2012-08-08, 02:37 PM
Who BRINGS family to a game? If one of my players was to bring a kid or a wife to my game, I honestly don't know how I'd react, but letting them in would not be an option, because if they brought them, it's either because (1) they didn't tell me ahead of time, or (2) they brought them despite the fact that I said no, this is a terrible idea, which I would.

I don't understand your issue here. Are you saying that just because someone is a family member of a current member of your group they're guaranteed to be a bad player? Are you saying that family members always play badly in the same game?

Fiery Diamond
2012-08-08, 06:07 PM
None from what I Googled. I never heard of them, but they sound like pretty cool concepts I'd like to see more of. Less whiney and more winning! :smallbiggrin:


Another I thought of-- "It Works This Way in My Games!"
Recently I had the big finale of a long-running D&D campaign. The party was fighting off a few god avatars, including one of St. Cuthbert. The party bard was getting walloped by that mace, so when his next turn came up he said:

"I'm going to tell St. Cuthbert that I gave up my girlfriend to help save this world and if he's really St. Cuthbert than my appeal will work to his mercy and he'll stop fighting!"

I had St. Cuthbert respond with a left hook. :smallannoyed:
See, the bard's player was using knowledge of how St. Cuthbert works in the games he ran, assuming that it would work in mine. I've already defined how the gods' personalities work and players from the very beginning. I get annoyed when players start using mechanics from outside my defined world thinking its going to work (Pro tip: it doesn't).

Another example-- I had created a rogue goddess of merriment, laughter, and jokes. The goddess' dogma is about having fun in life and not taking things too seriously. Have fun instead of fighting. Party on!
One of the rogues on the team kept trying to become an assassin in the name of this goddess. Now, NPCs would think he's joking and he couldn't understand why. I kept trying to explain it to the player that he should go with one of the more assassin friendly gods I have, but he just kept going for this one goddess. It took most of the campaign for me to figure out why he's so darn attached to her--

The goddess is a red-head. In his little world, red-head gods are sneaky assassin-like.
**Headdesk**

I feel your pain.

Malak'ai
2012-08-08, 07:38 PM
Who BRINGS family to a game? If one of my players was to bring a kid or a wife to my game, I honestly don't know how I'd react, but letting them in would not be an option, because if they brought them, it's either because (1) they didn't tell me ahead of time, or (2) they brought them despite the fact that I said no, this is a terrible idea, which I would.

I have no problem with players bringing family with them (though it hasn't happened in a game I've run, but used to happen quite a bit in another group I was in). The wives usually went into another room and had coffee together while the kids sat with us. We used to include them. Having them move our mini's round, eg: Could you move the one with two swords 4 squares forwards please? Or we let them roll the dice when we weren't in a real desperate situation. It worked out fine. Kids had fun and didn't act up and we could continue with our game.


The DM of a game I play in invites his 9 year old son to watch, as he is a huge fan of the game. The rule is "if you disrupt the game, you're off to bed". Kid stays up to 9, we play up to 11, so we still have some time for more "adult" parts of the game after. Kid is of the calm kind, but he's still 9, and sometimes, he gets a bit... loose, especially in the summer, but in a year, I've seen the "go to bed" pulled once only, and for his at-school behavior. I can only guess how troublesome it must be to have someone else's kid at your own table...

That's how one DM I played with dealt with his daughters. They never gave us any problems (except stealing my fries or chicken nuggets occasionally :smalltongue:.)

Slipperychicken
2012-08-09, 12:50 AM
Spouse

I just get this mental image of some poor, deranged woman thinking "I must accompany my husband to a game I hate, so he won't meet strange women and cheat on me in D&D-facilitated sexual encounters!"

Silus
2012-08-09, 01:10 AM
Spouse
Has to be there because, well, they do, they are important on some non-game level, and for some reason have the idea that doing EVERYTHING together is the only way to stay together. Never mind that they often turn into the bored gamer, distracted gamer, and clueless gamer, they also fill the "What's going on?" "What are my abilities?" and "What are the rules?" complaints perfectly. Ten years in and unable to fill in a character sheet, they "Love" the game, and get sad, making "Wish I was there" comments whenever you get invited to a game with just one more spot.

I've lost gamers to the spouse because said spouse didn't like my game. I'll admit seven is a large party and you aren't getting much spotlight, but you also were never invited into my house. You just followed someone in and I decided not to be rude because you brought a baby with you. Bleh.

Worse: It's one game a week for like 8 hours give or take. The group is over at the married guy's place, gaming it up. And the spouse keeps. Friggin'. Interrupting. Seriously woman, we're gaming here. These little tidbits about stuff that don't pertain to the game can wait.

Dread Angel
2012-08-09, 02:48 AM
One thing that bugs the hell out of me as a DM is OOC issues coming up in character.

Specifically, my girlfriend. She's actually a very good player, especially for someone who's not very familiar with the game's details (still at the read-every-feat-when-making-characters stage regardless of whether she can actually take the feat). She thinks out of the box, and frequently comes up with creative solutions for problems.

My issue is this: She is consistently snippy and petty about gaming with other girls, especially ones who are attractive. We just got a new group together, and one of the players is experienced and clever, and happens to be an exceptionally gorgeous girl. And my girlfriend suddenly can't focus on the game and is always making snide remarks about this other girl.

Bothers the hell out of me.

Another thing that bugs me is when people just don't prepare. I have players who actually read the adventure background and the campaign setting, and give me a fully-fleshed character background that makes sense and is interesting to read.

Then I have the players who, two days before the game starts, don't even have a character concept, let alone an actual character sheet or gods forbid, a background...or even knowledge of ANYTHING in the game world.

*smacksmack*

Logic
2012-08-09, 02:59 AM
Worse: It's one game a week for like 8 hours give or take. The group is over at the married guy's place, gaming it up. And the spouse keeps. Friggin'. Interrupting. Seriously woman, we're gaming here. These little tidbits about stuff that don't pertain to the game can wait.

Especially since this spouse in particular is more than capable of doing everything she is asking the gamer to do, she just doesn't want to do it because she is in the middle of something. :smallfurious:

Bitter much? Yes. Yes, I am.

Esprit15
2012-08-09, 03:50 AM
A few from a game that I'm in currently (and if any of you guys are reading this, it's nothing personal).

That one PC who always wanders away from the group to train. Totally alone. PTTA kind of requires that you do a bit of grinding if it's a game with missions and where the wilds are actually a serious threat, but take someone along for a bit of RP value at least. It gives the team no reason really to bond to the PC that is almost never even there with them, which is kind of bad for a team oriented game.

Somewhat annoying as well: a PC who you pretty much cannot threaten due to them having had such a terrible life in their backstory that they just don't care about anything anymore. Kill him? It would be doing him a service. Kill his closest friends? He'll kill himself so he doesn't have to watch. Torture? I dare you to find something that he hasn't been forced to go through at least once. Even if the character himself is well written and is a boon to the party, it can get to be aggravating at times.

*waits for both players to yell at me now or bring up annoying flaws in my own characters*

The person who looks at everything from an entirely metagame perspective. "A does 2 less damage than B, it sucks." "X's DR is 1 lower than Y's, only a moron would use it." We know that X isn't perfect. Now shut up and move on.

RandomNPC
2012-08-09, 08:28 AM
I just get this mental image of some poor, deranged woman thinking "I must accompany my husband to a game I hate, so he won't meet strange women and cheat on me in D&D-facilitated sexual encounters!"

I've had this happen in a way. It wasn't for fear of other girls (I think) I've never actually ran into another girl gamer who wasn't there just because of significant other who's the real gamer, save one, who got engaged to a fellow party member. (OOC)

My beef was GF1 was in "spend every moment together" mode. Openly did not like D&D so she took my original six Bionical dudes and built the two mega dudes. She sorta had fun, but then my sister pestered my parents about GF over when parents aren't home, even though I oked it as long as it was with D&D group, still got yelled at, cause sister pestered parents.

Wife, I still build her characters, but she tells me she wants build A, when I say "Build B will do most of those things better, get magic items 1 and 2, it'll do everything better" she says no, I want A. And I still have to make the character for her.

Other dudes wife wanted to be a comedian with an axe. I let her, the party helped reign her in more than I did anything, and she got upset about it and quit showing up. Her husband explained it in more detail than I think she wanted him to, but two games latter he had to leave for "Family stuff" and everything he and I do together has fallen apart because of "family first." Don't get me wrong, I'm all about family myself, it just seems like she's making him quit anything I have a hand in.

As for the kids at the game table, my son is six, everyone is cool with him. He' got a kobold archer, I do most of the book keeping for him, and he only cares for combat right now anyway. He has a blast, and the party has a bit of ranged support. That being said I've met kids twice his age I'd never allow near a game table for many reasons, attention span, respecting others stuff, maturity level, all kindsa things.

yougi
2012-08-09, 12:02 PM
I don't understand your issue here. Are you saying that just because someone is a family member of a current member of your group they're guaranteed to be a bad player? Are you saying that family members always play badly in the same game?

I actually did not mean to include players who would be related in my "family member is bad," and I apologize for not making this clear, but I only wanted to refer to those who bring family members to watch. I simply do not believe in the concept that looking at people who play D&D is entertaining (don't we all complain when the party is split and we spend 10-15 minutes not doing anything? Imagine a whole evening!), which will lead to them being bored, which will most likely lead to them being bothersome.


I have no problem with players bringing family with them (though it hasn't happened in a game I've run, but used to happen quite a bit in another group I was in). The wives usually went into another room and had coffee together while the kids sat with us. We used to include them. Having them move our mini's round, eg: Could you move the one with two swords 4 squares forwards please? Or we let them roll the dice when we weren't in a real desperate situation. It worked out fine. Kids had fun and didn't act up and we could continue with our game.
That's how one DM I played with dealt with his daughters. They never gave us any problems (except stealing my fries or chicken nuggets occasionally :smalltongue:.)

Yes, true, BUT (1) this was planned ahead of time, (2) the wives were actually doing something else, although in the same house, and (3) these seem to be exceptionnally well-raised, calm and respectful kids. I mean, there definitely are some exceptions: being a teacher, I've DM'd a D&D game at work for 14 year olds, and it went really well, BUT, in my opinion, this is the exception to the rule.

And snack-stealing kids: :smallfurious: !

I did not want to appear as a hateful man, but before I let one of my players bring a family member to watch the game, I will try to bring in the idea that they try the game instead, and give them an NPC to play or something. I've gone out of my way to get others to try the game, but I don't think a viewership improves an RPG.

Kris Strife
2012-08-09, 12:51 PM
My issue is this: She is consistently snippy and petty about gaming with other girls, especially ones who are attractive. We just got a new group together, and one of the players is experienced and clever, and happens to be an exceptionally gorgeous girl. And my girlfriend suddenly can't focus on the game and is always making snide remarks about this other girl.

Bothers the hell out of me.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the Lanky Bugger stories?

Greyfeld85
2012-08-09, 01:30 PM
I have a couple.

1. Players who can't/won't put things together themselves. You've given them all the information they'll need, if only they'll piece it together... use a little logic and inductive reasoning... but they refuse to even try.

DM: "The inside of the glass globe you hold in your hand looks like roiling fire. There's no latch to open the globe, but you're sure if you threw it hard enough, the glass would shatter."

Player: "OMG that information is useless! I want to know what the item IS!!"

Yes, this exact conversation actually happened to me, though I'm paraphrasing a little bit.

2. Players who want to do something not outlined in the rules, then when you tell them "no," or place heavy restrictions on their idea, they try to argue with you about why it's viable in Real Life, and thus should be viable in the game.

Greyfeld85
2012-08-09, 01:39 PM
Somewhat annoying as well: a PC who you pretty much cannot threaten due to them having had such a terrible life in their backstory that they just don't care about anything anymore. Kill him? It would be doing him a service. Kill his closest friends? He'll kill himself so he doesn't have to watch. Torture? I dare you to find something that he hasn't been forced to go through at least once. Even if the character himself is well written and is a boon to the party, it can get to be aggravating at times.

Lol you know what you do to that character? You kill him.

Yes. You make good on your threat, and you actually kill him.

Normally, I don't espouse knocking off characters without a good reason (or a badass sacrifice death scene), but the player has literally placed himself in this situation. If the bad guys are willing to kill to get what they want, and this character can't be used to serve their ends, then they kill him. It gets the character out of their way and doesn't leave any witnesses.

I guarantee that if you kill off a player's character because they refuse to react like a normal human being, the player will start creating more realistic characters that actually have things they care about.

AGow95
2012-08-09, 03:05 PM
I have one player who insists on being lawful to the letter, the law being his own moral code, so just now my players had a 39 minute argument on where to go after escaping a jail, should they kill their corrupt captor, why we can't go there, why we should wander aimlessly, and I can't just say "You leave" because they'd feel I was ignoring their ideas, and then to top it off, they go the first idea because I had to have guard walking towards them to get them to hurry up, and it still took them 5 minutes to come to that conclusion.

Zeful
2012-08-09, 03:54 PM
Somewhat annoying as well: a PC who you pretty much cannot threaten due to them having had such a terrible life in their backstory that they just don't care about anything anymore. Kill him? It would be doing him a service. Kill his closest friends? He'll kill himself so he doesn't have to watch. Torture? I dare you to find something that he hasn't been forced to go through at least once. Even if the character himself is well written and is a boon to the party, it can get to be aggravating at times.
That's because you're looking at it wrong: you're trying to take things away, the Player has already done that.

No for this, you give. Give him a family, give him a cause, give him a purpose, then, give the choice between the character's death, or keeping those attachments.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-09, 03:57 PM
I have one player who insists on being lawful to the letter, the law being his own moral code, so just now my players had a 39 minute argument on where to go after escaping a jail, should they kill their corrupt captor, why we can't go there, why we should wander aimlessly, and I can't just say "You leave" because they'd feel I was ignoring their ideas, and then to top it off, they go the first idea because I had to have guard walking towards them to get them to hurry up, and it still took them 5 minutes to come to that conclusion.

One of my friends was able to resolve this by saying "while you were arguing, a minute passed" and describing the scene changing/developing while they're arguing.

kyoryu
2012-08-09, 06:00 PM
I have one player who insists on being lawful to the letter, the law being his own moral code, so just now my players had a 39 minute argument on where to go after escaping a jail, should they kill their corrupt captor, why we can't go there, why we should wander aimlessly, and I can't just say "You leave" because they'd feel I was ignoring their ideas, and then to top it off, they go the first idea because I had to have guard walking towards them to get them to hurry up, and it still took them 5 minutes to come to that conclusion.

Simple rule: Conversations Happen In Real Time.

Amazo
2012-08-09, 07:00 PM
Simple rule: Conversations Happen In Real Time.

That would probably lead to the non-Lawfuls murdering someone and then there being an even longer argument or outright PvP, if the case is as severe as it seems to me.

Sutremaine
2012-08-09, 07:08 PM
Just out of curiosity, have you read the Lanky Bugger stories?
Well, I can kind of see his girlfriend's point. Imagine it: your partner lets a female friend sit on his lap and carries on letting her do it after you've said something about it, and then he brings another female friend to the game. When you go out to complain about that, his response is to walk over to you, hold you tenderly... and tell you to get back in the kitchen and make the food.

Yeah, I can understand someone reacting badly to that.

Water_Bear
2012-08-09, 07:30 PM
Well, I can kind of see his girlfriend's point. Imagine it: your partner lets a female friend sit on his lap and carries on letting her do it after you've said something about it, and then he brings another female friend to the game. When you go out to complain about that, his response is to walk over to you, hold you tenderly... and tell you to get back in the kitchen and make the food.

Yeah, I can understand someone reacting badly to that.

The problem is Lanky also got her her point, along with a full inch of knife in his stomach. Not to restart an old argument, but there really isn't any justification for stabbing someone unless you are in an actual physical fight.

On the topic of GM Banes and SOs, I would humbly submit;

Players Who Creep on Other Players (or the DM I guess).

I had a guy who would not stop ogling my girlfriend, another player, and it was getting seriously uncomfortable for both of us. Luckily I was able to play the "physically imposing boyfriend" card and get him to knock that **** off, but it was seriously disrespectful and still annoys me years later.

byaku rai
2012-08-09, 08:26 PM
I'll admit I didn't read every post up to now, so I'm sorry if this is a repeat, but I have a couple:

CHEATERS
This is the big one. Especially in a gaming group of friends, working on the honor rule when it comes to character creation, the concept of someone cheating bothers me both as a player and as a DM. I mean, honestly. If we're playing for fun, what's the point? It's not like PvP is gonna happen (at least I hope not... it happened once and it was a world of not fun), and we don't usually adopt the 'Players vs. DM' gamer mindset.

Problem number two, I don't really have a word for, but it boils down to this:

Player: "I do x."
DM: "You can't/shouldn't do x, [circumstances]."
Player: Either "I do x anyway." or "Fine, I guess I won't do anything."

Admittedly, that's sometimes a case of bad DMing, but usually the [circumstances] are good enough to warrant the 'can't', at least. Shouldn't is a whole different issue, and if that results in them doing it anyway, they've brought it on themselves.

... The "Fine, I guess I won't do anything." is part of why I try not to DM anymore. Just can't take the pettiness.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-10, 12:39 AM
... The "Fine, I guess I won't do anything." is part of why I try not to DM anymore. Just can't take the pettiness.

Happened with me once (me as the player). In my case, anyway, I said that because the rejected action was the only thing I could think of. Also, if the DM rejects an IC action, I usually expect some kind of nudge in the "right" direction, or for another player to figure out something he won't reject. Well, a combination of that, blind rage, and wanting to be polite at the same time.

Basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Which can seem petty, but is better than cursing out the DM mid-game.

Knaight
2012-08-10, 01:09 AM
Well, I can kind of see his girlfriend's point. Imagine it: your partner lets a female friend sit on his lap and carries on letting her do it after you've said something about it, and then he brings another female friend to the game. When you go out to complain about that, his response is to walk over to you, hold you tenderly... and tell you to get back in the kitchen and make the food.

Yeah, I can understand someone reacting badly to that.

Her point is entirely valid. The way she chose to express it (specifically by stabbing him with a knife) is way past anything that could conceivably be called reasonable. Then there are the other two stories.

Gamer Girl
2012-08-10, 01:11 AM
The Scout/Solo Adventure Person Oh this player drives me crazy. You have the nice group of five characters heading along the road. Then that one player wants to scout ahead. And this can quickly lead to two games, one where the scout is playing solo, and one with the rest of the group.

Marlowe
2012-08-10, 01:15 AM
None from what I Googled. I never heard of them, but they sound like pretty cool concepts I'd like to see more of. Less whiney and more winning! :smallbiggrin:

They're also the most ruthless characters in the show, spend most of their time disguised as nightmarish whiteface Tuxedo Mask parodies, and jump in to save the "villains" or backstab the heroes at crucial moments. The "Villains" are openly horrified by this. They only appear one at a time, so it's not obvious until near the end who they actually are.

Mystic Muse
2012-08-10, 01:35 AM
I actually did not mean to include players who would be related in my "family member is bad," and I apologize for not making this clear, but I only wanted to refer to those who bring family members to watch. I simply do not believe in the concept that looking at people who play D&D is entertaining (don't we all complain when the party is split and we spend 10-15 minutes not doing anything? Imagine a whole evening!), which will lead to them being bored, which will most likely lead to them being bothersome.


Fun Fact: The way I got into D&D was by sitting in on another group a couple times while they played. I actually quite enjoyed it, even though it was several sessions that were up to 3 hours long or more if I recall correctly.

That group and I now meet up every other Saturday for various types of D20 systems.

Logic
2012-08-10, 02:40 AM
Just out of curiosity, have you read the Lanky Bugger stories?
I know I read some of them, but I can't find them here on the forums. The stabbing one does not ring a bell. The Bat-****-crazy DM over the free "Brew Potion" feat I know pretty well.

RandomNPC
2012-08-10, 08:32 AM
I think the last one turned out to not be lanky, the one about the DM rage over the potions and whatnot. Anyway, one of them is a certified false lanky.

On Cheaters: The only two I've seen that I could call out and knew were cheating were fairly obvious, I've never suspected anyone else of anything more that bad math.

One guy, doesn't matter what he rolls, he drops the d20 and calls "Blackjack!" you could ask him his bonus and he'll tell you "I rolled X so it's.... Y." Ask him a bit later and he'll look at his sheet and tell you a completely different number. He was obvious because he called blackjack (21) every time he rolled a d20.

Other guy, my little brother in-law. He was 13-14 at the time, and didn't like to loose, so he'd drop the d20 two or three times before "rolling" it took one game session of that for me to say "if you touch dice for anything after rolling, other than to obviously move it closer without turning it so you can read it with everyone watching you, it's a 1." Fixed that right quick.

RFLS
2012-08-10, 11:34 AM
2. Players who want to do something not outlined in the rules, then when you tell them "no," or place heavy restrictions on their idea, they try to argue with you about why it's viable in Real Life, and thus should be viable in the game.

Like...taking 20 on a Perception check, maybe?

yougi
2012-08-10, 12:04 PM
The problem is Lanky also got her her point, along with a full inch of knife in his stomach. Not to restart an old argument, but there really isn't any justification for stabbing someone unless you are in an actual physical fight.

What now? Where was there stabbing in Lanky's story? Wasn't it the story about the wacko DM and the potions and the police to get him out and the lasagna he couldn't eat by himself?


Fun Fact: The way I got into D&D was by sitting in on another group a couple times while they played. I actually quite enjoyed it, even though it was several sessions that were up to 3 hours long or more if I recall correctly.

That group and I now meet up every other Saturday for various types of D20 systems.

Which brings me to the following question: why didn't you just take part in that game from the beginning, instead of watching them play?

I mean, obviously there are exceptions, and I don't want to divert the thread, but let's just say that in general, I believe it's a bad idea.

Amazo
2012-08-10, 12:10 PM
What now? Where was there stabbing in Lanky's story? Wasn't it the story about the wacko DM and the potions and the police to get him out and the lasagna he couldn't eat by himself?



Which brings me to the following question: why didn't you just take part in that game from the beginning, instead of watching them play?

I mean, obviously there are exceptions, and I don't want to divert the thread, but let's just say that in general, I believe it's a bad idea.


I've had people spectate games before despite being avid players themselves and fully capable of rolling up a character and joining. There's a couple of reasons why they wouldn't join, and I've experienced all of them with my group. Perhaps the group being observed is a bunch of strangers and you don't want to insert yourself into their hobby. Perhaps you know the people but don't want to mess with their group's dynamic.

Mystic Muse
2012-08-10, 12:21 PM
Which brings me to the following question: why didn't you just take part in that game from the beginning, instead of watching them play? High level 3.5 and I didn't know how to make characters at that point. I was just watching to get a feel for the game and the group and such

Knaight
2012-08-10, 12:27 PM
What now? Where was there stabbing in Lanky's story? Wasn't it the story about the wacko DM and the potions and the police to get him out and the lasagna he couldn't eat by himself?
That would be one of them, yes. There were three, plus a fake one someone else made later.

GeekGirl
2012-08-10, 12:55 PM
Players Who Creep on Other Players (or the DM I guess).

These are the worst (for me at least). There was a really creepy guy in the group I game with now, luckily he is no more. It was bad when he was a player... worse when he was DMing. He was friends with the group before I met them, but there was kind of a falling out between him and everyone else so things worked out. And honestly everyone is happier without him.

yougi
2012-08-10, 01:57 PM
I've had people spectate games before despite being avid players themselves and fully capable of rolling up a character and joining. There's a couple of reasons why they wouldn't join, and I've experienced all of them with my group. Perhaps the group being observed is a bunch of strangers and you don't want to insert yourself into their hobby. Perhaps you know the people but don't want to mess with their group's dynamic.


High level 3.5 and I didn't know how to make characters at that point. I was just watching to get a feel for the game and the group and such

Well, I guess that makes sense. I'll take back the "it's a terrible idea". Still, in the first example, the family member was brought without mentioning it to the host, which I still think is disrespectful, unless such things were accepted between the two people.


That would be one of them, yes. There were three, plus a fake one someone else made later.

And I just read the other two (the plagiarism and the stabbing), but I can't seem to find the fake one.

It would be great if somebody were to post that their DM Bane is for players to not accept when they break their flask of "stay alive" potion and to try to get some more.

Keithicus
2012-08-10, 03:08 PM
Here's the 4 GiantITP stories that I found with a quick Google of "Lanky Bugger", since people are asking about the stories (I'm not going to comment about if the stories are real or not... just linking them)

The Angry Player (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11398343&postcount=1)

How Lanky got himself stabbed! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5198170&postcount=1)

Plagiarism for fun! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5096093&postcount=1)

Psycho DM (e.g. the one with the brew potion feat) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1263034&postcount=1)

On topic, the only bad thing I've had to really deal with as a DM (which I had to deal with as a player as well) was people trying to put words into my mouth in order to get away with things.

Talakeal
2012-08-10, 05:06 PM
Her point is entirely valid. The way she chose to express it (specifically by stabbing him with a knife) is way past anything that could conceivably be called reasonable. Then there are the other two stories.

I agree. If she had any reaction less than extreme physical violence I can't help but think he would be seen as the villain of the story. Honestly, IF I were in the situation and already had a knife in my hand like she did I probably would have done the same.

However, I have also heard that this story was not actually a real story by Lanky and was just someone pretending to be him.

only1doug
2012-08-11, 11:10 AM
I agree. If she had any reaction less than extreme physical violence I can't help but think he would be seen as the villain of the story. Honestly, IF I were in the situation and already had a knife in my hand like she did I probably would have done the same.

However, I have also heard that this story was not actually a real story by Lanky and was just someone pretending to be him.

Well, if they were pretending to be him they were very convincing, the first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91781) by return of lanky was one explaining why he wasn't using the old account.

His 2nd post was announcing his return to draw more avatars.
153 posts over 2 months include 2 of the famous lanky stories, the impersonator and the stabbing.

One post claims he isnt the real lanky...

I believed in the return, and i still do.

Krazzman
2012-08-13, 03:33 AM
One post claims he isnt the real lanky...

I believed in the return, and i still do.

The lanky-Messias? fun aside..or wait no...damn.

Anyway I for myself don't have anything that annoys me while gaming atm... except myself^^

Lanaya
2012-08-13, 04:30 AM
More irritating than a true bane, but the 'grass is greener' player. Playing a wizard? Spells are too complicated, I want a fighter. Playing a fighter? Fighters are too weak, I want a cleric. Playing a cleric? Healing is too boring, I want a wizard. It's really annoying to have one player constantly complain that their character is soooo useless and never contributes anything and everything would be soooo much better if I was playing an X when they're actually the most important member of the party.

Jon_Dahl
2012-08-13, 05:41 AM
I have my RL in a trash can

I've had two players that played drunk. First one is kicked out. The second one had his first and last warning and is still continuing. I feel disgusted with his behavior.

Drunkards are the lowest of the low. They yell, stink, act abusively and do about the half the stuff mentioned in this thread and worse.

Jay R
2012-08-13, 06:00 AM
Conflicting schedules.

The game I'm in hasn't met since May, since we can't find a time we can all get together.

Tanngrisnir
2012-08-13, 07:39 AM
The Scout/Solo Adventure Person Oh this player drives me crazy. You have the nice group of five characters heading along the road. Then that one player wants to scout ahead. And this can quickly lead to two games, one where the scout is playing solo, and one with the rest of the group.

I really have no issue with this at all. One of the major advantages of having a scout, rogue or ranger in your party is that they can search ahead so you don't just walk blindly into whatever lays in wait.

Edog
2012-08-13, 07:49 AM
Hell one guy in a PbP tried to intimidate Recette into giving a better deal...needless to say the 20 other adventuring parties in her Wal-mart style store all intimidated him when she started to 'cry'.

Wow. I don't know how many win points this is worth, but I'm sure it's a lot :smallbiggrin:

On topic, I, too, have problems with one guy who just won't roleplay at all. Which just about sunk my plans for using any of the more freeform systems :smallsigh: Still, though, I consider myself lucky; I haven't really run into any of the nastier things on this thread.

Kalmageddon
2012-08-13, 07:53 AM
Conflicting schedules.

The game I'm in hasn't met since May, since we can't find a time we can all get together.

This one can be really annoying, expecially when the reason for being "buisy" is not one of family or work. If whatever comes up in your life takes priority over playing a game with your friends you should just quit, so that at least the others can find a replacement and the GM can make your character leave instead of popping in and out of existence.

LrdoftheRngs
2012-08-13, 01:06 PM
Mine is that player that memorizes the rulebooks. And I mean all of them. The reason it ticks me off is that you cannot surprise them without making up an entire world, and monsters with it. For example, I throw the party up against the most obscure monster I've ever seen and he's rattled off it's stats, weaknesses, and powers before you can say "Bypass a DC 50 knowledge check".

byaku rai
2012-08-13, 01:31 PM
Mine is that player that memorizes the rulebooks. And I mean all of them. The reason it ticks me off is that you cannot surprise them without making up an entire world, and monsters with it. For example, I throw the party up against the most obscure monster I've ever seen and he's rattled off it's stats, weaknesses, and powers before you can say "Bypass a DC 50 knowledge check".

That's called metagaming, and it's something you should talk to the player about. They may know the monster's weaknesses, but that doesn't mean their character does, and they need to respect that distinction.

If they /really/ want to do that sort of thing anyway, just tell them to spend the skill points and gold to boost their Knowledge skills to obscene levels.

Knaight
2012-08-13, 01:38 PM
That's called metagaming, and it's something you should talk to the player about. They may know the monster's weaknesses, but that doesn't mean their character does, and they need to respect that distinction.

That said, I'd also point out that it is likely a system flaw. Good roleplaying involves not metagaming in this instance, but how does the system treat it? You gain absolutely nothing for staying in character and acting ineffectively, instead you are more likely to have your character die, not get experience, and have to pay up for resurrection. The system disincentives actually playing out your flaws, including flaws like not having a perfect understanding of what is going on.

Zeful
2012-08-13, 01:50 PM
That said, I'd also point out that it is likely a system flaw. Good roleplaying involves not metagaming in this instance, but how does the system treat it? You gain absolutely nothing for staying in character and acting ineffectively, instead you are more likely to have your character die, not get experience, and have to pay up for resurrection. The system disincentives actually playing out your flaws, including flaws like not having a perfect understanding of what is going on.

Heaven forbid the DM just change the monsters stats on the fly so all of the description is outright wrong, then add a mechanic specifically to punish the metagamer.

Because that would be just wrong.

Water_Bear
2012-08-13, 01:54 PM
Heaven forbid the DM just change the monsters stats on the fly so all of the description is outright wrong, then add a mechanic specifically to punish the metagamer.

Because that would be just wrong.

Yes, it actually would.

It's a) pointlessly vindictive, b) unlikely to actually work given how complex stat-blocks are in D&D, and c) robs the rest of the party of an interesting encounter.

Asking the metagamer to separate IC and OOC Knowledge? Fine.
Requiring Knowledge (X) rolls to identify monsters? Golden.
DM Fiat used out of spite? Not a wise choice.

Lord Il Palazzo
2012-08-13, 02:44 PM
Conflicting schedules.

The game I'm in hasn't met since May, since we can't find a time we can all get together.YES! My game went on a two or three month hiatus in the spring because nobody could line their schedules up. If gaming with your friends isn't a high enough priority that you can make time for it at least once every few weeks, have the courtesy to leave the group so you aren't holding everyone else's game hostage.


Yes, it actually would.

It's a) pointlessly vindictive, b) unlikely to actually work given how complex stat-blocks are in D&D, and c) robs the rest of the party of an interesting encounter.

Asking the metagamer to separate IC and OOC Knowledge? Fine.
Requiring Knowledge (X) rolls to identify monsters? Golden.
DM Fiat used out of spite? Not a wise choice.How is it "robbing the rest of the party of an interesting encounter" to switch things up, for example, as Gamer Girl described in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13706568&postcount=12)?

Just Use the Stats Need a creature to encounter but don't have one handy? Just use the stats for anything! Say you feel like having a skeletal warrior around the next corner, but don't have one ready. Just flip open any book and use some random stats. 'Fire Giant' works just fine for a skeletal warrior. And it's even more fun if the 'skeletal warrior' as the ability of say a basilisk.It works fine in spite of "complex stat-blocks" and everyone gets a fun and challenging encounter without the metagamer getting to lean entirely on his out-of-character knowledge.

Knaight
2012-08-13, 02:49 PM
Heaven forbid the DM just change the monsters stats on the fly so all of the description is outright wrong, then add a mechanic specifically to punish the metagamer.

Because that would be just wrong.
"See, I can fix this problem with the system. That means it doesn't actually have a problem." Your solution is a workaround, and potentially a messy one given that D&D has never been a system that made changing stats quickly easy. This workaround doesn't change the fact that D&D essentially pushes this player behavior with how it is made.

Water_Bear
2012-08-13, 03:39 PM
How is it "robbing the rest of the party of an interesting encounter" to switch things up, for example, as Gamer Girl described in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13706568&postcount=12)?

It works fine in spite of "complex stat-blocks" and everyone gets a fun and challenging encounter without the metagamer getting to lean entirely on his out-of-character knowledge.

The original post I quoted said to change their stats "on the fly" and to "add a mechanic specifically to punish the meta-gamer" neither of which imply a careful selection of monsters whose stats to change out.

Also, assuming the DM has done any prep-work, the kind of switch you describe could easily rob the players of a fun encounter. That is because encounter design is about how the monsters interact with the players and so changing the stats changes the entire tone and structure of an encounter; a Dragon fights very differently from a Hydra despite their thematic similarity.

For example; replacing a Skeleton with a Basalisk will definitely throw off a meta-gamer, but it will also become a pain. Basalisks have only one weak melee attack and rely almost entirely on their petrification; therefore they are best used in an area where petrified statues prevent charging and they can fight at a distance. Skeletons are fast melee combatants with lower HPs, so they will want an open field to charge their enemies and do maximum damage before death. An encounter built around one will not easily accommodate the other.

Lord Il Palazzo
2012-08-13, 04:15 PM
The original post I quoted said to change their stats "on the fly" and to "add a mechanic specifically to punish the meta-gamer" neither of which imply a careful selection of monsters whose stats to change out.Neither does "Need a creature to encounter but don't have one handy? Just use the stats for anything!" as I quoted. It's still a reasonable way to craft an encounter without showing your entire hand to the meta-gamer the moment you start describing what the players see.


Also, assuming the DM has done any prep-work, the kind of switch you describe could easily rob the players of a fun encounter. That is because encounter design is about how the monsters interact with the players and so changing the stats changes the entire tone and structure of an encounter; a Dragon fights very differently from a Hydra despite their thematic similarity.

For example; replacing a Skeleton with a Basalisk will definitely throw off a meta-gamer, but it will also become a pain. Basalisks have only one weak melee attack and rely almost entirely on their petrification; therefore they are best used in an area where petrified statues prevent charging and they can fight at a distance. Skeletons are fast melee combatants with lower HPs, so they will want an open field to charge their enemies and do maximum damage before death. An encounter built around one will not easily accommodate the other.I'm not talking (and neither was the post I quoted) about swapping a monster into an encounter designed for another. I'm talking about changing the fluff the players hear so they don't hear "six foot long eight-legged reptile in a lair full of statues" and immediately declare "It's a basilisk! I know just what to do!" You can prevent meta-gaming without it having to be a spur-of-the-moment decision. Certainly design the encouter for the abilities you're using rather than the fluff (or better yet, just make it work for both) but having a monster visually match one description but behave like another (in a situation where the behavior works) isn't going to ruin the fight for a whole party like you seem to think.

Knaight
2012-08-13, 04:20 PM
You can prevent meta-gaming without it having to be a spur-of-the-moment decision. Certainly design the encouter for the abilities you're using rather than the fluff (or better yet, just make it work for both) but having a monster visually match one description but behave like another (in a situation where the behavior works) isn't going to ruin the fight for a whole party like you seem to think.

You can prevent meta-gaming, yes. You can also choose to harness it. Good roleplaying involves playing a complete character, which includes paying up their flaws and foibles. Why not design the system so that it encourages doing this even at a meta game level? Why not design the system so that it rewards the behaviors that you want in players, rather than so it rewards the behaviors that are annoying and push one towards going out of their way to correct them.

Lord Il Palazzo
2012-08-13, 04:28 PM
You can prevent meta-gaming, yes. You can also choose to harness it. Good roleplaying involves playing a complete character, which includes paying up their flaws and foibles. Why not design the system so that it encourages doing this even at a meta game level? Why not design the system so that it rewards the behaviors that you want in players, rather than so it rewards the behaviors that are annoying and push one towards going out of their way to correct them.I'm not sure what you're saying. Does swapping out monster stats and abilities somehow "reward the behaviors that are annoying"? People who pump knowledge skills and make their skill checks know monsters' weaknesses and people who have no knowledge but memorized the Monster Manual don't.

How exactly should one "harness" metagaming? Out-of-character knowledge is kind of by definition out-of-character rather than a "flaw" or "foible" or a "complete character".

hymer
2012-08-13, 04:37 PM
I'm not sure what you're saying.

I think he's saying what he said earlier in the thread:


That said, I'd also point out that it is likely a system flaw. Good roleplaying involves not metagaming in this instance, but how does the system treat it? You gain absolutely nothing for staying in character and acting ineffectively, instead you are more likely to have your character die, not get experience, and have to pay up for resurrection. The system disincentives actually playing out your flaws, including flaws like not having a perfect understanding of what is going on.

Lord Il Palazzo
2012-08-13, 04:53 PM
I think he's saying what he said earlier in the thread:Yeah, ideally a system would have an answer to every situation that could crop up. As it is, D&D at least gives the DM tools to use to avoid metagaming and encourage good (or desirable, or whatever) roleplaying. (Bonus XP for roleplaying comes to mind, as do the rules for improving monsters with PC classes.)

Nevermind that roleplaying is a social experience. Even if you gain nothing under the rules for staying in character and do better in combat by meta-gaming, there are presumably other people in the game whose roleplaying your meta-gaming is messing up and whose knowledge skills you're making pointless (not to mention a DM whose encounter you're messing up.) If the meta-gamer isn't entirely socially clueless, the reactions of other players can provide a push to play in ways the group considers desirable.

That said, I stand by my previous post. How exactly do you propose that we "harness meta-gaming"?

Silus
2012-08-13, 05:34 PM
Mine is that player that memorizes the rulebooks. And I mean all of them. The reason it ticks me off is that you cannot surprise them without making up an entire world, and monsters with it. For example, I throw the party up against the most obscure monster I've ever seen and he's rattled off it's stats, weaknesses, and powers before you can say "Bypass a DC 50 knowledge check".

IMO, it's only bad if he actually rattles off the stats and such. Saying "Oh crap, a [Creature]." ought not count as metagaming.

And rolling knowledge checks for something you have meta-knowledge of could easily be interpreted as "ok, I know IC that it can do X, but since I don't know about Y, I can't act like I know of it IC."

Knaight
2012-08-13, 06:15 PM
Nevermind that roleplaying is a social experience. Even if you gain nothing under the rules for staying in character and do better in combat by meta-gaming, there are presumably other people in the game whose roleplaying your meta-gaming is messing up and whose knowledge skills you're making pointless (not to mention a DM whose encounter you're messing up.) If the meta-gamer isn't entirely socially clueless, the reactions of other players can provide a push to play in ways the group considers desirable.
Sure, and this is why we see roleplaying at all in systems that actively disincentive it. It's fun on its own, and because people have fun they encourage it in others. That doesn't mean that the system actively discouraging it isn't a problem.


That said, I stand by my previous post. How exactly do you propose that we "harness meta-gaming"?
Lets take some obvious examples, centered around character foibles. Under a D&D like system, you get the enjoyment of role playing when you play them, while the system itself basically screws you over. However, a common alternative is to tie the foibles into some sort of point system. So if you play up a character flaw in a way that really hurts your character, you get some sort of point for it that you can later use for a reroll or to bring in a contact or whatever else. Under that system, you still get the enjoyment of role playing. However, the system itself also bribes you to make errors with a character. There is also the GURPS option of having disadvantages give characters power when they take them, with them later forcing actions - I don't consider this a particularly good method, as disadvantages that never show up are the best in that system, whereas in the error-bribe system disadvantages that show up all the time are ideal.

Another thing is to not actively disincentivize role playing. Take D&D 3.5, regarding the example. Turns take a long time, so if you waste your action you don't get to do another for a while. This pushes for effective action use, because the in game cost of wasting one action is higher than in many other games. Conflict is centered around lethal combat, so the cost of not playing a character efficiently is losing the character, rather than having them get deeper in trouble; one of these things is almost guaranteed to be fun, the other very much isn't. Whenever combat starts, you break out a grid, track tactical movement, and use a whole bunch of narrow statistics with a bunch of predetermined options. It's a mini game, and that practically demands that people put role playing on hiatus to some extent to engage with the mini game. It's downright punitive, and a system simply not being openly hostile to roleplaying within combat probably won't see such blatant disregard for one's character traits during combat.

Gamer Girl
2012-08-13, 06:41 PM
For example; replacing a Skeleton with a Basalisk will definitely throw off a meta-gamer, but it will also become a pain. Basalisks have only one weak melee attack and rely almost entirely on their petrification; therefore they are best used in an area where petrified statues prevent charging and they can fight at a distance. Skeletons are fast melee combatants with lower HPs, so they will want an open field to charge their enemies and do maximum damage before death. An encounter built around one will not easily accommodate the other.

I just need to add that your the perfect type of player that will fall for this trap every time :) (saying so in the nicest way)

You expect everything to be flat, bland and boring....by the book. To you, a skeleton is 'just' a fast melee combatant. So when I use 'dire ape' for a couple skeletons, you'd just be confused and flustered...and perfect in game prey :)

And the point is not to make every single creature a 'lame 4E like encounter', I hate the very idea of that. Where you stop the game and announce ''everyone we will now have encounter #4'' (but naturally 4E must do this so everyone can use thier lame encounter powers, sigh). Just picture Random Encounter #12 the basilisk skeleton. For about two minutes of game time(as the BS is in fact a bad melee combatant) the group encounters this creature....and say one is turned to stone. Yikes! What a way to spice up a 'simple' walk down a hallway. (Disclaimer: I game Old School so I torture the characters no stop during a game)

Water_Bear
2012-08-13, 07:15 PM
I just need to add that your the perfect type of player that will fall for this trap every time :) (saying so in the nicest way)

You expect everything to be flat, bland and boring....by the book. To you, a skeleton is 'just' a fast melee combatant. So when I use 'dire ape' for a couple skeletons, you'd just be confused and flustered...and perfect in game prey :)

I do enjoy by the book, but I'm not any more a fan of boring play than... well, now that I think about it no-one likes boring play. :smalltongue:

That's why when I DM I like to set up fights as rare somewhat theatrical events; unusual monsters, unusual humanoid builds/spell selection, unusual tactics, unusual terrain. All very by-the-book, rules legal, and decently optimized.

I will admit that style of play takes a huge amount of prep time, but I can't stand the thought of homebrew or fudging die rolls so it's kind of necessary. Even with Rule 0, the DM shouldn't be allowed to cheat any more than the Players.


For about two minutes of game time(as the BS is in fact a bad melee combatant) the group encounters this creature....and say one is turned to stone. Yikes! What a way to spice up a 'simple' walk down a hallway. (Disclaimer: I game Old School so I torture the characters no stop during a game)

This is why I hate dungeons. :smallsigh:

IMO, it doesn't add much to the game if a PC bites the dust every 1d4 rooms, especially if they were even remotely tied into the plot of the campaign or had an interesting character arc going. Why even bother role-playing if you know your character has a life expectancy measured in sessions?

No this doesn't mean I want the game to be a cakewalk. Danger is important, but you shouldn't put the PCs in danger of death unless it would be dramatic / interesting if they die. Joe the Barbarian dies in Pitfall Trap #2718? Yawn. Joe the Barbarian dies holding off a band of raiders attacking the Hamlet of NPC Relatives? Cool and heroic.

WarKitty
2012-08-13, 07:31 PM
Players with different ideas of fun: Granted, some of this goes on in every game. But when you have one player who just wants combat and thinks traps and puzzles are boring, and one player who thinks prolonged combat is boring and wants puzzles...you have a problem.

Zeful
2012-08-13, 07:42 PM
Yes, it actually would.

It's a) pointlessly vindictive, b) unlikely to actually work given how complex stat-blocks are in D&D, and c) robs the rest of the party of an interesting encounter.

Asking the metagamer to separate IC and OOC Knowledge? Fine.
Requiring Knowledge (X) rolls to identify monsters? Golden.
DM Fiat used out of spite? Not a wise choice.

So you're just supposed to pitch players who won't separate IC and OoC knowledge? Because according to you, that sounds like the only potential recourse, other than "nothing".

Moreover, the DMG actually suggests deliberately sabotaging OoC assumptions to get players to stop making them. Not all the time, but seriously, what options are there in this scenario?

Logic
2012-08-13, 08:04 PM
Players with different ideas of fun: Granted, some of this goes on in every game. But when you have one player who just wants combat and thinks traps and puzzles are boring, and one player who thinks prolonged combat is boring and wants puzzles...you have a problem.

You have to have a good balance when you have players of different playstyles. It's more work for the DM, but they can all have fun together, as long as you keep encounters interesting (Example: how about a puzzle during combat that can take down the BBEG's right hand man?)

WarKitty
2012-08-13, 08:50 PM
You have to have a good balance when you have players of different playstyles. It's more work for the DM, but they can all have fun together, as long as you keep encounters interesting (Example: how about a puzzle during combat that can take down the BBEG's right hand man?)

Depends on how big your group is, how well they do at assigning people to different tasks, and whether you're even playing a system that supports both at once. The last group I played with failed at all three.

Logic
2012-08-13, 10:23 PM
Depends on how big your group is, how well they do at assigning people to different tasks, and whether you're even playing a system that supports both at once. The last group I played with failed at all three.
Well, yes, it is nearly impossible to combine wildly different playstyles when one player is actively sabotaging the moments he doesn't like. I have actually had players that sabotaged nearly every diplomacy situation so they could have a bonus fight. Sabotaging another player's fun because part of it is uninteresting is a good reason to kick a player out of the game.

I am lucky that I am currently playing in a game with great player chemistry. We do have one "Spouse" in the group that is also new to the game, but she is much more interested than most tag-alongs I've seen.

More On Topic:
Most of these "GM's BANES" can be mitigated if not completely eliminated. Communication is important in any relationship, including the one between players and GM/DM/ST. If that fails, then the major flaw is that some of these offenses cannot be remedied without kicking a player out.

DontEatRawHagis
2012-08-13, 11:10 PM
My GM and her husband are at odds at least once a session. It usually revolves around him misinterpreting the rules or trying something that she didn't think of.

I could go over specifics, but the best one was when he was so mad at her that she said, "I'm going to have to sleep on the couch, aren't I?" and he said "Yes".

WarKitty
2012-08-13, 11:40 PM
Well, yes, it is nearly impossible to combine wildly different playstyles when one player is actively sabotaging the moments he doesn't like. I have actually had players that sabotaged nearly every diplomacy situation so they could have a bonus fight. Sabotaging another player's fun because part of it is uninteresting is a good reason to kick a player out of the game.

My issue was mainly dealing with a big group (so 3-4 different ideas of fun instead of just 2) with a bad habit of not approaching things that were meant for a combined approach with said approach, or assigning the wrong characters to them. This is also why I dropped 4e - it was just too segregated between "combat encounters", "skill encounters", and "roleplay encounters" to work well.

Speaking of kicking players out...
The Roommate/Driver: The person you don't particularly want in your game, but keep anyway because they live there, or they're the only one who can bring some of the other players over, or what have you.

Fiery Diamond
2012-08-14, 12:33 AM
My issue was mainly dealing with a big group (so 3-4 different ideas of fun instead of just 2) with a bad habit of not approaching things that were meant for a combined approach with said approach, or assigning the wrong characters to them. This is also why I dropped 4e - it was just too segregated between "combat encounters", "skill encounters", and "roleplay encounters" to work well.

Speaking of kicking players out...
The Roommate/Driver: The person you don't particularly want in your game, but keep anyway because they live there, or they're the only one who can bring some of the other players over, or what have you.

Actually, from what little I've seen of 4E, it looks like it could handle "combat & skill combo encounter" better than 3.5, especially with the way skill encounters are designed as being multi-part rather than single roll.

Sturmcrow
2012-08-14, 12:43 AM
Actually, from what little I've seen of 4E, it looks like it could handle "combat & skill combo encounter" better than 3.5, especially with the way skill encounters are designed as being multi-part rather than single roll.

I have to concur, a big part of 4E is that traps are part of encounters and give other character stuff to do

Big Nasty Magic Orb zapping people while immune monsters attack, Arcane trained adventurer finds some counterspell to disable it.
Or the nasty Arrow wall that the Thievery guy disables while the players ward off skeletons
etc etc

GM Banes - Players that show up to play while really wanting to play something else (and I don't mean expecting a Dungeon Crawl while the DM has a mystery, I mean the player that shows up to your D&D game [and complains the whole time] because he wants to play Vampire).
Some times they have good reasons (want to hang out with friends, they think they are being supportive) but it really just ends up being frustrating for everyone.

Jay R
2012-08-14, 10:54 AM
Heaven forbid the DM just change the monsters stats on the fly so all of the description is outright wrong, then add a mechanic specifically to punish the metagamer.

Because that would be just wrong.

Don't do it on the fly; build it into the game from the beginning. I tell my players before the game starts that what's in the books is what they've heard around campfires, but it's not always the truth.

I've made changes in a few of the monsters - not many, and they will face a couple of altered monsters early on. That way, they don't feel like I've changed things in the middle of the encounter, but they know they cannot count on meta-knowledge.

Rust monsters look like giant beetles. Pegasi are evil and hippogriffs are good. A unicorn is actually a goat-like beast, while a one-horned horse has a poisoned horn. And dragons are not color-coded for your convenience.

Make sure they bump into some of them early, and they'll stop trusting the books.

I know what the monster can do from the start of the encounter, and I( don't change it. But the players get the fun I had back in 1975 trying to figure it out.

[Meanwhile, the examples above aren't necessarily the ones I use in my games. Or maybe they are. But don't count on knowing what something is when you first face it.]

The Boz
2012-08-14, 11:51 AM
Don't do it on the fly; build it into the game from the beginning. I tell my players before the game starts that what's in the books is what they've heard around campfires, but it's not always the truth.

I've made changes in a few of the monsters - not many, and they will face a couple of altered monsters early on. That way, they don't feel like I've changed things in the middle of the encounter, but they know they cannot count on meta-knowledge.


That's exactly what I do. Worked perfectly so far.

NichG
2012-08-14, 03:03 PM
One method is to switch up the names, and use that switch in the monster descriptions.

For instance, instead of saying 'you see a couple of kobolds dart around a corner' (which will make savvy players think 'trap dungeon!') say 'you see a couple of grinfs dart around a corner'. Then players can ask 'whats a grinf?' and use their skills. Giving it an explicit, different name also interferes a bit with the process of concluding 'ah it must be an X!', since obsessively booky players may just focus on 'what the heck are Grinfs from?' without thinking 'they're just kobolds'.

After all, how many different kinds of small scaly humanoids exist in D&D by now? Its even better with demons and the like, where there's so much variety in them.

TuggyNE
2012-08-14, 09:17 PM
One method is to switch up the names, and use that switch in the monster descriptions.

For instance, instead of saying 'you see a couple of kobolds dart around a corner' (which will make savvy players think 'trap dungeon!') say 'you see a couple of grinfs dart around a corner'. Then players can ask 'whats a grinf?' and use their skills. Giving it an explicit, different name also interferes a bit with the process of concluding 'ah it must be an X!', since obsessively booky players may just focus on 'what the heck are Grinfs from?' without thinking 'they're just kobolds'.

After all, how many different kinds of small scaly humanoids exist in D&D by now? Its even better with demons and the like, where there's so much variety in them.

Since there are templates that make you smaller, and I'm pretty sure templates that make you scaly... ALL OF THEM. :smalltongue:

Corwin Icewolf
2012-08-15, 01:53 PM
I'm not satisfied with how the campaign is going, so I'm going to completely destroy the plot just to piss off the DM "things are getting boring so I'm gonna blow up this town" "I don't like your particular plothook, so I'm gonna kill him" gee thanks, It's much more exciting to just sit there for ten minutes waiting for the poor DM to think of something else to do.

One night I was dming and had a guy ask the party's assassin to assassinate someone in the town they were in. Not willing to fail to be the center of attention this guy rushed in casting behfis bring under the guy's freaking house, killing everyone in it and completely wrecking the campaign for the night, never mind that I was trying to find something the assassin would enjoy since mr. Explosionmanz is always the center of attention(hey what do assassins like to do? Umm... assassinate?), never mind that I didn't have a single thing else planned.

Now I'm a relatively new dm, been doing it a lot lately and I admit I'm still not good at it. (our group's been taking turns because no one wants to be the permanent dm.) Still not good at dealing with this kind of thing. I hate that the one guy will steal the show every friggin session, and if you try to do anything about it he complains about being punished for having an efficient character.

Marlowe
2012-08-15, 10:34 PM
You should try it when the guy who keeps trying to steal the show, to the point of not letting the other players get a word in, is also playing a hopelessly inefficient character who fails at everything he attempts.

crazyhedgewizrd
2012-08-16, 01:46 AM
I'm not satisfied with how the campaign is going, so I'm going to completely destroy the plot just to piss off the DM

I've have felt this way alot in a few games, i try to hold my tongue and ingore it. But one game i help co write a world setting spent quite a few hours together and sorted the basic blue print of the world itself. The game was going fun for 15 sessions, but after that stuff was added into the game that drastically change the game into something i could not say was the same game i started with.

I can agree that people can start to hate the game in and start doing things that would end it quickly. Sometimes this can also be the GM's fault for moving the game away from what the player thought the game was initially.