Habits that kill fun in a session.

[Choco]

But it's not tantrums or blaming everyone else, it's just conspiracy theories

In that case it's probably just the creative control thing I mentioned. He is just not used to sharing control of what happens to his character with anyone else, since as a writer he determines everything. If something happens to his character (whether via dice roll or your call or another player even) that he doesn't like and didn't have planned, he likely gets a bit annoyed. He will grow out of it in time, I eventually did anyway so hopefully he will too.

[Glass Mouse]

Though in this specific case, I think it might be a case of creative control. He is a writer and is used to having complete control of his characters and everything that happens to them. It is probably difficult for him to accept that his character's fate (not to mention every last detail of his story) is no longer entirely in his hands. I know I had that problem at first, when I had grand plans for my character and then the DM pulled the "everything your character ever knew and loved has been destroyed" card, I took it kinda hard at first. Eventually though I just got used to it, he most likely will too, you just gotta give him time.

Ooh, that used to be me, too
I especially remember being furious about D&D's sleep rules; "What do you mean I can't just wake up at dramatically appropriate moments??!!"

I've left most of it by now. Not all, though - which is why as a GM I'll bend and sometimes break RAW for the sake of fun, and as a player leave railroad campaigns quickly. The following priority:

RAW < Rule of funny < Rule of cool < Rule of Fun

...always resonated very well with me.

Of course, this mindset segues into something that I know many people dislike:
The No-Hooks GM. Railroading is bad, right? So to avoid it, you should build a huge, detailed world, ripe with adventures and cool stuff, if the PCs would juuuuust go over there. No, not there, there! But no guiding them there, that would be railroading! And if the players aren't proactive, you'll just... uh... hmm... build another adventure somewhere else? They'll surely go there, right?

Basically, a sandbox game with non-sandboxy players or a GM who's really bad at nudging. I'm... I'm working on it.

[Gamer Girl]

The Cynic--Oh, yes all the time. Such as:


The Not Fair Cynic--This player complains all the time about the game not being fair in general, and mostly for their character. No matter what they try to 'do', something always goes 'wrong' in their eyes. They just won't accept the fact that the game is meant to have things go 'wrong' and that sitting around and having things 'go right' is boring. A game(let alone life) is about conflict.

The That's Not Realistic Cynic--This is where the player tries something and something happens in return that they feel is 'unrealistic and fictional' and should not happen. Again, they have the hard time accepting that the game is about conflict and fun. It's a lot like a TV show plot, when they do anything you just know something will go wrong. It's more entertaing and adds more drama. It's not realistic that Russian spies put the secret micro film in a hair brush that is the same type a main character has..but it makes for a better episode then 'just sitting around'.


The Why Try Cynic--This player just about just sits there and won't do much. They are sure if they do anything, the DM will go against them. So they sit and 'hide' their character.

[Choco]

The Bone Hog DM--This is the DM who never throws his players a bone. Everything they do is either doomed to failure or complications fly at them almost faster than they can deal with em. If the player states his character is going downstairs to make a bowl of Corn Flakes, this DM will find about 1 sessions worth of complications before that task is completed.

I understand that everything can't go perfectly or else the game is no fun, but some DM's take it to far. Seriously, every once in a while just let things go the PC's way, even if it is just 1/10 of the time, without any complications.

The Rule Nazi DM--This is the DM who insists the rules are law even if they override fun. No further explanation needed really.

[Pigkappa]

The No-Hooks GM.

Yeah that's terrible. We've been playing for months on a quest about a demon, and nobody seemed to know nothing of him in the whole world. So we spent our time running away from guards for some pointless crimes we made in the first session, and going from one city to another just to find out that - surprise! - they didn't know anything at all.

Until the DM was turned to a player for all of this .

[Glass Mouse]

Until the DM was turned to a player for all of this .

Eep! *frantically starts statting out über-NPCs!*

[senrath]

The That's Not Realistic Cynic--This is where the player tries something and something happens in return that they feel is 'unrealistic and fictional' and should not happen. Again, they have the hard time accepting that the game is about conflict and fun. It's a lot like a TV show plot, when they do anything you just know something will go wrong. It's more entertaing and adds more drama. It's not realistic that Russian spies put the secret micro film in a hair brush that is the same type a main character has..but it makes for a better episode then 'just sitting around'.

I think I'm gonna have to disagree with this one. Yes, it makes a "better" episode than "just sitting around". But you know what would make a better episode? One where things happen for a reason other than "I needed something for you all to do, so here's something that logically would never happen".

[Quietus]

RAW < Rule of funny < Rule of cool < Rule of Fun

Mind if I put this in my sig? I totally agree with it 100%

[Glass Mouse]

Mind if I put this in my sig? I totally agree with it 100%

I can't claim credit (I picked it up somewhere on giantitp as far as I remember), but I can't imagine the original idea guy will mind! Spread the gospel!

[Gamer Girl]

I think I'm gonna have to disagree with this one. Yes, it makes a "better" episode than "just sitting around". But you know what would make a better episode? One where things happen for a reason other than "I needed something for you all to do, so here's something that logically would never happen".

But the 'Reason' things happen is to make a good game/episode. Nothing in the game or a Tv show is logical. Everything happens to make the game or Tv show more interesting.

I'm talking about the kind of stuff like on a TV show when the wife walks into the room at the exact split second her husband kisses another woman. That never happens in real life.

Or in the game, say the players are looking for Dark Dak. They go to the tavern where he hangs out. ''Realistically'' he could be or not be there....but to make the game flow, he will always be there. After all, waiting around in a tavern for several real hours is not fun. It's much better for the game if Dak is just there and the game can move on.

And whenever the adventures do something, chances are something will happen. That's the fun of the game. Again, it would be boring if nothing happened, ever.

Think like Doctor Who or the X-files...ever notice that no matter where they went or what they did something happened?.

[stainboy]

Improbable coincidences are fine to provide plot hooks or skip over boring stuff, but they're a problem if they're used as a railroading tool.

Per your example with the cheating husband: if the DM wants the wife to offer the PCs money to murder her husband, it's perfectly fine to have her find out in the most dramatic way possible. If the other woman is a PC who has gone to reasonable lengths to make sure the wife does not find out, having the wife catch them for no reason is railroading.

[Gamer Girl]

Improbable coincidences are fine to provide plot hooks or skip over boring stuff, but they're a problem if they're used as a railroading tool.

I'm talking mostly in general. If the group is taking a short cut through the ''Off-Limits Cannibal Elf Lands, you can bet they will encounter the cannibal elves. After all it would be boring to just hike through the elf lands for weeks and have nothing happen.

It's very boring if nothing happens in a game. But for stuff to happen all the time to the characters is not 'normal'. But again the game is no fun unless things happen.

Player 1--We go into room 11 of the Dungeon of Death...
DM(yawn) just like rooms 1 to 10 nothing is in this room.

[Hallavast]

But the 'Reason' things happen is to make a good game/episode. Nothing in the game or a Tv show is logical. Everything happens to make the game or Tv show more interesting.

I'm talking about the kind of stuff like on a TV show when the wife walks into the room at the exact split second her husband kisses another woman. That never happens in real life.

Or in the game, say the players are looking for Dark Dak. They go to the tavern where he hangs out. ''Realistically'' he could be or not be there....but to make the game flow, he will always be there. After all, waiting around in a tavern for several real hours is not fun. It's much better for the game if Dak is just there and the game can move on.

And whenever the adventures do something, chances are something will happen. That's the fun of the game. Again, it would be boring if nothing happened, ever.

Think like Doctor Who or the X-files...ever notice that no matter where they went or what they did something happened?.

I think you're using the word "logical" to mean not dramatic. Yes, in real life, things are usually boring. But typically, adventures are supposedly the parts of life that are NOT everyday and boring. That said, this is beside the original point of realism. Realism is the immitation of ordinary life in such a fantastical world.

In the real world, affairs and the like may happen even as a spouse enters a room. This is not "unrealistic" or "illogical" it's just a tad more exciting than regular life usually is. Games should have high and low points, right? So if this is a point of interest in a main plot, this might happen in game. But if it only serves as a point of detail, it's probably left off-panel so to speak.

If the DM wants something to happen at the bar and keep the "realistic" feel, he could say "several hours pass as you wait at the bar for Dak to show up". That way, you feel as though Dak is a real person (and not a traditional JRPG character) who has a job and things to do besides hang out and drink in a tavern all day every day. You still get the drama of the meeting when he does show up though, and you only had to pass several in game hours with one descriptive sentence.

I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you here, but my point is that dramatic elements are not adverse to or mutually exclusive from realism.

[Acanous]

The Arms-Dealer- this is the player who has it in his head that the rest of the player party must be optimized, and takes it unto himself to create the most synergistic, overpowered builds possible. Then he tries to tell you why it's neccesary your character takes X feat or Y spell. If he's actually good at this, it results in a PC/DM Arms Race, where the DM has to keep upping the CR he's throwing at you to keep things challenging, and the PCs have to keep optimizing to defeat the harder monsters.

[Hallavast]

I'm talking mostly in general. If the group is taking a short cut through the ''Off-Limits Cannibal Elf Lands, you can bet they will encounter the cannibal elves. After all it would be boring to just hike through the elf lands for weeks and have nothing happen.

It's very boring if nothing happens in a game. But for stuff to happen all the time to the characters is not 'normal'. But again the game is no fun unless things happen.

Player 1--We go into room 11 of the Dungeon of Death...
DM(yawn) just like rooms 1 to 10 nothing is in this room.

Sorry to double post, but i'm pointing out the false dichotomy further.

You're right that it would be realistic for the PCs to go through a large land area and not encounter other people if they are avoiding them, even if people are known to be in the area. But if you're going to use the cannibal elves (who of course would only eat other elves, right? - not humans or dwarves. and they only eat half of halfelves- sorry) as detail or optional content instead of tracks for your locomotive steam engine system, then you could do this and keep up pace and tension in the game.

For example, if the party doesn't want to meet the elves, they must have some other reason for entering the elf lands, right? So let that be the driving force of tension and have perhaps a pseudo-imminent threat of elven people-gobblers always at hand to keep up tension while the party deals with whatever other conflict you throw at them (like inter-party strife, a race to some goal, or something like that).

It's not a yes or no question.

[Acanous]

You didn't double post. I swooped in at the dramatic nick of time and saved you, purely by coincidence.

[Hallavast]

You didn't double post. I swooped in at the dramatic nick of time and saved you, purely by coincidence.

How unrealistic.

[Glass Mouse]

If the DM wants something to happen at the bar and keep the "realistic" feel, he could say "several hours pass as you wait at the bar for Dak to show up". That way, you feel as though Dak is a real person (and not a traditional JRPG character) who has a job and things to do besides hang out and drink in a tavern all day every day. You still get the drama of the meeting when he does show up though, and you only had to pass several in game hours with one descriptive sentence.

GM's best friend

Honestly, I think it's often as simple as...
Improbable coincidences to make PCs look cool = good
Improbable coincidences to screw over players = bad
Neutral improbable coincidences = okay

[stainboy]

I'm talking mostly in general. If the group is taking a short cut through the ''Off-Limits Cannibal Elf Lands, you can bet they will encounter the cannibal elves. After all it would be boring to just hike through the elf lands for weeks and have nothing happen.

I guess the difference is hard to articulate. If I propose a short cut through cannibal elf lands, I expect to fight cannibal elves. I wouldn't even be surprised by a massively over-CR ambush by cannibal elves with antimagic nets, after which we have to escape narrowly before being served to their king.

If I said, "we're going through cannibal elf land, here's how we're going to persist Silence and Invisibility Sphere the whole way," I'd be pretty pissed if a party member happened to stumble out of the invisibility sphere right as we passed by the cannibal elf ambush.

(I don't feel like hunting through splats, so I'm not sure how my cheeselord DMM cleric has Invisibility Sphere. Just an example.)

[Gamer Girl]

I guess the difference is hard to articulate. If I propose a short cut through cannibal elf lands, I expect to fight cannibal elves. I wouldn't even be surprised by a massively over-CR ambush by cannibal elves with antimagic nets, after which we have to escape narrowly before being served to their king.

You have to frame it in the original post, The Cynical Player Who Thinks Bad Things Always Happen to Them. This is the player that complain whenever anything bad happens and feels like it's 'directed at them'. They often don't want to do anything, and complain and complain.

[Talakeal]

Improbable coincidences are fine to provide plot hooks or skip over boring stuff, but they're a problem if they're used as a railroading tool.

Per your example with the cheating husband: if the DM wants the wife to offer the PCs money to murder her husband, it's perfectly fine to have her find out in the most dramatic way possible. If the other woman is a PC who has gone to reasonable lengths to make sure the wife does not find out, having the wife catch them for no reason is railroading.

Are you sure you are using the term railroading correctly?
I always thought railroading was forcing the players down a specific path by throwing up improbably obstacles in front to remove all the alternatives.
This seems to just be the DM introducing a plot element that is disadvantageous for the player in question, and I don't see how it could be construed as railroading unless your definitions are ludicrously broad.

Edit: Upon rereading this, I think I understand what you are trying to say, that is "The DM has an encounter set up. I am doing my best to avoid the encounter. The encounter happens anyway because dumb luck negates my plan." I suppose I can see that as a mild form of railroading, and would be kind of pissed if the DM didnt even roll for it, although it is understandable if the encounter is crucial to the rest of the campaign for whatever reason.

[Provengreil]

Spoiler

Show

So I've been playing this campaign for several months now. my character literally went epic this session, and we started at level 5. about a week before we started this campaign, a friend of mine that I enjoy very much went off to paris island, training to be a US marine. he was back for a session, picked up a spare character sheet(I keep backups so play is not disrupted long if I die) and we let him participate in another session before he has to leave again. He's a great guy, fun to be around when there's no alcohol involved, but dammit he won't pay attention to context. carrying on side conversations, actually outtalking the DM during descriptions, then asking me if it was ok to pull the crossbow on some guy. he destroyed any semblance of atmosphere we kept trying to build, someone who i've suspected to be a hidden bbeg finally outed herself, and the first thing he did was ask if she had big tits and when the answer was yes, the question was how large. he forced us to spend two minutes on the tits, which is not inherently bad, unless the DM is trying to build atmosphere roughly equivalent to when the fallen turned on the pyramid in transformers 2. we were scheduled to start at 4:00, no one managed to take an action till 4:45 because he wouldn't shut up about his training. we were in a crypt with an ancient spirit wasting away, whispering his last words, and he's chatting away about how the battlewagon he's building for 40 is gonna steamroll my land raider with its deffrolla(or however the hell the orks spell it). He couldn't cut it out with the crude humor; people getting hurt(doesn't count IRL for this) is funny to him. for example, if someone were to challenge him to a duel, he would grap the guy's lapel, headbutt him, and that would be inherently funny somehow. i just cant see it. i like the guy, but dammit he ruined the session beyond a degree to which i thought possible.

I apologize dearly for the above ramble. I'm sure the player type has been mentioned early in the thread, but venting a bit was incredibly theraputic.

On topic for the thread but unrelated to the above:
Mr. Pet Book: Kind of a weird title, but you've probably met him. this guy has a favorite splatbook, and every character he's ever created will use as much from it as possible. it's fine if you want to make a frostmage every now and then, but jeez, cut it out with the icy this and frost that, it gets old fast when it crosses through 4 different characters. our resident pet book is worse though: vile darkness. that book is just too over the top.

The Multigamer: This isn't mixing exalted with dnd, or d20 modern and burning wheel or whatever. at least those are all rpgs. this player plays warhammer 40k, starcraft 2, world of warcraft, or dragon age and he wants you to know it, and he'll do so by picking one character from his game and taking out all the stops in remaking it every time he plays. our resident just can't keep the space wolf out of his character; he attempted to train a wolf to be ridden, he constantly reminds us of how his character wears viking stuff, and he even uses a wolf lord as his miniature. he played fighters till i took pity on him and dragged him into a warblade, for which he thanked me after one session, but the only thing that changed was how strong he was.

[Choco]

rant

So.... Um... How big were her tits?

Seriously though, it always sucks when someone ruins what SHOULD have been the most dramatic and awesome moment for months by just being themselves. I admit I let the crude humor fly all the time, but even I tone back on it when it would kill the atmosphere. Some personality types are just incompatible when it comes to gaming, I am on the verge of leaving one of the games I am in now because, even though we all still get along fine, my playstyle and what I expect from the game are way different than the rest of the group.

Maybe we can give your guy his own "official" entry!

The Atmosphere Venter--This is the guy who ALWAYS kills the mood, if you are lucky only once in a while, if not then all the time, ESPECIALLY during key scenes. If you are going for serious and dramatic, the crude jokes and side comments never stop. If you are going for comedic, he can't shut up about how he doesn't find any of this funny.

[Ezeze]

He will grow out of it in time, I eventually did anyway so hopefully he will too.

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep that in mind.

[Provengreil]

So.... Um... How big were her tits?

Seriously though, it always sucks when someone ruins what SHOULD have been the most dramatic and awesome moment for months by just being themselves. I admit I let the crude humor fly all the time, but even I tone back on it when it would kill the atmosphere. Some personality types are just incompatible when it comes to gaming, I am on the verge of leaving one of the games I am in now because, even though we all still get along fine, my playstyle and what I expect from the game are way different than the rest of the group.

Maybe we can give your guy his own "official" entry!

The Atmosphere Venter--This is the guy who ALWAYS kills the mood, if you are lucky only once in a while, if not then all the time, ESPECIALLY during key scenes. If you are going for serious and dramatic, the crude jokes and side comments never stop. If you are going for comedic, he can't shut up about how he doesn't find any of this funny.

We never got an accurate size measurement, the DM was steadfastly trying to ignore the....input and keep talking, but the guy was just running him over. it was incredibly rude.

[navar100]

But the 'Reason' things happen is to make a good game/episode. Nothing in the game or a Tv show is logical. Everything happens to make the game or Tv show more interesting.

I'm talking about the kind of stuff like on a TV show when the wife walks into the room at the exact split second her husband kisses another woman. That never happens in real life.

Or in the game, say the players are looking for Dark Dak. They go to the tavern where he hangs out. ''Realistically'' he could be or not be there....but to make the game flow, he will always be there. After all, waiting around in a tavern for several real hours is not fun. It's much better for the game if Dak is just there and the game can move on.

And whenever the adventures do something, chances are something will happen. That's the fun of the game. Again, it would be boring if nothing happened, ever.

Think like Doctor Who or the X-files...ever notice that no matter where they went or what they did something happened?.

True, but also realistically something shouldn't always be happening. The party should not always be attacked by bandits or wandering monsters while walking the road. Not every ocean voyage requires an attack by pirates, a sea monster, or a nasty storm. Sometimes the stereotypical caravan guard duty the party uses as a means of transportation goes off without a hitch. The party spends a night at an inn in a village and nothing unusual happens. It's a quiet night. They get a good night's sleep and head out in the morning, and there is Really Honestly True nothing unsavory happening in the village secretly.

[AsteriskAmp]

True, but also realistically something shouldn't always be happening. The party should not always be attacked by bandits or wandering monsters while walking the road. Not every ocean voyage requires an attack by pirates, a sea monster, or a nasty storm. Sometimes the stereotypical caravan guard duty the party uses as a means of transportation goes off without a hitch. The party spends a night at an inn in a village and nothing unusual happens. It's a quiet night. They get a good night's sleep and head out in the morning, and there is Really Honestly True nothing unsavory happening in the village secretly.

Not that the players won't believe there infact is something wrong since nothing has gone wrong and try to investigate, and probably torch the town down.

Also, what PCs spend a night in an inn? it's a waste of wealth, better expended on a ladder to poles business venture.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also, what PCs spend a night in an inn? it's a waste of wealth, better expended on a ladder to poles business venture.

Logically, a person with 10,000+ gp would rather spend a small amount of that to sleep in a bed, rather then just sleeping in a tent.

[AsteriskAmp]

Logically, a person with 10,000+ gp would rather spend a small amount of that to sleep in a bed, rather then just sleeping in a tent.

Logically a person with 10,000gp would.

PCs are not persons or logical, they however are rich hobos with a need for magic weapons.

Also, who wastes on tents when you have rope trick or good ol' uncle Mordekainen's house?

[Greenish]

The Arms-Dealer- this is the player who has it in his head that the rest of the player party must be optimized, and takes it unto himself to create the most synergistic, overpowered builds possible. Then he tries to tell you why it's neccesary your character takes X feat or Y spell. If he's actually good at this, it results in a PC/DM Arms Race, where the DM has to keep upping the CR he's throwing at you to keep things challenging, and the PCs have to keep optimizing to defeat the harder monsters.

I'm a bit guilty of this.

It's not that I want an arms race, but sometimes the urge to point out how to do X or Y better grows too strong to resist…