Things Players Do That Rustle Your Jimmies

[killem2]

There are any number of things that rustle my jimmies, but only a couple that will get you banned from my table:

1. I have a whole speech about how D&D is like a bowling league or a softball team.

Do you have a transcript of this speech? :D Or is it within the quote.

[Asteron]

A lot of mine have already been said, but here's one: bragging on your character constantly!

One of my fellow players is constantly laughing about what his character can do. Right now, he is playing an INT build guide type character. All of his items have an effect that makes them register as non-magical. He insists on mentioning it every time he does something and then laughing about it. Yes, we get it, his items don't look magical. But guess what, you aren't fooling our 15th level characters who all have a 16+ in INT. You are using magic somehow and we all know it. Heck, the Beguiler could probably tell us what you are using!

He does that with every character he has...

Also: using the term "broken" about everything. The same player and his brother (who is DMing the campaign that character is in) use that term for everything. Monk? Broken (and not in the bad way). Factotum? Broken. ToB? Broken. Wizard? Ironically not broken. It gets annoying. It's a banned term an my new game because it is a gestalt game and we are all broken!

[Zombulian]

This won't compare to some of the awful things I've been reading here but let's go:

One of my players goes missing 100% of the times if nobody takes the time to let him know we're playing that week even though I take special effort so that we're a steady game group by enforcing the same hours, days and place every single week. As we already know he's like that, then we do take that extra step and let him know, but even then there's a 40% chance he won't go anyway because of things like getting a haircut, forgetting his bus card and random things like those.
All of this would be fine if he wasn't one of the best players on the group. Seriously, his character is my favourite (although I don't let that change my DMing, if so, I just make things more challenging), he's the one with common sense, and the snarky, witty rogue. So what truly annoys me is that his presence makes everyone's experience even more enjoyable (alliteration yay), yet miss out because he can't take care of his schedule.

I have a very similar player. He's sort of joined the party culture of our school so he often skips D&D night to get drunk with his other friend group, but he is one of the best storytellers and players our group has.

Oh also....

- Calling dibs on any treasure they want, and I have to constantly tell them, that's not how treasure works in this group.

Hey man. Respect the dibs. Just like you gotta respect the nose-goes for who has to go down the possibly trapped corridor first.

[Slipperychicken]

A lot of mine have already been said, but here's one: bragging on your character constantly!

One of my fellow players is constantly laughing about what his character can do. Right now, he is playing an INT build guide type character. All of his items have an effect that makes them register as non-magical. He insists on mentioning it every time he does something and then laughing about it. Yes, we get it, his items don't look magical. But guess what, you aren't fooling our 15th level characters who all have a 16+ in INT. You are using magic somehow and we all know it. Heck, the Beguiler could probably tell us what you are using!

He does that with every character he has...

Also: using the term "broken" about everything. The same player and his brother (who is DMing the campaign that character is in) use that term for everything. Monk? Broken (and not in the bad way). Factotum? Broken. ToB? Broken. Wizard? Ironically not broken. It gets annoying. It's a banned term an my new game because it is a gestalt game and we are all broken!

I knew a guy like that. Every damn thing on his sheet was "SOOO BROOOOOKEEN" (no this is not an exaggeration. He said it like that).

[Malimar]

There's one player in one of my groups who frequently tries to interrupt and ask questions while the DM is in the middle of reading the explanatory text, usually in the middle of the DM's sentence, sometimes just before the DM gets to a sentence that would've answered the question anyway.

[killem2]

Off Topic (D&D related that is) Cross talk also pisses me off. I don't mind when we are dealing with treasure or we are in a break. But when I am in the middle of trying to explain something, please, shut the **** up.

But I must be part canadian, somewhere in my bloodline because I never say anything lol.

[MesiDoomstalker]

When a player grabs my Jimmies Jar and starts jostling it like a Junebug on the Fourth of July.

[KorbeltheReader]

Do you have a transcript of this speech? :D Or is it within the quote.

I've never had anyone ask before! It goes something like this:

"Gaming is a team hobby like any other team hobby. It's like a softball team or a bowling league. Sure, it's all just for fun, but by joining up, you've agreed to put forth a modicum of time and effort to make an honest attempt to show up, give us fair warning when you can't, and stay current on the group's goings-on (and it really is a modicum of time). We've set aside an evening and in all likelihood paid for it by trading dinner/babysitting duties with our spouses. When you don't do those things, you waste the time of X number of other people while we scramble trying to find out where you are, whether you're coming, whether we can still play without you, what/how encounters will have to be nerfed, etc., and our time is precious to each of us. It's unfair to expect us to come find you after the rest of us have already taken care of our business to see if you're going to deign to grace us with your presence. You know where and when the game is. You get a reminder email before every session.

I get that some of us are busier than others, and some of us are under a lot of pressure/overworked. I really do. Nobody expects you to participate in every silly email topic or do a ton of OOG prep work or whatever, no one expects you to be totally unaffected by particularly tense/busy periods at work or major life events, and no one will think less of you for saying you can't show up to a given session because you have other obligations. It isn't unfair of us to ask that you keep up with scheduling, keep us apprised of your own availability, and keep your word when you say you're going to show up, though. Our time is precious, too."

[Thelion]

Getting children.

To be honest, I wasn't there from the start of the group, but appearently the DM's wife never was into D&D until she got fed up with the fact that he actually did something without her so she started playing as well. She's very bad with numbers, doesn't know how to roleplay, but is a pretty good cook and has her moments. She has a weird obsession with ridiculously underpowered twf rangers or paladins, but keeps forgetting the fact that she can smite or takes feats without having the right prerequisites, which we usually find out four sessions later after which the DM alters something on her sheet making it alright. We don't whine about this, since we know how she gets when she's not getting what she wants. If a player speaks to a different player while she is trying to calculate what her attack bonus is (which is 60% of a session) she will get angry, because she can't focus. We know this all and try not to let it bother us, since the DM is a nice guy who builds great encounters.

Enter the child.

I'm pretty sure the child has a certain form of autism, since she won't look her parents in the eyes, keeps wetting herself only when we are around, doesn't react to her mother swearing and shouting at her afterwards (and yes, I've mentioned to both parents that shouting and swearing is not a good thing when your child is like this, taking her to a doctor would probably work better, but I'm no parent so why should they listen?) and simply doesn't listen to anything her parents say until they threaten to throw away some of her toys. Yes, they are sucky parents. Oh, the child is 6 at the moment.

Every session where the child is also present revolves around me and my two friends trying to make the best of the situation with our roleplaying (I'm a flamboyant Favored Soul who specializes in buff spells, the other guy is a very stern cleric of the same god and the last one is a happy and chirpy beguiler that annoys PC's IC, but is really a joy to play with since the guy is an awesome RP'er), since his wife doesn't have any interest in roleplaying or anything that doesn't concern throwing D20's to kill monsters. Since she's a twf paladin, she's incredibly underpowered in comparison to the rest of us who are all tier 1-3, but our DM gives her small minions in encounters in a way that she still gets to kill stuff and think she's awesome. This all works fine without the child. With the child in the room there's not a lot else going on then us three trying to play while she gets angry at the child, which is obviously seeking attention. Honestly, the only time the child actually wasn't annoying anyone, was when I put her on my lap and let her throw some of my dice, telling her we were killing evil snake people and that she could help me. After fifteen minutes she had enough of this and simply left the room. Does mother/father ever think of something like this? No, so they just keep ignoring her or shouting at her.

We love playing there, since everything is pretty cool when there's no child/it's sleeping, all the other hours it's really getting annoying. At the moment it's gotten so far that we actually started a second group with the three of us who aren't related to the child and my girlfriend at my home, since then we will at least have some time for ourselves and the possibility to roleplay. The guy who plays the beguiler is our DM, the one who plays the cleric is a wu jen/rogue/spellwarp sniper, I'm a cleric/ordained champion and my girlfriend is a scout/barbarian/avenging executioner. I'm so happy I don't have kids.

[ElenionAncalima]

My biggest pet peeves.

1. Players who think that because a rule has multiple interpretations, they are entitled to the most game breaking interpretation.
1a. Players who don't ask the DM if something is okay, because they know that they will say no...and instead just try to sneak it past the radar.

2. Players who don't pull their weight in social situations and decision making.
2a. ...especially if they try to absolve themselves of blame when the party faces consequences for making the wrong decision.

3. Players that argue against/sulk about any plan that means that they have to spend 5 minutes not being the MVP.

4. Players who don't think about what they are going to do until their turn.
4a. ...especially when they play spell casters.

5. Players who can't grasp even the most basic combat tactics (ie. If you can flank...do it, If you can either take someone off the board or injure a new person...take someone off the board, If you charge 10 creatures with no back up...it isn't going to end well, if you have a ranged option and your opponent doesn't...don't charge them with a melee weapon.)

[CrazyYanmega]

Letting your players know exactly what homebrewed/edited/altered elements you're using could ruin any surprise they would have. I'm not saying "be sadistic with it", but there is something to be said for eliminating certain things. Wasn't it a 2nd ed DMG that requested that the players not read it? Or am I remembering things stumbling blind drunk again.

At any rate, a lot of these problems stem from players not liking to be duped or have less control than the DM. Which is an inherently flawed notion, since the DM has rule 0 working for him.

Problems start to arise when the DM IS sadistic, has a god complex, and thinks he is god's gift to the world. For example, in a campaign that will be taking place in a few hours, we descended through a tower, killing some overstereotypical "Drunken Dwarves," and encountered a room with a girl in a cage we were supposed to rescue, along with 6 "statues" which were clearly not what they seemed. The Artificer, who did NOT trust the ground, decided to Airwalk over to the gates that led to the cage.

OOPS, turns out the figurines on the gateposts have rays that permanently disenchant any magic items you have, and remove any magical effects you have on you, and prevent you from casting spells for the rest of the day, and they hit everyone in the room, no attack roll, no save, no contingency. And then the statues turn into Large earth elementals and move in, and then the floor crumbles under you and you are all now in an acid filled pit with 6 earth elementals and a deep delver, with no spells and no enchantments.

EDIT: Here is an exchange between the DM and one of the many disgruntled players.

Player: I really want to punch you in the face right now.
DM: You'd die before you even walked through the door.
Me: I've told you countless times, but YOU AREN'T. THAT. STRONG.
DM: Oh, I know that. I'm just that PREPARED. I'm like Batman but cooler.

[dascarletm]

Snip

Don't blame it on the kids! My siblings have kids, and I've been playing DnD with them (siblings and their offspring) for over 10 years now. It's been fun watching them grow irl and in the gaming world as well.

[Windstorm]

-snip-

I'm guessing he's now looking for a new group of players?

[Ansem]

The By-The-Book Whiner I'll add this one. Any NPC or creature or monster might have anything. This is part of the game. And the players would not know that the foe drank a potion behind the wall. Or if the foe cast a spell before the players opened the door. And then the character does not want to play the game and figure out what might be going on, they just want to stop the game and whine and complain.

This can get even more crazy in a high optimization type game, where the players get all bent out of shape as a foe cast a protective spell or two before combat. Trolls are a great example. Trolls know that fire can hurt and kill them, so most trolls will seek out fire protection. But the Monster Manual does not list a ring of fire protection in the trolls possessions.

And too many players will stop the game and demand a reason why their spell or effect did not work. They want the DM to tell them, out of character, why the foe was not effected. Then they will ''sort of'' pretend like the character's don't know.

I consider this alright actually, it's different when you suddenly change a Troll from fire vulnerability to cold for example. Whilst not a big problem in itself, it might get troublesome if you do this to everything. Even then beating OOC knowledge with this is cool.
But from experience this can get out of hand, for example being of the Fire subtype and getting hurt by fireballs because the DM suddenly changes fire damages to 'magic'.
If nothing is discussed beforehand it's alright to assume things are per rules as they are and not having spells and feats suddenly do different things as they describe.

[Keneth]

2. Players who don't pull their weight in social situations and decision making.
2a. ...especially if they try to absolve themselves of blame when the party faces consequences for making the wrong decision.

But... that's a valid personality archetype.

[Raven777]

The By-The-Book Whiner I'll add this one. Any NPC or creature or monster might have anything. This is part of the game. And the players would not know that the foe drank a potion behind the wall. Or if the foe cast a spell before the players opened the door. And then the character does not want to play the game and figure out what might be going on, they just want to stop the game and whine and complain.

This can get even more crazy in a high optimization type game, where the players get all bent out of shape as a foe cast a protective spell or two before combat. Trolls are a great example. Trolls know that fire can hurt and kill them, so most trolls will seek out fire protection. But the Monster Manual does not list a ring of fire protection in the trolls possessions.

And too many players will stop the game and demand a reason why their spell or effect did not work. They want the DM to tell them, out of character, why the foe was not effected. Then they will ''sort of'' pretend like the character's don't know.

On the other hand, there are DMs who pull arbitrary effects or immunities right out of hammerspace or veto skill and spell uses midgame on a whim when it doesn't get along with their plan or their idea of balance. Which is obviously not OK. If we do not play and build by a common set of rules, why use a game system? We might as well just sit down and share stories.

[killem2]

I'm so happy I don't have kids.

This has a lot more to do with the parents than it does with the children. I've DMed 8 player sessions with 7 kids in the same room. It can work.

This example however, is also a problem with the child, not getting the help she needs. As a parent with a child with autism, it sounds somewhat like the issue, im no doctor though lol.

Don't be worried about having kids under this guise, clearly you were able to control the kid and it wasn't even yours. Kids are great. When they get older, they can play d&d with you. I do set the expectation though, if you bring kids you have to keep them, under control. I also have a play area for child, with video games, netflix, and toys.

[jaydubs]

The By-The-Book Whiner <snip> See above.

To add to the above - While stopping the game for an extended rules discussion isn't kosher, asking why something isn't working is perfectly reasonable. Sometimes the GM just makes a mistake, and asking for an explanation can help them find it.

If there's a reason the creature is immune to something, the GM can say "It's because of something that your character wouldn't know yet. Make a knowledge check." Etc.

But in my experience, about half the time the result is more like:

-GM looks in book for a bit. "Oh, it's vulnerable to electric damage, not immune. You do extra damage instead of no damage."
-GM: "The creature has DR/bludgeoning." Player: "My weapon can do bludgeoning damage." GM: "Oh, it dies then."
-GM: "The creature can't be hit with non-magical weapons." Player: "I have vow of poverty. My attacks are considered magical."

The above are all real game examples, by the way, from 3 different GMs.

Not all GMs have system mastery. The ones that do are still juggling way more things than most players, and usually know less about PCs than the players themselves. A little nudge can push them in the right direction.

[Coidzor]

Enter the child.

I'm pretty sure the child has a certain form of autism, since she won't look her parents in the eyes, keeps wetting herself only when we are around, doesn't react to her mother swearing and shouting at her afterwards (and yes, I've mentioned to both parents that shouting and swearing is not a good thing when your child is like this, taking her to a doctor would probably work better, but I'm no parent so why should they listen?) and simply doesn't listen to anything her parents say until they threaten to throw away some of her toys. Yes, they are sucky parents. Oh, the child is 6 at the moment.

Every session where the child is also present revolves around me and my two friends trying to make the best of the situation with our roleplaying (I'm a flamboyant Favored Soul who specializes in buff spells, the other guy is a very stern cleric of the same god and the last one is a happy and chirpy beguiler that annoys PC's IC, but is really a joy to play with since the guy is an awesome RP'er), since his wife doesn't have any interest in roleplaying or anything that doesn't concern throwing D20's to kill monsters. Since she's a twf paladin, she's incredibly underpowered in comparison to the rest of us who are all tier 1-3, but our DM gives her small minions in encounters in a way that she still gets to kill stuff and think she's awesome. This all works fine without the child. With the child in the room there's not a lot else going on then us three trying to play while she gets angry at the child, which is obviously seeking attention. Honestly, the only time the child actually wasn't annoying anyone, was when I put her on my lap and let her throw some of my dice, telling her we were killing evil snake people and that she could help me. After fifteen minutes she had enough of this and simply left the room. Does mother/father ever think of something like this? No, so they just keep ignoring her or shouting at her.

I'd recommend collecting everything you can recollect about their treatment and interactions with this child because it sounds like you just might need to pass it on to CPS.

[Thelion]

This has a lot more to do with the parents than it does with the children. I've DMed 8 player sessions with 7 kids in the same room. It can work.

This example however, is also a problem with the child, not getting the help she needs. As a parent with a child with autism, it sounds somewhat like the issue, im no doctor though lol.

Don't be worried about having kids under this guise, clearly you were able to control the kid and it wasn't even yours. Kids are great. When they get older, they can play d&d with you. I do set the expectation though, if you bring kids you have to keep them, under control. I also have a play area for child, with video games, netflix, and toys.

I'm great with kids, I just don't feel any need to have some of my own though. ;)

I should make it clear that the whole 'getting kids' angle was only directed to these two obviously not very suitable parents. I'm pretty sure having children shouldn't endanger the majority of games.

[Thelion]

I'd recommend collecting everything you can recollect about their treatment and interactions with this child because it sounds like you just might need to pass it on to CPS.

It's a weird thing, because there's nothing wrong when I'm over there for watching a movie, in that case the mother seems a lot more suited to be a parent and the child isn't trying to attract everyone's attention.

[CrazyYanmega]

I'm guessing he's now looking for a new group of players?

No. For some masochistic reason we're continuing the campaign.

Oh, should I also mention that the "little girl" being guarded by all of 6 elementals and maybe a dozen Lv 5 dwarves was actually a freaking EVIL GREAT WYRM DRAGON?

[atomicwaffle]

People who can't make effective characters. I'm not talking tier 1 optimization. I'm talking crap like making a werewolf or a dwarven fighter in a homebrew, undead heavy campaign. We're fighting vampires, VAMPIRES, and a guy optimizes a dagger throwing rogue with a pitiful will save. It's great you can deal 120 damage a round but you have no will save...against creatures that can Dominate as an ability...Mmkay. And then there's people who make intentionally bad characters for 'teh lulz'. I'm glad you're having fun doing nothing while im getting raped.

[Slipperychicken]

Oh, should I also mention that the "little girl" being guarded by all of 6 elementals and maybe a dozen Lv 5 dwarves was actually a freaking EVIL GREAT WYRM DRAGON?

[D&D Koan]

If you see a little girl in the dungeon, kill her.

[/D&D Koan]

[Arbane]

EDIT: Here is an exchange between the DM and one of the many disgruntled players.

Player: I really want to punch you in the face right now.
DM: You'd die before you even walked through the door.
Me: I've told you countless times, but YOU AREN'T. THAT. STRONG.
DM: Oh, I know that. I'm just that PREPARED. I'm like Batman but cooler.

9_9

Is this guy an aerospace engineer with a katana fetish?

[jedipotter]

These two complaints are in tension with one another. The "Can" question is designed to elicit more information from the DM. Your players are asking for more detail. If you aren't giving in depth detail—an unfortunate but necessary time-saver—your players have two options. They can either pretend like the description you gave meets their needs or they can ask for more information. The "Can" question is a form of the later. When your players say, "Can I hide behind the wooden crates?" They are not literally asking if it is possible to attempt. They are asking for you, the DM, to fill in that missing information and tell them that these crates are small and there are only 3 of them.

I always peg the ''Can question'' players as just cheaters. They want the DM to say ''sure you can do that and it will woirk 100% and you don't even need to roll''. And not ''DM please give me more information.'' I expect players that want more information to ask questions like ''I look over the crates, how many are there and how big are they?''

To put it another way, they're looking for DC ballparks so they as players know what they as characters would see: "that's kind of hard to manage, that's pretty easy, that's totally out of the question".

Well, I know no players of mine are asking for DCs. I never give them out. And that adds another one:

The DC Whiner This player is mostly roll playing. They don't care much about the role part at all. They want to know the DC of every action before they take it. And leads to the :

The DC Stacker Once this player gets the DC they will use whatever they can to get a plus up to a range they feel comfortable that they will make the DC. It really makes rolling the dice pointless when it is ''if I roll a 6 or higher I will make it''.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I always peg the ''Can question'' players as just cheaters. They want the DM to say ''sure you can do that and it will woirk 100% and you don't even need to roll''. And not ''DM please give me more information.'' I expect players that want more information to ask questions like ''I look over the crates, how many are there and how big are they?''

You and me play with very different people. Almost every "Can I" question in the last 6 sessions has been more or less asking for more info. Some answers have been plain no "There's nowhere to hide in the middle of an empty street. I should have said it was empty" others plain yes "oh sure, go ahead, there are plenty of bushes to hide in." Most however had been "sure, roll [whatever]."

[squiggit]

You and me play with very different people. Almost every "Can I" question in the last 6 sessions has been more or less asking for more info. Some answers have been plain no "There's nowhere to hide in the middle of an empty street. I should have said it was empty" others plain yes "oh sure, go ahead, there are plenty of bushes to hide in." Most however had been "sure, roll [whatever]."

This is generally the impression I've had with most every D&D game I had. "Can I" is "Is it reasonable for me to assume that I might be able to do x?" and is generally used to ask for more details.

The opposite extreme here is of course the DM who tells you there's a gap in the bridge and when you want to jump across the gap tells you it's 200 feet across and that you need to roll a new character. I've run into DMs who try to trick the players by withholding information often enough for "Can I do X?" to be a relatively common question.

[Agincourt]

I always peg the ''Can question'' players as just cheaters. They want the DM to say ''sure you can do that and it will woirk 100% and you don't even need to roll''. And not ''DM please give me more information.'' I expect players that want more information to ask questions like ''I look over the crates, how many are there and how big are they?''

Calling this cheating is extreme. In an earlier post, you acknowledged that what you describe and what your players hear are often 2 different things. I'm not sure if you're 1) pedantically upset by the word choice of your players, 2) you have unusually selfish players, or 3) just have issues with players trying to trying to figure out how they can interact with your world.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and hoping it's not #3. When you first mentioned the "Can question" it sounded to me like #1. It reminded me of when I was in elementary school and I would ask the teacher, "Can I use the stapler?" and she would respond, "I don't know. Can you?"

The open-ended nature of the "can" question is what makes it a better question than asking specific questions. For one thing, telling the DM, "I look over the crates" means I am not looking elsewhere in the room. (Am I opening myself up to be punishment from the DM with regards to spot and listen checks?) A character should not have to look over the crates to receive information about what should be immediately apparent: there are just 3 small crates. Besides, there are unlimited factors that affect the feasibility of hiding behind the crates, and it is impossible to ask all those questions. You and your players could play this game endlessly. Do the crates look unsanitary? Do they look like they would collapse if I touched them? Are they covered in dust so that I will leave a trail of footprints as I walk behind them? Do they look heavy and difficult to move so I can get behind them? Seriously, this could be a game of 20 Questions, but 1 simple question should let the players get additional information.

I suppose it's possible that your objection is really #2. You haven't given us a basis to believe that your players are particularly bad. You haven't related any stories to support your contention that when your players ask, ''Can I jump over the pit?'' or, ''Can I cast charm person on him?'' they are really telling you that they want a guarantee of success.

[Kazudo]

9_9

Is this guy an aerospace engineer with a katana fetish?

Thou shalt not inflict Chief Circle on this conversation.