Common Aggravating Table Behaviors

[Blue Duke]

That's your good for trying other things. You should do so occasionally, say in one shots, just to test other ideas. I, for one, play mages, almost exclusively.

So... Why does every character you create who is not a soldier have to lead?



Why they'd want your character to stick around in that kind of scenario is baffling.

on the first point: because I've got two settings in my brain - follower tends to be the soldiers and such, and leader who is just about any one who is not a soldier. I've tried playing solo stealth types and been told constantly to 'stay with the group stay with the group, do what i say' by the leader (paraphrased of course).

On the second point: it was the group that did stuff my character didn't agree with, i pulled them to avoid my character eventually saying 'no you know what screw you all i'm reporting your behinds to the freaking government and screw the 'accessory to' charge i'm going to get'. they started going murder hobo in a sci-fi game and used the 'well we aren't in BIG GALACTIC Government's territory so these agents aren't in their jurisdiction - so we can shoot them with out a problem !' excuse to attack government agents. it baffles me that they think my character would have been okay with that having been a soldier for the big galactic government.

[Anderlith]

#1 aggravation, players who cannot work with a party, whether it's always sneaking around, but not helping in fights, or acting like an *ss & trying to fight everything alone, or trying to make yourself the leader/face never letting other party members socialize with NPCs. (This is hard to describe but basically people who will only roleplay when solo, & actively seeks to exclude other party members) or trying to start drama between the party, stealing from the party, or murdering the party.

Dms who do any of the above as well

People who leave the game early Worse than late comers

Random, inconsistent dm fiat ruining play

Playing in a game where the dm is heavily inspired by another media & is focibly shoehorning it in. I played in a star wars game that had us suddenly fighting the creatures from Shadow of the Colossus. Not fun.

[The Fury]

I have always had an issue with a certain type of player, or a certain style. I don’t want to say this is even bad play it’s just something that annoys me when I am playing.
I call it a chess master player.

A player who sees all the other characters at the table as his pieces to move to “win” the game / encounter. Its not like I aren’t a team player but if I have abilities that will help let me choose to use them, don’t start ordering up what you need.

Standard Chess Master Talk (Chess Master is Fighty Mcfighterson)

“Ok before we go into the room, Earthwalker you cast spell bulls strength on me and Thiefy McStabb. Then cast Hast on the group. Once we are in the room I will engage the big guy, Thiefy McStabb you get flanking. Earthwalker don’t waste your spells we might need buffs after. Cleric McHealsalot you stay back and burst heal if needed”
Me – “You know we can work out what to do ourselves”
Fighter McFighterson – “I am only doing what’s more effective”.

I confess I've been a variant of this type of player. Though I generally save it for groups that don't have much direction on their own or have trouble working together. That's the story I'm going with anyway.

There's an even more annoying variant of The Chessmaster that I've been unfortunate enough to encounter: The Would-be Chessmaster. Generally, this is a player that takes charge and fancies him or herself some kind of tactical genius but is never quite as clever as they like to think. Have the fighter and the cleric guard the cave entrance while the rogue and the wizard scout ahead? Brilliant! The heavily armored folks would give away our position to anything down there, and besides we're avoiding a straight up fight! After the plan goes awry, is it the fault of The Chessmaster for not coming up with a more sound battle plan? No! Don't be ridiculous! It's obviously the fault of those bozos left guarding the cave entrance. If they would have healed us and covered our retreat it would've been no prob!

TL,DR: The Would-be Chessmaster comes up with plans that deliberately dis-include PCs that are "weak links" and complains when they don't show up when they would actually be useful.

#1 aggravation, players who cannot work with a party, whether it's always sneaking around, but not helping in fights, or acting like an *ss & trying to fight everything alone, or trying to make yourself the leader/face never letting other party members socialize with NPCs. (This is hard to describe but basically people who will only roleplay when solo, & actively seeks to exclude other party members) or trying to start drama between the party, stealing from the party, or murdering the party.

Funnily enough, in the moment when I'm actually at the table with these types of players, they're pretty annoying. After the fact though, I'm glad that I did play with people like those because they usually make for the best RPG stories. Trying to be a good player in a group that has a player like this is always a challenge-- you're always having to cover for this insane character, do damage control or even organize the rest of the party to move against them if the character is just too dangerous to have around. Our group had a couple players that acted this way, with varying levels of success. Then we had nothing but players that generally worked well together. It was a lot less exciting, and I truly and genuinely missed the crazy. Funnily enough, there does seem to be a lot of overlap with this player type and The Would-be Chessmaster.

[cobaltstarfire]

Then we had nothing but players that generally worked well together. It was a lot less exciting, and I truly and genuinely missed the crazy. Funnily enough, there does seem to be a lot of overlap with this player type and The Would-be Chessmaster.

It is possible to have "good players/gm's" and still have some kind of insanity to the game, though it just takes the right mix of silly/serious play. (not as much silly as some might expect actually).


Or just having characters that are a bit crazy in character, but with players who are otherwise fine to be around. Like this narcissistic daredevil gnome pirate and highly curious dragonborn druid slowly turning evil warlock that I once played with. The players were both quite pleasant, their characters were....good at finding trouble excitement.

[The Fury]

It is possible to have "good players/gm's" and still have some kind of insanity to the game, though it just takes the right mix of silly/serious play. (not as much silly as some might expect actually).

Oh, no doubt. There's a definite adjustment period though.

[Cluedrew]

Personally I think the best games are when everyone around the table is some kind of crazy but manages to restrain their insanity level to a functional level.

It's tricky.

[Ruslan]

So, I've noticed both in my gaming world and on the forums that a surprisingly common method by which DMs remove PCs who either died really unexpected/stupid deaths or are somehow determined to be irreparably mechanically broken is to ask the player for the sheet and then tear it or crumple it up and trash it while asking them to make a new character (or leave the group, depending on the nature of the event).

I have been playing D&D for 25+ years, and I have never seen this. I have seen it used as a metaphor, heck, I even used it as a metaphor/exaggeration myself ("if you go into that dungeon unprepared, I might as well tear your character sheet", or "dude, if you touch the DM's nachos, he'll trash your charsheet"), but never actually done this or seen it done.

[Anderlith]

Funnily enough, in the moment when I'm actually at the table with these types of players, they're pretty annoying. After the fact though, I'm glad that I did play with people like those because they usually make for the best RPG stories. Trying to be a good player in a group that has a player like this is always a challenge-- you're always having to cover for this insane character, do damage control or even organize the rest of the party to move against them if the character is just too dangerous to have around. Our group had a couple players that acted this way, with varying levels of success. Then we had nothing but players that generally worked well together. It was a lot less exciting, and I truly and genuinely missed the crazy. Funnily enough, there does seem to be a lot of overlap with this player type and The Would-be Chessmaster.

I feel you misunderstand, while some of my most cherished memories of gaming are from terribly coordinated fights & lots of out of combat craziness, i am talking about someone wants to actively remove players from playing. Say the group are people in an urban fantasy game & they are finding lots of people attacked by a werewolf. Every party member is following leads, some go to the library to research, some interview witnesses, etc. Then this guy finds a lead. He tells maybe one or two other members of the party, but purposefully "forgets" to call another player. Or outright lies to others for "RP" reasons, so that they cannot join in say tracking the werewolf to its lair etc. People who just refuse to allow new players join the party because they are outsiders not to be trusted. I understand that yeah you just met this random guy & now he wants to kill orcs with you but still, it apalls me that people can act so exclusitory with other people who just want to have fun with everyone else.

Im not talking about stealing your clerics gold to buy prostitutes & ale. Im talking about active exclusion or worse predation of other party members.

[Verbannon]

I have always had an issue with a certain type of player, or a certain style. I don’t want to say this is even bad play it’s just something that annoys me when I am playing.
I call it a chess master player.

A player who sees all the other characters at the table as his pieces to move to “win” the game / encounter. Its not like I aren’t a team player but if I have abilities that will help let me choose to use them, don’t start ordering up what you need.

Standard Chess Master Talk (Chess Master is Fighty Mcfighterson)

“Ok before we go into the room, Earthwalker you cast spell bulls strength on me and Thiefy McStabb. Then cast Hast on the group. Once we are in the room I will engage the big guy, Thiefy McStabb you get flanking. Earthwalker don’t waste your spells we might need buffs after. Cleric McHealsalot you stay back and burst heal if needed”
Me – “You know we can work out what to do ourselves”
Fighter McFighterson – “I am only doing what’s more effective”.

I am the chessmaster. But thats why I tend to DM d&d 4e games where that is appreciated. Also chessmasters are great in a controller role.

[Tiri]

It may not be common, but I have a player who sometimes falls asleep while playing. It is very aggravating.

[Quertus]

Funnily enough, there does seem to be a lot of overlap with this player type and The Would-be Chessmaster.

The person who doesn't normally work with the group doesn't really get group tactics & group activities? Yeah, that's surprising.

I feel you misunderstand, while some of my most cherished memories of gaming are from terribly coordinated fights & lots of out of combat craziness, i am talking about someone wants to actively remove players from playing. Say the group are people in an urban fantasy game & they are finding lots of people attacked by a werewolf. Every party member is following leads, some go to the library to research, some interview witnesses, etc. Then this guy finds a lead. He tells maybe one or two other members of the party, but purposefully "forgets" to call another player. Or outright lies to others for "RP" reasons, so that they cannot join in say tracking the werewolf to its lair etc. People who just refuse to allow new players join the party because they are outsiders not to be trusted. I understand that yeah you just met this random guy & now he wants to kill orcs with you but still, it apalls me that people can act so exclusitory with other people who just want to have fun with everyone else.

Im not talking about stealing your clerics gold to buy prostitutes & ale. Im talking about active exclusion or worse predation of other party members.

I've gamed with that guy. He definitely belongs in this thread.

I am the chessmaster. But thats why I tend to DM d&d 4e games where that is appreciated. Also chessmasters are great in a controller role.

Hmmm... I like playing multiple characters, I enjoy war games, several of my favorite characters are leader/tacticians or control/tacticians... OK, I might be a closet chess master.

[Slipperychicken]

You don't back up your data? My character sheet is backed up on my computer at home like any other important document.

[In fact, these days I generally keep it as an Excel spreadsheet.]

If you lose a character once because somebody ripped up the sheet, that's his fault. But if it happens to you a second time, that's your fault.

Personally, I prefer to have those form-fillable PDFs as backup character sheets. I love excel, but it's not always easy on the eyes. I'd also rather have my backup sheet displayed in the same way as my paper one, so I can easily copy one to the other.

There is a player in a game I am currently playing in who, whenever one of her characters rolls a one on a knowledge check, insists that it means they don't know anything. She refuses to accept any mistaken knowledge on their part. It's odd because this doesn't crop up in any other circumstances.

That's why you keep your own copy of their knowledge and perception-related skills and roll this stuff in secret, so they can't argue with you or metagame about it. I actually keep an excel sheet with all their modifiers (columns for each character, rows for which skill, and the relevant numbers are in there with any necessary notes), though you could do something similar on paper. Any roll their characters wouldn't be aware of, I just roll it in secret and tell them what their characters perceive or recall.

If they're really not sure about their PC's first thought being accurate, then they can have their PCs get a second opinion like real people do, and in that case I might give a player a lead like "you're not 100% sure yourself, but you figure the head priestess would tell you this if you asked her". That's one of the big things smart people do IRL: they don't know everything off the tops of their heads, but they recognize that fact, know where to find it, and are willing to take that extra step. For something perception-related, then it's as simple as asking an ally "hey, can you come check this out? I'd like a fresh pair of eyes on this."

[Roughishguy86]

on the topic of ripping up character sheets, I have a wall of shame in my apartment where me and my friends pin all of our dead characters from our games. This started a few years ago and we have just kind of continued doing it. It's a lot of fun because it's our way of remembering the dead in our own little way.

So if I were playing under a DM and he tore up my character sheet I'd probably overreact and light his notebook on fire or something crazy like that.

The most annoying thing that happens at tables is when you have a player who always has to make a character with some odd schtick that has absolutely no benefit but it tends to make them the center of attention. This drives me nuts every single time.

[Talakeal]

I once tore up my own character sheet.

When I asked the group what character I should make I was told by both the DM and the other players "Don't worry about anyone else. Just make what you want to play!"

Then when I finished my character the DM told me that he was vetoeing several key aspects of the character because it was "impinging on one of the other player character's role".

I told him that they were vital parts of my character's core concept, the DM said it didn't matter, so I got frustrated, tore up my sheet and started over from scratch.

The DM did not respond well, what followed was a bunch of shouting, slamming books on the table, calling me a munchkin and a power gamer, and then vowing that he would be making pregens from now on and never trusting another player to make their own character.

[Verbannon]

I once tore up my own character sheet.

When I asked the group what character I should make I was told by both the DM and the other players "Don't worry about anyone else. Just make what you want to play!"

Then when I finished my character the DM told me that he was vetoeing several key aspects of the character because it was "impinging on one of the other player character's role".

I told him that they were vital parts of my character's core concept, the DM said it didn't matter, so I got frustrated, tore up my sheet and started over from scratch.

The DM did not respond well, what followed was a bunch of shouting, slamming books on the table, calling me a munchkin and a power gamer, and then vowing that he would be making pregens from now on and never trusting another player to make their own character.

I would say it sounded like the DM wanted people to build their characters based on rp not mechanics. Except I can't comprehend how Infringing on another player's role, falls into roleplay.

[Talakeal]

I would say it sounded like the DM wanted people to build their characters based on rp not mechanics. Except I can't comprehend how Infringing on another player's role, falls into roleplay.

That is certainly what the DM thought as well.

I was playing a non-casting ranger who wielded a bastard sword two handed, had skill focus heal and survival, had levels of paladin despite not being LG, and whose highest scores were in Wis and Cha.

IMO that is almost as far away from making a character based on mechanics as you can get, but the DM sure thought differently.

[JAL_1138]

For me it's gotta be when the DM doesn't offer the context of what's happening, and your character makes stupid mistakes taht wouldn't happen in any other circumstance.

DM: A large group of zombies charges your way, behind them is a wizard clad in a black cloak casting a spell

Player: I use my telport ability to jump pass the zombies and attack the wizard

DM: Ok roll it.

Player: Natural 20, I crit him!

DM: You just killed the friendly wizard who helped you out earlier for no reason. He was supposed to help you but now he's dead. I can't believe you attacked an ally like that.

Player: You didn't say we knew him

DM: Well that's your characters fault.

Ye gods, I hate this. I slip up and do it sometimes, because nobody's perfect and I forget to give details I should have given, and whenever I do it I call a mulligan and let the player redo the round with the knowledge they would have plausibly had by virtue of having functional senses.

Now, granted, there are times this situation could happen where the character wouldn't know the wizard was their former ally or would attack anyway (maybe the wizard had their hood up, and looked like they were controlling hostile zombies rather than fighting them, or was controlling nonhostile zombies and the player just jumps the gun and leaps to the wrong conclusion). In that case, it should play out and they should have to deal with the consequences. But if the error is because I've omitted information, then I rewind, retcon, redo.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Ye gods, I hate this. I slip up and do it sometimes, because nobody's perfect and I forget to give details I should have given, and whenever I do it I call a mulligan and let the player redo the round with the knowledge they would have plausibly had by virtue of having functional senses.

Now, granted, there are times this situation could happen where the character wouldn't know the wizard was their former ally or would attack anyway (maybe the wizard had their hood up, and looked like they were controlling hostile zombies rather than fighting them, or was controlling nonhostile zombies and the player just jumps the gun and leaps to the wrong conclusion). In that case, it should play out and they should have to deal with the consequences. But if the error is because I've omitted information, then I rewind, retcon, redo.

I had a similar situation. We got attacked by a lone Orc. We curbstomped him and when he fell, the polymorph that was on him immediately ended. Turns out, it was our benefactor. Why was he fighting us? Well he was Dominated (we found out later via villain posturing). Of course, none of us thought to question the random Orc attacking us, nor used any magic to try and pierce the polymorph (not that we had any indication the Orc wasn't an Orc). Admittedly, it was a low-blow on the DM's part but it wasn't such a stupid move as purposefully withholding info and letting players hurt themselves because of it.

[Thrudd]

There is a player in a game I am currently playing in who, whenever one of her characters rolls a one on a knowledge check, insists that it means they don't know anything. She refuses to accept any mistaken knowledge on their part. It's odd because this doesn't crop up in any other circumstances.

That's why all those rolls are done by the DM behind the screen. You tell the player what their character knows, or thinks they know. The player can't metagame like that if they don't see the die results. Same with perception, searching, sense motive, any time the character would not be aware of whether or not they succeed at something or miss something.

[Thrudd]

on the topic of ripping up character sheets, I have a wall of shame in my apartment where me and my friends pin all of our dead characters from our games. This started a few years ago and we have just kind of continued doing it. It's a lot of fun because it's our way of remembering the dead in our own little way.

So if I were playing under a DM and he tore up my character sheet I'd probably overreact and light his notebook on fire or something crazy like that.

The most annoying thing that happens at tables is when you have a player who always has to make a character with some odd schtick that has absolutely no benefit but it tends to make them the center of attention. This drives me nuts every single time.

Yes, that is definitely annoying. Related to that is the person who always needs to make a joke character that acts like a goofball or has elements completely inappropriate for the setting (and which usually make the game harder for everyone else because they will never attempt to use smart tactics or strategy or will even purposefully disrupt plans). Dude, not every D&D game is a send up of Monty Python's Holy Grail. And you can't be Minsk from Baldur's Gate. Stop it.

[Talakeal]

And you can't be Minsk from Baldur's Gate. Stop it.

If Minsk is off the table, can I at least be Boo?

[quinron]

I've recently started getting increasingly frustrated with one of my players for rules-lawyering me about rules that don't exist in my (5e) game. If I say (for example) that you can stow then draw one weapon without using an action, he counters with, "Weeeeellllll, the book says you have to use an action to do the second one, and I don't want to do anything that the book says isn't allowed..." despite the fact that almost every time something like this comes up, I tell him I've looked at the book and decided to do something different.

Last session, after A SOLID HOUR of arguing between players over what horses they were going to buy, he kept telling me his cart couldn't carry the weight of the group's injured dragonborn. And since I was desperately trying to get the actual gameplay running instead of suffering more argument, I didn't bother to look up the table he kept referring to that he was misreading - he was reading the cart's weight, 200 pounds, as its carrying capacity. He recognized the mistake later and we didn't have any trouble with it, but I spent a net sum of about 20 minutes that night just trying to tell him that I don't care what the book says, a man, even a fairly big man, can safely ride in an empty cart without it breaking.

Fortunately he's improving quickly, even in that session, but I learned that the one thing I can't stand as a DM is people correcting me with written rules about things that I've explicitly made function differently than written.

[Thrudd]

If Minsk is off the table, can I at least be Boo?

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Kelb_Panthera]

How did we get 3 pages in without anybody mentioning players who don't pay any attention unless their character is the one currently in the spotlight?

They're elsewhere in town while someone's talking to an NPC; they're on their phone/tablet.

It's not their turn in combat; they're talking about a sporting event with the guy that goes after them in initiative.

Unless someone is addressing them directly about the game, it's like they're not even playing. It's grinds me like a beach towel made of sandpaper.

[Professor Chimp]

How did we get 3 pages in without anybody mentioning players who don't pay any attention unless their character is the one currently in the spotlight?

They're elsewhere in town while someone's talking to an NPC; they're on their phone/tablet.

It's not their turn in combat; they're talking about a sporting event with the guy that goes after them in initiative.

Unless someone is addressing them directly about the game, it's like they're not even playing. It's grinds me like a beach towel made of sandpaper.

I mentioned it on page 2. And yes, It's really annoying and rude. Easily one of my top 3 pet peeves.

While I'm at it, I don't have much love for players who use their characters as an excuse to be an *******. They'll behave in obnoxious ways, steal from fellow party members and generally make other players lives miserable. "But that's just what my character is like". No, that's just you wanting to live out your puerile little fantasies in a way that won't get you punched in the face like in reality.

[hymer]

he was reading the cart's weight, 200 pounds, as its carrying capacity.

Abandon all hope. Misreading a table is one thing, but having no inkling that a cart's carrying capacity must be well above 200 lbs is a clear indication that any light at the end of the tunnel will turn out to be an oncoming train.

Unless someone is addressing them directly about the game, it's like they're not even playing.

May I suggest you stop addressing them, then? Just as an experiment? That way, the game won't get in their way while they're doing other stuff.

Another bothersome form of behaviour: Drinking a sticky drink and not using a coaster.

[Quertus]

I've recently started getting increasingly frustrated with one of my players for rules-lawyering me about rules that don't exist in my (5e) game. If I say (for example) that you can stow then draw one weapon without using an action, he counters with, "Weeeeellllll, the book says you have to use an action to do the second one, and I don't want to do anything that the book says isn't allowed..." despite the fact that almost every time something like this comes up, I tell him I've looked at the book and decided to do something different.

Last session, after A SOLID HOUR of arguing between players over what horses they were going to buy, he kept telling me his cart couldn't carry the weight of the group's injured dragonborn. And since I was desperately trying to get the actual gameplay running instead of suffering more argument, I didn't bother to look up the table he kept referring to that he was misreading - he was reading the cart's weight, 200 pounds, as its carrying capacity. He recognized the mistake later and we didn't have any trouble with it, but I spent a net sum of about 20 minutes that night just trying to tell him that I don't care what the book says, a man, even a fairly big man, can safely ride in an empty cart without it breaking.

Fortunately he's improving quickly, even in that session, but I learned that the one thing I can't stand as a DM is people correcting me with written rules about things that I've explicitly made function differently than written.

Silly question: why not run the game by the book? Why make (apparently) a while bunch of house rules which, from your example, don't seem to add much to the game?

How did we get 3 pages in without anybody mentioning players who don't pay any attention unless their character is the one currently in the spotlight?

They're elsewhere in town while someone's talking to an NPC; they're on their phone/tablet.

It's not their turn in combat; they're talking about a sporting event with the guy that goes after them in initiative.

Unless someone is addressing them directly about the game, it's like they're not even playing. It's grinds me like a beach towel made of sandpaper.

Hmmm... I find it easier to roleplay ignorance if I'm, you know, actually ignorant. I'm a firm believer in actively ignoring parts of the session my character is not present / conscious for.

This is, of course, a reason why I like running multiple characters, and not splitting the party, so that I get to actually be involved in the game, instead of reading a book / writing forum posts / whatever.

[Tiri]

How did we get 3 pages in without anybody mentioning players who don't pay any attention unless their character is the one currently in the spotlight?

They're elsewhere in town while someone's talking to an NPC; they're on their phone/tablet.

It's not their turn in combat; they're talking about a sporting event with the guy that goes after them in initiative.

Unless someone is addressing them directly about the game, it's like they're not even playing. It's grinds me like a beach towel made of sandpaper.

The sleeping guy in my group does that too. Even when his character is in the spotlight.

[caden_varn]

If Minsk is off the table, can I at least be Boo?

NO. But you can be Woolly Rupert...

[Max_Killjoy]

Giant aggravation -- player who commits to a game on a certain schedule, and then misses a lot of sessions because other things keep taking priority.