Common Aggravating Table Behaviors

[Melville's Book]

This makes me consider the name of thread, especially the "Common" part. I've been posting as a kind of commiseration with my fellow frustrated GMs, but I've never actually been all that upset by anything any of my players has done. My complaints don't warrant "you shall never play at my table again" so much as "please stop bugging me about this; just accept my ruling and let's move on, and if it's really wrong, I'll make sure to fix it next time."

How many of you folks posting here have felt the need to kick a player out of a game for the behavior you described? Moreover, how many of you have felt the need to kick multiple players out of a game for such behavior?

To be fair, I've walked from far more tables than I've kicked players out of. And I usually GM! And in keeping with that, most of my aggravating behaviors are instigated by GMs, not players.

[The Fury]

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 guess I did, sorry about that. I might just be familiar with the sort of player that has different motives for removing another player's character. Like the Cleric that kicks the Sorcerer out of a second story window. They did it because it was easier than explaining what they were doing with the unconscious Rogue and that weird portal. Still pretty obnoxious behavior, but maybe a bit less malicious?

I find it pretty funny to meet people who think they're a brilliant tactician when they're clearly not. For instance, a while ago there was this guy who claimed the best tactic in combat is for all characters except one to use Aid Another all the time, to maximize the chance to hit for the final character. Of course, he proudly explained that he'd taught his entire group to do this. If anyone disagreed, he dismissed them as clueless noobs for not figuring this out, and said that their DMs must have been softballing everything if this kind of tactic wasn't needed. Yeaaah, how about running some math on that scenario?

If I'm generous I can sort of imagine a party where that might possibly be the best tactic. If there were no casters in the party for one, and if the character you were trying to give all the bonuses to would get Sneak Attack. Even then, I'm not so sure. The idea falls apart pretty fast though if there's any other available way of buffing someone, like what you'd have if there were a more sane party load out.

[big teej]

How many of you folks posting here have felt the need to kick a player out of a game for the behavior you described? Moreover, how many of you have felt the need to kick multiple players out of a game for such behavior?

*raise hand*

I have asked several players to "re-evaluate your ability to commit to the game" (i.e. start showing up or be honest and quit)

I've booted a player for allegedly sexually assaulting another player.

I would have booted a player who was convinced he was co-gm, but he caught Mono before I could swing the ban-hammer, never saw him again.

I've told GMs and players flat out "I will no longer sit at your table/you will no longer sit at mine" over what I've come to refer as "Irreconcilable differences in gaming philosophy".

I have, with what I'm told was surprising restraint, put my foot down on people interjecting into games run in a public space ("if you don't have a stake in the game, you can't make suggestions.")

I might have to dredge up some of my other horror stories if I've got some time to myself next week.

*ahem*
goes back to lurking.

[quinron]

*snip*

Those all sound like understandable reasons to kick/leave. I'm more curious about how common it is for people to do things like - to use one of your examples - be sexually inappropriate with another player. I'd think that after the first time that happened, that player would be kicked and not welcomed back. That's a serious problem, to be sure, but I don't really think it constitutes a "common" problem unless you keep getting perverts coming to the table and having to kick them; in that case I'd think you should probably institute a new player vetting process.

[Melville's Book]

Of the small handful of players I've ever kicked, all but one of them were due to sexism or racism towards other people at the table. (For the record, the latter is also a reason for me to walk from other GMs' tables, but thankfully it hasn't been common.) It's slightly easier to screen for problematic sexism (it's a good tipoff if the first thing they whisper to one of the other male players is "what, did the GM invite his girlfriend?") but most people aren't exactly forthright in admitting that they've got prejudiced views that they'll display later. So it's often difficult to catch before it becomes a problem.

[Quertus]

To be fair, I've walked from far more tables than I've kicked players out of. And I usually GM! And in keeping with that, most of my aggravating behaviors are instigated by GMs, not players.

Agreed, most of the worst players are the ones in the GMs chair, IME.

Those all sound like understandable reasons to kick/leave. I'm more curious about how common it is for people to do things like - to use one of your examples - be sexually inappropriate with another player. I'd think that after the first time that happened, that player would be kicked and not welcomed back. That's a serious problem, to be sure, but I don't really think it constitutes a "common" problem unless you keep getting perverts coming to the table and having to kick them; in that case I'd think you should probably institute a new player vetting process.

I've seen lots of these behaviors in games IRL. The sexual assault one... I can't say that kicking someone for it is common IME.

[WarKitty]

The closest I've come is a sharp rebuke and "next person to do that loses a big chunk of XP". That was for in-game targeting of other pc's that was clearly the result of out-of-game problems with the character.

[HidesHisEyes]

In-character references to real world pop culture. Out-of-character conversations about pop culture (or anything else, but it's usually pop culture) that go on too long. Jokes that go on too long. Pretty much any form of self-distraction that slows the game down.

[quinron]

Of the small handful of players I've ever kicked, all but one of them were due to sexism or racism towards other people at the table. (For the record, the latter is also a reason for me to walk from other GMs' tables, but thankfully it hasn't been common.) It's slightly easier to screen for problematic sexism (it's a good tipoff if the first thing they whisper to one of the other male players is "what, did the GM invite his girlfriend?") but most people aren't exactly forthright in admitting that they've got prejudiced views that they'll display later. So it's often difficult to catch before it becomes a problem.

I guess it's probably just my experience that colors my perception here - I've only ever played with friends or friends of friends, so even if someone did act like that IRL and someone else didn't know, they'd probably be too concerned about damaging a friendship to act that way at the table. In my experience with this in other parts of life, telling someone that they've made someone else uncomfortable with their actions is more likely to stop those behaviors if the person you're telling is a friend rather than just a fellow player.

Speaking of friends, though, I've got another common aggravating behavior in my group that actually happens away from the table - players grousing to each other and to me that someone else in the group is lagging behind the others, whether it's in terms of understanding the rules, keeping up with the pace of the game, or just character effectiveness. It's the reverse side of player-to-player coaching at the table, and I find it just as annoying.

[Vrock_Summoner]

In-character references to real world pop culture. Jokes that go on too long.

Wow, you would hate my group. My game takes place in the modern world (plus lots of psychic people and weekly reality-threatening extradimensional abominations) and OOC conversation for non-mechanical reasons is technically banned at the table (though I make sure to have a couple of breaks spaced throughout the session specifically so they can OOC chat about stuff along with all the other uses of breaks), but the characters are extremely self-aware and involved in modern culture, so there are a lot of pop culture jokes and long-lasting funnies happening entirely in-character. I've found it makes the characters feel more like part of the world, and helps the players get more immersed because all the friendly banter is also character banter.

Of course, that probably works better for me because my games don't have tightly planned plots and are very focused on the characters and their interactions with each other and those around them. Bantering with NPCs also increases their attachment to said NPCs, and allowed us to have some of the best RP interactions I've ever had once people got used to disabling their weird filter for the varying ways other characters would respond to very earth-centric references.

Especially since all of the player characters are huge Steven Universe fans. (And not always to the same degree as the people playing them.) My nephews have taken to calling my table the "SU meme corner." That too has had effects on the setting as a whole (one of the player characters is a step up from a god on the cosmic hierarchy, so her growing love for Steven Universe actually made fusion (as in two people temporarily combining into one) possible).

But I digress. The point is, it definitely depends on the group whether this counts as disruptive behavior.

[PersonMan]

The point is, it definitely depends on the group whether this counts as disruptive behavior.

One could argue that "real-world pop culture" doesn't apply in a situation like that, where the real world is the game world, as far as pop culture is concerned.

Playing normal people in a modern world doesn't create dissonance and such like having fantasy characters make jokes based solely on modern pop culture does.

[HidesHisEyes]

Wow, you would hate my group. My game takes place in the modern world ...

Ah well that would irritate me less. I sometimes forget not everyone is playing D&D 😜

Still, jokey banter can really get in the way of the game if players don't know when to stop, I find. It's a fine line because it's simultaneously a social gathering and a rather involved and complex game that requires everyone's attention.

Another thing that annoys me: people getting their knickers in a twist about metagaming. We all know trolls are vulnerable to fire, there is no fun to be gained in forcing ourselves to act as if we don't.

[azaph]

Its the threat thats most important. Players hate the thought of having the DM mess with their character. RP their character. So theyll start putting in effort to avoid that situation.

Your players appear to give more of a damn than mine. May I borrow them?

[Velaryon]

A couple pages back, someone mentioned players that don't pay attention to the game when it's not their character's turn to do something. I'd like to bring up the other side of that coin: players who hog the spotlight (and DM's who let them).

It's great to have a stealthy character who can get into ambush position to start a combat or occasionally bypass combat entirely with stealth. But when the rogue goes on a 40-minute sneaking mission while everyone else at the table sits and waits, it gets annoying. When it happens every other session, it's a problem.

Yes, it's disrespectful for a player to not pay attention when their character isn't involved. But it's also disrespectful to leave them out of the game for extended periods of time while someone else does all the work. There's a balance that has to be struck.

[Quertus]

A couple pages back, someone mentioned players that don't pay attention to the game when it's not their character's turn to do something. I'd like to bring up the other side of that coin: players who hog the spotlight (and DM's who let them).

It's great to have a stealthy character who can get into ambush position to start a combat or occasionally bypass combat entirely with stealth. But when the rogue goes on a 40-minute sneaking mission while everyone else at the table sits and waits, it gets annoying. When it happens every other session, it's a problem.

Yes, it's disrespectful for a player to not pay attention when their character isn't involved. But it's also disrespectful to leave them out of the game for extended periods of time while someone else does all the work. There's a balance that has to be struck.

And how would you propose solving this problem? Because none of the ideas I've come up with are particularly good.

You could force the party to hold the idiot ball, and just rush in blindly.

You could make the GM and the scout run these solo sessions between the group sessions, and hope the scout is good with not using OOC information until you get to that part.

Or, IMO the worst, give everyone an equal amount of spotlight time, so that the game is 70-80% uninvolvement.

Or, as long as you're custom tailoring the encounters, you could always do one worse, and take a page from one of my old GMs: give everyone solo encounters that play to their weaknesses, rather than their strengths. And it's important to focus on what the player is weak at / doesn't care for, not just their character.

So, how do you propose one should solve that problem?

[Koo Rehtorb]

And how would you propose solving this problem? Because none of the ideas I've come up with are particularly good.

Summarize the scouting mission with 1-2 rolls and an info dump.

[quinron]

A couple pages back, someone mentioned players that don't pay attention to the game when it's not their character's turn to do something. I'd like to bring up the other side of that coin: players who hog the spotlight (and DM's who let them).

It's great to have a stealthy character who can get into ambush position to start a combat or occasionally bypass combat entirely with stealth. But when the rogue goes on a 40-minute sneaking mission while everyone else at the table sits and waits, it gets annoying. When it happens every other session, it's a problem.

Yes, it's disrespectful for a player to not pay attention when their character isn't involved. But it's also disrespectful to leave them out of the game for extended periods of time while someone else does all the work. There's a balance that has to be struck.

The minute a lone wolf character slips up, the entirety of the dungeon/castle/city turns against them. You get spotted by one guard? Now the entire guard's on high alert looking for someone of your description. You make it to the goblin chief's cave and kill the chief? You made too much noise fighting the chief and guards, and now the guards outside have sounded an alarm that's bringing every goblin in this cave to your position. Plan your sites so that sneaking is a useful option, but going in alone always causes more trouble than it saves.

Also, siding with Koo here: bare-bones rolls and info dumping both speed up the process and make it less exciting for the soloist, meaning they won't be encouraged to leave their group in the future.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sounds rather vindictive.

[Blue Duke]

what's the point of playing the stealth scout type if they get punished for separating from the group though ?

[Solaris]

Also, I'm fine with people not turning up for a game, honestly. Or even just dropping out of a campaign with no notice. I'm less fine if they asked me to make their character for them, because that character probably got worked into the plan for the campaign, and now I have to rewrite the whole thing while GMing.

I once had a player who did both - she asked me to help her make a character (and by that, she meant 'make her character for her'), and then she dropped from the game without so much as a hey-howdy-do. That forced some awkward re-writes to the plot, because I'd written it in to help her get connected with the rest of the group (she was a latecomer to a group that was already pretty much organized and ready to go), which contributed to the game dying young.
I've learned my lesson; I am no longer nearly so kind towards new players that I don't know outside of the game.
... Not that I'm bitter or anything.

Summarize the scouting mission with 1-2 rolls and an info dump.

It's what I'd want if I were scouting. I'm not nearly enough of a sociopath to want to steal everyone's game time like that when we could be doing anything else and have more than just me involved.

what's the point of playing the stealth scout type if they get punished for separating from the group though ?

What's the point of playing with a group if your main objective is to spend time away from them?


As for common behaviors... Monty Python quotes. I don't like Monty Python to begin with, especially the lines everyone has been quoting ad nauseum as if it were still remotely clever the hundred thousandth time thirty years later.
Seriously, guys, just stop it. You've done it so much that I could quote entire scenes from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail despite the fact that I have never watched that movie. Other movies exist! Quote them! Please! For the love of Arrenji, please quote something different!

[Koo Rehtorb]

To be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with solo stuff in RPGs. They just shouldn't be allowed to eat up a significant amount of time. Summarize them quickly, instead of playing them out second by second, and get on with the rest of the game.

[Pex]

what's the point of playing the stealth scout type if they get punished for separating from the group though ?

There's nothing wrong with the scout who travels ahead of the party for 5-10 in game minutes and comes back to give a report which allows what the DM told him while scouting to be in character knowledge for everyone and takes up 1-2 minutes real world playing time. That's good team play. The problem is the player who goes off to do his own thing just because he wants to and to heck with the party. Often it's just to find treasure to keep for himself. He wants to know where the bad guys are and what environmental dangers exist so he can avoid them which of course he'll never tell the party because they weren't smart enough like him to do the scouting. He Knows Something they don't, so he gets to feel superior. When the rest of the party stumbles onto the bad guys or environmental danger and take damage or suffer some affliction because they weren't warned, he gets to laugh at their stupidity while he himself is smugly unharmed and safe. If he does get involved he self-righteously exclaims he needs to save the party, again. To make it extra special he keeps trading secret notes with the DM during his solo adventure and even during combat with the party so that the other players don't know what he's doing.

I hate these types of players.

[fatbaby]

I have to say I have a few.

No Shows: Nothing kills me more than planning out 3 months of sessions just to have no one show up for the game. Recently had to end a campaign because of my 8 party members, 3 showed up for the last 3 sessions, and one of them was my wife. Thats a deep hurt man.

Belligerent "Rules Lawyer": This guy refuses to be wrong. Also a DM, and cannot talk him down for anything, even if he is wrong, and even if rules are being bent for balancing purposes. Also is wrong on the rules 50% of the time.

Belligerent PC: Completely breaks the immersion of the game by doing things like shouting insults at the BBEG who is here to destroy the world. I spend 2 hours leading up the to Boss Battle, setting the tone and getting everyone in the "mood", and he screams "YOUR MOM WEARS COMBAT BOOTS, etc." at the BBEG and ruins the atmosphere I have been setting up all night..... please don't be that guy.

Wrong character build: Builds a moon druid, because that is the class that they like the most, but when it comes to combat, only uses melee weapon attacks. The main perks of your class are spells and Wild Shape, are you sure you wouldn't rather play a fighter??

Sorry to rant, but man it sucks when you can't vent to anyone lol.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's nothing wrong with the scout who travels ahead of the party for 5-10 in game minutes and comes back to give a report which allows what the DM told him while scouting to be in character knowledge for everyone and takes up 1-2 minutes real world playing time. That's good team play. The problem is the player who goes off to do his own thing just because he wants to and to heck with the party. Often it's just to find treasure to keep for himself. He wants to know where the bad guys are and what environmental dangers exist so he can avoid them which of course he'll never tell the party because they weren't smart enough like him to do the scouting. He Knows Something they don't, so he gets to feel superior. When the rest of the party stumbles onto the bad guys or environmental danger and take damage or suffer some affliction because they weren't warned, he gets to laugh at their stupidity while he himself is smugly unharmed and safe. If he does get involved he self-righteously exclaims he needs to save the party, again. To make it extra special he keeps trading secret notes with the DM during his solo adventure and even during combat with the party so that the other players don't know what he's doing.

I hate these types of players.

Which is very much a specific thing, and not just "character who goes off alone sometimes".

[quinron]

Which is very much a specific thing, and not just "character who goes off alone sometimes".

To clarify: When I mention "lone wolf" types, I mean players who make a habit of taking significant table time away from the group with their impromptu solo missions. Sorry, I did a bad job of making that clear. By all means, let your scouts and sneaks do what they're meant to do, but like Pex says, most of the time that's a player deciding they want their character to have an advantage that the others don't get - even if that advantage is just more screen time.

Enforcing harsh penalties for habitual separation from the group both showcases the fact that overextension is a bad, bad idea - especially for rogues, who can't hold up alone in a fight once they're spotted - and gives a logical, verisimilitudinous penalty for that kind of behavior to the player. It's a character punishment for a player decision, which I'm usually against, but it doesn't feel petty or pointed; it would happen exactly the same if you weren't trying to overextend yourself, but a group wading in one fight at a time can survive this better.

[Erit]

Since it doesn't seem to have been brought up yet (though whether that's because it's an issue unique to my tables or because it's so universal as to seem obvious is unknown), how about players who are contemptuous of the DM? The type who make you question why they chose to sign on if they were going to actively decide ahead of time that nothing the DM did would be to their liking.

How about those who obstinately refuse to acknowledge a given rule "because it's unrealistic"? One of my best friends does this and every time I need to remind him that he's lucky to be outside my smacking-upside-the-head range.

Better yet, and this is one that I've actually been guilty of before, how about those who suffer from Protagonist Syndrome? People who, through some confluence of events or another, end up being the driving force behind the party's actions and who has the majority of the limelight? It's happened to me twice, once because I was being stupid and a second time because I just happened to have the best mental stats.

[Pex]

To clarify: When I mention "lone wolf" types, I mean players who make a habit of taking significant table time away from the group with their impromptu solo missions. Sorry, I did a bad job of making that clear. By all means, let your scouts and sneaks do what they're meant to do, but like Pex says, most of the time that's a player deciding they want their character to have an advantage that the others don't get - even if that advantage is just more screen time.

Enforcing harsh penalties for habitual separation from the group both showcases the fact that overextension is a bad, bad idea - especially for rogues, who can't hold up alone in a fight once they're spotted - and gives a logical, verisimilitudinous penalty for that kind of behavior to the player. It's a character punishment for a player decision, which I'm usually against, but it doesn't feel petty or pointed; it would happen exactly the same if you weren't trying to overextend yourself, but a group wading in one fight at a time can survive this better.

It's not just rogues. I've seen it done in 5E with a moon druid who constantly wildshaped into a panther and running off to do his own thing effectively playing his own separate game with the DM at the table hunting for treasure. He'd come back to save the day a few rounds into a combat to heal someone with goodberries or attack any enemy when a PC or two had already dropped.

[Velaryon]

And how would you propose solving this problem? Because none of the ideas I've come up with are particularly good.

Handle the solo missions quickly so that the rest of the group can get involved again. Probably the most straightforward method of doing it, either by abstracting things down to just a few rolls, or just simply being considerate and trying to get it over quickly without dragging things out and making everybody wait.

Alternatively, give the rest of the group another task or encounter while the solo mission is going on, and bounce between them.

Or heck, sometimes I've split the group in half and had separate sessions for them. This was generally done for scheduling purposes when we really wanted to play but players had work schedules that couldn't be reconciled, but you could do it for dramatic purposes too.

If none of those work, you can just set an out-of-game time limit and say "if you haven't finished your sneaking after X minutes, your character realizes he can't proceed on his own, and turns back to rejoin the group." Not my preferred way of doing it, but for another table that might be a workable solution.

The problem here is not "doing stuff away from the group." I am absolutely not one of those DMs that thinks the party should never ever split up under any circumstances, and will punish players for daring to step outside the tavern while the rest of the party is still inside. The problem is having one player monopolize the game for an extended period of time.

[Rerem115]

Excessively bad puns. To be fair, everyone at our table does this, so at least we're all equal offenders .

Our DM does have a way to deal with this, though. He has these big, green, foam dice. If your pun is bad enough to catch his ire, he throws the die equal to your character's hit die at you, and your character takes "smiting" damage equal to the roll. We've been lucky enough that it hasn't done any significant damage yet, but there's always the first time...

[Darth Ultron]

I hate these types of players.

I hate solo players so much I often use the house rule of ''leave the group and your character dies''. My gaming group will remember Timmy, who just did not get it. He kept ''scouting ahead'' and having his character die over and over and over and over again. I think he made it up to ''Sorg X'' in one night.


I'll add the player that crazily thinks that illusions are all powerful super wish do anything and break the game spells. They are always trying to do things like ''making a cloud of fog to blind foes'' or ''making a bobble of water to drown foes''. And then they just get all bent out of shape when they are told that ''silent image can't do that''.