Habits that kill fun in a session.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Originally Posted by Gamer Girl

The Overly Religious Person--The person likes to role play and participate in such games. They just have one little request: ''Can we not have any pagan false gods in the game, that's just wrong." And not only do they not want to be a cleric, but they want all mention of (false) gods removed. They don't want to see a temple of Bane in the city or run in to a cleric of Mystra. They don't even want other people 'pretending to pray' when they use magic spells or abilities.

They can even get picky and not want to encounter demons or devils(but Slaad or Xill are OK) and they don't even want to 'pretend' to use things like magic circles or pentagrams or such.

Throughout my elementary and middle school years, I attended four different Catholic schools and played with/DMed for groups in each, and we only had this kind of problem player once. He hated it when the party paladin of freedom shouted "FOR KORD!" when he used Smite Evil; he hated it when there was a three-way moral debate between a PC paladin of Helm, a PC druid, and an NPC agnostic philosopher cleric; he hated it when we ran into a horde of goblinoids on a holy crusade for Maglubiyet and decided to support them against their orcish enemies. He called us all insufficiently faithful and quit after that campaign ended.

The kicker? The DM at the time was the pastor of that school's church and had been leading Masses, teaching Sunday school, and guest-lecturing in the school's religion classes for several years. How he thought calling the freakin' pastor "insufficiently faithful" made any sense is beyond me.

[big teej]

Originally Posted by Gamer Girl

The Overly Religious Person--The person likes to role play and participate in such games. They just have one little request: ''Can we not have any pagan false gods in the game, that's just wrong." And not only do they not want to be a cleric, but they want all mention of (false) gods removed. They don't want to see a temple of Bane in the city or run in to a cleric of Mystra. They don't even want other people 'pretending to pray' when they use magic spells or abilities.

They can even get picky and not want to encounter demons or devils(but Slaad or Xill are OK) and they don't even want to 'pretend' to use things like magic circles or pentagrams or such.

and at long last have I met my true opposite.

I'm a highly religious person, and this leads to my insisting that no real world religion is brought into the game at all.

heck, one of the first things I tell any new players of mine are "NO (modern) real world religious things are to be brought in game.

[Occasional Sage]

Originally Posted by Gamer Girl

The Overly Religious Person--The person likes to role play and participate in such games. They just have one little request: ''Can we not have any pagan false gods in the game, that's just wrong." And not only do they not want to be a cleric, but they want all mention of (false) gods removed. They don't want to see a temple of Bane in the city or run in to a cleric of Mystra. They don't even want other people 'pretending to pray' when they use magic spells or abilities.

They can even get picky and not want to encounter demons or devils(but Slaad or Xill are OK) and they don't even want to 'pretend' to use things like magic circles or pentagrams or such.

Yeah, I met this person when I was in high school. Refused to game with them; I was afraid of how their inability to separate fiction from reality might go.

Originally Posted by big teej

and at long last have I met my true opposite.

I'm a highly religious person, and this leads to my insisting that no real world religion is brought into the game at all.

heck, one of the first things I tell any new players of mine are "NO (modern) real world religious things are to be brought in game.

big teej, you are the GitP forum with legs.

[Traab]

Originally Posted by Gamer Girl

The Overly Religious Person--The person likes to role play and participate in such games. They just have one little request: ''Can we not have any pagan false gods in the game, that's just wrong." And not only do they not want to be a cleric, but they want all mention of (false) gods removed. They don't want to see a temple of Bane in the city or run in to a cleric of Mystra. They don't even want other people 'pretending to pray' when they use magic spells or abilities.

They can even get picky and not want to encounter demons or devils(but Slaad or Xill are OK) and they don't even want to 'pretend' to use things like magic circles or pentagrams or such.

Sounds to me like someone who reads chick tracts and has fallen for the dungeons and dragons issue hook line and sinker. Sounds to me like selective objections as well, since the whole, "made us in his image" thing would be upset by the existence of multiple sentient humanoid races. So we can only play as humans, and all enemies must be of animal level intellect.

[Notreallyhere77]

Originally Posted by big teej

I'm a highly religious person, and this leads to my insisting that no real world religion is brought into the game at all.

Seconded. Luckily, the rest of my group feels the same way, and we never have to bring it up. Even out-of-game, we don't discuss our (varied and often opposite) beliefs because we know how it can start terrible, vicious arguments and we'd rather stay friends.

For the record, I am of the "quiet certainty" school of thought when it comes to God, not an evangelist, but there is at least one atheist in our group, and we've agreed that since it has no effect on the gameplay, it's irrelevant to most of our conversations. Interestingly, he plays the devout paladin quite well.

[big teej]

Originally Posted by Occasional Sage

big teej, you are the GitP forum with legs.

you mind if I sig this?

[Occasional Sage]

Originally Posted by big teej

you mind if I sig this?

Go for it! rofl

You've gotta admit, the similarity is... striking.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Senseless Violence is why I'm Here
This player only comes to the game to fight monsters, any Roleplaying is quickly left by the wayside. Most of the time he just sits back and lets the other players do the roleplaying. Other times he decides that violence is the only way to get through the prison your in, killing 5 guards while a thousand more enter the room.

Even if the DM hints that Diplomacy is the only way through a situation he will choose suicidal last stand without even thinking. By the end of the campaign he and the other combat built characters compare their kill counts.

My Way or the Highway
The DM that fails to realize most players do not utilize the charisma based stats too often. Often he will decide that the players have to do one thing in order to complete his campaign. Great examples are negotiating the release of their captain(Why not kill the kidnappers?) and paying an unfair toll to cross through the woods(Why not kill the toll keepers?).

[Choco]

Originally Posted by DontEatRawHagis

Senseless Violence is why I'm Here
This player only comes to the game to fight monsters, any Roleplaying is quickly left by the wayside. Most of the time he just sits back and lets the other players do the roleplaying. Other times he decides that violence is the only way to get through the prison your in, killing 5 guards while a thousand more enter the room.

Even if the DM hints that Diplomacy is the only way through a situation he will choose suicidal last stand without even thinking. By the end of the campaign he and the other combat built characters compare their kill counts.

My Way or the Highway
The DM that fails to realize most players do not utilize the charisma based stats too often. Often he will decide that the players have to do one thing in order to complete his campaign. Great examples are negotiating the release of their captain(Why not kill the kidnappers?) and paying an unfair toll to cross through the woods(Why not kill the toll keepers?).

I love how the 2 of those seem to be complete opposites. Just shows that anything taken to the extreme is damn annoying.

Mr Contrary-This guy has some unquenchable need to go against everything the DM and/or the rest of the party wants to do. DM gives the party a plot hook? Must be railroading, kill the questgiver. Party wants to go hunt a dragon? Too cliche, sabotage their efforts until they give in and do what you want to do. Of course anyone else (DM or player) stops him from doing what he wants to do, he cries and screams that they just enjoy killing his fun. Bonus points if this person is over the age of 25.

[big teej]

Originally Posted by Occasional Sage

Go for it! rofl

You've gotta admit, the similarity is... striking.

well, I suppose when I spell it out that way... it is very similar...

but in my defense, that was a rule of mine long before I came to the playground.

[archon_huskie]

Originally Posted by dsmiles

I disagree. PC Plans shouldn't be disallowed just because they're doomed to failure. They're the player's characters, not the DM's. If their decision makes no sense, the most they should get is an, "Are you sure?" After that, they're on their own. They will suffer the consequences of their actions.

He claimed the plan was boring and potentially game breaking. What kind of DM allows that plan to go forward and succeed?

[Seb Wiers]

Originally Posted by Gamer Girl

The Overly Religious Person--The person likes to role play and participate in such games. They just have one little request: ''Can we not have any pagan false gods in the game, that's just wrong." And not only do they not want to be a cleric, but they want all mention of (false) gods removed. They don't want to see a temple of Bane in the city or run in to a cleric of Mystra. They don't even want other people 'pretending to pray' when they use magic spells or abilities.

They can even get picky and not want to encounter demons or devils(but Slaad or Xill are OK) and they don't even want to 'pretend' to use things like magic circles or pentagrams or such.

LOL. They'd have fun in my group... 4 of the 6 players are (or were) members of organized wiccan covens - ie, practicing witches. The other two are atheists with a good understanding of world religions. (Aside from giving some inspiration on flavors religion and magic, this has no effect on the game.)

Actually, they wouldn't have fun, because I doubt they'd want to be (or be welcomed in) in the same room.

Edit- as with Notreallyhere77's group, the group's "Paladin" - both in that he's the most morally focused, and arguably the most devoutly religious - is played by one of the atheists (me).

[dsmiles]

Originally Posted by archon_huskie

He claimed the plan was boring and potentially game breaking. What kind of DM allows that plan to go forward and succeed?

It honestly doesn't matter what the DM thinks of the plan. Again, they're the players' characters. If that's the plan they make, even if it's an obvious TPK to the DM (but not the players), the DM's job is to narrate what happens, not stop the players from acting on their plan. The DM isn't there to be a mommy to the players and say, "No, that's stupid, don't do that." Therein lies the path to railroading.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Originally Posted by archon_huskie

He claimed the plan was boring and potentially game breaking. What kind of DM allows that plan to go forward and succeed?

The kind that would rather not have to tell the players "no you cannot carry out the plan you think is awesome and have spent a fortnight planning" just because it's not the way the DM wanted the game to go? It's the players' game as much as it is the DM's. Besides, they're players. There is almost no chance that the plan will go as intended, even if it does succeed (see, the whole reason we started talking about this).

[Jade Dragon]

Originally Posted by dsmiles

It honestly doesn't matter what the DM thinks of the plan. Again, they're the players' characters. If that's the plan they make, even if it's an obvious TPK to the DM (but not the players), the DM's job is to narrate what happens, not stop the players from acting on their plan. The DM isn't there to be a mommy to the players and say, "No, that's stupid, don't do that." Therein lies the path to railroading.

Oh? So you're fine with them totally breaking the WBL rules without much cleverness but instead just a bunch of cheese? I'd like you to try to DM that.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by Traab

...upset by the existence of multiple sentient humanoid races. So we can only play as humans, and all enemies must be of animal level intellect.

Or the enemies can also be human. Human-human conflict isn't exactly unknown.

Then there is the space opera angle. Multiple sentient races, sure, but humanoid? No.

[Traab]

Originally Posted by Knaight

Or the enemies can also be human. Human-human conflict isn't exactly unknown.

Then there is the space opera angle. Multiple sentient races, sure, but humanoid? No.

Yeah, I forgot to mention specifically that any nonhuman encounter has to be bestial level intellect since obviously there cant be OTHER intelligent races besides humans.

[archon_huskie]

Originally Posted by ScionoftheVoid

The kind that would rather not have to tell the players "no you cannot carry out the plan you think is awesome and have spent a fortnight planning" just because it's not the way the DM wanted the game to go? It's the players' game as much as it is the DM's. Besides, they're players. There is almost no chance that the plan will go as intended, even if it does succeed (see, the whole reason we started talking about this).

exactly a poor DM.

And ultimately that is the source of many habits that kill fun in a session.

[dsmiles]

Originally Posted by Swiftmongoose

Oh? So you're fine with them totally breaking the WBL rules without much cleverness but instead just a bunch of cheese? I'd like you to try to DM that.

If you read back, I never said there wouldn't be consequences. Just because you break WBL, doesn't mean that karma/fate/whatever you want to call it won't come around and bite you in the ass for it. All I said is if they have a plan, they should be allowed to see it through. As long as it's possible, within the rules (WBL is a guideline, not a rule), they should be allowed to try it. Karma's a bitch.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Originally Posted by Swiftmongoose

Oh? So you're fine with them totally breaking the WBL rules without much cleverness but instead just a bunch of cheese? I'd like you to try to DM that.

I am DMing it. The money got spent on a giant flaming sword because the only person who could reasonably carry the money walked off with it before the Wizard ("rightful" owner and possessor of Spot and Listen reducing flaw(s)) could spend it or notice. This for a character whose damage output is already overkill. They came into a massive amount of money in an all Evil, all unhinged party - it was only a matter of time until one of them took the lot of it for themselves, I didn't have a lot to worry about (and the method they used both allows me massive leeway in punishing them later - it required paying lip-service to a god who doesn't like most of them - and wouldn't be available to a more conventional, cooperating party). The thief is now on high-alert as the party makes its way to completing one of their objectives under an uneasy truce, the Wizard being on a hair trigger to kill the thief (or rather, anyone he thinks may have stolen his cash, thanks to a potion of Glibness obscuring the truth rather effectively) with alliegances as yet undeclared and intra-party tension out the wazoo. I think it's going rather well, really.

One player is a bit upset, but is still psyched to catch out and kill the thief and has only themself to blame (unless they were expecting me to be unreasonable about it - they should have planned much better, and expecting me to be unreasonable is itself kind of unfair). One player is happy with his new sword, so that's fine. The rest of the party isn't any less happy and has recieved only a bit less than what they would have gotten if the plan had gone as intended instead of predictably screwing up after going into the completely unplanned area following "profit!". Overall, I'd call it a net win, and certainly not a huge loss if it is one at all. There are worse things that could have happened and I feel "it doesn't work, good job wasting two weeks" is one of them.

[DontEatRawHagis]

I usually feel my own habits can kill a game session. With certain groups its alright, but right now I feel I am *That Guy*. You know the guy who gets pissed off when he doesn't get to do anything.

See I have all these stats in the Drive skill because my GM was worried that my character wouldn't have a place in the crew. Also because she thought that no one would take it. Ends up 2 other people took it and have a lot more in it than me. I said hey can I drive the vehicle this mission and immediately rolled a crit fail, which ended in a flat tire.

My only good stats are in strength and combat. Sadly my initiative is so low I have been on the bottom of the order every game. So now I am adding points into fluff charisma and knowledge checks.

The only rolls I succeeded last session was my fix vehicle check(for a flat tire so it was a low DC), and seducing two prostitutes at the bar, which I did out of boredom, my character did it to help himself feel better; in character he is torn up because he might have helped destroy a planet and is a sad drunk because of it.

[dsmiles]

Crit fail on a skill check? I despise that houserule.

[The Glyphstone]

Originally Posted by dsmiles

Crit fail on a skill check? I despise that houserule.

He mentioned Drive...that's not a D&D core skill, so I presume it was a different system. Other systems actually have critical skill failures as a legitimate rule, remember.

[dsmiles]

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone

He mentioned Drive...that's not a D&D core skill, so I presume it was a different system. Other systems actually have critical skill failures as a legitimate rule, remember.

I was assuming d20 Modern (with the mention of the term DC), which (IIRC) functions off the core DnD rules for skill checks and such. I could be wrong, but I still hate that houserule.

[The Glyphstone]

Originally Posted by dsmiles

I was assuming d20 Modern (with the mention of the term DC), which (IIRC) functions off the core DnD rules for skill checks and such. I could be wrong, but I still hate that houserule.

Fair enough - and yeah, everyone hates critical failure/fumble rules.

[dsmiles]

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone

Fair enough - and yeah, everyone hates critical failure/fumble rules.

Well, I'm all for critical fumbles on attack rolls. They make the critical hits all the more awesome. Without the risk of utter failure, critical hits seem kind of meh (IMO).

[The Glyphstone]

I'd call the "1=auto-miss" enough penalty...the problem with critical fumbles is when DMs invent all sorts of ridiculous 'penalty tables' that in no way equally balance out simply dealing double or triple damage on a hit. I've seen everything from "provoke an AoO" to "drop your weapon" to (no lie) "auto-crit your nearest ally as the weapon flies out of your hands".

[dps]

Originally Posted by Traab

Yeah, I forgot to mention specifically that any nonhuman encounter has to be bestial level intellect since obviously there cant be OTHER intelligent races besides humans.

OK, I don't get this. I consider myself a reasonably devout Christian, and while there is some stuff in DnD that I can understand my fellow Christians getting upset about, the existance of intelligent races besides humans isn't one of them.

[dsmiles]

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone

I'd call the "1=auto-miss" enough penalty...the problem with critical fumbles is when DMs invent all sorts of ridiculous 'penalty tables' that in no way equally balance out simply dealing double or triple damage on a hit. I've seen everything from "provoke an AoO" to "drop your weapon" to (no lie) "auto-crit your nearest ally as the weapon flies out of your hands".

I don't go "critical" in that sense. It's an auto miss that puts you out of position far enough that the remainder of your turn is spent getting back into position, instead of attacking.

[The Glyphstone]

That's more on the reasonable end of things.