Players that drive you CRAZY

[thenobledrake]

Jerry, might I suggest that your house rule simply be first a warning that such behavior will have them asked to leave and upon second offense asking them to leave?

I suggest because doing the other will likely get them thinking "man, this GM is a jerk," not "I had better quit being a jerk."

More on topic:

I have two players now that are scheduled to arrive early for the next session so that I can chat with them in person about some issues that have come up - because they aren't staying to play if the issues aren't resolved:

The Old Grouch - he gets visibly upset at the table if anyone gets distracted from the game, no matter if everyone else at the table is enjoying it or not... and so he whines out "Can we just play the damn game?" - which would be excusable, if not for other behaviors.

He makes statements that sound in-character but are not - example to follow - and seems to think they are amusing or something. The only two bits of consistency in the behavior are that he always says something that would be harmful the the rest of the party (including claims that he attacks other party members upon their disagreement with him) and that if anyone else at the table does the same thing he will get visibly upset by it.

Player A: "We should take these books back to our headquarters and see if there is anything useful in them."
Him: "I burn all the books."
Player A: "I put out the first book he lights on fire."
Player B: "I restrain him."
Him: "I wasn't actually doing anything."

Me: "...then why did you say you were? Stop that!"

Further, he had inherited the task of writing down the party's loot because he had the room to do so on his character sheet... and he then started using that as justification to try and prevent any other character from spending any amount of money on anything - including attempting to prevent the party's front-liner from buying better armor.
When the rest of the group told him to stop trying to hoard all the coin, he reacted by writing everything down on a piece of note paper, erasing it from his character sheet, and refusing to write things down at all anymore... I can only guess at why, as it seems he thought carrying the group's money also made him the group's accounts manager by default - which is nearly pure nonsense.

Last, but not least - last session he was at, he got mad and shouted at other players sitting at the table. One was so irritated by the behavior that he said he had a headache and went home - we later talked, that player and I, which is how I learned that the headache was not genuine and that the player simply left because he doesn't want to game with so much anger.

This trouble player gets a chance to explain his agitation and outbursts - if it is something that can be "fixed" we can fix it, but if not... then I have to do what I have never done before: kick a player out of the group.

In comparison, the second problem player I describe will look completely untroubling:

The video-game mentioner - He has played a number of video-games that I have also, and I think he brings them up to try and have a moment of shared enjoyment... but he doesn't realize how far he is stretching the situation to make the references, or how much of a hindrance his thinking the two situations (one currently occurring in-game, and the other being the way a remotely similar situation in a video game played out).

I tell him a meteor fell out of the sky and a person stepped out - he thinks of Final Fantasy V and asks if it was an old man... I tell him no, it was a robot person from a dying world... and it takes another two or three sessions before he realizes that the plot-line of my game is not going to follow the plot-line of Final Fantasy V.

...and that's the example that happened with the two situations being the closest - he's taken far less similarity far further, like it gets stuck in his brain and he can't shake it.

It really only bothers me that he seems to think/nearly insist that the reason there are any similarities is because I have lifted a section of video-game and place it in my campaign in it's entirety - like he feels he has "caught me" ripping of a game or something.

[Jerry Wright 307]

@Drake: you make the assumption that the player--and everyone else at the table--wouldn't know precisely why he was dealing with docked levels. Believe me, confronting players at my table is not something I like to do, but I learned how to do it many years ago.

If someone is being a jerk or worse, and trying to use the "but I'm just playing my character" line of BS for an excuse, he's going to know that doesn't fly. And a negative level for a session gives me an in-system method for dealing with the problem.

I had a player's refusal to find a way of letting his character function with the rest of the party destroy my campaign years ago. I'm never letting that happen again.

[thenobledrake]

No, Jerry - the assumption I made was that the people at the table would be distracted from what you are trying to say (that you don't like the behavior and wish they would stop) by the in-game punitive results of their out of game issue.

I'll tell you the same thing I told every girl I took on a date that slapped my face or poured a drink in my lap because I did something that upset her - That just made you the bad guy, where as a "don't do that, I don't like it," would have left me the unreasonable a-hole in this scenario.

[Gluttony]

thenobledrake wrote:

Player A: "We should take these books back to our headquarters and see if there is anything useful in them."

Him: "I burn all the books."
Player A: "I put out the first book he lights on fire."
Player B: "I restrain him."
Him: "I wasn't actually doing anything."

Me: "...then why did you say you were? Stop that!"

Ooh, I've dealt with that before. I eventually had to make it clear that it was the responsibility of the players to make the distinction between their in-character and out-of-character speaking clear. Anything that sounds like it's IC (even if it was meant to be OoC) at my table can no longer be taken back after it's said.

My players now know to begin sudden OoC statements by saying the words "out of character" first.

[Ringtail]

Gluttony wrote:

My players now know to begin sudden OoC statements by saying the words "out of character" first.

My group says "oog" first (out-of-game). Though that eventually led to a trend of a particular player saying and/or doing something stupid and then yelling: "Oog! Oog!" afterward while facing the repercussions.

[Nepherti]

Ringtail wrote:

Gluttony wrote:

My players now know to begin sudden OoC statements by saying the words "out of character" first.

My group says "oog" first (out-of-game). Though that eventually led to a trend of a particular player saying and/or doing something stupid and then yelling: "Oog! Oog!" afterward while facing the repercussions.

Which is probably why we either cross our fingers or put a fist to the forehead. Consequently, we also hold our fingers in an ASL fingerspelling "L" up to our lips when speaking in a language that not every PC knows, and we place a finger to the temple and point to whoever is receiving our telepathy.

[Jerry Wright 307]

thenobledrake wrote:

No, Jerry - the assumption I made was that the people at the table would be distracted from what you are trying to say (that you don't like the behavior and wish they would stop) by the in-game punitive results of their out of game issue.

I'll tell you the same thing I told every girl I took on a date that slapped my face or poured a drink in my lap because I did something that upset her - That just made you the bad guy, where as a "don't do that, I don't like it," would have left me the unreasonable a-hole in this scenario.

I apparently misstated myself. I wasn't talking about springing this on them out of the blue. What I was referring to is behavior that a simple "don't do that" isn't fixing. Long-term, repeated behavior is what it would take to incur this adjustment.

And this isn't an out-of-game issue. What we're talking about is players using their characters in-game to mess with the party, with specific players' characters, to screw up the game, and to otherwise lower the enjoyment of everyone else. If they feel their characters are tools for this sort of thing, then they'll get an in-game reason to stop, without being banned from the game. (Which is a last resort in any case.)

And a negative level for a single game session isn't that big a deal. It's more embarrassing than punitive.

[thenobledrake]

Gluttony wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Player A: "We should take these books back to our headquarters and see if there is anything useful in them."

Him: "I burn all the books."
Player A: "I put out the first book he lights on fire."
Player B: "I restrain him."
Him: "I wasn't actually doing anything."

Me: "...then why did you say you were? Stop that!"

Ooh, I've dealt with that before. I eventually had to make it clear that it was the responsibility of the players to make the distinction between their in-character and out-of-character speaking clear. Anything that sounds like it's IC (even if it was meant to be OoC) at my table can no longer be taken back after it's said.

My players now know to begin sudden OoC statements by saying the words "out of character" first.

We, as a group, have a signal for when someone is speaking out of character (a fist or hand resting upon opposite shoulder, carried on from some of the oldest standing member's prior LARP days).

...the problem player even uses that signal, whenever it would come down to his character having immediate consequences levied by NPCs for the action - which just adds to the irritation of the behavior.

[thenobledrake]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

What I was referring to is behavior that a simple "don't do that" isn't fixing.

Then allow me to chance my advice - boot them, they are disrespectful you, your other players, and the game in general.If "don't do that" doesn't work, then they aren't worth any amount of effort to keep around... just my opinion of course, your self esteem may vary.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

And this isn't an out-of-game issue. What we're talking about is players using their characters in-game to mess with the party, with specific players' characters, to screw up the game, and to otherwise lower the enjoyment of everyone else.

Jerry, that is exactly what an out-of-game issue is - something that the Player is insistent upon and in direct control of, in this case their choice of doing "what my character would do," instead of "what I should probably do for the enjoyment of the group."

See, the character can't make decisions - he is fictional and has no capacity for independent thought - so no character behavior problem is anything but out-of-character.

[Jerry Wright 307]

thenobledrake wrote:

See, the character can't make decisions - he is fictional and has no capacity for independent thought - so no character behavior problem is anything but out-of-character.

I agree.

My point is that the behavior of the character is caused by a metagaming player, and that same behavior is unnatural; it is behavior that is precisely the opposite of "what my character would do". The player is abusing the character to achieve an out-of-game result.

Assigning penalties to the character is not punishing the character; the player is the one who has to deal with it. The character ceased being anything but a piece of paper the moment the player decided to act out; there is no immersion, no roleplay involved, no matter how the player behaves. It is all about the metagame.

By instituting an in-game solution, the metagame becomes something the player has to acknowledge. His character did these things; there are consequences. The idea is that if an extra-planar influence (a metagaming player) caused the character's aberrant behavior, the response of reality is to begin to isolate that extra-planar influence; the character begins to lose connection with the world. This is expressed in game-terms as a negative level, possibly more (assuming the player continues to act out).

It explains the character's behavior to the rest of the party, and could conceivably cause the characters to attempt to fix things themselves, possibly drawing the wayward player into the roleplay of the situation and correcting the problem at its source.

It might not work, but it's a shot. :)

[Jerry Wright 307]

thenobledrake wrote:

We, as a group, have a signal for when someone is speaking out of character (a fist or hand resting upon opposite shoulder, carried on from some of the oldest standing member's prior LARP days).

We put a hand on top of the head; what you're saying at that point is out of character.

Wiggling two fingers in a "quote sign" over the head indicates telepathic speech.

Patting your head while rubbing your tummy indicates you're more coordinated than the GM. :)

[Orthos]

My group's game is over Skype and Maptool. If something is spoken, it's assumed to be IC. Text chat is for OOC nonsense.

Our game chatlogs tend to be full of off-hand jokes, quotable quotes, and random non-sequitor by the time a session's done. =)

[Flamehawke]

The current player that drives me nuts does the following:

Has me repeat rules. To the point where if she asks about a rule I have 3 other players recite the rule to her. She ignores them and keeps asking me for the rule until I give it to her.

When making a character she constantly asks for input as to what feats, skill, and or spells she should select. This also applies to what race and class she should play.

When she messes up a rule she tells me all about how it worked in 2nd Edition AD&D. To the point I have told her I know those rules I grew up with them being used.

I'm trying to speed battle up so I have imposed the rule that if we have moved to the next turn yours is over. Once a session I am in the middle of the next person or two people away from her then she recalls spell damage she was supposed to do or wants to move due to something the current player is doing. I do always ask if that is all they are doing before I move on to ensure the players are completely done. I even inquire about spells as I know when there is a constant effect going on and I have applied this rule to myself which has led to the group getting off light because I forgot something I was supposed to do.

She also asks questions about rules, spells, terrain, monsters, and such while I'm trying to work with someone else either in battle or due to it being them getting some very useful information.

She is all about us catering to her. We have a teen with a curfew in the group that dictates when the game ends. He gets a ride from another player so that ends the game. When his parents picked him up we kept going and she kept going on about how we needed to wrap because she had to go. When she was on vacation she wanted us to continue even though half the party was gone and the encounter could kill them.

[thenobledrake]

Flamehawke wrote:

The current player that drives me nuts does the following: <list truncated>

Are you near south-eastern Idaho? If yes, I'd be willing to take this player off your hands (provided she is willing to travel to my home) as she sounds simply like a play-style mis-match causing annoyance rather than actually being terribly annoying.

[Flamehawke]

Sorry. I live in Indiana. Normally if it was only 1 thing I would blow it off. Its the combo of all of them at once that annoy. I do my best to hide my annoyance though and treat her as fairly as I do the others.

I did try to suggest she might be happier with another group, but she said she likes my game a great deal and wants to stay in it. So I guess its a compliment about the campaign. She is about to start a second game as well and its run by a friend of hers.

Its been two years I've had her. I'm hoping in another year it will all settle and there may be more harmony. Especially since she finally bought the book. I'm hoping once she becomes familiar with the rules due to being able to read them on her time she will be a happier and less annoying player.

[Vicon]

Power Word Unzip wrote:

Recently I put up an open call for a Carrion Crown game on our local gaming club's webpage at Meetup.com. I decided to open it up to six players. Five of them are people I know pretty well and have gamed with previously. The sixth, though, whom I'll call Hal to protect the guilty, is a newcomer to our group.

When I posted the open call, I specified very clearly that people were to only use material from the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player's Guide for character creation. I also allowed them to pick one trait from the CC Player's Guide.

So of course Hal took it upon himself to email me endlessly asking me to admit items outside of core and APG. Some examples:
(Snip Snip)
"I was looking at Meteor Hammer from the adventurer armory guide as a possible weapon should i go monk. would that weapon be included in the allowable weapons for the monk class, or would i need to take a martial feat to get it? (the weapon is not listed under exotic, and it sure as heck reads like a monk's weapon.)" *

"can I play a Minotaur? i never expect anyone to answer yes*though it HAS happened*, but i happen to have a fondess for the race, so i always ask once every time i start a new

...

This guy is obviously a complete douche. Cut him out while it still costs nothing to do so. This is what you call "multiple red flags"...

[Vicon]

Some of these people sound like literal nightmares and I can't understand how anybody would ever invite them back...

...To stay on topic I had a bad experience one time at a convention -- somebody was doing a One-off adventure that was supposed to be DarkSun. My friend was COMPLETELY excited to get a shot at a DarkSun adventure so he sold me off of playing at another table and joining him.

This guy basically thought he was the BEST GM EVAR but really more than anything just seemed like an arrogant napoleon dynamite. There were NO dark sun monsters in his campaign. There were REAMS of metal weapons and equipment. Nobody had ANY IDEA what they were doing once they got to the point of interest where the adventure was supposed to unfold (a mysterious volcano)...

...after puttering around wondering what the hell we were supposed to do between 2 or 3 factions in the crater, we realized we were all going to run out of time before anything actually even happened. We ended up picking a fight in the last hour just so we'd have a chance to do something. He explained to somebody after the adventure that we were supposed to ask specific questions to the first group we met and we'd begin to understand a conflict between the factions that caused the volcano or something. We originally awkwardly plied them with questions and getting no valuable intel, moved on dejectedly (and without him divulging anything or deterring our proceeding)

I really will remember it as the worst TTRPG experience of my natural life. The following year at the same Con, he entered a "Best DM of them All" competition. I would have loved to see him get wiped, but played Call of Cthulhu instead.

TTRPGs seem to be a haven or resort for some pretty socially inept people, who in my opinion are capitalizing on the generally accepting and good natureness of gamers. I however, will not suffer them. Asleep at the table? GTFO. Knitting? Get your hand slapped and GTFO. on Facebook for the twentieth time after being asked? Go to the bathroom, I'll post that you're finally coming out of the closet, log you out, GTFO. If social currency would be lost or I am not hosting -- I'll shake your hand and you'll never play with me again.

Why do people subject themselves to this? It's painful enough just to read about these experiences!!!

[Nymian Harthing]

Hmm. I'm pretty lucky in who I play with; they're usually fabulous. The only things that so far have knocked my patience down are:

1.) Players who have no intention of learning any of the rules. (I don't mind if you forget a rule or even if you remember something from 2nd Ed and don't know its PF equivalent; just those who don't bother at all.)

2.) Girl gamers who see all other girl gamers as rivals for male attention. This can get problematic pretty quick.

Really, they're the most major things I can think of right now. Like I said, I'm lucky.

[Petty Alchemy]

Lobolusk wrote:

5. the vanaran monk

Woah woah woah. What's wrong with Vanaran Monks? They are boss.

I agree with a lot of these of course. I only read the first page so I don't know if it has been mentioned but:

The guy who won't bite the hook: I don't usually play DnD IRL, I find it easier to RP online. But I tried out my university's club. Joined a game. The DM gives us a rumor at the bar, there's adventure in the swamp. Two guys (friends, have been in the club for a while) decide they'd rather stay in the bar and try to sleep with the barkeeper's wife. Myself and two other new members go on the actual adventure.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Nymian Harthing wrote:

2.) Girl gamers who see all other girl gamers as rivals for male attention. This can get problematic pretty quick.

This has sprung up in our group quite recently. It's like being in high school again, except that the "girl" gamers involved are all over 30.

[Laruuk]

Had one player only played bards. Anytime we rolled initiative, this player ALWAYS said "I sing."

That's all the character did during combat was sing - for the whole thing. Drove the rest of us crazy...

[Nymian Harthing]

Okay, I have a thing # 3...

3.) Guys who tell you they're happy with how you run a game, then send you a three page email on why they hate how you run the game. When you're running an AP. And suddenly state they don't want you to run the story that's underlying the entire series.

THAT bothers me.

[Fleshgrinder]

Players who don't understand game terms, make decisions based on their misunderstanding of game terms, and then get pissed because they wrong.

Example:

My friend wanted to play a Fighter. He's new, so I ask him "What kind of fighter?" and he says "I want to be a tank."

Now, me and him have both played MMOs. I assumed he knew what the word tank meant. So I help him pick his feats and make him a tank.

In combat he's literally just moving and attacking. No use of CMBs that I gave him feats for, keeps his shield on his back for more damage.

A couple sessions in a rogue pretty much 1 shots a creature with Sneak Attack and he flings his dice down and exclaims "I'm worthless. Why do they do so much more damage than me!?"
I reply, "Because you're a tank."
He replies, "Yeah. Tanks have big cannons and do lots of damage."
I slowly face palm and proceed to explain the use of the word tank in RPGs.
He continues to be pissy and even goes so far as to disagree with me and say I am wrong.

Suffice it to say, he doesn't have a gaming group anymore.

[Vicon]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Nymian Harthing wrote:

2.) Girl gamers who see all other girl gamers as rivals for male attention. This can get problematic pretty quick.

This has sprung up in our group quite recently. It's like being in high school again, except that the "girl" gamers involved are all over 30.

I haven't seen this at the tabletop, but I have seen a cousin of it in MMOs -- girls, being a very welcome but demographic minority draw a lot of attention. It is by no means universal but I've seen dynamics emerge where some ladies find an equally enjoyable "meta-game" wrapping the doting or protective boys around their finger. This can beget all kinds of drama, jealousy and rivalry at worst, though it can do a lot for morale and organization if it's channelled effectively. Knights competing for a lady's favor could edge them on to greater heights of bravery and prowess -- but as there is a light side to this, in life as in RPGs, some people will find more enjoyment in the drama they can generate... which considering the real emotions belying the motivations for the boys acting out, is a foul thing to do even in a game.

I say all the above with the caveat that RPGs should never be a cresh or vehicle for misogyny (which is hard to say with a straight face considering the inspiring historical periods that are most popular) but RPGs have done a lot to bring that down a peg, and make fantasy FAR more gender inclusive. That there are complexities that arise from women's greater participation in gaming is a small price to pay, but something to be acknowledged and dealt with intelligently.

[Vicon]

Laruuk wrote:

Had one player only played bards. Anytime we rolled initiative, this player ALWAYS said "I sing."

That's all the character did during combat was sing - for the whole thing. Drove the rest of us crazy...

But this had effects, right? It conferred bonuses? I'm scratching my head here... This is hilarious.

[Vicon]

Fleshgrinder wrote:

A couple sessions in a rogue pretty much 1 shots a creature with Sneak Attack and he flings his dice down and exclaims "I'm worthless. Why do they do so much more damage than me!?"
I reply, "Because you're a tank."
He replies, "Yeah. Tanks have big cannons and do lots of damage."
I slowly face palm and proceed to explain the use of the word tank in RPGs.
He continues to be pissy and even goes so far as to disagree with me and say I am wrong.

Suffice it to say, he doesn't have a gaming group anymore.

See also:

"I said I want to buff all the time... why don't I have massive strength?"

[Shadowborn]

Flamehawke wrote:

The current player that drives me nuts...

I have a player that behaves much like this one (in fact, I think I mentioned her a ways back up the thread...). I've just gotten in the habit pointing to the still-in-mint-condition-despite-being-owned-for-years Core Rulebook in front of her as a way to remind her that the rules are right at her fingertips if she cares to learn them. If it's actually her combat turn I'll recite them so as not to slow the round any further, but otherwise it's just a fingerpoint. All my gamers have been playing for years with me. If they want to be coddled, they know good and well they're in the wrong group.