"I go into stealth." and Other Ways to Annoy Your GM

[Raymond Lambert]

I wish players would declare the end.if their turn. I do not want to steal a.move action away because I move to the next player but hate waiting for the player to.just stay quote long enough to finally print me asking are you done.yet? Even after a full attack, they.might want to 5 foot step or do a swift action. Just say you are finished and I can quickly.move to.the next person.

[Under A Bleeding Sun]

Matthew Morris wrote:

As a GM, I'm known for asking for saves for no reason (except paranoia)

Excellent! I am.going to steal this and start incorporating it!

roysier wrote:

Someone role plays well and I allow a diplomacy skill check and suddenly a bunch of other players start rolling dice and start saying "I assist".

My answer: "I don't think so. You must role play in some capacity to assist".

I have just accepted the fact in society I have to deal with such things. Half the time the face is a moron and sats things like "I want to convine him to tell us where the map is." They don't understand doing things in character. In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. I no longer expect rp in society at all, and if I get it its a nice side benefit.

The game I played in yesterday each player described his character as "tall human with brown hair wearing plate armor." I come in and give a detailed written description followed by a short speech an I received crickets in return.

[CanisDirus]

From 3:45 to 5:35

"Did I say walk down the hall? I meant..."

Credit: The Gamers

[Finlanderboy]

In a home game I asked everyon to have an orginal in depth story I could incorporate in to the game.

I came back with 3 "I am a drow and the worlds best assassin."

[Disk Elemental]

Finlanderboy wrote:

I came back with 3 "I am a drow and the worlds best assassin."

Ouch.

I've got nothing else to say, that's just terrible.

[The Shifty Mongoose]

My pet annoyance: planned PvP during character creation. It's happened to me twice. It also sounds like it might happen with Finlander too.

Also, in any RPG, the person who leans over and reads the other players' character sheets without asking. More so if they pick them up, and even more so when they give a dismissive, "Pft, why did you pick that?"

In the annals of Things Ending Well, that phrase is the player's equivalent of, "Everyone, give me a Will save."

[Don Walker]

Player1: <constantly rolling dice> <stops>
GM: OK Player1 your turn.
Player1: I hit for XX damage. <begins to start rolling dice again>

[s_gmusic]

Don Walker wrote:

Player1: <constantly rolling dice> <stops>

GM: OK Player1 your turn.
Player1: I hit for XX damage. <begins to start rolling dice again>

I do the constant die rolling thing both as a player and GM. As a player, it's a "let's kill all the low rolls so when I need to really do something, it'll be high" superstition. As a GM, it feeds the paranoia well, especially in Wrath of the Righteous.

[Blackbot]

Ranger (because it's always her): I want to roll Perception!
Me: Okay, but...what for?
Ranger: I don't know. I just want to roll!
Me: Go ahead.
Ranger: 27! What do I see?
Me: Well, the room is well lit, but you see nothing special I did not already describe.
Ranger: But...I got a 27!
Me: *sigh*

This occurs about once or twice every session.

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Disk Elemental wrote:

GM - "Alright, you open the door, and see another door to the east. This room is--"

Player 1: I cast open/close on the door

Player 2: take 10 for a 15

Player 3: take 10 for an 18

This is roughly the speech I give.

"You are semi professional quasi trained barely housebroken murder ho.. gentleman explorers. I assume that, by virtue of your characters not being dead, they are not idiots. Unless circumstances dictate that you're running down the hallway without time to look, i assume you ARE looking."

Its absolutely amazing how much time that frees up.

Yeah. I expect the annoying list of checks for every step through the dungeon is a result of playing with GMs who'd kill them if they didn't explicitly say they were checking every time.

[Feegle]

roysier wrote:

Someone role plays well and I allow a diplomacy skill check and suddenly a bunch of other players start rolling dice and start saying "I assist".

My answer: "I don't think so. You must role play in some capacity to assist".

This is one of the "table rules" that I tell my players before we start the game. For Bluff, Diplomacy , and Intimidate, you must actively contribute to the conversation leading up to the check in order to aid another, even if is something as small as "I cross my arms and loom menacingly in the background."

[Matthew Morris]

s_gmusic wrote:

Don Walker wrote:

Player1: <constantly rolling dice> <stops>

GM: OK Player1 your turn.
Player1: I hit for XX damage. <begins to start rolling dice again>

I do the constant die rolling thing both as a player and GM. As a player, it's a "let's kill all the low rolls so when I need to really do something, it'll be high" superstition. As a GM, it feeds the paranoia well, especially in Wrath of the Righteous.

Another GM paranoid trick but requires a screen.

Want to make players paranoid? Grab a bunch of dice but make the damage dice special (like all of your red d6 but you grab a fist full of dice.) Roll all the dice for a horrendous noise, then lament your bad dice luck and announce the damage. Your players will simultaneously panic at the racket and breathe a sign of relief at your luck.

[Bob790]

GM: Everyone give me a perception check.

Player 1: *rolls* 15

Player 2: *rolls* 8

Player 3: *rolls* 12

Player 4: *rolls* 17

GM: No one sees...

Player 3: Plus... *stares at inventory list* where is perception on my sheet?

[Low Templar in SE Asia]

As a GM you try the classic hostage situation: "Take another step and I'll kill your friend." (Unconscious ally under the BBEGs knife)

Players: "Go ahead and kill him. We'll just pay for the raise dead and at this tier still come out with a good amount of gold."

GM: "You guys suck."

[tlotig]

Player: "i take ten and get 52 on perception, please tell me what I can hear in this complex counting distance and door modifiers"

[anthonydido]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Another GM paranoid trick but requires a screen.

Want to make players paranoid? Grab a bunch of dice but make the damage dice special (like all of your red d6 but you grab a fist full of dice.) Roll all the dice for a horrendous noise, then lament your bad dice luck and announce the damage. Your players will simultaneously panic at the racket and breathe a sign of relief at your luck.

I love this! I'm going to have to try it some time.

[Jiggy]

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

Half the time the face is a moron and sats things like "I want to convine him to tell us where the map is." They don't understand doing things in character. In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. I no longer expect rp in society at all, and if I get it its a nice side benefit.

So if the player of the INT 22 wizard fails to act like a genius (say by making a tactical error or needing to write down a name to remember it), is he also a "moron" who "doesn't understand doing things in character"?

[Nathan Hartshorn]

Moron is a strong word, try maroon instead.

Edit: But I agree with Jiggy

[Jiggy]

My wife refuses to play a PC with a high Diplomacy score because she's afraid of a GM like that forcing her into the spotlight.

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

Half the time the face is a moron and sats things like "I want to convine him to tell us where the map is." They don't understand doing things in character. In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. I no longer expect rp in society at all, and if I get it its a nice side benefit.

So if the player of the INT 22 wizard fails to act like a genius (say by making a tactical error or needing to write down a name to remember it), is he also a "moron" who "doesn't understand doing things in character"?

I have been trying to see the humor of much of this thread - I even chimed in with a list of peeves myself... but I kind of wish I had not.

But I have to chime in on this topic -

Rant alert - open spoiler at own risk:

My wife is a bit shy. She enjoys playing, and for the right group she can really come out of her shell. When she does, everyone at the table enjoys her PC and her gaming.

Sometimes she plays a Diplomat. Yeah, a shy Diplomat.

I have watched her practice her "shy" speach - "My character is much more diplomatic than I am. I would like her to convense (insert NPC here) to (insert what the group needs from the NPC here)." She has this speech printed on the back of the table tent for her "Diplomat", where she can read it when she needs to, when she finds herself overcome with shyness.

I've also seen judges "hold her to the task" and say "What EXACTLY does your PC say?" and watch helplessly while a fun game turned into a painful experience for her and the other people at the table. Anyone else trying to help her (me, or any other player) was hushed by the judge (with things like "you're character isn't there!" or "you can roll an assist later" or even "it's not your turn") while he stares at her struggle to say anything. Holding her to every word that she utters, ever stutter. Needless to say, we have never played with those judges again.

This is a lady who can get up in church and sing solo in front of 200 people. The same lady that can brake an entire table up in laughter with a sly comment ("That's going to leave a mark" when the monster charges into the door she just cast invisiblility on.) But, you see, sometimes she is shy, and needs to just roll the dice. Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. It's all part of the game.

I'm sorry if you consider her a "moron", I do not and I know her better than you do. But then I see your comment -"In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. ". Clearly we would not be sitting in your home game, and I am happy to let you think it is because you did "...a better job recruiting ...".

Sorry for the Rant people, but I needed to say that

[MeriDoc-]

Annoy the GM - roll 3like dice for initiative take the best two roll again take the lowest and shout roll high or its back to the hole for you! Then make your roll.

Annoy the PC -

Pc says "thats a ## to hit"
Response "hmmmm let me see, yes, no, yes... good you do hit This time."

PC says "i do 250pts of damage"
Response, "it seems to have no effect......(then slowly remove the monster from the board)...other than removing most of its vital organs.

[Matthew Morris]

Jiggy, Nosig,

It is conflicting styles, but how do you both feel about a GM who wants *something* to go on? Even if it is something as simple as "I want to compliment him on his hat and ask for the map."

As a GM, my personal preference is a cinamatic style of play with descriptions, but don't want to discomfort anyone (well not overly).

Part of being a good GM is adapting, not only to annoyances like in this thread, but to players comfort levels.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Seth Gipson wrote:

Player: I pick up a small stone before we go in.

GM: Ok?
Player: I toss it 5ft in front of me. Does anything happen?
GM: No.
Player: I pick it up and toss it 5ft in front of me. Does anything happen?
GM: No?
Player: I pick it up and...

GM: Do you have the Endurance feat?

[The Broken GM]

A very good point Jiggy and Nosig raise there, I admit I have never thought of it from that perspective and thank you for illuminating it for me.

Maybe something like asking for bullet points would be an acceptable compromise? Something like asking for the tone? Do you flirt, do you use reason, do you flatter, etc.?

[nosig]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Jiggy, Nosig,

It is conflicting styles, but how do you both feel about a GM who wants *something* to go on? Even if it is something as simple as "I want to compliment him on his hat and ask for the map."

As a GM, my personal preference is a cinamatic style of play with descriptions, but don't want to discomfort anyone (well not overly).

Part of being a good GM is adapting, not only to annoyances like in this thread, but to players comfort levels.

bolding mine - and I think you hit it on the head. Playing with the PC, rather than against. Thinking people who play different from you are different, rather than "morons".

Sure - draw the players into the game, just realize that sometimes when the player says...
"I take 10 on a Disable Device check and get a 26..."
he could just as easily say...
"Wow! I haven't see one of these sense Locksmith School! An Armstrong and Thornberry Mark IV double pin keyed Lock! these are tough! Good thing I have my number four pick"-pulling a expanding backscratcher from my gaming kit-"it's just the thing..." expanding it to 18" long "...for this device!" change of voice "I take ten and get a 26".

Both players are having fun... and that's what it's all about right?

[Barkamedes]

PC I quickly search the room's then move on (because there is a time frame)
GM that' takes time
PC yeah but I do it quickly
GM so it's more like a spot then search ?
PC nah still search the room but quickly
GM that takes time
PC no because we do it quickly
GM..........

[thejeff]

Barkamedes wrote:

PC I quickly search the room's then move on (because there is a time frame)

GM that' takes time
PC yeah but I do it quickly
GM so it's more like a spot then search ?
PC nah still search the room but quickly
GM that takes time
PC no because we do it quickly
GM..........

Of course that quickly segues into the lack of difference between Spot and Search in PF and exactly how long does a search take?

Officially, intentionally making a perception check is a move action. There is no RAW for making it take longer.

Which still seems odd to me. There should be a difference between a quick look around a room and a careful search, but there's no mechanical way to handle that as far as I can tell.

[Furious Kender]

The Broken GM wrote:

A very good point Jiggy and Nosig raise there, I admit I have never thought of it from that perspective and thank you for illuminating it for me.

Maybe something like asking for bullet points would be an acceptable compromise? Something like asking for the tone? Do you flirt, do you use reason, do you flatter, etc.?

In my experience, when running for someone who doesn't roleplay for whatever reason, you can ask what they are trying to accomplish and through what manner.

In other words, I ask "What are you trying to use diplomacy to do?"
Player: "I am trying to convince the guard to let us past"
Me: "Are you using any strategy, like flirting, blackmail, or your knowledge of the area"
Player: "I will flirt"
Me: "Your charisma is..."
Player: "It's an 18"
Me: "Ok, roll diplomacy"

I then have all the information I need to respond in character on the NPC's behalf and the player doesn't need to act it out.

I've only seen this approach fail maybe once, and that was because the person was clueless, not because they were shy. That guy just kept repeating, "I am trying to make a diplomacy check, you know, a diplomacy check" to every one of my followup questions.

[Furious Kender]

thejeff wrote:

]Of course that quickly segues into the lack of difference between Spot and Search in PF and exactly how long does a search take?

Spot and Search was D&D. Happily pathfinder eliminated the distinction.

[Vrog Skyreaver]

Barkamedes wrote:

PC I quickly search the room's then move on (because there is a time frame)

GM that' takes time
PC yeah but I do it quickly
GM so it's more like a spot then search ?
PC nah still search the room but quickly
GM that takes time
PC no because we do it quickly
GM..........

I always like to ask them how much time they want to spend searching the room, then go from there. It's hard to say "we meant to take more time" when they said "30 seconds" previously.

[nosig]

The Broken GM wrote:

A very good point Jiggy and Nosig raise there, I admit I have never thought of it from that perspective and thank you for illuminating it for me.

Maybe something like asking for bullet points would be an acceptable compromise? Something like asking for the tone? Do you flirt, do you use reason, do you flatter, etc.?

Sure - maybe - but if the player isn't sure how it can be done (because they don't have a +29 Diplomacy themselves), why not supply it as the Judge. Pull the player into the game...

Bashful Bard Player A "I try to intimidate the Mook into telling us what he knows... I got a 34"
Helpful Cleric Player B "Can I assist?! I assist! all I needed was a 10 right! wow I add +2!"
Judge "The Bard, in misty Mistmail steps to the door and, as the cleric swings open the door, she steps into the room. Swirling the cape with the continual flame spell on the lining around to her back so the "flames" swirl up around her, she coils her whip and puts it on her belt. Looking at the target sitting on the bed, she points the glove in her other hand and says "So, do we talk? or do we move on to other options?" Target sees a Cheliaxian woman, clothed in fire & smoke. Intimadate check? 35... Target says: "ah... what was it you wanted to talk about? I's can be Real Helpful, yes I's can!"

I mean we do this all the time with combat right?
Player A: "I got a 33 to hit with my Kopesh..."
Player B: "and my song adds +2 to hit and damage!"
Player A: "35 to hit then"
Judge: "so, how about some bullet points on how you do that? Give me something to work with here... do you do a sideswing thrust, or overhand chop? 'Butterfly in Flight' with a 'Stong Breeze' finish? what? give me something to work with here! and you Bard, how are you boosting? A rousing martial tone? or what?"
Player A: "ah... what?..."

[Robert Smythe]

Finlanderboy wrote:

In a home game I asked everyon to have an orginal in depth story I could incorporate in to the game.

I came back with 3 "I am a drow and the worlds best assassin."

If it ever happens again, I'd stick the characters in a room together and tell them. "Ok, now we find out who is the world's best assassin... There can be only one!"

[godsDMit]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Seth Gipson wrote:

Player: I pick up a small stone before we go in.

GM: Ok?
Player: I toss it 5ft in front of me. Does anything happen?
GM: No.
Player: I pick it up and toss it 5ft in front of me. Does anything happen?
GM: No?
Player: I pick it up and...

GM: Do you have the Endurance feat?

Im curious as to where that question is going, other than something like 'its going to take a long time to get through the dungeon at that speed.' :P

Adding to the list:

"You should just assist me on my roll since my check is higher."
Inner monologue: Roll separate check from this person for every single check they make. DO NOT AID.

----------

Player: I have my wolf go up and attack the zombie.
GM: What Tricks does your wolf know?
Player: What are 'Tricks'?
GM: Is this your first character?
Player: Yea. Why?
GM: Ok, so... *goes into explanation** of tricks*

**Usually the way I handle this is give a brief rundown of how it works, and the need for Handle Animal. As we move through the scenario, I have the Druid add tricks to the animals list based on what he wants it to do. If he wants it to attack the zombie, then I recommend he takes Attack twice. If he wants to have it guard a door, I recommend Guard. We dont stop long enough to form a single list all at once, but do it fluidly as he uses the animal, so we try not to take away from the rest of the group for too long.
It works rather well, but I really wish people would stop using a Druid as their first character. :P

[godsDMit]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

If it ever happens again, I'd stick the characters in a room together and tell them. "Ok, now we find out who is the world's best assassin... There can be only one!"

And the survivor gains 2 levels?

[Brox RedGloves]

Finlanderboy wrote:

In a home game I asked everyon to have an orginal in depth story I could incorporate in to the game.

I came back with 3 "I am a drow and the worlds best assassin."

My DM encountered this once. His reply was:

"Awesome! All three assassins are now level 20 and retired. Now roll up a new character!"

No snark, no anger, just really really cheerful response which I thought was hilarious.

[Matthew Morris]

Akin to the druid And tricks bit.

"It is written in Thassonian. Anyone speak it?"

"Um, what languages do I speak?"

[RainyDayNinja]

This Saturday, I had to remind a player what domains he had selected on his level 5 cleric. Because he hadn't bothered to write them down.

[thejeff]

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

Barkamedes wrote:

PC I quickly search the room's then move on (because there is a time frame)

GM that' takes time
PC yeah but I do it quickly
GM so it's more like a spot then search ?
PC nah still search the room but quickly
GM that takes time
PC no because we do it quickly
GM..........

I always like to ask them how much time they want to spend searching the room, then go from there. It's hard to say "we meant to take more time" when they said "30 seconds" previously.

Is there a mechanical effect to that? Bonus/penalty on the Perception checks?

A time past which it doesn't help to search longer? Are you basing this on any actual rules?

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Seth Gipson wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

GM: Do you have the Endurance feat?

Im curious as to where that question is going, other than something like 'its going to take a long time to get through the dungeon at that speed.' :P

At lunch my workout routine includes 3 sets of 10 bodyweight squats... this takes about one minute, and definitely gets my heart pumping. And I'm wearing light workout clothing (my encumbrance / weight carried is zero)

In this example, he's making a lunge or a squat or bending over to pick up that rock every 5 feet. He's gonna get sweaty in that armor + weapons + backpack.... if he's bending over instead of squatting to pick it up, his back might also hurt at the end of the day.

Never be afraid to read the Endurance feat and enforce the strenuous activity rules whenever you encounter some abuse like this.

[Brox RedGloves]

Jiggy wrote:

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

Half the time the face is a moron and sats things like "I want to convine him to tell us where the map is." They don't understand doing things in character. In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. I no longer expect rp in society at all, and if I get it its a nice side benefit.

So if the player of the INT 22 wizard fails to act like a genius (say by making a tactical error or needing to write down a name to remember it), is he also a "moron" who "doesn't understand doing things in character"?

Our GM solved this by allowing a certain number of "Logical Extension" rolls from our genius players. They roll a straight Int check and he tells them some valuable info that they would reasonably be able to infer. (Kinda like Sherlock Holmes)

[BigDTBone]

thejeff wrote:

Barkamedes wrote:

PC I quickly search the room's then move on (because there is a time frame)

GM that' takes time
PC yeah but I do it quickly
GM so it's more like a spot then search ?
PC nah still search the room but quickly
GM that takes time
PC no because we do it quickly
GM..........

Of course that quickly segues into the lack of difference between Spot and Search in PF and exactly how long does a search take?

Officially, intentionally making a perception check is a move action. There is no RAW for making it take longer.

Which still seems odd to me. There should be a difference between a quick look around a room and a careful search, but there's no mechanical way to handle that as far as I can tell.

Take a 20.

[blood_kite]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Akin to the druid And tricks bit.

"It is written in Thassonian. Anyone speak it?"

"Um, what languages do I speak?"

I've seen that come up as a legitimate question for Golarion. During Reign of Winter we received a shock when someone from another world replied to us in Talden. The player with 20+ languages on his character was annoyed at finding yet another language he didn't know, until we told him that Talden was Common.

[TetsujinOni]

* room size compared to 10' radius footprinting to determine how many perception checks it takes to get a +0 range modification on the DCs of anything which needs to be searched.

* number of things which would need to be manipulated to find the objects hidden within a compartment at the back of a drawer - are there one, two, fifty, five hundred drawers in the room?

There's places where one-and-done, or 30-second-glance around the room won't find things, and a thorough search of the room will take an amount of time. Some scenarios spell these out well when they're part of the plot of the scneario, rather than just part of the mid-tier buff-timing game.

[thejeff]

BigDTBone wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Barkamedes wrote:

PC I quickly search the room's then move on (because there is a time frame)

GM that' takes time
PC yeah but I do it quickly
GM so it's more like a spot then search ?
PC nah still search the room but quickly
GM that takes time
PC no because we do it quickly
GM..........

Of course that quickly segues into the lack of difference between Spot and Search in PF and exactly how long does a search take?

Officially, intentionally making a perception check is a move action. There is no RAW for making it take longer.

Which still seems odd to me. There should be a difference between a quick look around a room and a careful search, but there's no mechanical way to handle that as far as I can tell.

Take a 20.

There is that of course. Though it seems a bit binary. And still pretty quick. Either a move action for a glance or 2 minutes for a thorough search.

[thejeff]

TetsujinOni wrote:

* room size compared to 10' radius footprinting to determine how many perception checks it takes to get a +0 range modification on the DCs of anything which needs to be searched.

* number of things which would need to be manipulated to find the objects hidden within a compartment at the back of a drawer - are there one, two, fifty, five hundred drawers in the room?

There's places where one-and-done, or 30-second-glance around the room won't find things, and a thorough search of the room will take an amount of time. Some scenarios spell these out well when they're part of the plot of the scneario, rather than just part of the mid-tier buff-timing game.

And I've had others do it more this way. Some requiring the players to tell them everything they searched, where they were moving and what they were moving.

If you didn't say "Opening all the drawers", you wouldn't check the drawers. If you didn't say "Check for traps on the drawers before opening them", you'd set off the traps.

As far as range modifiers, I assume you'd just apply that as a modifier on a quick check. If there's a DC 15 thing on the wall 35' away, but I got a 20 Perception check, I'd still see it right away?
But for things in drawers or the like, no chance unless you either do a full search taking however long or explicitly say "Look in the drawers"?

[nosig]

thejeff wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Barkamedes wrote:

PC I quickly search the room's then move on (because there is a time frame)

GM that' takes time
PC yeah but I do it quickly
GM so it's more like a spot then search ?
PC nah still search the room but quickly
GM that takes time
PC no because we do it quickly
GM..........

Of course that quickly segues into the lack of difference between Spot and Search in PF and exactly how long does a search take?

Officially, intentionally making a perception check is a move action. There is no RAW for making it take longer.

Which still seems odd to me. There should be a difference between a quick look around a room and a careful search, but there's no mechanical way to handle that as far as I can tell.

Take a 20.

There is that of course. Though it seems a bit binary. And still pretty quick. Either a move action for a glance or 2 minutes for a thorough search.

a take 20 on a perception check is not a search. It is a careful look around... and only takes 1 minute (2 move actions a round, nets you 20 checks in 10 rounds, so take 20 on perception takes one minute, not two). A search would be poking into things that you can't percieve, such as closed drawers, sealed letters, pillows etc.

[GM Lamplighter]

Perception requires line of sight (or at least line of effect for sound). A single Perception checks "searches/spots" the whole room at once, with appropriate modifiers for distance. Anything with total concealment (like the inside of a drawer) is not "searched/spotted" until the line-of-sight occurs.

Taking 20 on Perception takes 1 minute, but still does not deal with opening drawers, etc. (although I typically allow them to do that as part of a take 20 if they mention it). Perception automatically checks for traps, so you don't have to state that separately.

[hotsauceman]

This is something that annoys both GMs and me.
"Guys, I rolled, he said there are no traps, lets go in"
"No, he said you cant SEE any traps"
Same with sense motive.

One thing to annoy a Gm, HAve a boon and never GMed before in your life or been to a con. I constantly get told "You shouldnt be able to use that" with the VC jumping in several times say " I ALREADY TOLD YOU HE CAN, I SAW THAT GUY GIVE IT TOO HIM"

[godsDMit]

hotsauceman wrote:

One thing to annoy a Gm, HAve a boon and never GMed before in your life or been to a con. I constantly get told "You shouldnt be able to use that" with the VC jumping in several times say " I ALREADY TOLD YOU HE CAN, I SAW THAT GUY GIVE IT TOO HIM"

This sounds like a prime example of a situation where the VC should have a side conversation with the GM once the table is done. Its one thing to ask once, its another to continue to badger the player about it. Unless the GM has reason to believe you photocopied it or something (and then only the one time til he/she is told its legit), then its really none of the GMs business where or how you got the boon.

[Jiggy]

Matthew Morris wrote:

...how do you both feel about a GM who wants *something* to go on? Even if it is something as simple as "I want to compliment him on his hat and ask for the map."

This is something I and my wife are fine with, but matches Under A Bleeding Sun's definition of being a moron who can't understand doing things in character.