When males players role-play female PC's badly.
Seconded. I played in two campaigns with a guy who stated, "I feel I can only really role play women." But every woman he played was either a party-betraying mercenary or a man-hating slut, or both (that covers the three characters I saw him play). Whatever social benefits D&D has, I don't think therapy to work out your misogyny issues is one of them.
|
Thanks for leaving male GMs playing female NPCs out of that. :)When males players role-play female PC's badly.
Quite intentional, because in most games I've seen, there will be a female NPC at some point. Since it is the GM's "job" to play NPC characters and I have a healthy respect for all the hard work that goes into running a game, if the female NPC's aren't done all that great, I can deal.
As a player, gender is a choice. And I've seen some people choose.... poorly. Unlike badly played female NPC's who will probably go back to their own lives, PC's are usually forming a party and will be around each other for the long haul.As a female player, usually in a game with mostly guys, I get enough crap for being a girl, I don't need the additional angst of watching some one insult my gender further.
</rant>
I'm with Jagyr on this one. It's not good for a DM to too easily get annoyed at player decisions. One who then (ab)uses his authority to punish the players for his own reaction to their choices...?
*contemplates resigning as a DM*
Nah, I only get annoyed when the one half of the group decides to be deliberately annoying to me. I wish I had more than one guy that actually put some thought into abackground, quirky or no. Of course his paladin-pony lawyer is getting a little too weird. There should be a paladin of Asmodeus. This guy would have it covered. :)
'It's not our fault that your town has been infested with Bodaks. We healed our group's afflicted members.'
Pet peeves -
The guy that seems to fall asleep EVERY week, only paying attention IF we wake him up when it's time to ROLL.
His buddy that plays on his laptop, only paying attention when it's time to ROLL.
The guy that tries to maximize his actions during every round, slowing it down for everyone else with his need to examine every aspect. 'No, you cannot see what's going on in the other room from where you are.'
The proverbial 'If I knew X I wouldn't have done A'. Listen better, or realize that a character is not omniscent.
I can see the mind drifting during slow periods, but these things happen every week. Even though we have rotating GMs and games. If it's that boring why play?
Thankfully we only have a couple of bad apples. The rest are cool.
When males players role-play female PC's badly.
Seconded. I played in two campaigns with a guy who stated, "I feel I can only really role play women." But every woman he played was either a party-betraying mercenary or a man-hating slut, or both (that covers the three characters I saw him play). Whatever social benefits D&D has, I don't think therapy to work out your misogyny issues is one of them.
Apologies if this is a double-post. I replied, but it disappeared, or at least I can't see it. Top of page six.
DMs that insist that even though their monsters lost initiative, they aren't flat-footed. "But they expected a fight." So did we, but if they attacked us first, you'd ask us our flat-footed AC.
That brings up two points.
What responsibility does a player have to create a character that the other players will enjoy interacting with, if any?
What responsibility do the other players have to tolerate unwelcome antics, however in-character they are, from one character?
|
That brings up two points.
What responsibility does a player have to create a character that the other players will enjoy interacting with, if any?
What responsibility do the other players have to tolerate unwelcome antics, however in-character they are, from one character?
not much but at least some, otherwise it can ruin the game rather quickly, here is an example that happened to me
so the party finds this (now reoccuring) villainess for the second time, our party consisted of me, my brother, and a few friends. so this villainess that has really screwed us up starts her monologue, i state that we should try to kill her since we have been betrayed by her before instead of agreeing to any terms she gives (which had really screw us up before by almost summoning a giant demon that would have killed us all), but instead of following our advice, or even taking a little care, half of the party instantly starts to protect this villain, and stop us (me and my brother) from doing anything (including speaking trying to reason with them and leaving them to their doom), their excuse "we are good, we can't just kill people" where a few sessions ago where rather happy to torture a farmer for information and eventually killing the poor man for being unable to provide the party with any useful information (yea that session was pretty bad)
so yea some tolerance is needed (since one or two antics are fine) but it is better to try to keep things so that everyone can enjoy
|
|
I have a couple and I am not sure if they have been mentioned or not.
GMs that aren't prepared and constantly stopping the game to look up an NPC or Monster.
Players who can't come prepared, "hey guys I forgot my character do you remember the feats I had I need to remake him now, dude can I borrow your book for a bit I left mine somewhere and the ever popular "does anyone have any dice I can borrow" What type of RPG gamer doesn't have dice.
The player who never brings enough money when they know you are ordering out for dinner.
Gamers that are Late.
Once upon a time, I had a player who deliberately chose his characters to violate the game's suggested framework and limits. For a Viking horror-themed game, he brought a Native American themed character named Richard Nixon. For a GURPS game based in Irish myth, his character was a greedy, skinny, one-handed dwarf, a blacksmith with multiple enemies. For a Call of Cthulhu game set at a posh upper-class auction, he made an unwashed, bomb-throwing anarchist with a tommygun in a violin case.
I eventually figured out why he was driving me nuts: He wasn't happy unless he was the center of attention and these maladjusted characters forced me to adjust any plans I had so I could accommodate him.
That brings up two points.
What responsibility does a player have to create a character that the other players will enjoy interacting with, if any?
What responsibility do the other players have to tolerate unwelcome antics, however in-character they are, from one character?
The proverbial line. When is it crossed? Hmmm...
New player wants to run a Assassin/Wizard in a group of good-neutrals.
Established player getting frustrated with the game, buys an armload of pies. Decides to demonstrate his frustration with the scenario (not a game I was running) by tumbling into combat throwing said pies. Once was funny, twice was too much, 3 times was the end.
Players that treat NPCs as monsters/cattle in a good campaign, deliberately f'ing up what another player is working on with said NPC.
Player 1 and 3 are the same guy.
I think it's when your fun infringes on someone else's. Your responsible to notice the frown on someone else's face, though it may not change your antics. If you're playing to ellicit those frowns you have no business at that table.
I think it's when your fun infringes on someone else's. Your responsible to notice the frown on someone else's face, though it may not change your antics.
Previous in the thread, I felt it was implied that the responsibility falls on the GM. Perhaps I misread the thread. I still maintain that everyone at the table shares at least some responsibility to make the game fun for everyone else.
|
|
Players who can't come prepared, "hey guys I forgot my character do you remember the feats I had I need to remake him nowThis happened a lot in my group recently. To the same two players. It was annoying.
This happened a lot in my current group so the GM requires a copy of the character if you forget yours. Here is the Hitch, you are responsible for making sure both copies are up to date.
Right now we are ninth level, the player forgot his character sheet a 5 weeks ago and has not updated the GMs copy since 6th level. He almost died 3 times. So far he hasn't forgot it.
That brings up two points.
.......
My characters have ranged from being forgiving to being very demanding and impatient. If my character would kick him out of adventuring party I think it should be done. Your character should not have to put with something it does not like, due to your real life buddy being annoying and vice vera of course.
Once upon a time, I had a player who deliberately chose his characters to violate the game's suggested framework and limits. For a Viking horror-themed game, he brought a Native American themed character named Richard Nixon. For a GURPS game based in Irish myth, his character was a greedy, skinny, one-handed dwarf, a blacksmith with multiple enemies. For a Call of Cthulhu game set at a posh upper-class auction, he made an unwashed, bomb-throwing anarchist with a tommygun in a violin case.
I eventually figured out why he was driving me nuts: He wasn't happy unless he was the center of attention and these maladjusted characters forced me to adjust any plans I had so I could accommodate him.
Well, as was said above, D&D is no replacement for a therapy. I think I would have asked him to either stop it or stop playing at my game.
Stefan
As a female player, usually in a game with mostly guys, I get enough crap for being a girl, I don't need the additional angst of watching some one insult my gender further.</rant>
I slowly lose faith in my fellow male gamers... Is it some kind of sport to annoy and offend female gamers?
Annoying others at the game table is bad gaming etiquette at my table.
Oh, and I tried once to play a female character, many years ago. I will never again, I´m not the type of guy who can pull this off.
Stefan
I think it's when your fun infringes on someone else's. Your responsible to notice the frown on someone else's face, though it may not change your antics.Previous in the thread, I felt it was implied that the responsibility falls on the GM. Perhaps I misread the thread. I still maintain that everyone at the table shares at least some responsibility to make the game fun for everyone else.
I vote for everyone. The GM can influence things a lot but I find myself getting wrapped up in managing things that I don't always follow the side issues at the table.
As a female player, usually in a game with mostly guys, I get enough crap for being a girl, I don't need the additional angst of watching some one insult my gender further.</rant>
I slowly lose faith in my fellow male gamers... Is it some kind of sport to annoy and offend female gamers?
Annoying others at the game table is bad gaming etiquette at my table.
Oh, and I tried once to play a female character, many years ago. I will never again, I´m not the type of guy who can pull this off.
Stefan
+1
My wife still won't play. The guys harrassed her too much.
|
|
That brings up two points.
What responsibility does a player have to create a character that the other players will enjoy interacting with, if any?
What responsibility do the other players have to tolerate unwelcome antics, however in-character they are, from one character?
I think the general consensus is that players have the right to create whatever character they want, so long as that character doesn't actively infringe on the other players' fun. It's like the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." So according to the consensus view, you can do whatever you'd like so long as you're not being disruptive.
So to answer your question, it seems to me that the accepted view is that players don't have any obligation to create a character that the other players will enjoy interacting with, but they are obligated to avoid excessive intentional antics that would disrupt the game. Additionally, some people believe that the players are obligated not to create a mechanically worthless character, since that places the burden of taking care of that character on the other players, thereby actively reducing their enjoyment of the game.
Of course, as I stated earlier, I agree with you that players should have the affirmative responsibility to improve the game, I'm just trying to summarize what look like the trends here.
As a female player, usually in a game with mostly guys, I get enough crap for being a girl, I don't need the additional angst of watching some one insult my gender further.</rant>
I slowly lose faith in my fellow male gamers... Is it some kind of sport to annoy and offend female gamers?
Annoying others at the game table is bad gaming etiquette at my table.
Oh, and I tried once to play a female character, many years ago. I will never again, I´m not the type of guy who can pull this off.
Stefan
I can, but I've had a lot of practice (mostly from being the DM). And we have a couple of female players in our group who would break my neck if I tried to do something stupid with a female PC.
I eventually figured out why he was driving me nuts: He wasn't happy unless he was the center of attention and these maladjusted characters forced me to adjust any plans I had so I could accommodate him.
Player, Door.
I try to DM females realistically, but my wife (who isn't even playing) always cuts in, "You play your female characters as if they were men." Since she won't give me any examples ("Well, you just do!"), I'm unable to figure out how to improve.
I try to DM females realistically, but my wife (who isn't even playing) always cuts in, "You play your female characters as if they were men." Since she won't give me any examples ("Well, you just do!"), I'm unable to figure out how to improve.
heh. That´s a typical womens answer.
Stefan
I would agree there is a propensity for inexperienced male gamers to play female characters in a 'stereotypical' manner.
The older I get, the more I realize how truly varied people can be. Would it not follow that females, as a gender, are equally varied and, therefore, nearly any personality would be possible.
Secretary: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
I suppose I should note that after the "in character zoning" has worn off after session's end, some of my players have noted some rather disturbed reactions to some of the female NPCs I've played. Take that for what it's worth.
|
|
That brings up two points.
What responsibility does a player have to create a character that the other players will enjoy interacting with, if any?
What responsibility do the other players have to tolerate unwelcome antics, however in-character they are, from one character?
My opinion is this.
1) A player should be responsible for making a PC that fits the game and the group. Few things derail a campaign faster than the PC's or a PC failing to fit in and constantly causing problems. Now to be fair the GM should make sure everyone knows what kind of game he is running and should encourage everyone to make characters at the same time and decided as a group what kind of theme or what have you they are going for. So they can work together and get along well enough where it makes sense they are willing to travel together and trust their lives to each other.
2) Pretty tolerate, to the point it starts to ruin their own fun I think. I mean the goal for all of us is to have fun. So until it starts impeding the other players of GM's fun of the game it should be tolerated I think.
|
|
I remember another bad example of gaming etiquette. This is for online game, weather they be chat rooms or MMO's. But after getting to know a guy online and talking and stuff to have him send you a pic of himself. But only a pic of a very "small" part of himself if you know what I mean.
I mean seriously why would i want to see that and why would a guy feel the need to show me?
|
I agree that a player should be responsible for creating a character that fits the game and group they intend to play with. That aside, a group should also be flexible enough to accomadate some interesting ideas. Flexibility is key to any gaming group, as its only as flexible as the most rigid person in a group. You don't want people walking out the door, right? That said, there are a few people I know who I'd not invite either. You'll get a good idea about who should and shouldn't play in your groups pretty quickly.
Its not so much toleration, as actual acceptance that is important. You don't get to choose your family, and your opportunity to make friends is fairly limited compared to the tons of options that become available during character creation. The whole group should be mostly happy with the results, and if you build a character no one else likes and you really enjoy it I would question why you're actually gaming. Its a game, and a lot of people forget that.
Edit: And thanks for the link Dark_Mistress!
I remember another bad example of gaming etiquette. This is for online game, weather they be chat rooms or MMO's. But after getting to know a guy online and talking and stuff to have him send you a pic of himself. But only a pic of a very "small" part of himself if you know what I mean.
I mean seriously why would i want to see that and why would a guy feel the need to show me?
I used to know a guy who did this with a passion it was his idea of courtship I think, he must have emailed more pictures of his thing than there are kittens on the internet!
I remember another bad example of gaming etiquette. This is for online game, weather they be chat rooms or MMO's. But after getting to know a guy online and talking and stuff to have him send you a pic of himself. But only a pic of a very "small" part of himself if you know what I mean.
I mean seriously why would i want to see that and why would a guy feel the need to show me?
As a straight guy, I have to agree: what the f~&~ is with that? My junk is for live audiences only... of course, been a while since our last performance, but I think it's a good rule anyway. First off, it's "Who the hell do you think you're impressing?" and secondly, even if it does, THEY'RE SOMEWHERE ELSE so what good does it do you?
|
Players forgeting important NPC details like NAMES.
Yeah, you know I've never had anyone in any of my games get this right. I really encourage people to take good notes during my games, because my NPCs are either:
a) Someone I spent three days carefully crafting and who is going to be important to the long-running plotline. Like, say, their sponsor for the various things they're going to be doing -- this dude isn't going away, you might want to get his name right for verisimilitude's sake.
b) Someone I just made up off the top of my head because the party zigged instead of zagging. Caught in a sudden plot shift, I need you to write down the name and remember it just in case this guy ends up being important or you ask me three sessions later "hey, what was that guard-captain's name in Dyvers?"
*sigh*
The best effort I've had was the player who kept an NPC database in Access, and then all I had to do was get it from him periodically and correct the misspelled names. :-)
|
|
I have a specific set of pet peeves around female characters:
1) Don't be a male player who plays almost exclusively female characters, and plays them all as hawt lipstick lesbians. It's starting to creep me out, dude.
2) Please don't use pictures of porn stars as all of your character or NPC portraits. At the very least, don't exclusively use that as your source, and please at least crop the pictures and keep the nudie bits out. No, I don't care if that NPC's background is that she's a whore, she doesn't spend all her time sitting around like it's a Playboy centerfold shoot. No, not even if this NPC is a succubus and 'the one in the 1st edition Monster Manual was naked!'.
2) Please don't use pictures of porn stars as all of your character or NPC portraits. At the very least, don't exclusively use that as your source, and please at least crop the pictures and keep the nudie bits out. No, I don't care if that NPC's background is that she's a whore, she doesn't spend all her time sitting around like it's a Playboy centerfold shoot. No, not even if this NPC is a succubus and 'the one in the 1st edition Monster Manual was naked!'.
I always tell players who want to crop photos of their 'female' characters that they can use pictures of female politicians and CEOs. If you really want your CHA 9 Sorceress to run around in a buttfloss thong, have fun trying to find pictures of Nancy Pelosi or Carly Fiorina in one. :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have a specific set of pet peeves around female characters:
2) Please don't use pictures of porn stars as all of your character or NPC portraits. At the very least, don't exclusively use that as your source, and please at least crop the pictures and keep the nudie bits out. No, I don't care if that NPC's background is that she's a whore, she doesn't spend all her time sitting around like it's a Playboy centerfold shoot. No, not even if this NPC is a succubus and 'the one in the 1st edition Monster Manual was naked!'.
Funny that
So sometimes it's not intentional...
Funny that ** spoiler omitted **So sometimes it's not intentional...
She shoulda been a zombie, since you only had a 'head shot', but I guess it works for that too. :)
I mean seriously why would i want to see that and why would a guy feel the need to show me?
Sorry about that. I thought you wanted to see my new puffy bobbed tail.
|
|
I'm quite guilty of pilfering head shots from modeling sites for certain NPCs; it does work as an approach. Of course, I also use head shots from The Smoking Gun's mug shots feature just as much (amazing the totally wacky looking folks you can get from that!), so I think it all balances out.
I'm not saying beautiful women are off-limits to use as character inspirations; we're dealing with idealized worlds and that's OK. I just really really got turned off by a couple of friends who had an entire campaign book full of NPCs stat sheets that were all this. I noticed the male NPCs somehow had managed to find some clothes, strangely enough.
...1) Don't be a male player who plays almost exclusively female characters, and plays them all as hawt lipstick lesbians. It's starting to creep me out, dude...
I don't have a huge problem with this as long as they're not too obnoxious about it/using it as a demeaning representation of women and lesbians in general. If that's actually a version of their ideal self, I kinda have to accept that though.
|
|
...1) Don't be a male player who plays almost exclusively female characters, and plays them all as hawt lipstick lesbians. It's starting to creep me out, dude...I don't have a huge problem with this as long as they're not too obnoxious about it/using it as a demeaning representation of women and lesbians in general. If that's actually a version of their ideal self, I kinda have to accept that though.
Well... I'm pretty sure neither of the two people I'm thinking of are projecting a gender identity issue, more like projecting a desire to control a "hot" woman. I'm not going to call that misogynistic, but it's quite objectifying and I find their characters played this way are kind of one-dimensional, so the end result is a bit disturbing and just not all that interesting.
In an MMO setting, statting up a sleazy female character and seeing how skanky the character editor lets you get is, at worst, big boys playing with Barbie dolls. In an RPG, it just all too often falls flat. I very rarely cross-gender role-play, and I think very few people can do it well. I think as a DM I only do it kind of "OK", and that is with characters that I can justify as being one-dimensional since they're secondary players in the plot.
|
|
Another thing that I can't stand is "purposeful derailment" of a game system. This has happened in a previous group (a little over a decade and a half ago) where this one member of the group thought that the game that he liked (I'll call it "Brand X") was superior to all other and would purposely try to find faults in the game that was being played and exploit them to cause derailment only to say, "You see? with 'Brand X' game, this would never happen because it is superior to all other games!". Well he never actually said that but you get the point about his attitude toward all games other than "Brand X". Don't you?
Well he never actually said that but you get the point about his attitude toward all games other than "Brand X". Don't you?
Never seen it myself but I get the premise. I don't see how you guys tolerated playing with him very often.
|
|
Another thing that I can't stand is "purposeful derailment" of a game system. This has happened in a previous group (a little over a decade and a half ago) where this one member of the group thought that the game that he liked (I'll call it "Brand X") was superior to all other and would purposely try to find faults in the game that was being played and exploit them to cause derailment only to say, "You see? with 'Brand X' game, this would never happen because it is superior to all other games!". Well he never actually said that but you get the point about his attitude toward all games other than "Brand X". Don't you?
I'm vindictive. I'd've run Brand X and exploited it against the character ruthlessly. But I'm mean like that.
|
|
Well he never actually said that but you get the point about his attitude toward all games other than "Brand X". Don't you?Never seen it myself but I get the premise. I don't see how you guys tolerated playing with him very often.
We tolerated it because he was otherwise a very nice guy! It's just that his game was superior and when he ran it he made a point of you knowing that it was superior.
|
|
Another thing that I can't stand is "purposeful derailment" of a game system. This has happened in a previous group (a little over a decade and a half ago) where this one member of the group thought that the game that he liked (I'll call it "Brand X") was superior to all other and would purposely try to find faults in the game that was being played and exploit them to cause derailment only to say, "You see? with 'Brand X' game, this would never happen because it is superior to all other games!". Well he never actually said that but you get the point about his attitude toward all games other than "Brand X". Don't you?I'm vindictive. I'd've run Brand X and exploited it against the character ruthlessly. But I'm mean like that.
Would have been an option had any of us been interested in running "Brand X" but none of us were wanting to learn a new set of rules just to run a game and use it against him in order to "prove a point" (i.e. it was more trouble than it was worth) but one of us would have otherwise.
|
|
Another one: Participants (player or GM) who are really too sick to be gaming and really can't contribute much because they are so sick but come to a session anyway. Hey, if you are feeling that bad your group (if they are truly your friends) will understand and things will run smoother without you interupting the game to use the "loo" (shout out to my Brittish friends), having a coughing fit or whatever else because of your sickness! STAY HOME AND GET BETTER!!! We will all still be your friends, really!
|
|
Players who can't come prepared, "hey guys I forgot my character do you remember the feats I had I need to remake him now, dude can I borrow your book for a bit I left mine somewhere and the ever popular "does anyone have any dice I can borrow" What type of RPG gamer doesn't have dice.
I don't mean any disrespect, LackofFocus, but I'd like to play Devil's Advocate with this post for a moment.
Character Sheets Okay, on this one I agree with you. This is why the GM usually keeps all the character sheets for our games.
Books and dice "What type of RPG gamer doesn't have dice?" The answer is, "a poor one." There are at least three gamers in our FLGS game who don't have dice or books, and they come to the table with the expectation that they'll be able to borrow these from other players.
Some of these players are teenagers with small allowances, but others are adult gamers with little discretionary income - and they simply don't play often enough to rationalize spending $50 on a book or even $10 on a set of dice.
I spend at least one day every week (sometimes two) gaming, and many many hours on messageboards like these. Also, I'm usually a GM in our group, so I'm usually building adventures and campaign ideas as well. To put a fine point on it, gaming is what I do. I devote huge amounts of time to my hobby.
However, the players I describe above aren't invested in gaming. They're only interaction with RPGs is coming to our game two or three times a month. There are some people who game simply because that's what their friends are doing, and they like hanging out with their friends.
TL;DR - Being chronically unprepared is annoying, but some people come unequipped because they simply can't afford to. The expectations at your gaming table should be clear as to whether or not you will make accommodations for casual gamers.
Players who can't come prepared, "hey guys I forgot my character do you remember the feats I had I need to remake him now, dude can I borrow your book for a bit I left mine somewhere and the ever popular "does anyone have any dice I can borrow" What type of RPG gamer doesn't have dice.I don't mean any disrespect, LackofFocus, but I'd like to play Devil's Advocate with this post for a moment.
Books and dice "What type of RPG gamer doesn't have dice?" The answer is, "a poor one." There are at least three gamers in our FLGS game who don't have dice or books, and they come to the table with the expectation that they'll be able to borrow these from other players.
Some of these players are teenagers with small allowances, but others are adult gamers with little discretionary income - and they simply don't play often enough to rationalize spending $50 on a book or even $10 on a set of dice.
I spend at least one day every week (sometimes two) gaming, and many many hours on messageboards like these. Also, I'm usually a GM in our group, so I'm usually building adventures and campaign ideas as well. To put a fine point on it, gaming is what I do. I devote huge amounts of time to my hobby.
However, the players I describe above aren't invested in gaming. They're only interaction with RPGs is coming to our game two or three times a month. There are some people who game simply because that's what their friends are doing, and they like hanging out with their friends.TL;DR - Being chronically unprepared is annoying, but some people come unequipped because they simply can't afford to. The expectations at your gaming table should be clear as to whether or not you will make accommodations for casual gamers.
But, to me, that is the difference. The players you describe don't have their own items, and it is known, they come to have fun and play with friends. The players originally described in the peeve DO have their own stuff, but can't be bothered to remember it when they come to game ... and do this on a semi-regular basis enough for it to become annoying :)
I have friends that drive from LA to San Diego to game with us once a month. They have their own books and dice, but have forgotten stuff before ... with that travel distance it happens. So I have spare dice and we share the books. But I know they are kicking themselves over it, because they HATE using someone else's dice (even though their own seem doomed to kill them many a day) and miss having their own book to paw through.
On the flip side, we gamed with other friends back in college, who owned all the books, had their own dice and figs, and could not remember to drag them to the dorm next door or be on time for a weekly game on a more than half the time basis. And were so lazy-ass they wanted to borrow everyone else's stuff than walk back and get their own gear ::sigh:: That is annoying