Things that players do that drive you insane


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Trinam wrote:
Mr.Fishy wrote:
@Trinam your a bad man...with goblin oil boys?

Goblins or Kobolds. Bugbears if they have them.

Oh, but don't tell me if it'd be a spoiler. Our DM hates it when we read up on the AP's spoilers.

The specifics are up to your GM. <wink>


DeathQuaker wrote:
Complain they have no treasure but then also never take any time to search for any. They seem to think I should just lay it out all over the floor unprotected.

I'm pretty much the opposite on this.

Attention my players who aren't reading this but nonetheless: Put the dice down. You don't need to rip apart every little thing and pry out the cobblestones in search of treasure. I am not going to screw you over.


When the party is having an in character discussion about how to handle and issue, and a person makes an out of alignment statement, then tries to cover it.

Situation:Bad guy is captured. He has committed not crimes. He is just a part of Team Evil
Players 1-3(TN, NG, CG) All try to get the prisoner to give up info, but roll poorly with the diplomacy checks
Player 4(LG): Let's kill him since he won't talk.
ME(as the DM):Aren't you lawful good?
Player 4: That was me, not the charcter
ME:All statements made during RP will be taken as in character.
Player4:I wasn't really going to kill him(with a guilty look on his face)


Phazzle wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

"I search the hallway!"

"Ok, there's no trap-"

"Ok, now I search for loot!"

"Um, can I finish describing it? Theres a desk to the side-"

"I SEARCH THE DESK FOR TRAPS!"

"I just said. There weren't any. There's a desk to the side with no drawers, and a the walls are decorated with pillars-"

"I rolled a 15 on my search roll. Do the pillars have traps?"

"You find a trap. It kills you. No save."

Shouldn't kill them, should whip golf balls at them. (Set it off enough times and the floor becomes difficult terrain.)


ProfessorCirno wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Complain they have no treasure but then also never take any time to search for any. They seem to think I should just lay it out all over the floor unprotected.

I'm pretty much the opposite on this.

Attention my players who aren't reading this but nonetheless: Put the dice down. You don't need to rip apart every little thing and pry out the cobblestones in search of treasure. I am not going to screw you over.

And this is why I always pack the Detect Secret Doors spell. (Along with See Invisible and Glitterdust.)

Silver Crusade

Never had to deal with this while GMing, but I have seen it in fellow players:

Getting mad or being deliberately obtuse about settings expectations that differ from what they've done before.

Stuff like: someone attacking orcs because they're orcs, on the assumption that they must be evil despite being told that the setting does not have inherent alignments for mortal races.

Trying to play canon lawyer to argue that certain monsters couldn't be intelligent enough to use weapons and fortifications intelligently because they never did in 1st Edition.

Rolling eyes OOC at elves and dwarves getting along together.

etc.

Also, treating NPCs as disposable props and then getting huttburt when the NPCs hold it against them.


Mikaze wrote:

Rolling eyes OOC at elves and dwarves getting along together.

Also, treating NPCs as disposable props and then getting huttburt when the NPCs hold it against them.

First line, paraphrasing a certain movie: "Dwarves and Elves living together, mass hysteria!!"

^_^

Sounds like a KotDT gang - and BA of course has a time-honored tradition of giving the Terrible Trio +1 what-fer when they pooch the screw.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Trinam wrote:
Mr.Fishy wrote:
@Trinam your a bad man...with goblin oil boys?

Goblins or Kobolds. Bugbears if they have them.

Oh, but don't tell me if it'd be a spoiler. Our DM hates it when we read up on the AP's spoilers.

The specifics are up to your GM. <wink>

I asked him and he said we'd have to build it in our city first and find Ogresses to stock it.

So uh.

Something to look forward to in part 2? :D


Several people wrote:
Tales from the Saucy Ogress

Bonus points for making it a temple to Calistria.


Havelock wrote:
Phazzle wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

"I search the hallway!"

"Ok, there's no trap-"

"Ok, now I search for loot!"

"Um, can I finish describing it? Theres a desk to the side-"

"I SEARCH THE DESK FOR TRAPS!"

"I just said. There weren't any. There's a desk to the side with no drawers, and a the walls are decorated with pillars-"

"I rolled a 15 on my search roll. Do the pillars have traps?"

"You find a trap. It kills you. No save."
Shouldn't kill them, should whip golf balls at them. (Set it off enough times and the floor becomes difficult terrain.)

Now here is a guy that knows what he is talking about!


Geistlinger wrote:
People playing thieves (or rogues as they are now known) and trying to steal stuff from the dead foes before the party knows what was found every time. I could handle it if it was just once in a while, but to do it after every fight.

I once played a character who did this. But in this case, I really was "just playing my character". You see, she was part dragon. So I decided that it would make sense for her to have a natural hoarding instinct. Now, she didn't try and pocket the entire amount removed from the dead foes, she would just skim a little off the top before bringing it to the table to be divvied up.

I even even noted explicitly on my character sheet which treasure and cash was in her "hoard", separate from her pocket items. She kept her hoard in her bedroom, and slept on it.


Mikaze wrote:


Getting mad or being deliberately obtuse about settings expectations that differ from what they've done before.

Stuff like: someone attacking orcs because they're orcs, on the assumption that they must be evil despite being told that the setting does not have inherent alignments for mortal races.

Trying to play canon lawyer to argue that certain monsters couldn't be intelligent enough to use weapons and fortifications intelligently because they never did in 1st Edition.

Also, treating NPCs as disposable props and then getting huttburt when the NPCs hold it against them.

+1

What the hell did you expect?

Mr. Fishy has said most of these at some point as a DM...>bubble<

PC "Why are they arresting us?" You assaulted the mayor.

PC "Why are they attacking?" You threatened to kill them as an example to the others?

"Wait! You cast a fire ball in the middle of a town?

You shoot in to the crowd.

You chase a monster around a blind corner in his own lair...roll reflex.

What! You get a roll. You don't want the roll? Roll the damn die.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The player who keeps putting off making a character for the upcoming campaign and then complains that all of the roles she wanted are taken or that she is being forced into a role she doesn't want. Every. Campaign.

The one who keeps rolling poorly and has learned to adapt by cheating on dice rolls by rolling their dice right against the GM screen and by the time they've picked it up to show you what it is, they've changed which side is up.

The character that rolls to hug someone... and then rolls to see if that person liked it... and then rolls to see if they're now friends... and rolls to see if they'll be penpals after the adventure... and rolls to see if they get retirement villas together...

The guy that complains he sucks and didn't get to kill anything after doing the most damage in a battle, but not actually getting the 'killing blows' on the baddies.

"Everything bad always happens to me" guy. Nuff said.

We do have someone that falls asleep halfway through the session sometimes, but she's a nurse and she's got an incredibly screwy schedule. So, we forgive her.


Trinam wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Trinam wrote:
Mr.Fishy wrote:
@Trinam your a bad man...with goblin oil boys?

Goblins or Kobolds. Bugbears if they have them.

Oh, but don't tell me if it'd be a spoiler. Our DM hates it when we read up on the AP's spoilers.

The specifics are up to your GM. <wink>

I asked him and he said we'd have to build it in our city first and find Ogresses to stock it.

So uh.

Something to look forward to in part 2? :D

Could be anywhere ... part 2 is just the beginning ... have fun! And be sure to report the messy deaths / exercise your bragging rights accordingly. :)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
slicertool wrote:
We do have someone that falls asleep halfway through the session sometimes, but she's a nurse and she's got an incredibly screwy schedule. So, we forgive her.

We also give free passes to parents of infants. :)


Jess Door wrote:
slicertool wrote:
We do have someone that falls asleep halfway through the session sometimes, but she's a nurse and she's got an incredibly screwy schedule. So, we forgive her.
We also give free passes to parents of infants. :)

My guy is just "old." In reality he's only 38, but he makes a habit of speaking to me as a child. And I don't really deal well with that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

What about the guy who never quite remembers that everyone is bringing snacks to share, or never manages to have a few dollars to throw in for pizza.


Sphen86 wrote:
When I asked DM to player if he was actually bluffing, he refused to tell me.

Realy? Seriously? Who the hell talks to their friends like that? I can only assume he/she must be a very close friend for you to let them stay in the game with an attitude like that. Otherwise, unless it would destroy your game, I would ask them to shape up and play reasonably or to find another game.

RPing is not a competition. It is a collaberation.


Sphen86 wrote:


Oh, and I also HATE when players declare an action in combat but then have NO IDEA the rules that govern whatever CMB or spell are.

At that point you decide for him.

Dark Archive

Sigil wrote:
What about the guy who never quite remembers that everyone is bringing snacks to share, or never manages to have a few dollars to throw in for pizza.

Then he doesn't eat. But we're mean like that. ;)


I'm pretty tolerant of a lot of stuff from players, whether I'm GMing or playing, but a few things drive me up the wall:

-- The guy who always wants to play a chaotic evil character so he can be a pain in the ass and blame it on his character
-- The guy who pouts any time his character dies or even has a setback
-- The guy who tries to hog all the limelight and tries to keep other players from doing anything significant
-- The guy who is arrogant and offensive to new players
-- The guy who has never had a date in his life and makes stupid and sexist comments to and about every woman who joins the game, ensuring that they quit in disgust and never game again
-- The guy who always talks about previous games he was in, making it clear how superior he thought they were
-- The guy who has memorized all the books, metagames non-stop, and argues with the DM and other players constantly

Most of these things usually leave me wanting to grab someone by the throat and scream at them to grow up, move out of their mother's basement, get a real job and a relationship to give them some balance in their lives, and stop making everyone around them homicidal.

Reminds me of my favorite insult line from music: "Just one time I wish you could step inside my shoes, so you would know what a drag it is to see you."

Fortunately, I haven't gamed with anyone like that for a long time. I'm blessed.


Cartigan said this in another thread:
"Damn roleplayers and their needing to spend 15 minutes per each of their turns espousing what their character is doing and having the longest, most pointless conversations with every NPC in earshot because, you know, being boring as hell and doing nothing related to anything is real roleplaying."

Granted it was tongue in cheek, but it's also a common thing I've run into. I guess this more goes towards groups in general, not just players, per se.
But this annoys the s**t out of me.


Gilfalas wrote:
Sphen86 wrote:
When I asked DM to player if he was actually bluffing, he refused to tell me.

Realy? Seriously? Who the hell talks to their friends like that? I can only assume he/she must be a very close friend for you to let them stay in the game with an attitude like that. Otherwise, unless it would destroy your game, I would ask them to shape up and play reasonably or to find another game.

RPing is not a competition. It is a collaberation.

A very close friend, actually. But he is still very close to being kicked out anyway. I really don't know why he thinks he has the right to decied anything for the DM.

Dark Archive

Brian Bachman wrote:


-- The guy who pouts any time his character dies or even has a setback.

I'm just curious about this. Sometimes when I roll stupid I stick my lower lip out and say some horrible words, but it ends in 20 seconds. Is that your definition or is it literally "pouting"?


Brian Bachman wrote:
-- The guy who always wants to play a chaotic evil character so he can be a pain in the ass and blame it on his character

And there you have Reason #1 for not allowing players to have evil characters.


Mikaze wrote:

Never had to deal with this while GMing, but I have seen it in fellow players:

Getting mad or being deliberately obtuse about settings expectations that differ from what they've done before.

Stuff like: someone attacking orcs because they're orcs, on the assumption that they must be evil despite being told that the setting does not have inherent alignments for mortal races.

Trying to play canon lawyer to argue that certain monsters couldn't be intelligent enough to use weapons and fortifications intelligently because they never did in 1st Edition.

Rolling eyes OOC at elves and dwarves getting along together.

etc.

Also, treating NPCs as disposable props and then getting huttburt when the NPCs hold it against them.

For all my settings I make a small sheet with setting info and ask the players to read it before making a character.

In my current D&D setting, elves and dwarves don't fight. They don't really have much of any contact. Dwarves and gnomes though, now there's a cold war that could freeze a fire elemental.

This strikes me as more of a problem with old players. Newer players have no problems with orcs not being evil, if that's the way the are in your setting, for example. I think this is more due to the roundedness of media they're exposed to, wherein a lot more tropes are reversed or changed up ( For some, Eberron's druid orcs were strange and bizarre and horrifying. For me, and for many others, we just went "Oh so like Warcraft" and that was that).


Players who roleplay by talking in koans

NPC: What is your name?

Player: My name is the wind and like the wind it whispers...whispers...

GM: DUDE! You are a dwarven barbarian with a 6 cha. Just tell him your $%&( name!


Phazzle wrote:

Players who roleplay by talking in koans

NPC: What is your name?

Player: My name is the wind and like the wind it whispers...whispers...

GM: DUDE! You are a dwarven barbarian with a 6 cha. Just tell him your $%&( name!

Ha! There are a few more PC types that I roll my eyes at:

  • "I'm an experiment that escaped from a wizard's/alien's lab. I don't even have a name, just Subject X2QZ5B."
  • "I'm a mysterious stranger. Nobody knows my real name and nobody ever will. C'mon, just try to guess who I am. What? You don't care?"
  • "I'm a lone wolf who relies on no one. If only someone could penetrate my aloof shell. What...you're not interested in shell penetration?"

(YMMV, of course.)


hogarth wrote:
Phazzle wrote:

Players who roleplay by talking in koans

NPC: What is your name?

Player: My name is the wind and like the wind it whispers...whispers...

GM: DUDE! You are a dwarven barbarian with a 6 cha. Just tell him your $%&( name!

Ha! There are a few more PC types that I roll my eyes at:

  • "I'm an experiment that escaped from a wizard's/alien's lab. I don't even have a name, just Subject X2QZ5B."
  • "I'm a mysterious stranger. Nobody knows my real name and nobody ever will. C'mon, just try to guess who I am. What? You don't care?"
  • "I'm a lone wolf who relies on no one. If only someone could penetrate my aloof shell. What...you're not interested in shell penetration?"

(YMMV, of course.)

LOL we did this to a friend of ours in game...he introduced his character (not literaly) as Mr. Lone Loner that works alone, to which we said, oh then you don't need a party, good luck with that! and left him at the Inn.


The best is when you have two players in the party, each trying to "out-mysterious" or "out-loner" the other. :-)


Mac Boyce wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:


-- The guy who pouts any time his character dies or even has a setback.
I'm just curious about this. Sometimes when I roll stupid I stick my lower lip out and say some horrible words, but it ends in 20 seconds. Is that your definition or is it literally "pouting"?

Nah. I actually expect players to have some connection to their characters, and they should feel bad if the character dies. What I'm talking about is the people who just won't give it up and move on, and ruin everyone else's night with their whining and moaning, or even keep bringing it up in future sessions. 20 seconds is cool with me. Hell, I'm not even too annoyed with 20 minutes. 2 hours is starting to get on my nerves. 2 game sessions is really on my nerves.


Havelock wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:
-- The guy who always wants to play a chaotic evil character so he can be a pain in the ass and blame it on his character
And there you have Reason #1 for not allowing players to have evil characters.

I actually usually don't when I DM. I would make an exception if everyone else at the table was cool with it (and I asked them in private so they wouldn't feel pressure to say they were), or if everyone wanted to play evil characters. I could see that being fun in a kind of forbidden fruit, cathartic sort of way. Not my cup of tea, though. In general, my experiences with people wanting to run evil characters in a mixed party have been uniformly unpleasant.

Dark Archive

Brian Bachman wrote:
Mac Boyce wrote:
Brian Bachman wrote:


-- The guy who pouts any time his character dies or even has a setback.
I'm just curious about this. Sometimes when I roll stupid I stick my lower lip out and say some horrible words, but it ends in 20 seconds. Is that your definition or is it literally "pouting"?
Nah. I actually expect players to have some connection to their characters, and they should feel bad if the character dies. What I'm talking about is the people who just won't give it up and move on, and ruin everyone else's night with their whining and moaning, or even keep bringing it up in future sessions. 20 seconds is cool with me. Hell, I'm not even too annoyed with 20 minutes. 2 hours is starting to get on my nerves. 2 game sessions is really on my nerves.

It's just a bloody game. Besides...if my wizard dies...it gives me a chance to play that paladin I've always wanted to try but could never get to. ;)


OP wrote:

Been reading lots of threads of things players do to make you crazy. Thought I would add one of my own just to vent a bit. Please comment and add your own.

I absolutely hate it when players argue the laws of physics with me. Not rules-lawyering, which I can at least respect but it sends me into a murderous rage when I get into an argument with a player who is clearly trying to go outside of the rules to gain an advantage.

For instance...called shots (even though they do not exist in pathfinder). We have all had that player who says "I take steady aim and shoot him in the eye," and argues with you when you don't award him a critical for telling you where he aims. And does not understand that the rules compensate for called-shots by assuming that you are always aiming for the area that is most vulnerable.

Player: "But what about snipers in Iraq? They shoot people in the head all the time."

DM: "Apart from the fact that they are using high powered sniper rifles, the average level one warrior has about 10 hit points so, logically speaking they would usually die in the first hit."

Player: "But what about a dragon. It's so big. It's eye is like huge. You should be able to just shoot it's eye, the rules suck."

DM: "Well, by that rationale then the dragon could just land on you since it is faster than you and it is too big for you to run out from under it."

Player: "I could shoot it in the eye as it's coming down."

DM: "Ok here is a perfect example. See this golf ball? I am aiming at your head (throws) but I don't always hit it since you are shielding your face with your arms and moving your head around. Some hit (throws another) your sternum, or (throws another) your neck....

I get into similar arguments all the time at my table. Usually they just end with me saying "Well theres two ways things happened. One is what you wanted to happen and the other is what did happen. Too bad." or something similar. Although I will be bringing my golf balls to next session though lol.

I also get into alot of alignment arguments like this

Player: "What do you mean the paladin/good cleric is attacking me. I'm wearing the item of super evil and summoning an undead baby army for good."

GM: "Well the book says that the item has a evil aura. And the spell your using has the Evil descriptor when used that way. And hes detecting evil on you. And hes a palladin....so roll roll inish."

Player: "but....(random gripe here)"

DM: "What do ya know he hits....."

Player: "What....(insert obscenities here)

DM: "And as you stand complaining to the gods he hits again"

. The players just cant seem to understand that in D&D (or pathfinder) alignments are cold facts (I.E. if the book says a spell or item is evil....Its evil regardless of why you using it.)


hogarth wrote:
The best is when you have two players in the party, each trying to "out-mysterious" or "out-loner" the other. :-)

The best response to these as a player is to make their opposite. A bard or fey creature or otherwise very outgoing, cheery, and optimistic character. It's even more awesome if the DM plays along so that all the NPCs get to know your guy and really like him while utterly ignoring ANGST STORM 2010 sitting in the corner.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
hogarth wrote:
The best is when you have two players in the party, each trying to "out-mysterious" or "out-loner" the other. :-)
The best response to these as a player is to make their opposite. A bard or fey creature or otherwise very outgoing, cheery, and optimistic character. It's even more awesome if the DM plays along so that all the NPCs get to know your guy and really like him while utterly ignoring ANGST STORM 2010 sitting in the corner.

Ha ha! There was a guy that I met on a message board waaay back when Vampire: The Masquerade was super popular who said that he would create happy well-adjusted vampires just to be a counterpoint to all of the angsty goth kids.

I can only imagine

Vampire 1: I am a Ventrue named Asmodan, an aristocrat, I bear the curse of undeath with quiet grace.

Vampire 2: I am a Gorth, of the clan Bruha, an angry anti-establishment vampire that rides motorcycles even in the winter months!

Vampire 3: I am Luca, a Torreador, I express my despair through post-modern works of art.

Vampire 4: Hey all! I'm Joe the vampire. Yep. I drink blood. Blood is yummy.


I think that's why people played Malkavians...
They had an in-game driven reason to throw that angst crap in their faces, and have fun doing it :)


Kryzbyn wrote:

I think that's why people played Malkavians...

They had an in-game driven reason to throw that angst crap in their faces, and have fun doing it :)

Once I was playing in a game where for some reason there was a threat in the vampire community. Applying D&D logic to the situation I was sitting there going "Ok, we need some guns, anyone have any gun connections? We also should look into silver bullets. Carry at least a clip in case we run into some werewolves. Gotta make sure the guns are unregistered. Don't want to get caught. So, lets look up some leads? Who knows this guy? Who are his friends? Where does he hang out?"

The storyteller looked at me like I was crazy as they started to sit there and discuss, for HOURS, how awful it was that said threat was present.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

Or the out of character thing that somehow becomes part of the game...

I did not get a piece of the pepperoni pizza, so I am not healing your fighter. Next time think before you scarf that last piece.


Phazzle wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think that's why people played Malkavians...

They had an in-game driven reason to throw that angst crap in their faces, and have fun doing it :)

Once I was playing in a game where for some reason there was a threat in the vampire community. Applying D&D logic to the situation I was sitting there going "Ok, we need some guns, anyone have any gun connections? We also should look into silver bullets. Carry at least a clip in case we run into some werewolves. Gotta make sure the guns are unregistered. Don't want to get caught. So, lets look up some leads? Who knows this guy? Who are his friends? Where does he hang out?"

The storyteller looked at me like I was crazy as they started to sit there and discuss, for HOURS, how awful it was that said threat was present.

Been there, seen that...

I also hate what I call the "What if?" trap. This is where the players in character intend to plan for something for every possible contingency but never actually come to a decision because any slight negative outcome possible to a suggestion makes that suggestion un-workable...and this usually eats up hours of play time.


- Players that are a R-L couple and are playing in the same game, but who end-up breaking-up in the middle of the campaign.

I know it's not really their fault, and that it is usually for the best, and that I am horrible for saying this; but it *does* drive me nuts...

'findel


Laurefindel wrote:

- Players that are a R-L couple and are plying in the same game, who end-up breaking-up in the middle of a campaign.

I know it's not really their fault and that it is usually for the best and that I'm horrible for saying this, but it *does* drive me nuts...

Or even worse the "DM Spouse" that runs amok becasue their spouse won't reign them in.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

- Players that are a R-L couple and are plying in the same game, who end-up breaking-up in the middle of a campaign.

I know it's not really their fault and that it is usually for the best and that I'm horrible for saying this, but it *does* drive me nuts...

Or even worse the "DM Spouse" that runs amok becasue their spouse won't reign them in.

Or even worse than that, the player who assumes that the "DM Spouse" is getting favorable treatment & game secrets, when really the DM is harder on him/her to maintain fairness.


Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

- Players that are a R-L couple and are plying in the same game, who end-up breaking-up in the middle of a campaign.

I know it's not really their fault and that it is usually for the best and that I'm horrible for saying this, but it *does* drive me nuts...

Or even worse the "DM Spouse" that runs amok becasue their spouse won't reign them in.
Or even worse than that, the player who assumes that the "DM Spouse" is getting favorable treatment & game secrets, when really the DM is harder on him/her to maintain fairness.

Oh snap! I see what you did there...

Unfortunately, in my experience, no assumption was needed as it was quite obvious, but I imagine that your scenario can and does happen as well.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

- Players that are a R-L couple and are plying in the same game, who end-up breaking-up in the middle of a campaign.

I know it's not really their fault and that it is usually for the best and that I'm horrible for saying this, but it *does* drive me nuts...

Or even worse the "DM Spouse" that runs amok becasue their spouse won't reign them in.
Or even worse than that, the player who assumes that the "DM Spouse" is getting favorable treatment & game secrets, when really the DM is harder on him/her to maintain fairness.

Oh snap! I see what you did there...

Unfortunately, in my experience, no assumption was needed as it was quite obvious, but I imagine that your scenario can and does happen as well.

Fortunately we don't have these cumbersome problems at my table since my players and I are all single and pathetic.

Liberty's Edge

Kryzbyn wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

- Players that are a R-L couple and are plying in the same game, who end-up breaking-up in the middle of a campaign.

I know it's not really their fault and that it is usually for the best and that I'm horrible for saying this, but it *does* drive me nuts...

Or even worse the "DM Spouse" that runs amok becasue their spouse won't reign them in.
Or even worse than that, the player who assumes that the "DM Spouse" is getting favorable treatment & game secrets, when really the DM is harder on him/her to maintain fairness.

Oh snap! I see what you did there...

Unfortunately, in my experience, no assumption was needed as it was quite obvious, but I imagine that your scenario can and does happen as well.

My wife usually thinks I'm being harder on her. I'm not trying to be harder but maybe subconsciously I am.


Phazzle wrote:
Vampire 4: Hey all! I'm Joe the vampire. Yep. I drink blood. Blood is yummy.

Hi! My name is Sundance and I'm a vampire! (That name has never failed to get a reaction)

When I'm not stalking victims and drinking their blood I'm either paying the bills by spinning techno in a club or studying for my degree over at the University.

Oh, you want angst? Hmmm... I'd have had my Doctorate years ago if I could take day classes?

Interestingly the other players and the NPCs (even the werewolves) never suggested putting my name to the test.


Players who have to demythologize, demystify, deconstruct and/or demarcate everything they encounter as if they're writing commentary for TVTropes. That's why they call it "willing suspension of disbelief," people. If you're unwilling, it ain't gonna happen even if Shakespeare's your DM.


Jaelithe wrote:

Players who decide that they're not bound by the unspoken covenant between them and the DM in a previously agreed upon thematic campaign: You know, the ones who think they're 'free spirits' because they want to hunt vampires in Wallachia when your game is entitled 'Swords of the Caliph' or somesuch, and everyone liked the idea during character creation. [Rolls eyes.]

The DM unjustly railroading a group is bad enough; a player not jumping the rails, but plunging off the road system into dense underbrush simply because he or she enjoys being a noodge is in my opinion worse.

I'll confess to occasionally being guilty of this, although in my defense I usually do something like that when the GM's intended theme isn't coming together and the party is all standing around wondering what to do, making random perception checks, and hoping the GM will hold their hand through it.

I'm sorry, I'll be the first to admit I'm not very patient lol.


I hate it when my players take OOG arguments and try to compensate for them in-game to feel like they're not metagaming. An example from my latest campaign, in which my players need to travel to the land of Raghnor to lift a curse placed upon them :

Player 1 : "Taking the boat north would be safer, and we'd land straight into Raghnor, as the archmage said. And we don't have to cross the borders, which are full of orcs."

Player 2 : "Are you crazy? Even if the borders are unsafe, the whole land of Raghnor is also way too dangerous!"

Player 3 : "Still, we need to go there anyway. If the orcs don't kill us, then we'll eventually die from that curse if we can't lift it! So we better just take the boat, it'll be safer."

*Happy DM*

Player 2 : "But our level is way too low! Think about it, guys : if we travel down south for two months by foot and cross the border, we'll kill tons of orcs and monsters on the way! And then, we'll be much stronger than if we had taken the boat!"

Player 3 : "Yeah, that's true. My character didn't trust the archmage's advice anyway."

*Angry DM*

Seriously, he just said it was safer to take the boat, and when the other player starts talking about how cool it would be to level up on the way, his PC completely changes his mind.

101 to 150 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Things that players do that drive you insane All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.