|
* Players who @#$* around on their cell-phones during games!!!
* Players who, when handed an obvious "open the door" situation (with nothing shady in the offering) insist on spending about 10 minutes searching for traps, checking for arcane writing and generally bogging down the session over one friggin' door!!!
* Players who, when sent on a "go back to town and get some help" mission intentionally piss off the locals by doing the dumbest sh*t just for "roleplaying reasons" and, you guessed it...bogging down the session.
Those are just the main 3 that happen during almost every game.
The best is when you have two players in the party, each trying to "out-mysterious" or "out-loner" the other. :-)
I was running a game at a convention a few years ago, and I had the misfortune of having two players in it that tried to "out-paladin" each other. It was one of the most ridiculous gaming situations I ever had. At one stage, after a battle in a tavern Paladin A declared that he was going down on one knee in front of his sword (held like a cross before him, hilt near his head, tip on the wooden planks of the tavern floor) and giving prayers of thanks to his god for aiding the party in the combat they had just survived.
To which Paladin B replied that he would do the exact same thing, except that he would carefully place the tip of his sword in the crack between two wooden planks so as not to damage the tavern even further by nicking the floor and thus causing more grief for the poor tavern owner! The two players basically had an arms race of righteousness and piousness.
The thing that bothers me the most is when a player (usually only one specific guy at the table) asks how a particular spell would work in a given situation (usually pertinent to whatever situation the party is in) before deciding what he's going to do. Eventually I started asking for Knowledge checks, and often times he tried to insist that he was asking about my ruling in the game and not about the knowledge his character had.
This to me is the most egregious kind of meta-gaming: attempting to coerce the GM to metagame for you.
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.
Well... this could be defensible. It often happens in fantasy novels that a character starts out unskilled, and has to go on a long journey to reach the quest goal, and learns what (s)he needs to learn in the meantime. Even in real life, a person sometimes feels the need to practice in easier situations before tackling a tougher challenge in the field.
(I guess you wouldn't want me as a player now. :) )
|
Another pet peeve: Players who decide their character choice should dictate that of others, as well as the party's overall composition, and come out with stuff like, "You can't/aren't allowed to play a rogue if I'm playing a paladin!" or "My dwarf hates elves, so you'll have to avoid running one!" Really, Scooter? And who said you get first choice?
Agreed. Your buddy goes by Scooter?
May have been mentioned already but I have a guy in my group who always plays melee characters. Of course he dumps all mental attributes and never has any helpful skills. He asks to look at everyone's sheet so he knows who will be doing his "buying and selling."
Another pet peeve: Players who decide their character choice should dictate that of others, as well as the party's overall composition, and come out with stuff like, "You can't/aren't allowed to play a rogue if I'm playing a paladin!" or "My dwarf hates elves, so you'll have to avoid running one!" Really, Scooter? And who said you get first choice?
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
Another pet peeve: Players who decide their character choice should dictate that of others, as well as the party's overall composition, and come out with stuff like, "You can't/aren't allowed to play a rogue if I'm playing a paladin!" or "My dwarf hates elves, so you'll have to avoid running one!" Really, Scooter? And who said you get first choice?I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
Let Missus Jandrem play an "albino drow" (that the chuckleheads will perceive to be a regular elf of some sort). So long as mum is the watch word, it should make every one happy.
Another pet peeve: Players who decide their character choice should dictate that of others, as well as the party's overall composition, and come out with stuff like, "You can't/aren't allowed to play a rogue if I'm playing a paladin!" or "My dwarf hates elves, so you'll have to avoid running one!" Really, Scooter? And who said you get first choice?I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
One thing I've always found helpful, I don't allow the party to discuss their characters with each other during character gen. That way everyone gets to make/play whatever they want with no complaints. But I don't suggest doing this with small groups, you tend to get a party of 3 fighter variants. Blargh.
Let Missus Jandrem play an "albino drow" (that the chuckleheads will perceive to be a regular elf of some sort). So long as mum is the watch word, it should make every one happy.Another pet peeve: Players who decide their character choice should dictate that of others, as well as the party's overall composition, and come out with stuff like, "You can't/aren't allowed to play a rogue if I'm playing a paladin!" or "My dwarf hates elves, so you'll have to avoid running one!" Really, Scooter? And who said you get first choice?I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
We did. She played a Xarkai(sp), and all was well until the player's caught on that she had a level adjustment, spell like abilities and the like. That game ended shortly after the grand reveal that she was, in fact, a drow, but mostly because it was a 3pp AP that just wasn't very good.
|
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
Ugh. Condolences on those chuckleheads. I say encourage her to play a straight-up drow and tell the other two players to deal with their butthurt like mature adults.
Alternately, if she really wants to mess with them? Tell her to read up on this: Sandwich Stoutaxe. (NSFW - language)
Now if they BAWWWWWW about it they have no damn excuse.
(has never played a drow, but hot damn if the rabid anti-drow crowd hasn't gotten more annoying than the Driz'zt syndrome crowd ever was)
Another pet peeve: Players who decide their character choice should dictate that of others, as well as the party's overall composition, and come out with stuff like, "You can't/aren't allowed to play a rogue if I'm playing a paladin!" or "My dwarf hates elves, so you'll have to avoid running one!" Really, Scooter? And who said you get first choice?Agreed. Your buddy goes by Scooter?
May have been mentioned already but I have a guy in my group who always plays melee characters. Of course he dumps all mental attributes and never has any helpful skills. He asks to look at everyone's sheet so he knows who will be doing his "buying and selling."
That could just be a role playing choice because he feels that spellcasters are too complex. I am in a group where up until just recently a new player joined and so now we have a fighter.
The player wanted something easy to play so that she could leave the table and still watch the 1 yr old when needed and a melee type fit the bill.Even when the player isn't paying attetion to whats going on at the table during the big battle because of laundry or the child she can still role a d20 and hit something. The other 5 guys at the table are all mages of some variety(mage,mage/psion, psion) for the damage factor so maybe thats why your guy likes the ease that fighters bring.
I personally am on the opposite end of the spectrum, unless the charecter is a spellcaster then it's a waste of my time to even sit down at the table. Why would I spend hours doing something I don't enjoy?
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
Ugh. Condolences on those chuckleheads. I say encourage her to play a straight-up drow and tell the other two players to deal with their butthurt like mature adults.
Alternately, if she really wants to mess with them? Tell her to read up on this: Sandwich Stoutaxe. (NSFW - language)
Now if they BAWWWWWW about it they have no damn excuse.
(has never played a drow, but hot damn if the rabid anti-drow crowd hasn't gotten more annoying than the Driz'zt syndrome crowd ever was)
True, I would not end a game over it but it was annoying to see player after player who insisted upon playing good drow.
At my gaming table it would probably lead to some good-natured ribbing. Fortunately there are no Drow in my homebrew :)
|
|
At my gaming table it would probably lead to some good-natured ribbing. Fortunately there are no Drow in my homebrew :)
In mine they're just called midnight elves and live in secluded, darkened forests, safeguarding the cultural history and legacy of elvenkind as a whole while being generally too scared to venture out into the outside world.
Eilistraee did her job a bit too well on that world. ;)
I was running a game at a convention a few years ago, and I had the misfortune of having two players in it that tried to "out-paladin" each other. [hilarious story deleted]
Ha! I've never seen that one; that's awesome. I usually see a couple of PCs with a Hat of Disguise, each trying to be "the man of 1000 faces" instead.
In the end, every player is actually chaotic neutral.
;-)
One thing I've always found helpful, I don't allow the party to discuss their characters with each other during character gen. That way everyone gets to make/play whatever they want with no complaints. But I don't suggest doing this with small groups, you tend to get a party of 3 fighter variants. Blargh.
That's interesting. I'm actually completely the opposite. Whether I'm playing or GMing, I like to have everybody create their characters together in an open process at the table, so we can have a well-balanced party that blends well. I have a few reasons for that. One is that we roll for stats, and all rolls have to be in the open to remove even the temptation for someone to cheat. We also have a few players who prefer to play certain types of characters consistently and others (like me) who are happy playing whatever. We usually let the ones who are more limited in what they want to play choose first, and then the rest of us fill in what's needed to create a balanced party.
Regarding the complaint about not being able to play a certain character because of what others have already created, I think some balance is needed. I think it is incumbent on every player to produce a character which meshes well with the team. My a&*%&++ detecter starts going off pretty quickly when someone tries to insist on playing a chaotic evil necromancer when everyone else in the party is lawful or neutral good. Similarly, when someone insists on playing a paladin when everyone else is playing shady, amoral characters. Personal freedom of choice is great and all, but PF/D&D is a group activity, and when one individual's idea of what is fun impacts everyone else's enjoyment it can be a real buzzkill.
That said, if someone, like our drowophile mentioned above, really wants to play a certain type of character, good gaming friends would eventually find a campaign that allows her to do so, even if it means compromising on their own desires sometimes. Nobody should feel they are the one that always has to give in to what others want.
True, I would not end a game over it but it was annoying to see player after player who insisted upon playing good drow.
That's been my experience too. Fortunately, for the last decade or so, I haven't played in a game that allowed Drow PCs. Too many of the people I like to play with have been around long enough to be sick to death of them.
That doesn't stop at least 1 person from asking about it at least 3 out of 4 times a new game starts up, however.
|
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
I had a similar situation one time, though the prospective DM was the source rather than another player. A guy that I knew fairly well but wasn't too friendly with was prepping a D&D game, and his big selling point was that you could play whatever character type you wanted, no matter how crazy it was. I typically stick to the PHB, but I decided to try something different this time and came up with a drow character. When I said "I'm going to try playing a drow," his response was "Absolutely not. No drow under any circumstances."
I tried reconceptualizing the character and decided that it could still work as a tiefling. When I went back to discuss it with him, before I actually told him about the new idea, he declared that the two races he would never allow were drow and tieflings. I jettisoned the whole concept and the game never materialized.
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.
Well... this could be defensible. It often happens in fantasy novels that a character starts out unskilled, and has to go on a long journey to reach the quest goal, and learns what (s)he needs to learn in the meantime. Even in real life, a person sometimes feels the need to practice in easier situations before tackling a tougher challenge in the field.
(I guess you wouldn't want me as a player now. :) )
Yes, it's true, experience makes people stronger, but if I was an adventurer trying to save myself from a curse that will kill me in about a year unless I go to a specific place to lift it, I'll try to avoid unnecessary danger. Taking the most dangerous road because "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is litterally a way to say "the DM won't kill us because of a choice we made, since it would be a lame ending to that awesome campaign he's been preparing for days! We should just take the hardest, longest, most painful road we can find so we can level up and have powerful characters faster!" If someone had to travel from Ottawa to New York in a hurry and had to choose between a car and an old rusty bike, no one would take the bike and say : "When I'll be done, though, I'll be stronger! XP, XP!"
Anyway, as my players said, I'm not gonna kill them. I'm just gonna make the road very painful for them. They've been imprisoned and tortured for about three weeks and a half in the last game session by knights they kept messing around with, and now they're actually going to try crossing the borders of Raghnor by themselves, even if they perfectly know that they're infested with raging orcs. I wonder what will happen when a group of three adventurers meets a war party of five-hundred orcs, five ogres and one troll. It is, honestly, a lot of fun when your players act like idiots, because you can punish them and make them realize their mistakes afterwards, and they don't even protest!
Spellcasters who have to look up every spell every time they use one - "magic missile, that is 1d4+1 per level, right?". Even when you suggest they make a reference sheet with spell stats, they don't.
Spellcasters who can't remember spell DCs or even remember the simple formula for calculating DCs. "DC is caster level plus int bonus. Right?" See point about making reference sheet above....
Melee types who don't have their BAB, bonuses, damage, etc written down clearly on their character sheet.....
Players with messy character sheets who take ages to find anything.....
Players who don't plan their action in combat while other players are having their turn. And then spend ages trying to find something on their character sheet when it is their go.....
Archers with multiple attacks per round who have to calculate all their bonuses to attack and damage every single round because they have not written it down.....
Basically any player who doesn't have key stats, bonuses etc clearly written on their character sheet for quick reference.
I feel your pain, because I've got a player just like this. I've very fortunate in that I've had the same core group of players for over 20 years now, including the guy who commits ALL of the above transgressions. But after so long, we just roll our eyes and press onward. It's all about having fun and hanging out with each other in our band of merry goofballs, anyway. And we're guilty of a lot of the "crimes" mentioned in this thread, the OOG chatter, the bad jokes in the middle of something critical, the "game physics" discussions, the phone calls from spouses, etc. But after so many years together, these are just small potatoes to us.
Having said all that, if we're playing in someone else's game, of course, we do our best to adhere to their style of play. A couple of the guys make it to GenCon pretty regularly, or play in games with other people, and they know that our style of "laugh till we hurt until the bad guy shows up" style of play doesn't work everywhere. But what it boils down to is it's all about the good times!
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
Mr. Fishy's Trollop likes infernal sorcerers and tieflings. The Drow thing wouldn't bother Mr. Fishy any more that a tiefling as long as the player was willing to deal with the prejudice of an "evil" race. Also Mr. Fishy would need a reason for the Drow to be on the surface and working with humans. I'm good is not a reason.
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
Mr. Fishy's Trollop likes infernal sorcerers and tieflings. The Drow thing wouldn't bother Mr. Fishy any more that a tiefling as long as the player was willing to deal with the prejudice of an "evil" race. Also Mr. Fishy would need a reason for the Drow to be on the surface and working with humans. I'm good is not a reason.
These 2 players are notoriously evil a lot of the time, so playing with an evil race wouldn't bother them. As for Albino Drow my wife did make, she was a "sleeper cell" type who had started out as a spy for a massive invading Drow army who were looking to take over the world. The crux of the campaign was that the player's were all reincarnated heroes from a previous war against the Drow. She discovered that she was one of those reincarnated heroes and had a change of heart. It was the Drow War app, can't remember who published it.
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
Mr. Fishy's Trollop likes infernal sorcerers and tieflings. The Drow thing wouldn't bother Mr. Fishy any more that a tiefling as long as the player was willing to deal with the prejudice of an "evil" race. Also Mr. Fishy would need a reason for the Drow to be on the surface and working with humans. I'm good is not a reason.
I've played a Drizzt clone. In fact that's where the name kryzbyn comes from. Kryzbyn Myzzrym...
It took alot of convincing my DM at the time to allow it, and one of the stipulations was, "Realize what your playing, and be prepared to deal with the consequences. You take this for granted once and it's over."I played him till the campaign ended at 14th level. it was fun, and he ended up having (no offense to RA Salvatore) a helluva lot more depth to his character than Drizzt did. it was fun, and even though it's cliche, remains one of my most favorite characters ever.
Here we go:
- When a player makes poor selections, like using a bow without being proficient just because it's fun, using a weaker weapon because it's fun or taking feats that do not work together
- When a player keeps changing characters because he or she doesn't like it
- When a player does NOT accept EXP, because apparently he or she didn't play well in that session so he or she doesn't deserve it (that's probably the lamest excuse I've hear so far)
- When a player keeps making jokes with real-world references
and finally
- When a player gets too much critical hits (yeah, I know it's legal, but the title says "Things that players do that drive you insane")
The melee oriented character that shows up with no ranged weapons whatsoever, then complains "I can't do anything, so guess I delay", when confronted by hard to reach opponents.
Here we go:
- When a player makes poor selections, like using a bow without being proficient just because it's fun, using a weaker weapon because it's fun or taking feats that do not work together
I'm guilty of that one. All of the weapons my characters use I choose for the fun. If I didn't, I'd probably stick with only one or two weapons from the weapon list. And sometimes in the heat of battle I might grab a weapon that my character can't use without the penalty and give it a shot. Because that can be fun.
But um, that's why I roleplay in the first place. Because it's fun.
The other things on your lists I'm inclined to agree with, except possibly for the last one.
Here we go:
- When a player makes poor selections, like using a bow without being proficient just because it's fun, using a weaker weapon because it's fun or taking feats that do not work together
I'm guilty of that one. All of the weapons my characters use I choose for the fun. If I didn't, I'd probably stick with only one or two weapons from the weapon list. And sometimes in the heat of battle I might grab a weapon that my character can't use without the penalty and give it a shot. Because that can be fun.
But um, that's why I roleplay in the first place. Because it's fun.
The other things on your lists I'm inclined to agree with, except possibly for the last one.
I'm talking more about a player who picks a weapon that he is not proficient whith as his primary weapon and still doesn't take the weapon proficiency feat.
The player I'm talking about pick a psion who used a bow with a ton of penalties...
|
|
Just curious, is the player doing this just to be a pain in the butt to the rest of the group, or does he have a legitimate backstory for it?
For example, the character might have fanciful notions of being a great archer (perhaps from listening to tales told around the fire), but has a lazy, undisciplined nature, so he doesn't practice with it. The player might choose to reflect that by deliberately not choosing proficiency in the weapon.
If I were GM, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If I were a player in the campaign, (assuming my character was not lazy or undisciplined, also) I would have my character chastise his character for his laziness and the threat it posed to the group as a whole.
If he's having fun, and it doesn't disrupt the plot, shouldn't it not matter? It's an interesting character quirk to use weapons untrained.
If he's having fun, and it doesn't disrupt the plot, shouldn't it not matter? It's an interesting character quirk to use weapons untrained.
Again, some people are driven crazy by "optimizing" and some people are driven crazy by "sub-optimizing". Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. :-)
|
I was running a game at a convention a few years ago, and I had the misfortune of having two players in it that tried to "out-paladin" each other. It was one of the most ridiculous gaming situations I ever had. At one stage, after a battle in a tavern Paladin A declared that he was going down on one knee in front of his sword (held like a cross before him, hilt near his head, tip on the wooden planks of the tavern floor) and giving prayers of thanks to his god for aiding the party in the combat they had just survived.
To which Paladin B replied that he would do the exact same thing, except that he would carefully place the tip of his sword in the crack between two wooden planks so as not to damage the tavern even further by nicking the floor and thus causing more grief for the poor tavern owner! The two players basically had an arms race of righteousness and piousness.
A perfectly comical demonstration of the difference between holier-than-me and holier-than-thou. A certain itinerant carpenter once commented on that:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners [and kneeling in the taverns] to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." – Matthew 6:5-8
Sounds like both the paladins and their players needed to hear the above.
I dont think I could disagree more with your reponse to the 'dueling Paladin' issue. I get what your saying, as a Christian, but for the game, unless these two paladins, in game, are Christians, who follow the God of the Old and New Testaments, from real life, then scripture from the Bible has no bearing on how those paladins should act. You are giving attributes of God to these false gods in the game, which doesnt really stack up.
Closest thing Dnd has to God is Pelor, which I still feel is a pale comparison. Dont know about the PF version of Pelor though, but I doubt either Pelor or his PF version would mind very public displays of worship from their followers.
"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?"[/list]
(YMMV, of course.)
One of my close friends used to play this kind of character frequently, and then would get upset cause his character would go to bed early every night at the inn, while the rest of the party would end up finding stuff to do, etc. He really felt it was unfair cause he didnt get to participate, etc. Very annoying.
Also, Im playing in Society play frequently with a friend who plays a Rogue who is your classic *whine cause something hit me for almost all my health*.
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
Ugh. Condolences on those chuckleheads. I say encourage her to play a straight-up drow and tell the other two players to deal with their butthurt like mature adults.
Alternately, if she really wants to mess with them? Tell her to read up on this: Sandwich Stoutaxe. (NSFW - language)
Now if they BAWWWWWW about it they have no damn excuse.
(has never played a drow, but hot damn if the rabid anti-drow crowd hasn't gotten more annoying than the Driz'zt syndrome crowd ever was)
True, I would not end a game over it but it was annoying to see player after player who insisted upon playing good drow.
At my gaming table it would probably lead to some good-natured ribbing. Fortunately there are no Drow in my homebrew :)
Things players do that annoy me: Insist on playing good Drow.
If he's having fun, and it doesn't disrupt the plot, shouldn't it not matter? It's an interesting character quirk to use weapons untrained.
No, it's really not. If you want to play Don Quixote and tilt madly at windmilla, great. But expect to be the idiot we feed to the Orcs. First chance we get.
Another thing that annoys me: Roleplayers who think being exceedingly bland or having some completely asinine penalty for "roleplaying reasons" makes them unique and cool and way better than the optimizers.
Okay, GroovyTaxi, I can't argue with you anymore, especially after you say...
It is, honestly, a lot of fun when your players act like idiots, because you can punish them and make them realize their mistakes afterwards, and they don't even protest!
How COULD I argue, when I've experienced the same thing?
Really, it was such an incredible experience, I had to write all about it, and post it here.
If you don't have time to read that whole long post, the short version of the story is...
So when the dragon attacked the PCs who just barely got away with their lives, the paladin silently helped them, never once saying "I told you so." I was sure, and the party later made it evident, that the PCs had learned their lesson.
If he's having fun, and it doesn't disrupt the plot, shouldn't it not matter? It's an interesting character quirk to use weapons untrained.No, it's really not. If you want to play Don Quixote and tilt madly at windmills, great. But expect to be the idiot we feed to the Orcs. First chance we get.
Another thing that annoys me: Roleplayers who think being exceedingly bland or having some completely asinine penalty for "roleplaying reasons" makes them unique and cool and way better than the optimizers.
But that's just, like, your opinion, man. :P
On a more serious note, I wasn't trying to make light of the situation or portray that playstyle as better than another. There is no 'best' playstyle, IMO, as long as all of the players (including the GM) are enjoying themselves. This sort of thing would obviously be something that you would not enjoy, and so would be an example of a poor player. However, there are some groups that would enjoy this sort of thing and no one would be worse for it. There may very well be a character who does use weapons untrained, and that's part of the fun that the group has. It's also very likely, based on your statement, that some people would condemn this player as asinine and bland.
Also, it's just your opinion (and mine, conversely). There's no right way to play, as long as you follow the rules of the house, and everyone is enjoying themselves.
|
|
Closest thing Dnd has to God is Pelor, which I still feel is a pale comparison.
The primary monotheistic deity in Monte Cook's Ptolus campaign, Lothian, is the closest you'll get, IMO. He's modeled pretty explicitly on Jesus and modern Christianity/Catholicism. Hell, his holy symbol is a crucifix.
- When a player makes poor selections, like using a bow without being proficient just because it's fun, using a weaker weapon because it's fun or taking feats that do not work together
Yeah, because no one ever uses a suboptimal weapon for interesting reasons. And really, if they're not stopping the rest of the group from having fun, what's the problem?
In a recent game I ran, the party came upon two dragon pistols after killing the ratmen who owned them (this is in Ptolus). One player insisted on getting one of them, and he spent almost all his money getting it licensed, cleaned up, and stocked with ammo. Of course, he couldn't use it worth a damn (non-proficient), but he liked it so much, he used it to the exclusion of all other weapons. He missed with every single shot (although there are now about a dozen gravestones and mausoleums in the Necropolis with bullet holes in them). Yes, the party was yelling at him to use a different weapon, but it was all in good fun, and his sub-optimal choice added a dose of comedy for everyone.
The best part was at the end of the night, he fired at the last ghoul that was still threatening them, and by some miracle of the dice gods, rolled a natural twenty (you must keep in mind that this player never rolls above a 12 for anything). The critical damage was enough to kill the thing three times over, and he was finally vindicated in his choice of weaponry (at least in his eyes).
|
|
0_0 I just lost a huge post... >_<
G#~@&$mit. Okay, short version:
I hate when people run their PCs as utilitarian efficiency machines that always make the most optimal choice, no matter what. If you can't, at least once in a while, forgo some extra gold pieces, or do without that extra +2 to your roll, or put your character at a little extra risk for the sake of making things more fun...well, I give up.
I'm not bashing optimizers here. I'm bashing the person that says, "Well, if I sleep in the woods instead of an inn, and I never tithe to the god I'm devoted to, and I sell into slavery the princess I'm sworn to protect, then I can finally afford that cloak of awesome +3, and I can give this old cloak of resistance +1 that I inherited from my beloved grandfather to my hireling, so that he can better resist the traps I have him detect for me."
0_0 I just lost a huge post... >_<
G$%*~+mit. Okay, short version:I hate when people run their PCs as utilitarian efficiency machines that always make the most optimal choice, no matter what. If you can't, at least once in a while, forgo some extra gold pieces, or do without that extra +2 to your roll, or put your character at a little extra risk for the sake of making things more fun...well, I give up.
I'm not bashing optimizers here. I'm bashing the person that says, "Well, if I sleep in the woods instead of an inn, and I never tithe to the god I'm devoted to, and I sell into slavery the princess I'm sworn to protect, then I can finally afford that cloak of awesome +3, and I can give this old cloak of resistance +1 that I inherited from my beloved grandfather to my hireling, so that he can better resist the traps I have him detect for me."
If I had a greater daily chance of dying in real life with X item instead of Y item, I would spend my time trying to figure out how to get Y item.
Things players do that annoy me: Insist on playing good Drow.
I run into that in some of the games I run. My wife loves Drow, and has wanted to make one for a long time. 2 guys we game with, HATE Drow. Caps doesn't do it justice. In any game, setting, etc, any remote mention of Drow sends these 2 into a murderous fury. So, needless to say, my wife feels a little inhibited when a chance to roll up a character comes around.
I personally think the situation sucks. I bought her the Drow of the Underdark book for her birthday one year and she's never got to touch any of the material inside, because of these 2 guys.
Ugh. Condolences on those chuckleheads. I say encourage her to play a straight-up drow and tell the other two players to deal with their butthurt like mature adults.
Alternately, if she really wants to mess with them? Tell her to read up on this: Sandwich Stoutaxe. (NSFW - language)
Now if they BAWWWWWW about it they have no damn excuse.
(has never played a drow, but hot damn if the rabid anti-drow crowd hasn't gotten more annoying than the Driz'zt syndrome crowd ever was)
True, I would not end a game over it but it was annoying to see player after player who insisted upon playing good drow.
At my gaming table it would probably lead to some good-natured ribbing. Fortunately there are no Drow in my homebrew :)
Just throwin it out there, but my wife's Drow concepts have very rarely been any more than Neutral on the Evil-to-Good scale. She embraces the sinister aspect of the race, and even her Albino Drow she did get to play was pretty nasty, I'd say easily NE.
A few things that players do that drive me insane:
1. I was in a campaign with a player once where, every single session, he'd show up with a completely different build for a character. We didn't play very often (and he was only there about half the time we did play), but every time he'd show up, his character would have a different combination of class levels (always some form of rogue or rogue variant), feats (most of which would be from defunct 3e splatbooks that nobody had even heard of), and special abilities (whose mechanics were dubious at best). And not only that, but he always insisted on being the best at everything. The party had a rogue/fighter, for example, whose entire schtick was intimidate (maxing out ranks, skill focus, everything) and Mr. AwesomeRogue would get upset if his skill modifier wasn't higher than the rogue/fighter's. But nobody else in the group seemed to mind, so I didn't make a big deal about it. Oh, and the character's name, appearance, and backstory were fashioned 100% around a video game character that the player in question liked.
2. As someone said earlier, when someone comes to the table session after session without actually knowing their character or even the rules of the game. I was in a group where one player would always bring his wife- which would have been fine, except she was playing a bard, and every single time she'd do anything in combat, she'd announce her action and then do nothing. Example: Her turn would come up, and she'd say, "I'm gonna hit the bad guy!" and then silence. Everyone looks around, until someone says, "Uh... roll a d20..." she'd then search her character sheet until someone pointed out the number to add, pick up a d12, and try to make her attack roll. Or they'd be hanging out in the tavern, and she'd say, "I'm gonna start playing some music!" and then silence. No perform check, no bardic music, no nothing.
3. I DMed a campaign where the starting group consisted of a Paladin, a Ranger, a Barbarian, and a Hexblade. That was it. It ended up working out fine (the ranger ended up switching to a rogue, the barbarian took only cleric levels from level 2 on, and the hexblade left the party), and it was actually one of the best campaigns I've been a part of, but still. Four non-fighter fighters?
4. And I understand why they do it, but I hate player groups that are too cautious. You know what I'm talking about- they search every door half a dozen times, they refuse to ever split the party up for any reason (even when they're hanging out in town, they always insist on going everywhere together), they never experiment with magic items to find out what they do until they can cast Identify, they never use their most powerful abilities until their lives depend on it, and so on. I had a group once where the party was going through a dungeon, and found a (very easily noticed) trap that was activated by pulling on a peg on the wall. (The peg was a normal peg used to hold a cloak or hat or something.) Upon coming across another peg later on, one player spent literally twenty minutes of real time explaining how he was going to (while the party was standing ten feet away) jury-rig a lasso-style pulley device onto the end of his ten-foot pole so that he could pull on the peg from a "safe" distance. This peg, unlike the last one, was just a normal peg.
3. I DMed a campaign where the starting group consisted of a Paladin, a Ranger, a Barbarian, and a Hexblade. That was it. It ended up working out fine (the ranger ended up switching to a rogue, the barbarian took only cleric levels from level 2 on, and the hexblade left the party), and it was actually one of the best campaigns I've been a part of, but still. Four non-fighter fighters?
Sounds like the party I'm running; 2 Rogues, a Swashbuckler, Artificer, forgetful Cleric and a Ranger. Good stuff!
I agree with the people complaining about sidebar conversations during the game, but only so far.
The game is a social event. Yes, as DM I put work in. But the players are setting aside their personal time as well to be there. If they want to spend time socializing, it is not unreasonable to let them.
I had many nights in Afghanistan where the game never started due to us BSing. And I was perfectly fine with that. I play with friends, and I run the game for them as much as myself.
I'm not saying let them have social hour and to hell with the game. Merely pointing out that you should be reasonable about how you handle it. Anyone screaming at me is NOT my friend and not someone I will continue playing with. Some of you may have read my last experience with such a person.
Talk to your friends about the balance, don't let it bottle up inside.
It is a social event, and it's usually in kinda close quarters, so....it would be nice if everyone would pay some attention to personal hygiene. I think many of us have played with THAT guy, the one from whom the permanent stinking cloud is emanating. It's not that hard, dude. If you're going to be around other humans, please wash yourself, use deodorant, and wear clothes that don't make everyone vomit.
|
|
2. As someone said earlier, when someone comes to the table session after session without actually knowing their character or even the rules of the game. I was in a group where one player would always bring his wife- which would have been fine, except she was playing a bard, and every single time she'd do anything in combat, she'd announce her action and then do nothing. Example: Her turn would come up, and she'd say, "I'm gonna hit the bad guy!" and then silence. Everyone looks around, until someone says, "Uh... roll a d20..." she'd then search her character sheet until someone pointed out the number to add, pick up a d12, and try to make her attack roll. Or they'd be hanging out in the tavern, and she'd say, "I'm gonna start playing some music!" and then silence. No perform check, no bardic music, no nothing.
This one isn't so bad for me. Though, I'm not saying that this shoudln't be anyoing for anyone. I actually prefer playing with new players because they don't min/max (which isn't always bad as discussed many times on these boards) they don't bring in 8,000,000,000 different splat books literally expecting me to let them play the half gold dragon half teifling flash grafting anti-paladin that's min/maxed to kill CR25 creatures with one hit at level one they've always wanted. They're satisfied with the core races and classes, and they just play to have fun. I mean it's great. I love writing a story and watching the characters play through my book.
However, one thing that does drive me insane is when players decide that I, as GM, must let them play whatever they want because they found it in a book somewhere.