RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My pet peeve when GMing is when players interrupt me or try to talk over me when I'm reading box text. Same when players talk to each other when I'm reading box text, then ask me to repeat it. If only they'd been listening the first time, they probably would have gotten that extremely important clue or bit of description.
What's your pet peeve when GMing?
Let's keep it away from "entitled player" or optimization threadjacks.
Players texting when I'm talking. Grrrr, it just gets my blood boiling.
I also hate it when you move around the table and the player is not ready with his/her action because of inattentiveness.
-MD
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I share your frustration when players interrupt or talk over me, which inevitably leads to infuriating questions like these: "Where are we?" "Who are we talking to?" "What are we supposed to do?"
It also gets on my nerves when players don't read the rules for the feats, skills, traits, etc. that they assign to their PCs. One of two things always comes of this: Either they misuse the ability and become angry when I have to interpret it correctly, or they expect me to tell them what the ability does mid-way through combat (which also usually leads to anger directed at me). I don't mind helping my players build their PCs before gameplay or otherwise outside of it, but when they're building as we're playing it plunges the entire game into a mire of slow-moving rules discussions. Even worse, it forces me to become a rules lawyer -- granted, that's part of the job as the GM, but holy moley, the players should at least know their own PCs!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a player lets video games influence them too much and has their character start teabagging the villain.
More than one character has been castrated by a post-mortem muscle spasm.
when a player asks, "what did the monster drop?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The appropriate answer is:
"Post-mortem? Only the contents of his bowels."
Going to add to the chorus of player's interrupting me. I don't know how many times I was reading a description, and a player interrupted me with a question that was answered by the very next sentence. Let me finish, because a lot of questions are anticipated. Then I will be happy to answer your questions. On the same token, listen! I have had to answer the same question about a room that was in the room description 2 times because the players weren't listening.
I also get really annoyed when players start making assumptions on enemies. I have had players not even tell me their attack roll because they were certain it would hit (on more than one occasion they were actually wrong due to buffs and situational bonuses). Worse is when they tell me an enemy shouldn't be able to do something. Not a "Wow . . . he can do that?" but a "He can't do that!". This is especially frustrating when an enemy actually has bizarre augments based on his backstory that are supposed to make him unique and the players will not accept a simple "Nope, it works that way. Maybe he is special".
The whole "pay attention at the table, no texting/playing games/etc" I find bothers me less as a GM than as a player. When GMing, I just start to ignore that player. Yeah, I feel like it is disrespectful, but I would rather focus on the players who are engaged and keep them engaged than be annoyed with the one who can't focus on the game. When playing, it really bothers me though as I play reactive characters and it starts becoming hard to keep myself engaged in the game when it seems like I am the only one interested in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Players not just who interrupt, but who start asking/talking about their combat action when it is someone else's initiative.
- Players who whine about equipment not being up to WBL, especially when they choose to run from half the fights and refuse to explore, so haven't done anything to earn treasure. I have now decided I will instantly end a campaign if people complain about WBL (especially as if a party IS below WBL, I bear the low equipment in mind when designing encounters; my encounters tend to be on the easy side anyway).
- Incessant use of electronic devices (this bugs me as a player too) when it clear they are not using it as a gaming aid, but just texting/emailing/listening to music. I have shouted at the top of my lungs "ARE YOU BORED" to someone listening to his iPod rather than to the game. Turned out of course, he was, but by his, you know, actually giving me feedback rather than tuning me out, I was able to make adjustments so he felt more involved.
- As a player and a GM, people who poll the whole party as to what they should do before they act. Consulting for brief advice or tactics discussions is fine, but not EVERY TIME and not for just, "Um, I don't know what I should do." (If you are a new player I will help with combat before such thing becomes an issue.)
- As a player and a GM, people who don't know their character's mechanics after months if not years of play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
.
.
.
.
- Players who cannot fathom how to have their characters respond to NPCs/events that are not active combat threats. "OMG, I need to roleplay?! What should I say? What should I do?"
- Players who miss pretty much everything because cannot pull themselves away from Facebook on their phone. Double-points if they interrupt the game to request troubleshooting when you block their MAC address on the WiFi.
- When I'm trying to run the game, and someone spontaneously decides that it's time to talk about cats, video games, work, etc. We typically have dinner together before start so that everyone can catch-up and get all of that out of their systems before starting.
- When it's time to start and someone decides they just need to take a quick run to the store for a snack. Why didn't they stop at the supermarket immediately following dinner?
- Asking what die to roll every single time it's necessary to determine if an attack or action will succeed or fail, then announcing the die roll instead of actually applying the appropriate modifiers. Double-points if they are still doing this after years of playing.
- Players who are gung-ho about joining a PbP, whose character demands about a month's worth of planning to work into the narrative, and who then disappear after a few posts leaving the GM with either another NPC or another loose end.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My GM pet peeve is when one of the players happily announces he'll GM a campaign to give me a break and let me be a player for awhile (I'm always the DM. For almost 30 years). Then they run two games and decide to stop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DeathQuaker: I have to admit I have brought up WBL discrepancies once to the GM of the only game I play in at the moment. Not because I have a problem with the party not being at WBL, but because I have an issue with one member of the party being a few thousand gp over it, and the rest of us being 10000 under it (meaning none of us even had a +1 magic weapon at the time).
As for my personal pet peeve. Yeah, electronic devices are up there. I don't mind people sending a text occasionally, but I was running a game one night, and one of the guys who's normally really good just spent the entire night browsing the internet on his phone. It threw me off my game, because every time I'd go to interact with him I'd have to get his attention, and he'd just keep staring at the screen while responding with "Yeah, I'm listening, keep going". I spoke to him afterwards and he apologised, but I never figured out why that one session resulted in him doing that.
Another one is people who deliberately write characters that don't fit the game. I was running a Hollowpoint game (only a short one, couple of sessions at most), and had explained that while it was an urban fantasy game, it was meant to be dark and gritty, and to play fast and brutal. No silly magical shenanigans, they were a group of agents who just happened to be able to fight with magic instead of guns if they wanted. Everyone agreed to this... so one of the guys built a loud obnoxious character called Juicy McField the Fistomancer, who's entire schtick was that he made fists out of force and said a lot of one liners like "You've just been fisted". He even wore a massive gold fist necklace.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When players talk over me
When players don't pay attention to what I am saying (i have made it a habit never to repeat myself. Who didn't hear what I said the first time? Not gonna hear it at all)
When players aren't ready when their turn comes, then I just skip them saying they took total defense that round.
When players surf the net when not on their turn or when the party is split. That is why i IP ban everything except the pathfinder SRD.
Players who complain that I IP banned everything but the SRD.
When a player has to go out on a smoke break every twenty minutes and gets jitters if there is not a lit cigarette in his mouth after a half hour. I don't wanna play the game with a damn junkie.
Players who come to play in a heavily RP game with minmaxed dungeoncrawlers.
Players who discuss strategy out of character in the middle of combat. Then I just skip their rounds and have the villains attack.
And so, so much more
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another peeve as a GM and when I am playing: When the party walks into a situation and somebody states they wish to use a skill, perception, healing (or whatever the situation requires) and after that roll you get a whole cavalcade of gamers rolling dice trying to use that skill too. Horning in on that one player who was paying attention.
I also can't stand un-asked for or the role first ask later skill check. "Hey, I just rolled a perception what do I see"
|
My GM pet peeve is when one of the players happily announces he'll GM a campaign to give me a break and let me be a player for awhile (I'm always the DM. For almost 30 years). Then they run two games and decide to stop.I too am always the GM, though only for about 17 years thanks to my age... I don't count my disappointment by the brief campaigns that others try to run as a GM peeve - it's my only player peeve.
...and it is more that I get extremely irritated that a person says they will GM to let me play for a change, but then abandons the effort because their campaign wasn't running as smoothly as one with me in charge would have been - the implication that reasoning has is amazingly insulting, as the person is basically saying that they expected to be as good on session #1 as someone who is (doing a little math out of curiosity... woah) coming up on session #3,000 in just a few months.
This is why I consider it a god-send that I had a group where we alternated between 2 gms with 2 campaigns....more time to explore a variety of PCs and monsters and neither gm gets the "burn-out" that happens to so many of us. Just hope I can find another now that I moved...
I have to agree with those saying that people talking over the GM reading boxed text or explaining the room/puzzle/area/monster....if you are yapping and miss the detail I shouldn't have to re-read or re-gurgitate the description that suddenly interest you. It's kinda annoying.
|
|
Another one is people who deliberately write characters that don't fit the game. I was running a Hollowpoint game (only a short one, couple of sessions at most), and had explained that while it was an urban fantasy game, it was meant to be dark and gritty, and to play fast and brutal. No silly magical shenanigans, they were a group of agents who just happened to be able to fight with magic instead of guns if they wanted. Everyone agreed to this... so one of the guys built a loud obnoxious character called Juicy McField the Fistomancer, who's entire schtick was that he made fists out of force and said a lot of one liners like "You've just been fisted". He even wore a massive gold fist necklace.
This bugs me too. I have to admit though, this story is really really funny.
|
|
I also can't stand un-asked for or the role first ask later skill check. "Hey, I just rolled a perception what do I see"
I actually encourage those. I don't tell players to roll perception. Unless they say that they roll perception, I assume they were taking 10 or taking 5 and I have precalculated results for those skills.
Another one is people who deliberately write characters that don't fit the game. I was running a Hollowpoint game (only a short one, couple of sessions at most), and had explained that while it was an urban fantasy game, it was meant to be dark and gritty, and to play fast and brutal. No silly magical shenanigans, they were a group of agents who just happened to be able to fight with magic instead of guns if they wanted. Everyone agreed to this... so one of the guys built a loud obnoxious character called Juicy McField the Fistomancer, who's entire schtick was that he made fists out of force and said a lot of one liners like "You've just been fisted". He even wore a massive gold fist necklace.This bugs me too. I have to admit though, this story is really really funny.
Yeah, in retrospect I can kind of laugh about it if I ignore the fact that it completely killed the mood for that game and resulted in me just not caring enough to ever run the final session. Not so funny when its happening right in front of you
I actually encourage those. I don't tell players to roll perception. Unless they say that they roll perception, I assume they were taking 10 or taking 5 and I have precalculated results for those skills.I also can't stand un-asked for or the role first ask later skill check. "Hey, I just rolled a perception what do I see"
I like skill checks so long as they players ask first.
"Hey I'd like to roll a perception." GM nods, and player rolls.
I do not like:
Player rolls while GM is talking and not looking and player says while pointing to his/her dice.
"I rolled a 17, what do I perceive?"
-MD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind making stuff up if there is nothing to be perceived.
I just want to witness the roll, and this is not just about the perception skill.
I've had players in the past who just roll dice in between turns or while the characters were moving along exploring. A nervous ADD type habit (I do it too). Well this one guy had that habit and would stop on a nice roll and then declare he was using some skill that pertained to the exploring. No one other than himself saw the roll...players would roll eyes.
Well after a while of this I asked that all skill checks be declared before the dice are rolled and under the eyes of the other players and the GM.
But I digress, here I am debating my position.
-MD
1. Players that cheat when rolling dice. I have one new player that does this right now. My other players have mentioned it to me, but it seems so silly. Do I really have to tell someone not to cheat on dice rolls?
2. Players that ask to play a specific "build".
3. Players that ask if they can play something non-core, and when told the group is playing Core-only, say "But soandso on the forums said non-core isn't more powerful than core."
4. Players that metagame. In a perfect world, all communication that only 1 player should hear would only be heard by them. But for convenience and speed of game, these things are often announced to all. Then players will have their characters that should be unaware suddenly "know" all this stuff.
5. Players that try to order the other players around in combat. "Move there, go here, do that so I can flank next round."
6. Players that complain about puzzles being too difficult when a.) they're actually easy, and b.) intelligent checks/knowledge checks grant clues.
7. Players that don't read the posted recaps each week, and thus aren't aware of what is going on.
8. Players that completely change the direction of the party at the beginning of the session. End of session - "So you're goal is to enter the jungle temple?" "Yes". "Ok, great." Next session "So we've decided not to enter the jungle temple and try to cross the ocean instead."
9. Players that complain about rules that are fair for everyone. "That's dumb that the monster with the great axe can crit for x3 damage."
10. Players that can't distance their character from them self. Every character of theirs is just some shade of their personality, usually leading to all of their characters being the same.
11. Players that don't accept the GM's ruling for the current session so that the whole game doesn't grind to a halt.
12. And most importantly, players that don't chip in for pizza or take more than their fair share.
DeathQuaker: I have to admit I have brought up WBL discrepancies once to the GM of the only game I play in at the moment. Not because I have a problem with the party not being at WBL, but because I have an issue with one member of the party being a few thousand gp over it, and the rest of us being 10000 under it (meaning none of us even had a +1 magic weapon at the time).
I am not in a position to judge your circumstances. I'm simply talking about my own experiences, by several different players in a few different campaigns, where things went beyond simple feedback to a level of complaint I found frustrating under my particular circumstances.
I myself have pointed out a WBL discrepancy to one of my own GMs -- because he was throwing some encounters at us that were high CR for our APL, and we still had the same equipment at 5th level since 2nd level. I mentioned it because the GM himself was complaining about how long combats were taking (because we couldn't hit the bad guys with our level of gear). Turned out he had mixed some modules together and had omitted some sections where we could gear up by accident. I only mentioned it once, and he did find an opportunity to get us caught up as soon as he could, as an appropriate reward for an appropriate amount of work.
Another one is people who deliberately write characters that don't fit the game. I was running a Hollowpoint game (only a short one, couple of sessions at most), and had explained that while it was an urban fantasy game, it was meant to be dark and gritty, and to play fast and brutal. No silly magical shenanigans, they were a group of agents who just happened to be able to fight with magic instead of guns if they wanted. Everyone agreed to this... so one of the guys built a loud obnoxious character called Juicy McField the Fistomancer, who's entire schtick was that he made fists out of force and said a lot of one liners like "You've just been fisted". He even wore a massive gold fist necklace.
People like that, I would just be like, "I would save this character for another campaign--I will happily run one down the line where that is suitable--and if you're not interested in joining this campaign with a PC that is appropriately themed, I am going to ask that you step aside so I can invite someone to play who is actually interested in what I'm running."
|
|
I don't mind players interrupting as long as it's something that pertains to the game. Not because of the hockey game they saw last night.
I dislike texting at the table. Unless it's something important.
electronic devices I allow yet only for the purpose of helping a player run his character. I have a Pathfinder app that has all the books included in it. If I am not sure about a spell I ask the dm if I can use the app to look something up.
Players ordering players around is not a issue. It's called tactics. Why would players not want to properly attack a creature or position themselves properly. Using group tactics is now considered taboo. News to me. Why is even that a pet peeve. Any DM that gave me flak for that would see me leave the table and possibly the game. When players start demanding and ordering players around to act a certain way then it becomes unacceptable and I tell them to stop.
Players who refuse to listen to other players advice. Even when they should. Had a player in this weeks game use a fire attack on a BBEG. Even when the DM outright said that the creatures was immune to fire because of my players good knowledge roll. Ignored everyone else as well and then got mad because his attack failed.
Players who get angry at the group and/or Dm because they ignore advice or do something that makes their character almost die or die. If your going to rush ahead of the group without backup save your emotional outbursts. As they have no one else to blame but themselves if they die or get knocked out.
Players who don't know what their character can do. Don't look up spells beforehand and arrive at the table unprepared. A big pet peeve of mine.
Player who refuse to participate it any roleplaying or writing any journal notes. Espcially when told from the start that it would be a requirement. Then complaining that all they do is attack things. When your presecen at the table mirrors the lump archtype from GMG well only so much I can try and motivate a player before moving on to those who participate with notes and roleplay.
Players who as dms restrict everything and anything. Yet get frustrated and angry when you do the same to them as players. Why should you play a gunslinger in my game when I told you my reasons for not allowing it. While swearing high and low as a DM that they are broken.
Players who never buy snacks and drinks. I'm not saying that they have to bring food every game. While I understand some people do not have as much income as others would it kill some to buy a 2$ bag of chips or 2$ bottle of soda.
Players with poor hygiene. I don't care what obscure non proven study you read that says deodrant causes cancer. You aint't coming into my house smelling worse than roadkill. And no i'n not going to be a "true friend" and ignore it.
Players who are 18+ years older insisting on acting with a air of "fake innocence". What i mean is they get easily offended about topics such as slavery, murder. Or just at the sound of someone saying the word sex or swearing. Sorry but acting like you have the emotional maturity of someone younger than you just comes across as silly. I could understand about being offended if one of the players or dm starting going into intimate details of a sexual encounter they had. Being bothered by the word sex means you have some serious issues that need to be resolved and fast.
People like that, I would just be like, "I would save this character for another campaign--I will happily run one down the line where that is suitable--and if you're not interested in joining this campaign with a PC that is appropriately themed, I am going to ask that you step aside so I can invite someone to play who is actually interested in what I'm running."Another one is people who deliberately write characters that don't fit the game. I was running a Hollowpoint game (only a short one, couple of sessions at most), and had explained that while it was an urban fantasy game, it was meant to be dark and gritty, and to play fast and brutal. No silly magical shenanigans, they were a group of agents who just happened to be able to fight with magic instead of guns if they wanted. Everyone agreed to this... so one of the guys built a loud obnoxious character called Juicy McField the Fistomancer, who's entire schtick was that he made fists out of force and said a lot of one liners like "You've just been fisted". He even wore a massive gold fist
Normally yes, this is exactly what I'd do. The problem is that Hollowpoint involves character creation occurring as part of the session based on questions that the GM poses to the players, and characters are revealed once the game has actually started. So it doesn't really work that way, all I could do was get everyone's agreement on what the setting of the game was, then give them the questions and start the game. By the time I discovered this character, we were already running.
Looks like about 80% of the stuff in this thread doesn't bother me at all, or at least bothers me little enough that I can still roll with it.
What does really bother me is when I have to keep saying:
"I can't tell you what to do next. That's your job to decide -- you're the players."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't interrupt my boxed text, it probably answers your questions anyway" seems to be a popular complaint.
Without passing judgement, I'd like to mention how I handle this. I let them ask the question, pretend to think about it, and then pretend to ad lib the rest of the box text. To me, the interactivity (even if it is basically a lie) is more important than my not being interrupted. Also, players tend to retain the information a little better if it comes through Q&A — I know my own eyes glaze over during some boxed text runs.
Just a nice trick to consider.
The one that gets my ire is the player who can't decide on a character concept as long as he can't sneak a rules trick past me. It's not so much that I mind optimization, no, that's cool, it's the bold-faced attempt to find a character that can do something I don't mechanically expect as GM.
Sorry, I'm the GM, I'm designing challenges for you and the party, I need to know what you're capable of so that I can design accordingly.
Surprise me with quick thinking. Surprise me with tactics. Surprise me with resourcefulness. Don't surprise me with a rules twist.
It's funny, what happens is that they'll show me a character, I'll check it and comment on how the rules don't work quite that way, or that I see where they're going in a couple levels and make sure they know ahead of time that the particular exploit is not available. Then they'll get flustered and in a huff and go back to the drawing board and come up with a completely different concept with a completely different exploit that I catch, and then it's back to the drawing board, and... yeah.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only real peeve is players with unreliable attendance. I get that things come up and things happen, but at least try to let me know earlier than an half hour before game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only real peeve is players with unreliable attendance. I get that things come up and things happen, but at least try to let me know earlier than an half hour before game.
Totally agree with this. Or claim they have no time to join yet seem to have all the time in the world to do other stuff. Don't want to join my game. That's fine. Don't tell me you have no free time.
|
|
My only real peeve is players with unreliable attendance. I get that things come up and things happen, but at least try to let me know earlier than an half hour before game.Totally agree with this. Or claim they have no time to join yet seem to have all the time in the world to do other stuff. Don't want to join my game. That's fine. Don't tell me you have no free time.
The claim may just be a nice way of turning you down.
|
|
I wrote a 14 page players guide for a norse campaign, detailing the area, the history and the culture of all the races involved. We spent a whole evening rolling for characters including their status and the possible divine gifts.
The following week I turn up and start asking questions about background and other general stuff to help them get a picture in their minds and we get to the noble son, a ranger with great leadership and strength. A sailor who gets visions of his future which disturb his sleep always.
Me: "One last question, what's his name?"
Him: "Ernie."
Me: "No. Try again or an NPC, i.e. your father, i.e. me will give you one."
Him: "Velmar, is that better?"
Me: "Yes."
Him (grinning): "....because its an anagram of Marvel..."
I wont forget that conversation for a while. Maybe I invested too much time and effort in prepping for this mini-campaign, but everyone else worked hard to make ideal characters.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may sound silly, but I dislike when players are munching on snacks so loud that I have to raise my voice, or that are so messy that they need to wipe their hands every time they need to reach for a die/pen/book.
I dislike when players make a comedy out of a scene I had imagined to be serious/dramatic.
I dislike when a player looks behind my screen to verify my dice result, or worse, touch my dice!
I dislike having to explain something for the fifth time. Event if they didn't think it was important at first, they should have clued-in by the third time...
I dislike when players make no effort of remembering the names of my NPCs, or worse, give them silly nicknames and stick to them.
These are my main pet peeves, but I dislike blatant disrespect in any form (in which I include invasive usage of technological devices).
'findel
Maybe but I am a adult. I'm not going to go ballistic because you turned down my game. So why be afraid of saying "no not interested".
The claim may just be a nice way of turning you down.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I have always preferred to just be told when someone doesn't want to do something, doesn't like something, etc. Now, in addition to being disappointed by being turned down, it's pretty clear that you lied to me and you don't think I can handle being ACTUALLY turned down.
It's true of gaming and everything else in life, IMO.
I dislike when players make a comedy out of a scene I had imagined to be serious/dramatic.This. A billion trillion times this. And more.
I usually nip that stuff in the bud when comes up, because most of the time, things that get done for laughs usually don't work out well when done in the real world, which tabletop is attempting to simulate.
|
|
Maybe but I am a adult. I'm not going to go ballistic because you turned down my game. So why be afraid of saying "no not interested".
The claim may just be a nice way of turning you down.
I am not so sure. Lets think about this for a moment. You are peeved that somebody turned down your game even though you know they have the free time. You are upset because they were not forthcoming with their reasoning. Maybe not ballistic but certainly sensitive.
I dislike when players make a comedy out of a scene I had imagined to be serious/dramatic.
I dislike when players make no effort of remembering the names of my NPCs, or worse, give them silly nicknames and stick to them.
I'll admit our group did this and made a running gag out of it. The GM was okay with it. There is Super villain in Champions that runs back to 1st edition named Professor Muerte.
The GM sprung him on us. We had recently watched Undercover Blues. So we immediately dubbed him Morty - and kept that up the rest of the game. It got to the point that the character reacted to it.
But it isn't something we made a habit of.
I am not so sure. Lets think about this for a moment. You are peeved that somebody turned down your game even though you know they have the free time. You are upset because they were not forthcoming with their reasoning. Maybe not ballistic but certainly sensitive.Maybe but I am a adult. I'm not going to go ballistic because you turned down my game. So why be afraid of saying "no not interested".
The claim may just be a nice way of turning you down.
And he's upset, I imagine, because he was lied to, not because they weren't interested. I've been in that situation and that's certainly how I would feel.