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.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.
While it sometimes irks me, I try to roll with any situations the players throw at me. When they did turn my tragic scene into a comedy, I had no choice but to play it as a comedy. For one thing, there was obliviously no way back and furthermore, that's the mood the players were in. They were having a good time and though themselves very clever indeed.
In retrospect, it was funny. My NPC couldn't die that way, so he lived to become a recurring NPC. Talk about player-driven deus ex machina...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't bother me or anyone else in my group one whit if someone touches someone else's dice. Never has. I never understood that particular taboo.
|
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.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.While it sometimes irks me, I try to roll with any situations the players throw at me. When they did turn my tragic scene into a comedy, I had no choice but to play it as a comedy. For one thing, there was obliviously no way back and furthermore, that's the mood the players were in. They were having a good time and though themselves very clever indeed.
In retrospect, it was funny. My NPC couldn't die that way, so he lived to become a recurring NPC. Talk about player-driven deus ex machina...
Whenever they try to make light of a serius situation, I pull a Knight of Cerebus and explain to them why they shouldn't be taking it lightly.
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.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.While it sometimes irks me, I try to roll with any situations the players throw at me. When they did turn my tragic scene into a comedy, I had no choice but to play it as a comedy. For one thing, there was obliviously no way back and furthermore, that's the mood the players were in. They were having a good time and though themselves very clever indeed.
In retrospect, it was funny. My NPC couldn't die that way, so he lived to become a recurring NPC. Talk about player-driven deus ex machina...
Comedy has it's place, and I'm all for it if it's what everyone at the table wants. But sometimes, it's just flat out inappropriate or Looney Toons shenanigans that just won't work.
Like, say, "I'm going to go b****-slap him", with "him" referring to a mysterious Outsider trapped in a magic circle, being interrogated by the other PCs. Not only are "surprise b**** slaps" not appropriate to the tone, but if you reach across the threshold of a magic circle where an outsider you KNOW is more powerful than you is sitting and waiting for a means to break the circle and escape/kill everyone... bad things happen.
|
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.
Would I be unhappy that I was told a excuse instead of the actual reason for not showing. Yes. I'm also 40 years old. Pulling a fit because someone tell ms me a answer I don't like is simply just not acting my age.
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.
I have had people who I have asked to join my game turn me down. Nothing wrong with it. Just tell me upfront.
Like, say, "I'm going to go b****-slap him", with "him" referring to a mysterious Outsider trapped in a magic circle, being interrogated by the other PCs. Not only are "surprise b**** slaps" not appropriate to the tone, but if you reach across the threshold of a magic circle where an outsider you KNOW is more powerful than you is sitting and waiting for a means to break the circle and escape/kill everyone... bad things happen.
The group I used to play with had a house-rule for when that phrase came up: Only the characters who passed a Wisdom check would be allowed to run away before it happened.
We had a new member who used to make fun of the entire group for putting points into Wisdom, even when the characters didn't need it. Then, when we were trying to get a powerful outsider to grant a wish to unleash an unstoppable force to help us (and made it a point to choose an outsider that was reluctant to unleash the Tarrasque), the newbie decided to say that phrase and follow through. His character was the only one to fail the Wisdom check. And the outsider was quite willing to grant our request afterwards...
That is one of the only two times the Tarrasque was unleashed and it wasn't my fault in some way.
I hate it when we have to pause the game because people want to order food. Then when it arrives it causes more disruption. I've actually sat and waited for people to finish eating before I start the game. I don't mind snack foods or pizza, but some people like to have multi-course meals spread out in front of them while trying to play.
I think generally its best that everyone has their eats at the same time or before the game, that's why we usually either play after everyone has dinner, or we all order the same thing together.
It bugs the snot out of me when I'm playing the BBEG and he's doing his evil monologue and just as it gets started someone in the party (usually the same guy) announces he attacks him. Sometimes the monologue might contain a clue to something further down the pike but noooooo, he has to launch Dungeon War III on the guy before he can get a word in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It bugs the snot out of me when I'm playing the BBEG and he's doing his evil monologue and just as it gets started someone in the party (usually the same guy) announces he attacks him. Sometimes the monologue might contain a clue to something further down the pike but noooooo, he has to launch Dungeon War III on the guy before he can get a word in.
C'mon, that is the only reasonable thing to do. You have finally chased down the person responsible for burning down your village (or whatever the motivation for going after the BBEG is). Do you let him chat at you for while as you politely listen and then wait for him to start combat on his terms? Or do you try to get the jump on him so that you have the advantage and he doesn't survive to burn down more villages? Don't expect your players to play their characters as apathetic and stupid. If you want the BBEG to give a monologue, it can't be while they are standing in front of the PCs where they can be easily attacked.
We have one player that seems to just go through the motions every week. He's my main pet peeve.
Also stupid names, names from movies, tv shows, or literature.
Also stupid names, names from movies, tv shows, or literature.
No characters named Sam.
It's part of the contract between players and GM, IMO. Only particularly obnoxious players attack in an obvious "villain monologue" circumstance.
You can do villain monologues without it becoming a scenario where you remove player agency.
Count Black the Evil: ...The kingdom of Campania will bow before my demonic army once I sacrifice Prince Endriss Tress! I will rule over the land as an immortal---
Sir Rodrick the Ass: I charge and smite Count Black! I rolled a 37 on my attack roll.
DM: You run into a wall of force. Make a reflex save to avoid falling over from the impact. Count Black laughs at you.
Count Black the Evil: Bwahahaha! You fools! Did you think that I would leave myself unguarded so you could stop me from carrying out my evil plan of evil? I will rule over the land as an immortal lich! It is too bad you will not live to see my glorious reign...
Or have the villain telepathically taunting them as they fight their way through his keep. Or any of the various magical ways to do the same thing. Or the monologuing villain is really a projected image. Or a simulacrum. Or the villain carried out their plan thirty-five minutes ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's true for real life, but ... D&D has a theatrical element to it that practical applications like "attack while the bad guy's giving his mua ha ha" speech should be categorized as "bad form, Peter."
"Reasonable"? Yes. "Cool"? Not remotely.
Now, by the same token, the BBEG shouldn't be allowed to use the monologue to prep an attack/escape/gain reinforcements or anything other than exposition for story purposes. If you surprised him, you should retain your surprise once combat begins.
It's part of the contract between players and GM, IMO. Only particularly obnoxious players attack in an obvious "villain monologue" circumstance.
There's a lot of modern theater, and even old theater, that has the villain being interrupted in mid-speech by the hero... or sometimes outright killed before they even have a chance to give a speech.
What you are citing is not a rule of theater. It's a rule of superhero comic books. And even there, it's generally considered bad writing.
As Vivianne pointed out, there are ways to pull it off without the hero being attackable. But letting the players actually get a chance to attack and it working is not violating the rules of theatre. Nor is the villain using their speech to distract heroes while minions get into place or the plan goes off (in fact, in the kind of stories where heroes don't interrupt the villains, the villains using it for precisely that reason isn't uncommon; that's why a hero just standing there and letting the villain finish talking is generally considered to be holding the Idiot Ball).
I have villains use it for precisely that reason... but if the players decide to beat the villain down mid-rant and he didn't prepare anything for it, he simply deserved what came to him. In fact, one of the coolest endings to a campaign I ran had the paladin character ranting at the villain that he was tired of hearing the villain's speeches while interrupting one of the speeches with a full attack.
Whenever they try to make light of a serius situation, I pull a Knight of Cerebus and explain to them why they shouldn't be taking it lightly.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.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.While it sometimes irks me, I try to roll with any situations the players throw at me. When they did turn my tragic scene into a comedy, I had no choice but to play it as a comedy. For one thing, there was obliviously no way back and furthermore, that's the mood the players were in. They were having a good time and though themselves very clever indeed.
In retrospect, it was funny. My NPC couldn't die that way, so he lived to become a recurring NPC. Talk about player-driven deus ex machina...
This used to peeve me, but then I just learned to roll with it. If your group doesn't respond in form to serious foreplay, then they aren't going to, no matter how mucj you may growl at them, threaten them, or punish them. A group that just wants to kick it and have some laughs will do so (though if the story/dialogue is good enough, they'll sometimes impress you).
If you want serious drama of the dark/tragic/true-to-life variety, you have to either a)run a PbP or PbEm campaign, where people aren't face-to-face, wanting to have fun times; or b)have everyone be into that type of game/roleplay.
Another problem with the villain monologue trope is if turns the game into a cut scene of the DM talking at the players where they don't even get to say anything in return. This is really another form of removing player agency.
But if you do do the villain monologue thing, do you allow your players the same privilege? Do you let them monologue at the villains while they patiently wait for the PC to finish talking?
Most of mine have been already mentioned by others.
In order of which came to mind first...
1) Tardiness. I have two players who regularly show up 30-45 minutes late. Both ususally will send a text after being 15 minutes late saying that they will be 15 minutes late. (i.e. at 7:15, I get a text saying that they'll be 15 minutes late for a 7:00 game... and they then show up sometime between 7:30 and 7:45.)
2) Not knowing how their own powers/abilities/spells work. You've built your character-- I expect you to know how your abilities work.
2a) Not owning the rulebook that has the details of your PC's power/skill/feat/spell. The one-line summary in HeroLab or on a table isn't sufficient for play!
3) Dithering. When it's your turn, please have an action planned. Don't sit there, scanning your character sheet, looking something up in a book, scanning your sheet again, looking something else up in a different book, etc. I've had to institute a rule of thumb that if you haven't declared an action in 60 seconds, you're holding your action.
4) Not reading the handouts, background sheets, or the previous session's adventure summary. I don't write these because I have too much time on my hands.
5) Breaking mood. If I'm trying to create a mood of dramatic tension or horror, PLEASE don't take that as a sign to start cracking jokes. Especially if I've made the effort to dim the lights and play a soundtrack or sound effects.
6) Side chatter when I'm trying to convey information: whether that's a conversation with an NPC or I'm reading flavor text. It really irks me when I'm trying to give the players an important clue, and two players are whispering about last night's episode of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
7) Phone calls. It's really rude to take a call during a game, and then have an actual conversation with the caller rather than saying, "I'm kind of busy right now. Can I call you back?"
8) Off-topic conversations when I'm trying to move the plot forward. (As several other posters have already commented.)
Again, opinion noted.
I'm familiar with attacking during monologue, the villain keeping himself invulnerable while engaging in monologue, et cetera, blah, blah, blah. (I've been DMing off and on for 30+ years.)
Frankly, I assume, as do you, that any villain worth his salt protects himself—also a cliche by now, and why I mentioned "insipid contrivance"—and monologues when in an unassailable position. It was not the successful attack I was looking to circumvent, but instead the tiresome "I don't want to listen, so I'm going to be a d!ck and interrupt the DM because I'm a b@d@$$!" attitude that certain players have. (The paladin you mentioned doesn't really qualify; if he's had to listen to this guy time and again, his attack, since it could prove successful, is entirely justified.)
Allowing the monologue rather than going through the motions of monologue ... interrupted by attack ... attack thwarted ... then monologue continues (after mocking the player with the temerity to do so) is an accepted shortcut.
I do agree, however, that if the heroes think they can gain an advantage by successfully attacking through some stratagem the villain didn't foresee that doing so mid-speech is entirely acceptable.
Generally speaking, no smart player does it if he has a smart DM, because he knows the attempt isn't going to work. (The exception is, of course, a BBEG who makes oversights of this sort due to his hubris; then said attack is not only logical, it's imperative.)
Actually, that paladin had never heard a full speech by the BBEG. I had spent the last four encounters finding ways around them attacking him while they found ways I never thought of for telling him to shut up and fight.
The lack of protection against the paladin stemmed from an earlier incident involving using rock to mud to collapse the ceiling on the BBEG and then reversing it to trap him... he was relying on a couple of wizards he had with him to counterspell the party and ignoring the guy who had never tried to attack him before. I would have tried an outside encounter, but they had access to control weather.
They never did learn about the vampire plot to enslave the living...
So, I have the BBEG monologue via letter when I don't want the party to interrupt it.
I do agree it is quite contrived to have the villain standing there, monologuing at them... Just never had a case where it turned into a pattern of the BBEG just countering everything, continuing to talk, and then the normal fight happens. By that point, the party probably doesn't have any spells, arrows, usable magic items, or people capable of melee left.
On monologues: The best way for the villain to give his monologue is if the PCs are already held captive ("Before I kill you, Mr. Bond...") or remotely. (Projected image, takes possession of a local NPC and speaks through the NPC's mouth, video uplink, etc.)
|
|
2a) Not owning the rulebook that has the details of your PC's power/skill/feat/spell. The one-line summary in HeroLab or on a table isn't sufficient for play!
That's not fair. Most of my player's aren't really well to do and when I say aren't i mean that most of our annual salaries come to around 4000 dollars. Maybe 4500 if it's a good job. So it's pretty much buy a rulebook or eat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may not be fair, but I have the same rule. You can't use any abilities from a book you don't own, or at the very least, a book I don't own.
Otherwise, how am I supposed to make sure it's being used correctly?
I agree with a alot of the above but two of thing that get me are
1) Players who at the start of every combat whine "We are going to all die" etc. Sure once in a while as a joke or even serious is ok...but every time. That is really insulting the GM.
2) Players who repeat a joke till it is dead and beyond. Especialy if the 'joke was not funny to start with.
something like this happened to me once or twice as I was DMing.
irks me like hell...
Sorry for derail: One of my few houserules is that dramatic monologues (harangues, diatribes, pontifications, soliloquys etc) are a free action. Doesn't penalize PCs for dramatic speechifying and gives villains the opportunity to get their monologues out before dying.
|
Let's see . . .
Tardiness/Attendance - I just don't get this one. I understand that life happens, and the trip from point A to point B isn't always free from delays, but some people. Woof.
I've got one player who we stopped inviting for a while because his attendance was 50/50 at best. He was the youngest of us all (by about 10 years), and just out of high school. He's gotten better now, so he's welcome back to our games. For a while there, it was maddening.
We've got another guy who we now use as a term for being late. If one of us is running behind for anything (catching a movie or what have you), we tell the others that we're "Jamesing it." I think I've mentioned this in other threads, but this guy is so predictably tardy we tell him the game starts about an hour before it actually does just to improve his odds of getting there on time.
Hogging the Spotlight - This is a problem from one of our veteran players. He's been gaming for years, and tends to favor RP-heavy systems. He's also a theatre person (so am I), and just naturally gregarious. Generally, he really helps to keep the game moving when others get stumped. He actively engages the others in RP, and that's great for getting everyone invested in the game. It's when he gets deep into a groove, and he starts to monopolize the action that it becomes a problem. He's usually quick to correct himself when I remind him, so I guess it's a minor gripe.
Zero Research/Prep - Most of my guys are solid with their system mastery, but every once in a while I play with someone who doesn't bother to learn how a key ability of their character works. I require all players that intend to use Summon Monster spells to have either printed stat blocks for their regular summons, or to have the pages in the appropriate Bestiary tabbed and ready for use. I make all of my resources available to players at all times, even offering to loan out my books, since I've got PDFs, and don't need physical copies to do my GM stuff.
Complaining About Your Own Mistakes - This doesn't crop up very often, but we've had a player that would make poor decisions, often against sound advice, and then gripe about the results. One particular example happened after the party acquired a decent reward for a tough mission. Most of the other players used the windfall to gear themselves up, expecting tougher challenges ahead. One player, however, spent a good chunk of his resources drinking expensive drinks and entertaining expensive women (even going so far as to hire a spellcaster to provide him with some summoned companionship). A couple of sessions later, he was heard saying "why does everyone have better gear than me?" The response from everyone at the table was along the lines of "Dude, seriously?"
Sorry for the lengthy post. I felt examples were needed.
|
|
Zero Research/Prep - Most of my guys are solid with their system mastery, but every once in a while I play with someone who doesn't bother to learn how a key ability of their character works. I require all players that intend to use Summon Monster spells to have either printed stat blocks for their regular summons, or to have the pages in the appropriate Bestiary tabbed and ready for use. I make all of my resources available to players at all times, even offering to loan out my books, since I've got PDFs, and don't need physical copies to do my GM stuff.
Oh yes. The worst offender I had was a dude that still plays with us. He didn't know the rules even after a year of active playing, and then started whining how he doesn't have a computer at his place et cetera...
So i lend him my core books for him to read. And he forgets to bring them to three sessions in a row. And i keep asking him is he reading and he says yes, but his knowledge is NOT improving at all.One day i drop buy to visit, and lo and behold, my books covered in a thick sheet of dust. Reading them my left foot....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Yeah! Stupid players -- stop having your own fun! Only MY fun is important! Mine!
Right, somebody's has to have the original sourcebook.
And Vivianne, I primarily 3.5 to that particular site doesn't apply.
If this one isn't good enough I can spend a few minutes finding another.
Right, somebody's has to have the original sourcebook.
And Vivianne, I primarily 3.5 to that particular site doesn't apply.
If this one isn't good enough I can spend a few minutes finding another.
I used that source all the time when I played 3.5. It's awesome... but it's just the SRD with the open-content rules. Unlike Paizo, WotC never opened up the content of any of its supplemental products under the OGL. So, while the 3.5 Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and most of the Monster Manual are represented on the SRD, none of the other popular "splat books" are. WotC guards its IP pretty strongly, and whenever someone tries to put up a site akin to d20pfsrd, the lawyers at Hasbro usually hit it with a DMCA takedown notice.
So, if you wanted content from other 3.5 sources, someone needed to buy the books. (e.g. Complete Divine, Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, Book of Exalted Deeds, Lords of Madness, etc, etc...)
In the last 3.5 game I played in, some of the other players were using third-party character generator software that referenced rules from rulebooks that no one at the table owned-- including the GM. The software provided one-sentence summaries (akin to the "description" line on a Feat table), but not the full context. At the time, the GM grudgingly allowed them to continue to use the content (against his better judgement) after the players whined about it for a while. Unfortunately, this ended up causing endless argument and frustration. That was a big part of what derailed the campaign.
My current Pathfinder game is "Core Rules Plus." Meaning that anything from the Core Rulebook is allowed automatically, but any individual rule from any other sourcebook requires GM approval. To get approved both the GM and the player need to own the book.
(To Hama: I understand your "argument from poverty" critique of this rule, and I'd likely make the same call in that situation. However, my players are all in their late 30s to early 50s, and all have well-established careers. None of us are rich, but we can all afford to buy the rulebooks we want to use for our characters.)
I still dispute the notion that accurate copies of the rules can't be found anywhere on the internet and that the rulebook HAS to be owned by someone in the group in order to play, but that's a digression. In the 3.5 example you listed, I think it would have been fine if they had an actual, detailed print-out of the rules for the abilities they were trying to use so the GM could see and approve them.
I had the same problem in my first PF game when I had a player that (unknown to me) didn't look at the full descriptions of his feats, and I didn't have nearly the breadth of knowledge of the rules that I do now, and he would get away with all kinds of junk.
Players who discuss strategy out of character in the middle of combat.
THIS. Everything else that has been mentioned in this thread, also. But THIS. You mean to tell me that you just busted down the door into the enemy stronghold, and NOW you stop to strategize, even as the fort guards surround you, weapons in hand?
Players who discuss strategy out of character in the middle of combat.THIS. Everything else that has been mentioned in this thread, also. But THIS. You mean to tell me that you just busted down the door into the enemy stronghold, and NOW you stop to strategize, even as the fort guards surround you, weapons in hand?
Back in highschool, in my first ever tabletop group (which was 3.0, btw) we would spend what felt like HOURS arguing over what was the most optimal option in combat, things like
"Hey, why don't you guys just take one turn moving down the hallway so we can get at the elemental with our ranged attacks instead of just you and the sorcerer?"
"No then I'll lose my total defense this is SAFER"
etc etc ad nauseum.
Ultimately, I think it was an expression of the fact that we really weren't that great friends to begin with and on the whole tremendously stubborn (but Scottie most of all. that guy would not give an inch on anything).
On another note, one minor pet peeve I have is having to explain to every new player that putting ranks into the Fly skill does not give them the ability to fly, and that they can't even PUT ranks in it unless they have fly from another source.
Most of the time they ask first and I just give them the same explaination, which is a little tiresome but what can you do? Once, though, I had a player put ranks into the Fly skill without saying and without actually reading what that meant, and thought he could just fly like that.