The most annoying gamer in the world.


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone that says: "Well if I would've known that I would've done something different"

Pay attention to the game and not your iphone and you would've known...

Sovereign Court

Hama wrote:
That is why I accept only the first number they say. If they then correct themselves, it's too late. Should have paid attention.

I tell people, "Well, you'll remember to include that flank/bard song/whatever next time, now won't you?"


Sniggevert wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
Hama wrote:

A guy who keeps insisting that I let him play a kitsune summoner (I don't do anthropomorphic animals or summoners in my setting)

And brings a kitsune summoner to the game and then whines and complains because he has to roll up a new character.
I have zero tolerance for the furry aspect of this community. I've never had to play with someone like this but I think the second I heard a guy even remotely entertained the idea of playing an anthropomorphic animal I would tell him not to re-roll but to look for a different group.

No anthropomorphic animals?

So no lizardmen? Grippli? Wolfweres? Boggards? Kua-Toa? Ibixians, minotaurs or Assweres?

Anthropomorphism is pretty huge in scope, and the sentient animal-monster-humanoids in D&D would make a very long list.

This also means that the Agathian celestial race gets completely discontinued, and Nirvana becomes empty.

And where do you draw the line? Do serpentfolk/yuan-ti get ditched because they're snake-people? If so, do you also ditch mariliths and nagas? If not, why not?

If catfolk go for being cat-people, do you ditch sphinxes and lamiae? If not, why not?

If tengu go for being bird-people, do you ditch sirens and harpies? If not, why not?

Or is it an issue of "antho-critters are okay as monsters for the party to kill, but damn you if you ever think to play one!"?

For me, this. I'm much more straight-laced and conservative in my fantasy sword/sorcery than most, and I know it.

If you want that at your table, more power to you. Unless that's the only option given, I probably won't create a character like that, but would still join in and play none the less without fuss.

But if I ask, or end up stating, that such are not allowed as PC's at mine I expect the same respect.

Everyone has a preference to how/what they play. It's not right or wrong, it's just a preference....

Anthropomorphised animal monsters have been in fantasy since its earliest days. They go back to myths and legends. You have been fighting and encountering them for years.

No minotaurs, really? Too furry?

Liberty's Edge

Zolanoteph wrote:
Hama wrote:

A guy who keeps insisting that I let him play a kitsune summoner (I don't do anthropomorphic animals or summoners in my setting)

And brings a kitsune summoner to the game and then whines and complains because he has to roll up a new character.
I have zero tolerance for the furry aspect of this community. I've never had to play with someone like this but I think the second I heard a guy even remotely entertained the idea of playing an anthropomorphic animal I would tell him not to re-roll but to look for a different group.

While I can understand why you may dislike the furries, I do not see a reason for such massive agressiveness, at my tables, whenever I start Gamemastering, the players who have been there the longest and shown the most amount of respect to everyone are granted the ability to play an uncommon race. Players who are generally respectful and helpful to the table can play a featured race. However, the party can only contain one uncommon race and two featured races. Scale for party size


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I make the monsters more a part of the world, equal to or more powerful than humans, so monster pcs makes more sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

if they don't get their way they pout and refuse to contribute to the rest of the session.

The player who has a blast playing the game and says they enjoy the campaign then there is one thing that happens, they don't like the ruling the DM gave or they do something and it has a huge backfire on them, and they complain about how the campaign is a joke and cant be taken seriously because it uses the mythic rules and they are to broken to be serious. That ruined my night and I was very tempted to stop running it.

The rules lawyer who derails the game for two hours because he was certain we weren't doing things the 'right way' even though the DM had made a ruling.


Hama wrote:

A guy who keeps insisting that I let him play a kitsune summoner (I don't do anthropomorphic animals or summoners in my setting)

And brings a kitsune summoner to the game and then whines and complains because he has to roll up a new character.

*looks at your avatar*

Ironic.


Pan wrote:
Serisan wrote:

I had to tell a kid at PFS this weekend that literally every interruption he made for 45 minutes of gameplay would be sufficient for me to declare his character wantonly evil if I were the GM.

The GM gave me a knowing look and nod.

Seriously, this kid was interrupting a diplomatic discussion with things like "I cut off her finger." He wanted to torture a helpless street thug out of frustration that he didn't get to kill anything during combat.

Yeah I have met this annoying player before in PFS as well.

Reminds me of a certain halfling Ranger/barbarian....

Sovereign Court

K177Y C47 wrote:
Hama wrote:

A guy who keeps insisting that I let him play a kitsune summoner (I don't do anthropomorphic animals or summoners in my setting)

And brings a kitsune summoner to the game and then whines and complains because he has to roll up a new character.

*looks at your avatar*

Ironic.

I picked it at random, didn't even wait for the pictures to load. I never choose an avatar with meaning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Announces he's diabetic, asks if he can take his teeth out because they're uncomfortable, takes his teeth out.

Announces he's diabetic, goes through a six-pack of Pepsi every session.

Brings his own laptop, looks up every monster encountered "just so I can see what it looks like, I'm not checking its stats".

Sees a party of humans in a homebrew world, makes a warforged barbarian.

Yep, all the same guy, true story.


Quote:
I have zero tolerance for the furry aspect of this community. I've never had to play with someone like this but I think the second I heard a guy even remotely entertained the idea of playing an anthropomorphic animal I would tell him not to re-roll but to look for a different group.

Well, looks like somebody is a bit hung up on ideological purity.

Hama wrote:
He's just a manga freak.

As in "He is enthusiastic about manga", "he is a freak who enjoys manga", or "he is a freak because he enjoys manga"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sniggevert wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
Hama wrote:

A guy who keeps insisting that I let him play a kitsune summoner (I don't do anthropomorphic animals or summoners in my setting)

And brings a kitsune summoner to the game and then whines and complains because he has to roll up a new character.
I have zero tolerance for the furry aspect of this community. I've never had to play with someone like this but I think the second I heard a guy even remotely entertained the idea of playing an anthropomorphic animal I would tell him not to re-roll but to look for a different group.

No anthropomorphic animals?

So no lizardmen? Grippli? Wolfweres? Boggards? Kua-Toa? Ibixians, minotaurs or Assweres?

Anthropomorphism is pretty huge in scope, and the sentient animal-monster-humanoids in D&D would make a very long list.

This also means that the Agathian celestial race gets completely discontinued, and Nirvana becomes empty.

And where do you draw the line? Do serpentfolk/yuan-ti get ditched because they're snake-people? If so, do you also ditch mariliths and nagas? If not, why not?

If catfolk go for being cat-people, do you ditch sphinxes and lamiae? If not, why not?

If tengu go for being bird-people, do you ditch sirens and harpies? If not, why not?

Or is it an issue of "antho-critters are okay as monsters for the party to kill, but damn you if you ever think to play one!"?

For me, this. I'm much more straight-laced and conservative in my fantasy sword/sorcery than most, and I know it.

If you want that at your table, more power to you. Unless that's the only option given, I probably won't create a character like that, but would still join in and play none the less without fuss.

But if I ask, or end up stating, that such are not allowed as PC's at mine I expect the same respect.

Everyone has a preference to how/what they play. It's not right or wrong, it's just a preference....

Yea, but you are actually being reasonable. You don't want it at your table? Fine. I ban stuff I don't like all the time. Never see a teleport spell in my games. That's not the problem. The problem is the original post quoted was taking the attitude of "If I find out you ever entertained the thought of playing this, you need to leave my table". That is very unreasonable. Banning something from the table is one thing. Banning someone who kind of likes something from the table is quite another.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More annoying than the person who can't figure out what to do....is the person tellling everyone else what to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
Hama wrote:

A guy who keeps insisting that I let him play a kitsune summoner (I don't do anthropomorphic animals or summoners in my setting)

And brings a kitsune summoner to the game and then whines and complains because he has to roll up a new character.
I have zero tolerance for the furry aspect of this community. I've never had to play with someone like this but I think the second I heard a guy even remotely entertained the idea of playing an anthropomorphic animal I would tell him not to re-roll but to look for a different group.

No anthropomorphic animals?

So no lizardmen? Grippli? Wolfweres? Boggards? Kua-Toa? Ibixians, minotaurs or Assweres?

Anthropomorphism is pretty huge in scope, and the sentient animal-monster-humanoids in D&D would make a very long list.

This also means that the Agathian celestial race gets completely discontinued, and Nirvana becomes empty.

And where do you draw the line? Do serpentfolk/yuan-ti get ditched because they're snake-people? If so, do you also ditch mariliths and nagas? If not, why not?

If catfolk go for being cat-people, do you ditch sphinxes and lamiae? If not, why not?

If tengu go for being bird-people, do you ditch sirens and harpies? If not, why not?

Or is it an issue of "antho-critters are okay as monsters for the party to kill, but damn you if you ever think to play one!"?

For me, this. I'm much more straight-laced and conservative in my fantasy sword/sorcery than most, and I know it.

If you want that at your table, more power to you. Unless that's the only option given, I probably won't create a character like that, but would still join in and play none the less without fuss.

But if I ask, or end up stating, that such are not allowed as PC's at mine I expect the same respect.

Everyone has a preference to how/what they play. It's not right or

...

*raises hand* I have a question... Is it really necessary to jump in and tell someone you'll never meet that they're doing it wrong if they never asked for input?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
I have a question... Is it really necessary to jump in and tell someone you'll never meet that they're doing it wrong if they never asked for input?

I'm almost positive that very little of what is said on the Paizo forums is necessary. Luckily, necessity is not a requirement.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Is it really necessary to jump in and tell someone you'll never meet that they're doing it wrong if they never asked for input?

Nope. But you can't stop me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

He doesn't always play a paladin, but when he does, it's right after having played in the 40K verse.


Quote:
Is it really necessary to jump in and tell someone you'll never meet that they're doing it wrong if they never asked for input?

If he didn't want input, he shouldn't have posted in a discussion on a public forum.


TOZ wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Is it really necessary to jump in and tell someone you'll never meet that they're doing it wrong if they never asked for input?
Nope. But you can't stop me.

True that. I guess it will have to be enough to have a good laugh at the self-righteous knicker twisting that goes on.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM who wants everything to be a Tolkien-esque purist...

I'm sorry but I am tired of all dwarves havin to have a scottish accent and being drunk and every elf having to be super pompous and arrogant... and no, my halfling does not have to complain about second breakfast.


NoncompliAut wrote:
He doesn't always play a paladin, but when he does, it's right after having played in the 40K verse.

Guilty.

I completely rewrote that guy's personality after I realized what I was doing. Then the he turned into a vampire, but the GM let him stay lawful good, since the party killed the vampire who bit him. He was a paladin of that setting's sun goddess. That was a weird campaign. Fun, though.

To contribute to the topic:

He tries to cut his way out of the barrel he's trapped in with a flaming rapier, and then complains when it doesn't work and he almost dies.

We'll never forget that gnome, no matter how much we might want to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Is it really necessary to jump in and tell someone you'll never meet that they're doing it wrong if they never asked for input?
Simon Legrande wrote:
True that. I guess it will have to be enough to have a good laugh at the self-righteous knicker twisting that goes on.

Every time I see posts like this, I always wonder "would the same complaint have come up if the complainer agreed with the input?"

And since nine times out of ten the answer is no, because invariably most people don't complain about the input of things they support, is there any real difference between the inputter's contribution and the complainer's? They both reach the same goal of "adding a voice of support to the things I like and a voice of contrition against the things I don't".


Orthos wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Is it really necessary to jump in and tell someone you'll never meet that they're doing it wrong if they never asked for input?
Simon Legrande wrote:
True that. I guess it will have to be enough to have a good laugh at the self-righteous knicker twisting that goes on.

Every time I see posts like this, I always wonder "would the same complaint have come up if the complainer agreed with the input?"

And since nine times out of ten the answer is no, because invariably most people don't complain about the input of things they support, is there any real difference between the inputter's contribution and the complainer's? They both reach the same goal of "adding a voice of support to the things I like and a voice of contrition against the things I don't".

*shrug* People are who they are, I guess. I find it interesting that rather than contributing to the actual thread people would rather bash someone's opinion because they don't like it. I don't really have a dog in this fight because I don't care one way or the other. Sometimes I'm just surprised at how much certain folks can get away with considering the idea is to not be a jerk.

Sovereign Court

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Hama wrote:
He's just a manga freak.
As in "He is enthusiastic about manga", "he is a freak who enjoys manga", or "he is a freak because he enjoys manga"?

I am a manga enthusiast. He is a freak. What Japanese would call Otaku but in the worst kind of way. Even other manga enthusiasts (some very very enthusiastic) steer clear of him

He freaking goes around the city with a katana strapped to his back. Made of steel and sharp enough to easily maim a person. He's been arrested twice because of it but he doesn't relent.

Liberty's Edge

Hama wrote:


He freaking goes around the city with a katana strapped to his back. Made of steel and sharp enough to easily maim a person. He's been arrested twice because of it but he doesn't relent.

He is out of control I agree. If the police arrest you twice for carrying a weapon and the excuse to keep carrying its "but I like manga". Then IMO he is a little too obsessed by his hobby. Especially if other of the same hobby consider him too extreme.


Hama wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Hama wrote:
He's just a manga freak.
As in "He is enthusiastic about manga", "he is a freak who enjoys manga", or "he is a freak because he enjoys manga"?

I am a manga enthusiast. He is a freak. What Japanese would call Otaku but in the worst kind of way. Even other manga enthusiasts (some very very enthusiastic) steer clear of him

He freaking goes around the city with a katana strapped to his back. Made of steel and sharp enough to easily maim a person. He's been arrested twice because of it but he doesn't relent.

Ah. The second option. I take it he worships all things Japanese as superior to Western drivel? I had a friend like that once. He didn't carry a sword around, though (Granted, it only would have been illegal because we lived on a government facility.). I wonder how bad he has to be to feel like carrying a sword around. That's something a bit extreme. I live in an area with a huge anime/manga fanbase, where carrying a real sword in public is perfectly legal as long as it isn't concealed, and we don't get that kind of behavior even among the worst weeaboos. He must be a total freak of nature and rather intimidating to deal with.

For the record, I do enjoy anime and Japanese culture, and my own personal Pathfinder setting borrows a lot from this (I'm working on rules tweaks to make combat feel more animeish). Haven't played any kitsune yet, but I did play a catfolk once. Not a weeboo, though, because I don't hold Japanese culture to be superior, and I do play characters that have nothing to do with Japan all the time.

I can be a bit of a teaboo, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He doesn't always play a woman, but when he does, he's a total perv about it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Weeboo"? Gawd, I'm old. You kids today with your clothes and your music and your fuzzy people...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to keep my anime from my Pathfinder. There are Animesque RPGs out there much muhc better suited for that role. Exalted being the best.


When you state your campaign takes place a few hundred years after the Numerian crashed ship triggered a remote detonation of over half the reactors scattered around Golarion (home-brewed to be placed there), and it's a "Guns-Everywhere, High-Tech uncommon" setting... Shows up with an elven archer and complains about the mass proliferation of tech items, roving robots, and large swaths of land blighted by radiation... Oh, and the mutated ogres (Super Mutants).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
When you state your campaign takes place a few hundred years after the Numerian crashed ship triggered a remote detonation of over half the reactors scattered around Golarion (home-brewed to be placed there), and it's a "Guns-Everywhere, High-Tech uncommon" setting... Shows up with an elven archer and complains about the mass proliferation of tech items, roving robots, and large swaths of land blighted by radiation... Oh, and the mutated ogres (Super Mutants).

I always find these gamers both funny and strange. It's as if they either ignore you when tell them the background. Or don;t read the notes sent by email about the campaign world. If you hate aspects of a certain campaign world why even join the game or make a character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
I like to keep my anime from my Pathfinder. There are Animesque RPGs out there much muhc better suited for that role. Exalted being the best.

Well, for anime-inspired RPGs, it's hard to beat Panty Explosion. Yes, its a real game. No, I don't own a copy-- I played it once at a con.

Shadow Lodge

Well, that certainly is a thing.


Hama wrote:
I like to keep my anime from my Pathfinder. There are Animesque RPGs out there much muhc better suited for that role. Exalted being the best.

Depends on exactly what you want. If you tweak the movement rules (increase jump distances per point of DC by a large margin) and allow vital strike and spring attack as features of the game rather than feats, skip levels 1-5, and consider playing mythic or gestalt, Pathfinder actually does the job fairly well as long as you don't want to go all Shonen on everything. Also has the advantage of being a game that people are far more likely to be familiar with than BESM or Exalted, and the rules are free for those who aren't familiar.

Sovereign Court

Ive been curious about Anima but cant find anyone to play it.


He doesn't always create characters with the exact same backstory...

Oh, wait. He does.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He always plays a half-elf rogue named Miron Sheol, who is obsessed about gems.

ALWAYS


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh and I am so tired of the gamer who insists that EVERYTHING must be tolkien-esque and assumes the GM is making things "Middle Earth style" and complains when "Elves are not in giant tree houses and such" and "dwarves are not always going drinkin and talking with heavy scottish accents"

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about the answer to every situation is ultraviloence guy? You know the type that goes into a tavern and if a patron bumps him he draws his weapon and runs him through. Just walks around looking for fights at the slightest provocation and always overacts to the situation. Good times....not really but you catch my drift.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Oh and I am so tired of the gamer who insists that EVERYTHING must be tolkien-esque and assumes the GM is making things "Middle Earth style" and complains when "Elves are not in giant tree houses and such" and "dwarves are not always going drinkin and talking with heavy scottish accents"

Neither of which, of course, is Tolkien-esque. Jackson-esque, sure ... but not Tolkien-esque. I'm not sure we ever see a drunken dwarf in Tolkien's writings, while the Noldor and Sindar build more towers, fortresses and ships than they do tree houses.

The gamer who's been so spoiled by the "my character must be a kewl krismiss twee at every level" mentality that a game with some subtleties has them b*!@!ing after ten whole minutes of intelligent exposition and dialogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the 80s my brother played a lot of Dwarves and they all spoke with a faux Scottish accent. When LoTR hit the theaters we looked at each other and said, "Wow! Who knew?"

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see players using a faux accent when playing Dwarves. In the first Baldurs Gate you get a quest from a Dwarven npc with such a accent. Not sure if the the later games did the same thing.

Another thing players who don't like guns, ninjas or anything not your vanilla fantasy. I get that some like fantasy to just the usual mix of stuff. Yet if I tell you upfront it's going to be a non-standard fantasy game. I don't want to hear "Guns! They don't belong in fantasy" or something similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

I can see players using a faux accent when playing Dwarves. In the first Baldurs Gate you get a quest from a Dwarven npc with such a accent. Not sure if the the later games did the same thing.

Another thing players who don't like guns, ninjas or anything not your vanilla fantasy. I get that some like fantasy to just the usual mix of stuff. Yet if I tell you upfront it's going to be a non-standard fantasy game. I don't want to hear "Guns! They don't belong in fantasy" or something similar.

As I said... Tolkien Purists... "If it wasn't in LotR then it does not belong in my fantasy" mentality...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
memorax wrote:

I can see players using a faux accent when playing Dwarves. In the first Baldurs Gate you get a quest from a Dwarven npc with such a accent. Not sure if the the later games did the same thing.

Another thing players who don't like guns, ninjas or anything not your vanilla fantasy. I get that some like fantasy to just the usual mix of stuff. Yet if I tell you upfront it's going to be a non-standard fantasy game. I don't want to hear "Guns! They don't belong in fantasy" or something similar.

As I said... Tolkien Purists... "If it wasn't in LotR then it does not belong in my fantasy" mentality...

Never did get that mentality, but did come across quite a few in my career... Particularly hilarious were those that loved Spelljammer at the same time as they were spouting it...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't get Tolkien purists, I do get Tolkien mindset people. You know the type. The only fantasy book they've read is LOTR so they base EVERYTHING on it, and get annoyed when in my world Elves are just people like humans with good ones, bastards and other kinds, and when not all dwarves are greedy gold loving grumpy small men.

Actually one player was so outraged that everyone could speak dwarven that the threatened to leave the game if it wasn't immediately changed. I told him he is free to go. That cooled him off immediately.

But these people aren't Tolkien purists, they are just horribly uneducated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Shining Fool wrote:
He opted for febreeze instead of a shower

OMG, I played in a game with a guy like that once.

When he plays a character, he plays it Min/Max all the way...


Hama wrote:

I don't get Tolkien purists, I do get Tolkien mindset people. You know the type. The only fantasy book they've read is LOTR so they base EVERYTHING on it, and get annoyed when in my world Elves are just people like humans with good ones, bastards and other kinds, and when not all dwarves are greedy gold loving grumpy small men.

Actually one player was so outraged that everyone could speak dwarven that the threatened to leave the game if it wasn't immediately changed. I told him he is free to go. That cooled him off immediately.

But these people aren't Tolkien purists, they are just horribly uneducated.

The only thing I really take from Tolkien to put in my games are the look of the Elves. I like the tall, willowy, pretty elf, not the Keebler elves in D&D rulebooks... (4 ft tall? Come on!)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This one happened about three weeks ago, while playing the new 5th ed Encounters.

Have you heard the phrase, 'pulling defeat from the jaws of victory'?

So, six players who don't know each other (a bit like PFS), playing brand new 1st level characters. One guy has a teifling paladin, but apart from not having a gender (because the player hadn't decided yet), 'it' looked so human that you couldn't tell. Apart from the horns. And the tail.

Anyway, the paladin is tooled up with armour, javelins and two longswords. Can't use two longswords at the same time, but hey, there was probably a sale on.

During combat, the DM would point to the player and ask what their PC was doing, in the traditional manner. We answered in the equally traditional manner by saying things like 'I hit him with my sword' or 'I shoot him with an arrow'. The DM points to the paladin, who says, '..errm...can I throw a rock at it?'. Well, yeah, but you'd actually have to put your javelin down to pick up a rock, hint hint.' Throws rock, misses, wastes everybody's time.

Later, we are fighting kobolds, we've taken down all of them except one who has a single hit point remaining. One of his deceased colleagues is in two halves after a particularly entertaining crit. Paladin has been particularly useless. On his turn, he asks if he can pick up one of the two halves of that kobold and use it to hit the remaining baddy. DM sighs, 'Whatever'. Paladin rolls a crit, DM has no option but to declare that the last kobold loses his last hit point, despite the stupidity of the whole thing. Great. Now the paladin is wondering how to chain the two halves together to make kobold nunchuks. I die a little.

After a few more battles (including one where he charges an enemy acrobatically with his javelin when it would be easier to just step up and belt it, rolling a 1 and landing on his stupid head) we arrive at the castle, and go to the rooftop to see the leader of the good guys. Of course, we are immediately attacked by a massive dragon(!). You do know that we're 1st level, right? He does. I conclude that we surely can't be expected to defeat a dragon, so organise the evacuation of the boss and his soldiers to the interior of the castle while we distract the dragon and try not to die. We're heroes, dammit!

After a few turns of, 'Ha, hit AC 20 with my arrow!', 'Tough, the arrow bounces off its scales', 'Crap', the paladin has his turn. '...errm...I talk to the dragon'. Really? 'Yep. I say that we are on its side, so stop attacking us'. Here we go again. DM requires a Deception check. Paladin rolls a nat 20. DM rolls an Insight check for the dragon, rolls a nat 1. Oh, I don't know what to do now! For some reason(!) the adventure didn't have this as a possibility. No problem, says I, use the table in the confusion spell to decide what the dragon does. DM rolls, 'Dragon does nothing for...' *rolls* 'three rounds'.

Victory! All we have to do is evacuate the roof, pretending like we own the place, while NOT ATTACKING THE DRAGON. What can possibly go wrong?

DM says, 'Fighter! Your turn. Are you attacking the dragon?' 'No! I persuade the soldiers to evacuate the roof in an orderly fashion. Do I have to make a roll?' 'Heck, no! They are happy to follow that order!'

Each player is asked on his turn what he wants to do, and is he attacking the dragon? 'No! I'm helping the soldiers to evacuate.' Victory is at hand, 'victory' in this case being 'not dying'.

Then, it's the paladin's turn. What are you going to do? Are you attacking the dragon?

'...errm...'

Oh, lord no!

'...errm...I talk to the dragon again'.

Why? We've won! Why mess it up?

'...errm...I tell the dragon that he's my b$&%+ and has to do what I say.'

Silence.

Paladin rolls a check, doesn't roll a 20.

Dragon rolls a check, doesn't roll a 1.

Dragon roars, 'You LIED to me!', swings around and breathes destruction. DM rolls 4d6 (oh, it's smaller than I thought), picks them up and rolls again (okay, maybe not so small), and again, and again...

'Wait a minute, how many dice are you rolling?'

'Eighteen. It's an 18 hit die dragon.'

'You do know we're first level, right?'

I swear he was trying to stifle a grin, and then pretends to be apologetic while saying, '65 damage. Save for half.' Save for half?!? 32 will kill us instantly anyway!

Fortunately, the targets were the paladin and (not so fortunately) 8 innocent soldiers. For the paladin, it's the clearest case of suicide I've ever seen.

After it's all over and we go to the courtyard and get spontaneous applause because of the lives we did save, the boss says to me, 'Wasn't there one more of you?'

'....No. Just us.'


o_O


Liranys wrote:
The Shining Fool wrote:
He opted for febreeze instead of a shower

OMG, I played in a game with a guy like that once.

When he plays a character, he plays it Min/Max all the way...

With a hygene skill rating of zero. Of course way back then it was a can of lysol (in the days BF).

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The most annoying gamer in the world. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.