| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently everyone here hates me...
After further review the thread would have been much friendlier and much more interesting if it was about games you don't like.
Maybe so but that is not the point
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently everyone here hates me...
I didn't say I hated you. I only dislike it when players refuse to play cooperatively. I can deal with most other stuff, but sinking the party is not something I can deal with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a list of players I despise with every fiber of my being:
1. That one guy who can't use his inside voice and wastes everyone's turns talking.
2. The "If it has stats, we can kill it" metagamer.
3. "Detect first, smite second, ask questions later" paladins. Also known as "Lawlful Good"
4. Creep who makes every female at the table uncomfortable to the point of leaving.
5. Anyone whose character concept is a "Psionic Duergar Monk with Zen Archery" or a "Mermaid Magus with wings" or "The ancient Thassilonean Wizard awakened from cryostasis" or any variation of "My character is a pre-packaged Mary Sue with a half-assed backstory."
6. Players who abuse RAW (read as written) to pull off crazy gimmick character builds, or complain when you house rule something that by RAW doesn't do a character justice (ex. wizards and casting prestige classes).
And my personal most hated kind of gamer:
7. The player who has issues outside the game which they bring to the table without anyone's permission. Often can be seen belittling other party members or throwing tantrums when their characters get shafted, only to refuses help on the grounds that they "don't care" or would rather be doing something else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Telling me you bought the books and deserve special consideration for your work as a dm will fall on deaf ours with my group. All of us have been dms at least once. We never asked or wanted to be treated special. A person who takes the mantle of the DM also takes with it all the responsabilites. No one is forcing anyone to run the game.
This 100 times over. Its why our group rotates DMs with the party every time we finish a campaign. You cannot effectively become the dungeon master until you share the same burden as the player characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I put up with all of you.
What? You never even let me finish my sen
5. Anyone whose character concept is a "Psionic Duergar Monk with Zen Archery" or a "Mermaid Magus with wings" or "The ancient Thassilonean Wizard awakened from cryostasis" or any variation of "My character is a pre-packaged Mary Sue with a half-assed backstory."
does a terminally anemic but wealthy young nymph blooded puppeteer who acts sweet on the surface as she manipulates others in a sadistically demeaning manner count?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who cant roleplay what they put on their paper.
If you're Int 7- but still want to say smart things in game, don't say them like Sherlock Holmes, try to tell it like Pinky! (Pinky & The Brain).
If you're Cha 7- but still want to talk to people try to use rude or bad words, or be really awkward. Especially if you dumped Int too.
If you're Wis 7- try to be short-sighted, shallow or otherwise do things with little or no foresight.
Common need not always be your primary language. If your Int is low it is totally viable that you talk Common like an immigrant but your main language fluently. This is especially true of races with racial languages.
I also dislike lumps.
People who never learn the system, even after 10 years of play.
Intentionally destructive players.
Players who desire the spotlight but always fail to grab the mic when it's tossed in their lap.
PFS people who make horrible tactical choices in combat. When the team has 4 archers/ranged characters obscuring mist is the very worst spell to cast in the middle of the enemy team.
.
Mind you I can play with anyone who has a mild understanding of the rules, so long as they are fun to be around in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Best way to get people at work to stop eating my lunch is to leave notes telling them don't or ill hate them!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what cracks me up is when anyone tries to claim that loligoth "fetishism" or interest is not treading a highly questionable path. It's as if they do not understand where the term "Lolita" in that regard comes from, and why it is a questionable path.
Or to quote the Bard Sting - "He starts to shake he starts to cough just like the man in that book by Nabokov"
This is fairly true. With our group, it tends to trigger a lot of uncomfortable past problems in people's lives. Add onto that the number of past instances where that path went from questionable to "Hey, is that Chris Hanson at the door?"
It's one of those things where if you've had these problems in the past with players your ears immediately perk when someone starts with lolita, loligoth, or indications therein. No, not everyone does it. But .. well, there are a reason why there are sterotypes and warning signs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Unlocking thread—with a caveat. I've renamed the thread title to hopefully move the discussion in a more positive (but still likely vent-filled) direction. It's okay to not like things—it's not okay to make it personal.
I suck at not getting moderated! Sorry, Liz!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My FACE is inevitable!
... sorry.
oh what game styles I dont like. well. thats different...
Battle mat. Wargame. Low/no magic. Quadratic. Storming the beaches of normandy with a spoon. Cthulhu. Any campaign where the party is expected to spend most of their lives miserable and downtrodden. Games where the worldtheme takes precedence over character choices.
Any non super hero Savage Worlds game (I don't like spending all of my time and effort to be mediocre at something), as well as pre 4th edition shadowrun. I don't like the constantly having to refer to a completely different rule for something every time anything happens ever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently everyone here hates me...I didn't say I hated you. I only dislike it when players refuse to play cooperatively. I can deal with most other stuff, but sinking the party is not something I can deal with.
it's cool. I have done just about everything in this thread once or twice with a few notable exceptions. Many of the things mentioned here get my goat too, but it's not worth flipping a table over, something everyone should consider.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lose more players that way. ..
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Unlocking thread...
Easily the most amazingly moderate and mature piece of moderation I have seen on this board. Kudos Liz.
does a terminally anemic but wealthy young nymph blooded puppeteer who acts sweet on the surface as she manipulates others in a sadistically demeaning manner count?
5. Anyone whose character concept is a "Psionic Duergar Monk with Zen Archery" or a "Mermaid Magus with wings" or "The ancient Thassilonean Wizard awakened from cryostasis" or any variation of "My character is a pre-packaged Mary Sue with a half-assed backstory."
I'm okay with characters that have a build and playstyle which meshes well with party balance. As long as she isn't a true blooded nymph with all the stat blocks (including blinding beauty and unearthly grace) and so long as she doesn't try to split the party she's fine. Monster PCs in a non-monster campaign tend to ruin the mood for everyone else playing a character race.
In my early days of playing 3.5 I had a player who really badly wanted to play a nymph char. She proceeded to make the party blind with her "blinding beauty" ability and trumped the encounter with druid spells and incredibly high AC. Needless to say I never let PCs play as monster races with high AC and spells anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I not a fan of players insisting on playing evil (or acting like immoral ass**** or playing "neutral-badass" just to impress other players).
I find the enjoyment of doing depraved things disturbing at best, loathsome in most cases.
I can understand (and enjoy) characters struggling against their worst nature, or going into a momentary fit of madness, but there needs to be an intent of redemption somewhere.
|
If you came to my game table with this request
I want to play a terminally anemic but wealthy young nymph blooded puppeteer who acts sweet on the surface as she manipulates others in a sadistically demeaning manner…
This is how I would handle your request,
First, you don’t actually mean to say your character is “Terminally Anemic,” right? Because that would mean that we would have to manage the possibility of your character dying, with no possibility of a save, at any given moment, and I don’t see how that would be conducive to the party you are joining being successful. Now if you mean she “appears” Terminally Anemic, in a way that is meant to describe how she looks, that’s fine.
Second, by wealthy do you mean you will select the appropriate Trait to represent your character’s starting wealth? There are rules for that. If you are asking for your character to have access to more wealth than is normally allowed to starting characters within the rules, then I have to say no, as it creates an unmanageable factor that places a burden on the other player characters. If you want to role play your character as if she is wealthy, even though she has only the same resources as the other player characters, then that is fine.
Your character can be young, but not below the age of consent as defined by the setting (as I do not normally allow players to play “children” in my settings unless the setting is specifically aimed at a “children themed” adventure.
We are going to have to talk about what you think “nymph-blooded” means, as a role playing trope, it is fine that you are “nymph-blooded.” However, as I suggested earlier, no advantages to your character will be allowed beyond those that are available through standard character creation rules, traits, and feat selection.
You can be a puppeteer, in name only, or you can put ranks into that as a profession. We might even find a way to incorporate this into the adventure even if I didn't have it planned that way.
You can act as sweet as you...
I would simply say NO.
|
|
I would say no to a terminally anemic but wealthy young nymph blooded puppeteer who acts sweet on the surface as she manipulates others in a sadistically demeaning manner…
Right of the bat.
I would be prone to accept a little less ridiculous concept, like a really pale, "wealthy" human child with nymph blood thrown in, who is a puppereer (perform or manipulator?) and who behaves like a well-adjusted sociopath.
Since I generally run good campaigns, their life expectancy would probably be around the same as a life expectancy of a snowball thrown in a vat of molten iron, but if the player roleplayed the character well, and didn't cause trouble for the party, I'd be perfectly fine with it.
But since I provide my players with a sheet of stuff that is outright banned, stuff that is frowned upon and stuff that they must roleplay REALLY well to pull off, with (to me) reasonable explanations of why, I believe that a person who comes to my game with a catfolk tsundere rogue who wants to rob everything, will find the door shown to them really quickly.
EDIT: Oh, also, this applies to my game only. If I play in someone else's game, I may give my opinion on it, but I will not give another player any grief over their character concept. In or out of game.
Right now I am playing a space opera FATE game with one anthropomorphic cat and a kitsune (yes, I roll my eyes, but I don't say anything)