Types of game styles you don't like


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Liranys wrote:
memorax wrote:


Gamers who like playing characters with high stats and really low dump stats. The 20 Con and Str with 5 Int and Cha types. Who then want little or no penalty. Or who try to get around it by pumping points into skills. I used to really dislike that. Even disallowed that in my games. Now I made a new houserule. Put a 5 int and 5 Cha. The Str and Con are frozen at 16. So go ahead and pump as many points into social skills at first level. Your character is offscreen roleplaying going around talking to people and getting better in social situations at the expense of becoming tougher and stronger.
I have never dumped a stat below 7 and never dumped more than one stat below 10. I also don't like point buy systems, but that's me. I generally use stat arrays for my one shot games and roll stats for my campaigns (haven't run one of those in a while though, no time)

The only time I ever dumped stats was when I played an old lady. I specifically dumped her STR and DEX (with additional penalties thanks to the "old age" modifiers) so the stats could convey a sense of physical feebleness. It turned out to be a really fun character to roleplay, with the added bonus of being one of the most optimized casters I had ever built.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Splode wrote:


The only time I ever dumped stats was when I played an old lady. I specifically dumped her STR and DEX (with additional penalties thanks to the "old age" modifiers) so the stats could convey a sense of physical feebleness. It turned out to be a really fun character to roleplay, with the added bonus of being one of the most optimized casters I had ever built.

I've dumped charisma to 7 once, but she had a good reason. Very scarred, cynical and was raised by a hermit. Definitely not the "Face" of the group. :D

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me in as a fellow fan of rolling or arrays and disliker of pointbuy. My preferred method is to have everyone roll arrays, the GM collects them all up, picks a handful, and lets each player pick which array they like to use, then players arrange as they see fit.


I could have sworn you were a point buy aficionado, Orthos...am I getting you confused with someone else?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Eh, if we're going that far I'd rather the GM roll up a couple sets and let the players pick from them rather than waste time with the players rolling. But I can see how some people want to roll their own numbers, even if they may get vetoed.


weeps single tear

Toz, we disagree here...

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I'm the pointbuy guy you were probably thinking about. When I played in mdt's game, he rolled three sets and let us pick from them. It wasn't the best, but it worked. (Especially with the sets he rolled.) In any event, I liked it better than rolling my own set and getting screwed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I just like rolling stats, it's fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Eh, if we're going that far I'd rather the GM roll up a couple sets and let the players pick from them rather than waste time with the players rolling. But I can see how some people want to roll their own numbers, even if they may get vetoed.

Everyone rolls a set, everyone uses any of the sets rolled.

The only drawback is that the power tends to go up as the number of players does and works poorly if you've only got one or two players.
Choose your rolling method based on number of players.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

We've been doing 5d6 drop the lowest for our APs.

Yeah.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
I could have sworn you were a point buy aficionado, Orthos...am I getting you confused with someone else?

Must be. I have never run a pointbuy game, not once in my almost 11 years of playing and 9 years of GMing, and I can't recall ever being playerside in one either. The only exception is in Paizo PbPs, where every one I've been in has been pointbuy.

Any love I might have once had for pointbuy was burned out of me after years of playing NWN, and discovering that in PnP you actually rolled the stats individually rather than having to pull from a point pool, and thus you could actually afford to have smart and charismatic fighters and strong wizards and such.

We've always used 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1s. Recently the "roll arrays then let everybody choose from a set to avoid people getting screwed because their dice sucked today" was added. But that's the only change since I started playing.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Eh, if we're going that far I'd rather the GM roll up a couple sets and let the players pick from them rather than waste time with the players rolling. But I can see how some people want to roll their own numbers, even if they may get vetoed.

I wouldn't be opposed to it and actually suggested I just handle it myself, especially since I tend to get good arrays, but my players all want to be involved =)

Paizo Glitterati Robot

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a baiting post and the replies to it. Pathfinder isn't the only game that people play that come to our forums, and stirring up the pot with old drama isn't necessary here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of our DM's has us roll a 6 by 6 grid of 4d6,keep the best 3, and we can pick any set of diagonal, vertical, or horizontal we want. takes a little longer, but makes for interesting choices.


TheMonocleRogue wrote:


2. The "If it has stats, we can kill it" metagamer.

in my opinion, everything living can be killed regardless if it has stats or not. If you are playing an AP and the game does not give the npc stats that a pc attacks, it is up to the DM to give that npc stats. I don't care if the npc has ten thousand HP, it can be killed, to just ignore all damage and not give stats would be to say the npc is invinvicible and I wouldn't play with that DM. Not that I would try to take down the NPC at a low level if it was powerful regardless if I knew its stats or not, but my argument stands, everything should be able to die even if it took a really long time.


DoubleGold wrote:
TheMonocleRogue wrote:


2. The "If it has stats, we can kill it" metagamer.
in my opinion, everything living can be killed regardless if it has stats or not. If you are playing an AP and the game does not give the npc stats that a pc attacks, it is up to the DM to give that npc stats. I don't care if the npc has ten thousand HP, it can be killed, to just ignore all damage and not give stats would be to say the npc is invinvicible and I wouldn't play with that DM. Not that I would try to take down the NPC at a low level if it was powerful regardless if I knew its stats or not, but my argument stands, everything should be able to die even if it took a really long time.

I believe that's more in reference of killing Gods and what not rather than some random NPC.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They mean gods and other insanely powerful creatures.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
DoubleGold wrote:
TheMonocleRogue wrote:


2. The "If it has stats, we can kill it" metagamer.
in my opinion, everything living can be killed regardless if it has stats or not. If you are playing an AP and the game does not give the npc stats that a pc attacks, it is up to the DM to give that npc stats. I don't care if the npc has ten thousand HP, it can be killed, to just ignore all damage and not give stats would be to say the npc is invinvicible and I wouldn't play with that DM. Not that I would try to take down the NPC at a low level if it was powerful regardless if I knew its stats or not, but my argument stands, everything should be able to die even if it took a really long time.
I believe that's more in reference of killing Gods and what not rather than some random NPC.

Right. I wouldn't play with at DM who was making some regular NPC invincible but making a God invincible makes sense.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes? It's a god?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2d6+6 7 times, drop the lowest roll, here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
2d6+6 7 times, drop the lowest roll, here.

If I were rolling like that, I guarantee I'd have more 1's and 2's than any other number, because dice hate me. Now, when I'm rolling for Kobolds ate my baby, what do I roll? First off. Box Cars... because my dice hate me!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Yes? It's a god?

Hama, when someone asks if you're a God, you say YES.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
DoubleGold wrote:
Not that I would try to take down the NPC at a low level if it was powerful regardless if I knew its stats or not, but my argument stands, everything should be able to die even if it took a really long time.

The biggest problem with someone thinking 'if it has stats we can kill it' is that it ignores the fact that being able to be killed has nothing to do with your character being able to kill it. :)


what i generally would prefer to do is have everyone roll 9 sets of 2d6+6 drop the lowest 3 sets, player chooses the array they prefer and arranges the scores as desired, even if multiple players choose the same set, it is fine

i also pad out extra feats at 1st level by giving 4 feats instead of 1. but you don't get free traits. getting traits requires you to spend one of those 4 feats to take the additional traits feat

in exchange, because i opened up every bodies favored class bonuses to everyone and give everyone +2 to 2 attributes of their choice in place of current racial stat modifiers, i give humans +3 additional feats instead of 1 additional feat

while most 1st level characters would have 4 starting feats before class, humans would have 7.

i also give everybody 4 additional skill points per level, 2 of which must be spent on background skills (Craft, Perform, Profession, Knowledge, in some cases, Heal, Sleight of Hand or Handle Animal could be taken for say a doctor, street magician or hound trainer)

i also allow flaws from UA or D&D Wiki if they are actually flaws that actually impact that character and are taken within reason, for example no Taking Tsundere 5 times to lower your charisma from 12 to 2 for 5 extra feats.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:
Hama wrote:
Yes? It's a god?
Hama, when someone asks if you're a God, you say YES.

You don't have to capitalize god you know, unless it's the christian one.

And whenever someone is exasperated and says something along the lines of "OH GOD" i say "Yes? you called?"


I use two rolling methods that I let the players choose at char-gen. I hate point buy, except in one circumstance (which I'll post at the end of this post).

Method 1: Everyone rolls 4d6, drop lowest, re-roll 1s. Players then get to choose which array they want to use, and multiple people can choose the same array. Assign as desired.

Method 2: I take a 3 by 3 grid, str dex and con columns, int wis and cha rows. Let players roll 9 times (4d6, reroll 1, drop lowest), and fill in their grid with what they roll. Once a number is input, it's locked in position. After the grid is full, they choose one of the numbers in a stat's row or column to assign to a stat. once it's chosen, the number is locked into that stat, and you cannot use it for the cross-row/column. Example, someone rolls a 18 in Str/Cha, and decided to put it into Strength. That 18 is now unavailable for Cha.

Exception: Only exception to point-buy for me is when i run, and want to run something silly. I haven't been able to do this yet, but I'll typically use one of the higher end point buys (I don't allow dump stats below 8, and no maximum pre-race over 18) since my games tend to be a little brutal. Left over points are saved, and on each level up, one point is added to the pool. On level up, one may spend the saved points to increase one of their stats, though if you increased it via the normal gain at lvl 4 for example, it'll count as that and cost extra accordingly.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I've done the grid. In practice, it only gave the players 3 extra rolls to drop rather than 1. Power level increased, no low scores occurred.

My preferred method at this point is just to have players pick their ability scores with the constraint that nothing can be below 10 or over 17 before racial mods. I haven't had a chance to test this out yet however.


Hama wrote:
lorenlord wrote:
Hama wrote:
Yes? It's a god?
Hama, when someone asks if you're a God, you say YES.

You don't have to capitalize god you know, unless it's the christian one.

My phone does it automatically.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Religiist phone xD


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I've done the grid. In practice, it only gave the players 3 extra rolls to drop rather than 1. Power level increased, no low scores occurred.

My preferred method at this point is just to have players pick their ability scores with the constraint that nothing can be below 10 or over 17 before racial mods. I haven't had a chance to test this out yet however.

I tried this, only I said nothing could be below three post-racial or above 18 pre-racial. It worked pretty much perfectly.

I only tried it in a game where I knew all of your players and had played with them before, though. I haven't tried it in any campaign with someone knew to the group (or to the game, for that matter).


I really don't like one trick ponies, people who do the same thing every single time then throw a hissy fit if their action doesn't work.

Something that really annoyed me was one player who was always so slow in doing every single action. Every time it came to his turn he wasn't paying attention, would ask everyone else for suggestions or what he should do, when he stopped being a speed bump he'd then do something completely different to what everyone else suggested.

The biggest thing that annoyed me was how he rolled his dice, he'd pick up a single dice - hold it for a second, throw it into his other hand - hold it for a second, then he'd roll it.
His little process would take about 3 seconds to roll a single die and he'd always roll every... single... die.. individually...

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like people who have no idea what they're playing, or always play the same thing.

I want people to play a character, not themselves.

If I ask something like, "So how'd you get into this business" I'd like more than just a blank look and a shrug, please.

Also, if you're a fire-loving mage/warrior who is bold, arrogant, defiant, the only person on the world who is allowed to judge others, make your own weapons and armor, and feel you're obviously the star of the game, I invite you to play elsewhere because I've already played with six incarnations of you. Roll up something different.


Zerombr wrote:

I don't like people who have no idea what they're playing, or always play the same thing.

I want people to play a character, not themselves.

If I ask something like, "So how'd you get into this business" I'd like more than just a blank look and a shrug, please.

Also, if you're a fire-loving mage/warrior who is bold, arrogant, defiant, the only person on the world who is allowed to judge others, make your own weapons and armor, and feel you're obviously the star of the game, I invite you to play elsewhere because I've already played with six incarnations of you. Roll up something different.

How about a crazy rogue packrat who can't resist picking something up if it looks like it could possibly be useful? (After checking for traps of course). Or a Cynical Cleric who can't hit the broad side of a barn but is pretty good at keeping her party healed up and has found interesting ways of influencing a fight by using cantrips. :)

Sovereign Court

The second one falls through after level 3 except for healing. Also everything remotely useful in the "gear" section of the CRB or Ultimate Equipment becomes completely useless after level 5. Except sunrods.


Hama wrote:
The second one falls through after level 3 except for healing. Also everything remotely useful in the "gear" section of the CRB or Ultimate Equipment becomes completely useless after level 5. Except sunrods.

Healing and Buffing. She's really the party support. And you'd be surprised what you can do with random things. It depends on how your DM does things I guess, but we managed some really unique solutions to problems just using random junk she's picked up places. :)


Artemis Moonstar wrote:


Yandere = A character that is sweet and compassionate with their love-interest one moment, then violent and (varying levels of) crazed the next. A good example would be that psycho girlfriend that seemed super sweet with that home-baked cake, then starts destroying your apartment with a...

In the unfortunate event that you know of a Yandere Lass who has the Knife Master archetype plus the Scent ability along with the Improved Unarmed Combat and Catch Off-guard feats, your only viable option would be to withdraw and run (and hope there wasn't any tracking ability included).

Sovereign Court

We play by RAW so junk is junk after level 5 with only actually useful things remaining useful, like rope and stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
We play by RAW so junk is junk after level 5 with only actually useful things remaining useful, like rope and stuff.

Ahh, we use the RAW as guidelines rather than set in stone rules. If someone asks if they can do such and such using these items, a la macguyver and the DM thinks that it could be possible, he has us roll to see if it works and we either succeed or fail based on that and our own creativity. It makes coming up with off the wall solutions a lot of fun.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I dislike people who have lists of people they dislike.

Cannot agree more strongly, this thread and the contributions to it make me very, very sad. People are to be handled on a case by case basis...interest based descimination isn't more noble than skin color,or gender or any other irrational reason to hate on people.

Shadow Lodge

Immensely helpful if you're wanting to make sure you get together a group of like-interested individuals though.


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I dislike people who have lists of people they dislike.
Cannot agree more strongly, this thread and the contributions to it make me very, very sad. People are to be handled on a case by case basis...interest based descimination isn't more noble than skin color,or gender or any other irrational reason to hate on people.

I don't dislike players due to interests. I don't even dislike them due to play styles. I do dislike people who are disruptive to a game, but that's a case by case basis. The problem with generalities is that, while some are true, it makes people who do like those types of things but do not fall under the specific generality feel unwanted or disliked, when it's the stereotype that some people dislike and/or have had bad experiences with.

It's like me and Psionics. I am loath to learn about the system because of a bad experience I had with a player a long time ago.

Sovereign Court

Liranys wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I dislike people who have lists of people they dislike.
Cannot agree more strongly, this thread and the contributions to it make me very, very sad. People are to be handled on a case by case basis...interest based descimination isn't more noble than skin color,or gender or any other irrational reason to hate on people.

I don't dislike players due to interests. I don't even dislike them due to play styles. I do dislike people who are disruptive to a game, but that's a case by case basis. The problem with generalities is that, while some are true, it makes people who do like those types of things but do not fall under the specific generality feel unwanted or disliked, when it's the stereotype that some people dislike and/or have had bad experiences with.

It's like me and Psionics. I am loath to learn about the system because of a bad experience I had with a player a long time ago.

I don't see the point in it. There's magic. Also, most players whom I had access to used psionics in order to work around magic. I don't allow that.


Hama wrote:
Also everything remotely useful in the "gear" section of the CRB or Ultimate Equipment becomes completely useless after level 5. Except sunrods.

Alchemist fire and Acid is useful until high level, unless all the party is spellcasters. We still use Antitoxin at level 14.

Not many spellcasters stop needing a Spell Component Pouch and some will need a spellbook thru Epic. Alchemist need a alchemy crafting kit. And so forth.

251 to 300 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Types of game styles you don't like All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.