101 Reasons to be booted from a table.


Gamer Life General Discussion

401 to 437 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community & Digital Content Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts. Debates about firearms don't belong in this thread or subforum.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts. Debates about firearms don't belong in this thread or subforum.

135. Calling down the glittery wrath of the Robot.


Rysky wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts. Debates about firearms don't belong in this thread or subforum.
135. Calling down the glittery wrath of the Robot.

136. Not being as liberal as the Robot.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts. Debates about firearms don't belong in this thread or subforum.
135. Calling down the glittery wrath of the Robot.
136. Not being as liberal as the Robot.

Nah, the robot's fair. We were off-topic and the whole discussion got deleted, not just one side.


137: Picking on one player relentlessly. Sure in my group there is kidding around...but this guy took it too far. Everybody else is too 'nice' to tell this to the guys face so I had to do it...can't say I felt too bad about it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

138: Taking at least ten minutes on your turn to decide what you're going to do. This happened with a guy I played with every single time. It was agravating.


Domestichauscat wrote:
138: Taking at least ten minutes on your turn to decide what you're going to do. This happened with a guy I played with every single time. It was agravating.

The real problem with that dude isn't that he takes 10 minutes, but that he doesn't even start to think about his actions until his turn.


BigDTBone wrote:
Domestichauscat wrote:
138: Taking at least ten minutes on your turn to decide what you're going to do. This happened with a guy I played with every single time. It was agravating.
The real problem with that dude isn't that he takes 10 minutes, but that he doesn't even start to think about his actions until his turn.

Exactly. We told him to "think about what you're going to do when other people are doing their turns." His response was always "I need to know the exact situation of the fight before I can start thinking on what to do." So he wanted to see where everyone was in the battle and their state of affairs exactly on his turn. He said that he has planned ahead before, but someone always seems to mess up his plans with moving in a spot that doesn't work for him. So he just kind of started to plan on his turn only, and he always wanted to do something ornate and creative in the vein of MacGuyver. So yeah, his overly creative play style slowed the game down good.

And the thing is he paid perfect attention to the game the whole time too. It's just, wow.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

139. The " you agreed to allow my character at the start of the game. So you can't disallow it later" even if it's overpowered may ruin the entire campaign. I had a player who built a character using 3pp and by tweaking Herolab to make it legal. I allowed at first but eventually it was too powerful and unbalanced. I spoke to the player and told him to make something else.

Apparently the player could and would only play that particular character concept. Eventually I had to ask hm to leave. Yes did I agree at the beginning to allow the character as is. Which I admit was s mistake on my part. Was I going to allow one player to ruin a entire campaign and everyone else fun no way. Not to mention when the resident optimizer sends you a email saying " are you insane that build is too powrful". Then chances are good it is.

Which leads me to

Liberty's Edge

140. Trying to make the same character that was disallowed by the DM a second time. Using 3pp which the DM disallowed previously. Re skinning the same character concept with another race and using 3pp again and thinking DM won't notice is a sure way to get banned from a table.


memorax wrote:

139. The " you agreed to allow my character at the start of the game. So you can't disallow it later" even if it's overpowered may ruin the entire campaign. I had a player who built a character using 3pp and by tweaking Herolab to make it legal. I allowed at first but eventually it was too powerful and unbalanced. I spoke to the player and told him to make something else.

Apparently the player could and would only play that particular character concept. Eventually I had to ask hm to leave. Yes did I agree at the beginning to allow the character as is. Which I admit was s mistake on my part. Was I going to allow one player to ruin a entire campaign and everyone else fun no way. Not to mention when the resident optimizer sends you a email saying " are you insane that build is too powrful". Then chances are good it is.

Which leads me to

When allowing 3pp (or allowing a powerful or unpredictable PC period) it's probably not a bad idea to put a caveat of "if this turns out to be unbalanced and/or otherwise problematic I may need to modify things or even ask for a new character completely". It should really go without saying that if a PC is destroying the campaign something will have to change, but at least with the caveat in place talking to the player about their PC is easier since they were explicitly warned prior to playing the character about the tentative nature of the GM's approval.

Although I would only expect a fraction of problems to be avoided by doing this - some people aren't going to accept their PC getting scrapped or hit by the nerf bat, no matter how game ruining the PC is or how clearly the GM made it that the allowance of that PC was subject to change. Going by what you say, I would expect that your player would be one of these people (the paper thin reskinning is a pretty tell tale sign).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts. Debates about firearms don't belong in this thread or subforum.
135. Calling down the glittery wrath of the Robot.
136. Not being as liberal as the Robot.
Nah, the robot's fair. We were off-topic and the whole discussion got deleted, not just one side.

This time, yes, but 136 does bring down the locks around these parts...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It's okay, you guys can put your guns away :-)

Here, hug a tree:-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Perhaps posting in the Pathfinder Confessional thread will help you feel better :-)


captain yesterday wrote:

It's okay, you guys can put your guns away :-)

Here, hug a tree:-)

Firearms enthusiast and frequently labelled tree-hugger representing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

141. Agreeing to a stealthy approach with the group because it's clear taking on a whole garrison of Zhents as level 3 characters could be a bit much and you have a way in. Then blowing up disguise when at the most inapropraiate and dangerous moment.

142. Making a huge fuss and being generally antagonistic towards other players because you want your stuff AND their stuff too... because it's your god given right and you are not going to let any of these hobos take it away from you...

143. Constant depressing self flagellation about how bad the class you are playing is (Druid, in D&D 3.0, specifically chosen because of what was being said about the druid being OP...) and having a fit every time you fail a roll.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rogar Valertis wrote:
141. Agreeing to a stealthy approach with the group because it's clear taking on a whole garrison of Zhents as level 3 characters could be a bit much and you have a way in. Then blowing up disguise when at the most inapropraiate and dangerous moment.

Do you mean intentionally screwing up the disguise/stealth or just having bad dice? Hopefully it's the former cause the latter is a bit extreme to kick people for.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
141. Agreeing to a stealthy approach with the group because it's clear taking on a whole garrison of Zhents as level 3 characters could be a bit much and you have a way in. Then blowing up disguise when at the most inapropraiate and dangerous moment.
Do you mean intentionally screwing up the disguise/stealth or just having bad dice? Hopefully it's the former cause the latter is a bit extreme to kick people for.

It's the former of course (apparently they considered the stealthy approach "boring" even if it was working and decided to spice things up... without telling anyone beforehand. Then the group suddenly found itself outnumbered and after a bloody battle they were all captured since the GM evidently didn't want to kill the PCs just yet).

By the way all three examples are from the same two people. They got kicked out after doing all of the above during a period lasting several sessions when the group and not only the GM (me) finally deemed them more of a problem than an asset and all attempts at reining in their "exuberance" failed (big promises of correcting themselves that somehow never came true).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
141. Agreeing to a stealthy approach with the group because it's clear taking on a whole garrison of Zhents as level 3 characters could be a bit much and you have a way in. Then blowing up disguise when at the most inapropraiate and dangerous moment.
Do you mean intentionally screwing up the disguise/stealth or just having bad dice? Hopefully it's the former cause the latter is a bit extreme to kick people for.

It's the former of course (apparently they considered the stealthy approach "boring" even if it was working and decided to spice things up... without telling anyone beforehand. Then the group suddenly found itself outnumbered and after a bloody battle they were all captured since the GM evidently didn't want to kill the PCs just yet).

By the way all three examples are from the same two people. They got kicked out after doing all of the above during a period lasting several sessions when the group and not only the GM (me) finally deemed them more of a problem than an asset and all attempts at reining in their "exuberance" failed (big promises of correcting themselves that somehow never came true).

Kinda figured but had to ask since you put "blowing up" instead of just "blowing" so I was thinking Jeez, kicking someone out for rolling a nat 1? Ouch XD


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
141. Agreeing to a stealthy approach with the group because it's clear taking on a whole garrison of Zhents as level 3 characters could be a bit much and you have a way in. Then blowing up disguise when at the most inapropraiate and dangerous moment.
Do you mean intentionally screwing up the disguise/stealth or just having bad dice? Hopefully it's the former cause the latter is a bit extreme to kick people for.

It's the former of course (apparently they considered the stealthy approach "boring" even if it was working and decided to spice things up... without telling anyone beforehand. Then the group suddenly found itself outnumbered and after a bloody battle they were all captured since the GM evidently didn't want to kill the PCs just yet).

By the way all three examples are from the same two people. They got kicked out after doing all of the above during a period lasting several sessions when the group and not only the GM (me) finally deemed them more of a problem than an asset and all attempts at reining in their "exuberance" failed (big promises of correcting themselves that somehow never came true).
Kinda figured but had to ask since you put "blowing up" instead of just "blowing" so I was thinking Jeez, kicking someone out for rolling a nat 1? Ouch XD

Well... As a GM my school of thinking is that "bad dice rolls don't kill player characters, repeated stupid decisions do". I usually tell this to my players beforehand. If you are level 5 character and you are dealing with an ancient blue wyrm who just wants you to fulfill the task at hand for his unfathomable reasons try to play along or find an excuse to back out of the deal, do not try to sneak attack him right after swearing your undying loyalty to him and his cause...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
141. Agreeing to a stealthy approach with the group because it's clear taking on a whole garrison of Zhents as level 3 characters could be a bit much and you have a way in. Then blowing up disguise when at the most inapropraiate and dangerous moment.
Do you mean intentionally screwing up the disguise/stealth or just having bad dice? Hopefully it's the former cause the latter is a bit extreme to kick people for.

It's the former of course (apparently they considered the stealthy approach "boring" even if it was working and decided to spice things up... without telling anyone beforehand. Then the group suddenly found itself outnumbered and after a bloody battle they were all captured since the GM evidently didn't want to kill the PCs just yet).

By the way all three examples are from the same two people. They got kicked out after doing all of the above during a period lasting several sessions when the group and not only the GM (me) finally deemed them more of a problem than an asset and all attempts at reining in their "exuberance" failed (big promises of correcting themselves that somehow never came true).
Kinda figured but had to ask since you put "blowing up" instead of just "blowing" so I was thinking Jeez, kicking someone out for rolling a nat 1? Ouch XD
Well... As a GM my school of thinking is that "bad dice rolls don't kill player characters, repeated stupid decisions do". I usually tell this to my players beforehand. If you are level 5 character and you are dealing with an ancient blue wyrm who just wants you to fulfill the task at hand for his unfathomable reasons try to play along or find an excuse to back out of the deal, do not try to sneak attack him right after swearing your undying loyalty to him and his cause...

... I've actually had something eerily similar happen, though in the player's defense he was new and the GM explained to him "that no, Sneak Attack does not automatically mean you instantly stealth-kill stuff" and then reset to before it happened and we all carried on.

Liberty's Edge

Snowblind wrote:


When allowing 3pp (or allowing a powerful or unpredictable PC period) it's probably not a bad idea to put a caveat of "if this turns out to be unbalanced and/or otherwise problematic I may need to modify things or even ask for a new character completely". It should really go without saying that if a PC is destroying the campaign something will have to change, but at least with the caveat in place talking to the player about their PC is easier since they were explicitly warned prior to playing the character about the tentative nature of the GM's approval.

While I still may allow some 3pp. I will make sure to add the caveat you mentioned in my post. It will make it easier and fair.

Snowblind wrote:


Although I would only expect a fraction of problems to be avoided by doing this - some people aren't going to accept their PC getting scrapped or hit by the nerf bat, no matter how game ruining the PC is or how clearly the GM made it that the allowance of that PC was subject to change. Going by what you say, I would expect that your player would be one of these people (the paper thin reskinning is a pretty tell tale sign).

As both a player and DM I can understand not being happy about having to change a pc. Yet at the same time if I'm allowing the pc to keep his current share of treasure. As well as a rebuild I think it's more than fair. What caused me to ask him to leave was that he had to build the pc his way and only his way. No exceptions. Game breaking or no he wanted that kind of pc. No two ways about it. He did not help himself with asking to use 3pp even when I said no to 3pp the second time around. Finally while I encourage players to give feedback getting what amounts to be a lecture on why I'm a bad DM and person for not allowing his build. Simply because he would in his games. Ended up being the final straw. Feedback is one thing. Giving me a lecture on how I run my game is another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

144: Failing to leave your out-of-game grievances at the door, when told be the GM that he expects all people to leave their out-of-game grievances at the door.

Guy was really upset because he had been moved out of our dorm for sexual harassment, and was complaining about it while waiting for the GM to return with our pizza. I tried to be rational, but he was driving me nuts and he eventually stormed off, with my girlfriend having to keep me from freaking out--I'm bipolar, and at the time was off my meds, and this kid really had a tendency to mess with my head. Long story short it turns out that he was actually falsely accused, but his incessant treatment of it was a problem on its own.

145: Using obnoxious modern vernacular when asked not to by the DM for purposes of roleplaying.

Same guy, insisted on playing a Psion in a game without other psionic characters--something similar was already mentioned for Gunslingers--and was helped to make a backstory by the two veterans of the group, me and the GM. He was a recovering Pesh addict, who instead smoked marijuana like... made from potatoes? I don't know. He basically played a stoner in a bathrobe, and made references in character to things like Family Guy. At some tables that's okay, but you should cut it out when the GM asks.

146: Getting angry at other players for making "insensitive" jokes at the table, before immediately making ACTUALLY insensitive jokes about the same subject.

Again, same guy. The GM and I were buds, and this player was the GM's roommate. We had a common joke of whenever one of us screwed up at something, we would tell the other that they sucked. Just that they sucked. Nothing else, not referencing any genitals at all. He got angry at us for this, and the next day at DnD went around making jokes about the funniest thing to come from the Sochi Olympics was "straight figure skaters".

Needless to say, he hasn't been invited back to our group. He's found a bunch of people playing DnD* that are all pretty new, so more power to him.

*In this case, being a pretty crappy homebrew game which I was chastised for giving my honest review of when asked for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

147) cheating on his girlfriend (who is in the group) with another member of the group, and being so obvious about it she hits him in the head with a cast iron skillet and the cops get called :-)

She is welcome back, the other two are not :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stories like these boggle my mind. I've never had the need or even the urge to ban someone from my games. Lucky, I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I play with my wife and kids only now, less drama, also that group was an anomaly, gamers in my area are generally a docile and pleasant sort of person :-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I play with my wife and kids only now, less drama, also that group was an anomaly, gamers in my area are generally a docile and pleasant sort of person :-)

Ooo...and idea...

148: The player is getting bad grades.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I play with my wife and kids only now, less drama, also that group was an anomaly, gamers in my area are generally a docile and pleasant sort of person :-)

Ooo...and idea...

148: The player is getting bad grades.

Captain Yesterday: "I told you to clean your room, young lady. Look at this mess! You're grounded."

Little Lady Yesterday: "So what! I don't care. Ugh, I can't wait until I'm 18, then I'm so out of here."

CY: "You lose a level."

LLY: "WHAT?! NOO, I'M SORRY DADDY, I'LL BE GOOD, I SWEAR!!!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You forgot at least 3 doors being slammed, not mention scapegoating little brother "But Tiny T-Rex played with them too!" "He's 4" "So! You don't understand! I'm almost a teenager!"

That last one was cute when she started saying it when she was 3 each year since adds just that much more foreboding every time she says it :-)

I'm scared

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
I'm scared

You're avatar has the perfect expression for this right now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

While I would never boot for bad grades, I have suspended campaigns for lack of effort in school :-)

It wasn't fun but I'll do it again if I have to :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

CY: "You lose a level."

LLY: "WHAT?! NOO, I'M SORRY DADDY, I'LL BE GOOD, I SWEAR!!!"

I'm SO using this if the opportunity presents itself...mine has to learn how to play first...


Rynjin wrote:

Any animal that ever existed, exists, and ever will exist MAY attack you at any time.

Generally speaking though, none of them, especially cats, will do so unless you mess with them.

If you f!!~ with my cat, you deserve to get scratched.

What you're really saying is "lock up your pets when I'm around" which is a reasonable request I suppose, but it shouldn't be because the animal MAY attack you unless the animal has a history of violence against people, which is a whole different story that seems to have no bearing on this conversation.

I am absolutely gob smacked that saying "don't punt the f&##ing cat" is meeting such strong resistance.

If you kicked my cat for ANY reason, you wouldn't just get kicked out of my house (and the game), I would at best never want to see your cat kicking face around again.

...I say as one of the cats hops up on the armrest of my chair, making it hard to continue typing.

I have two cats and a dog. One of our cats can get somewhat annoying so he generally gets put up in our room during games. The other occasionally jumps on the table looking for attention. Our dog is a border collie so she loves all the attention she can get. I put a disclaimer on the notice on my games about pets. If they bother you or you are allergic, you have the choice not to attend. If you do, you are a guest in my home and I expect you to act as such. In a city of 1.4 million people there are lots of games so there are plenty of other places to play. Kick my cat, abuse my wife or my property and you will be asked to leave and not come back. Simple as that. I also smoke, but never at the table and that disclaimer is also posted.


149: Not bringing your character sheet to the game. Asked her how many arrows she had left. She said enough. When I asked to look at her character sheet she admitted she forgot it. Had to back the whole game up to the beginning of the session. Told her to bring her character sheet next time. She quit. She never played tabletop games again.

401 to 437 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / 101 Reasons to be booted from a table. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.