Things that bother you


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Only in a system with rules for that ;). Also, it gives your rogue types someone to steal from.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Waterhammer wrote:
Goblins and kobolds that move too quickly for their size.

Nonono, it's not that they're too fast, it's that the other small races are too slow for no other reason except "muh realism."


Paul Ryan wrote:
Generic Villain wrote:
...Is witches exploding heads, like, a trope that I'm just totally oblivious too? Granted I'm oblivious to a lot, so it certainly could be.

It makes me think of a scene from a Discworld book, where one witch, Mrs Ogg was having trouble getting past her son, who's a guard. Then the second witch, Granny Weatherwax, shows up and the guard snapped to obey her. When Mrs Ogg asked why her friend didn't have trouble, Granny's answer was that her son knew his mother wouldn't make his damned-fool head explode.

When Mrs Ogg said that she knew Granny Weatherwax wouldn't do that, her answer was that Mrs Ogg didn't know that, all she knew was that Granny hadn't done it - yet.

Wyrd Sisters, right?


Lady Ladile wrote:

It bothers me that I've yet to hit it big in the lotto and realize my dream of playing Pathfinder on a beach somewhere.

.....

Okay, slightly more seriously the whole CLW thing for PFS kinda bugs me. Why wouldn't a martial class buy potions, that they're guaranteed to be able to use, instead of buying a wand and hoping they're paired with someone that can cast the spell? I know I know, it makes things so much easier from a metagame perspective (and the odds of *actually* not being paired with a CLW caster are pretty darn small) but in-game it always struck me a bit odd.

*edit* Darn it Kindle, it's metagame not methane! I don't even know what a methane perspective would be or look like...

Google methane planet and select images.

That will give you a methane breathers perspective. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

One evil (or Neutral going on evil) character in a party of heroes. Once is fun, but we don't need a Dr Zachery Smith in every party. Particularly annoying when players want minion raising or demon binding necromancers and diabolists and other obviously disturbing characters. Save it for an evil campaign or be a DM.

Edit: Equally bothered by Good players in evil campaigns and law abiding pirate hunters in A pirate game.

The trick is to play the evil person as someone working toward good ends, but willing to use means that the party at large would have problems with. This is my path if I decide to play evil in a party of heroes, that's I'm the one who will cross that line they're not willing to cross, and I'll do it on my own, without involving as long as I can get away with it.

Example: In Exalted, almost everyone was playing Heroic types, and I decided to play the bad guy. Now, I'm on their side, we're working toward the same goal, but I was ruthless about it. Need a new ally, but he requires that we take down a merchant prince of Ash? I'm on it, and not only did I crush that merchant prince, but brought the others to heel, all while the party was down below in the catacombs searching for magical artifact 109.

Now, eventually, the party got their back up about it, and accused me of being a monster, to which I went, "You know what? You're right. I'm a monster. But, let me ask you: How many slaves have any of you freed? None, that was me. And how many corrupt rulers have any of you crushed? None, that was me on all counts. And how have you provided for our troops that we need to free kingdoms from tyrrany? You haven't, that's me again. So yes, I'm a monster, I will destroy any obstacle in our way, and I've done more good in this world than all of you combined."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

YOU KNOW WHAT BOTHERS ME, BATTLE BROTHERS? NECROMANCERS! ALWAYS USING THEIR VILE SORCERY TO RAISE UP UNDEAD MONSTROSITIES TO TROUBLE THE LIVING. LET THE FORUMS RIGHTEOUS DEAD REST UNDISTURBED BY YOUR FOUL MAGIC, YOU DISGUSTING GRAVEROBBERS!


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The term "Attack of Opportunity". Long, complicated, and hard to say quickly. It's a pain to explain to a new player why they shouldn't move away from the monster when even the term itself is needlessly tricky.

We homebrewed AoOs back in 1e. We just called them "Free shots" at a retreating foe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dice stacking. Every time someone does it the dice fall down over and over until they get it right, then they knock them down again. It's so frakkin' distracting. One of my players is the 13 year old daughter of a long, long time friend and gaming partner. He spoils her rotten and doesn't really do a lot to discipline her and she stacks dice all. the. time. I finally had to just tell her myself to please stop doing it.

Whew... I guess that bothered me more than I realized.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't know why, but perhaps some level of cognitive dysfunction at work if my dice aren't 'lined up right' I don't feel like I'm playing right?

d4 d6 d8 d10 d% d12 d20

And repeat for each set, and if there's multiples in a given set they can sit next to each other.

...same doesn't seem to apply for GMing, though admittedly I'm too busy doing other things to worry about that?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just Saturday I was talking to the GM of one of our games and was reminded of a thing that bothers me:
Spells that are shared by more than one class, and spell descriptions that make it sound like everyone, everywhere casts that spell exactly the same way.

Seriously, in the real world people from the same backgrounds don't all make food the same way. So why would all races, classes, and nationalities cast spells the same way, or know the same standard list of spells?


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The term "Attack of Opportunity". Long, complicated, and hard to say quickly. It's a pain to explain to a new player why they shouldn't move away from the monster when even the term itself is needlessly tricky.
We homebrewed AoOs back in 1e. We just called them "Free shots" at a retreating foe.

Actually, a free strike at the back of a foe fleeing combat is BTB in AD&D 1E.


Oh yeah.. haven't played 1e since 1993. I clean forgot that.


Corathonv2 wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The term "Attack of Opportunity". Long, complicated, and hard to say quickly. It's a pain to explain to a new player why they shouldn't move away from the monster when even the term itself is needlessly tricky.
We homebrewed AoOs back in 1e. We just called them "Free shots" at a retreating foe.
Actually, a free strike at the back of a foe fleeing combat is BTB in AD&D 1E.

Since attacking a fleeing opponent is usually considered dishonorable, would using that strategy be a potential trip point for a paladin to fall? :3


Back in those days we didn't trouble ourselves with such things.. lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...people actually played paladins back then?

...personal play experience was decidedly slanted against ever seeing one in play...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Being new to the game and following my DM's lead, playing a Paladin then was completely wrong. If they sensed evil they attacked and killed it without hesitation, whether or not an evil act was being committed. Even walking into a tavern, sensing evil, our Paladins would leap into the midst of the room and kill anything that so much as looked like it was just having a bad day.

I've since learned better.

*This post in no way endorses or condones turning this into a Paladin thread. Please return to your stations*


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Terrinam wrote:

Since attacking a fleeing opponent is usually considered dishonorable, would using that strategy be a potential trip point for a paladin to fall? :3

Dishonorable according to whom? Running down fleeing soldiers was, for a long time, the right and proper use of cavalry - you know, the upstanding citizens who were virtuous enough (and therefore wealthy enough) to be able to afford a horse.


Terrinam wrote:
Since attacking a fleeing opponent is usually considered dishonorable, would using that strategy be a potential trip point for a paladin to fall? :3

I think it might have been part of the Cavalier's Code of Conduct that they weren't allowed to do that without becoming a common fighter.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh. I played with a 1e DM that ruled paladins had to give people fair warning before attacking from behind. He figured if you announced, "Hey, I'm going to stab you!" and they didn't choose to turn around that was now their problem.

I think he'd seen players deliberately turn their backs on paladins to prevent them from attacking.

Going back to the OT, it bothers me when there are two interpretations to the rules, one which is fine and balanced, and one which leads to all sorts of crazy bad consequences and/or nonsensical results - and we have people who legit argue the second version. These people also often are the ones getting mad at "stealth errata" when a FAQ clarifies that it's the first option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Things that piss me off:
* people that are on their phones during gaming
* dice that are hard to see so they get picked up
* convention GMs that feel the need to drag us through all 4 hours of play even though the adventure 3 hours
* being stuck with the same character and being punished for their death or the desire to switch even though the theme of the character no longer fits into the campaign
* when the GM doesnt have a house rulebook detailing how back up characters work.
* therapy instead of gaming at the game table
* slooooooooow commmmmmmmbats
* 7 player tables!
* players who are intolerant of opinions when no opinion was given or feedback (or offense) was even requested
* Games with more combat rounds than skill checks
* races as just another list of stats to abuse having nothing to do with the versimiltude of a campaign
* when players forget to thank their GM.

..


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. Not a single one of those bothers me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My enjoyment of the experience is wrapped up in anxiety that other people aren't having fun.

So the biggest thing that bothers me is when someone is bored, because I generally view myself as culpable.

It's why I've decided to only game with people enthusiastic about RPGs. I can do other things with other friends.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The thing that bugs me the most is players that interrupt the GM as they're talking. People, if the GM is speaking there is a very high chance that what they're saying is important, so just listen! I really, really hate having to repeat myself as a GM because a player wasn't playing attention or worse, talking over me.

Second up would be when one player is interacting with the GM because their character is doing something important and another player has to pipe up with some inane thing their character is doing, lest we all forget that they are there too. People, your PC is not going to be the center of attention all the time, let the other players have the spotlight, you'll get your chance to be the center of attention too.

Partially related to the second item is the spellcaster who says they cast Guidance on another character that is partaking in some roleplaying when I ask for a diplomacy check. I like to ask the player something like "Are you sure you want to cast a spell right as the rogue is in the middle of a conversation with the captain of the guard?" Phrasing it like so (hopefully) makes them realize how out of place such behavior is, and how the captain of the guard would possibly react to such actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have so much trouble with my players, 30+ year veterans of gaming, just wanting to cast a spell right in front of an NPC. They seem to forget the V,S,M,F parts of the spells EVERY time. I do let them whisper a spell rather than shout it, but the hand waving and jumping up and down as the somatic components will get you some bad attention from someone.

Grand Lodge

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

Gods, but that can be frustrating. Had a magus walk up, in the middle of negotiations, and cast daze on the NPC. Like it wasn't going to be noticed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I make sure the NPCs notice it and react to it. Often with extreme prejudice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Heck, we had a council meeting in Saturday's adventure, where the players wanted to drink alchemist extracts during the discussion. I let that pass with a sleight of hand check, but really?

(They were really outmatched by the influence system, so they still didn't fully succeed. But it was still irksome.)

Scarab Sages

Things that bother me:

Armor being treated as if it's all one piece that covers the entire body, even when it's described as a 'shirt' or 'breastplate'.

Nobody I know of ever plays characters in the middle age or old age ranges. We're always teenagers or young adults. While we're on the subject of aging:
Aging penalties. In the real world not everyone gets slower, weaker, or wiser as they age.

No permanent disabilities or even scars. Sure, I don't want my character to become a paraplegic, but losing a hand or an eye or suffering hearing loss or gaining a limp are things that happen in real life. Those kinds of disabilities don't completely ruin a person's ability to do the kind of things adventurers do.

It's fantasy. Why do any of the non-humans have to look similar to humans? Why do the humans even have to resemble real-world humans?

Why is there a barbarian class? Why not just a fighter who has battle rage? And why are all barbarians pseudo-Vikings?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Elf wrote:

Nobody I know of ever plays characters in the middle age or old age ranges. We're always teenagers or young adults. While we're on the subject of aging:

Aging penalties. In the real world not everyone gets slower, weaker, or wiser as they age.

No permanent disabilities or even scars. Sure, I don't want my character to become a paraplegic, but losing a hand or an eye or suffering hearing loss or gaining a limp are things that happen in real life. Those kinds of disabilities don't completely ruin a person's ability to do the kind of things adventurers do.

I have played in games where that sort of stuff could be gated off as flavor, so your mage could be a doddering old man (with no statistical difference than if he'd been fresh out of Hogworts, neither wiser nor frailer) or your character could be described as having one eye, but having 'adjusted' to that condition and not having any mechanical penalties, regardless of whether or not it's 'realistic' that a one-eyed man could be a fantastic archer in a world with fire-breathing dragons and magical spells that turn people into stone.

I like that making that sort of thing optional. One character can be middle-aged and have the adjustments. Another can be even older, and use standard stats. They just 'aged well' and are, by the standards of other older folk, 'spry fools,' who remain just as nimble and vigorous as in their youth, but seem to have dodged any of life's little lessons. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Secretive casting: The rule I use in my games is that casting a spell, under any circumstances, is treated exactly the same as drawing a sword: Always Obvious, Always Noticed, Always Treated As Hostile. And still my players ask if they can sneak in a cast while someone else is talking to the NPC.

On the disabilities side, I did play a one-armed monk. Never slowed him down in the slightest, including Two-Weapon Fighting. ("A knee is a weapon!")

Additional gripe: Knowledge checks. I have one player who always, always, always asks about "Special Abilities"--meaning all of a monster's special attacks, defenses, spells and SLAs, auras, supernatural senses, flight speed, etc. No matter how many times I tell him that his questions need to be more specific, he always ignores me and defaults to asking "Tell me all its special abilities."


Calybos1 wrote:

Secretive casting: The rule I use in my games is that casting a spell, under any circumstances, is treated exactly the same as drawing a sword: Always Obvious, Always Noticed, Always Treated As Hostile. And still my players ask if they can sneak in a cast while someone else is talking to the NPC.

On the disabilities side, I did play a one-armed monk. Never slowed him down in the slightest, including Two-Weapon Fighting. ("A knee is a weapon!")

Additional gripe: Knowledge checks. I have one player who always, always, always asks about "Special Abilities"--meaning all of a monster's special attacks, defenses, spells and SLAs, auras, supernatural senses, flight speed, etc. No matter how many times I tell him that his questions need to be more specific, he always ignores me and defaults to asking "Tell me all its special abilities."

what about still silent and eschew materials? How do you handle those?


Freehold DM wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

Secretive casting: The rule I use in my games is that casting a spell, under any circumstances, is treated exactly the same as drawing a sword: Always Obvious, Always Noticed, Always Treated As Hostile. And still my players ask if they can sneak in a cast while someone else is talking to the NPC.

On the disabilities side, I did play a one-armed monk. Never slowed him down in the slightest, including Two-Weapon Fighting. ("A knee is a weapon!")

Additional gripe: Knowledge checks. I have one player who always, always, always asks about "Special Abilities"--meaning all of a monster's special attacks, defenses, spells and SLAs, auras, supernatural senses, flight speed, etc. No matter how many times I tell him that his questions need to be more specific, he always ignores me and defaults to asking "Tell me all its special abilities."

what about still silent and eschew materials? How do you handle those?

Those are what allow you to attempt to cast in secret; they're the price of admission, so that just saying 'I whisper the magic words and turn my back' isn't good enough to replace a feat.


Calybos1 wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

Secretive casting: The rule I use in my games is that casting a spell, under any circumstances, is treated exactly the same as drawing a sword: Always Obvious, Always Noticed, Always Treated As Hostile. And still my players ask if they can sneak in a cast while someone else is talking to the NPC.

On the disabilities side, I did play a one-armed monk. Never slowed him down in the slightest, including Two-Weapon Fighting. ("A knee is a weapon!")

Additional gripe: Knowledge checks. I have one player who always, always, always asks about "Special Abilities"--meaning all of a monster's special attacks, defenses, spells and SLAs, auras, supernatural senses, flight speed, etc. No matter how many times I tell him that his questions need to be more specific, he always ignores me and defaults to asking "Tell me all its special abilities."

what about still silent and eschew materials? How do you handle those?
Those are what allow you to attempt to cast in secret; they're the price of admission, so that just saying 'I whisper the magic words and turn my back' isn't good enough to replace a feat.

ah, okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

scrolls up

How the FRACK did I miss this thread earlier?!


Calybos1 wrote:
Secretive casting: The rule I use in my games is that casting a spell, under any circumstances, is treated exactly the same as drawing a sword: Always Obvious, Always Noticed, Always Treated As Hostile. And still, my players ask if they can sneak in a cast while someone else is talking to the NPC.

I've been playing with the same bunch of guys for 3 decades, and they STILL blurt out that they're going to cast a spell right in front of the person they're talking to. There is even a "worst offender" in my group who, no matter how many times I tell that no, he can't do that without provoking an initiative roll or an AoO by the bad guy or his cohorts, still does it. And I've had him attacked while doing it. He just. Does. Not. Learn. Drives me crazy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

scrolls up

How the FRACK did I miss this thread earlier?!

It kept making it's Stealth check while you kept blowing your Perception rolls?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For fairness' sake, here's a player gripe: NPCs who somehow know exactly how long to delay confronting the PCs until all their buffs have had time to expire.

And for that matter, NPCs who must have a constant Seek Thoughts ability to ensure that they will never, ever take the action you just readied for. Example: "I ready to fire Scorching Ray at the first guard who comes around the corner in response to the alarm." "Hmm, for some reason they all seem to be hanging back....."

This is such a reliable thing that at times, I've declared a readied action just to guarantee that none of our enemies will use a given tactic. "I ready to cast Glitterdust--huh, they've all decided to stay visible, what a huge surprise."


Also a complaint from a player perspective. Omnicompetent NPCs. I’ve run into 2 types from different GMs.
1st was a GM who would on the fly change what the NPC was or would do to perfectly counter our plan because “well they would have thought of that possibility.” So we pretty quickly had to assume that the NPCs had an endless number of contingencies in place so planning in advance was pointless and we just had to hope that our dice liked us.
2nd was a GM with perfect system mastery and their NPCs were always built with that. No suboptimal builds ever. If you didn’t have a similar level of system mastery you were at a serious disadvantage. If a player made a suboptimal character just because it was a fun concept they were SOL.

To be fair to the 2nd GM they would give advice during character creation and leveling though that often didn’t feel good either. Sometimes it felt like they made the characters and we just RPed them.

Edit: upon reflection omnicompetent isn’t quite accurate for the 2nd. Just super competent in the NPC’s particular focus.


Another bad GMing habit I’ve seen over the years and the best/worst example of it. Railroading. Now I understand that in some cases it can be necessary and it can be done well, usually the tracks are baked into a well thought out plot, but then there is blatantly ham fisting it down the group’s throat. I had one GM who did this through an omnipotent, idealized version of a favored past character they had played and gushed over constantly out of game, in this case a wizard, who would show up and bully the party into following the, in my opinion, crappy plot. In the few sessions before I left the game I got fed up with it and repeatedly tried to force the hand of said NPC, goading and eventually even attacking it. The most I ever got was teleported a ways away. I mean if you’re going to threaten the PCs you should at least follow through. But despite showing no bite with its bark the rest of the party would eventually jump in line.

Damnit now I have “Jump in the Line” stuck in my head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:

Also a complaint from a player perspective. Omnicompetent NPCs. I’ve run into 2 types from different GMs.

1st was a GM who would on the fly change what the NPC was or would do to perfectly counter our plan because “well they would have thought of that possibility.” So we pretty quickly had to assume that the NPCs had an endless number of contingencies in place so planning in advance was pointless and we just had to hope that our dice liked us.
2nd was a GM with perfect system mastery and their NPCs were always built with that. No suboptimal builds ever. If you didn’t have a similar level of system mastery you were at a serious disadvantage. If a player made a suboptimal character just because it was a fun concept they were SOL.

To be fair to the 2nd GM they would give advice during character creation and leveling though that often didn’t feel good either. Sometimes it felt like they made the characters and we just RPed them.

Edit: upon reflection omnicompetent isn’t quite accurate for the 2nd. Just super competent in the NPC’s particular focus.

hm.

Not a fan of the system mastery philosophy, due to shenanigans on the part of players who kept using that as an excuse to weasel out of making rolls.

Then again, I get yelled at for using dice in character creation, so...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I didn't realize how much all of those damn little fiddly bits of Pathfinder bothered me until I joined a group whose games of choice are Fate and Dungeon World.

It felt like seeing a clear sky for the first time!

Grand Lodge

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

I should do that. Nic Logue gave me a glimpse of what could be at PaizoCon.


Dungeon world seems fun-ish. Super light, but I could see unscrupulous players causing issues. But that's any game system really.


I love the fiddly bits.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:

Secretive casting: The rule I use in my games is that casting a spell, under any circumstances, is treated exactly the same as drawing a sword: Always Obvious, Always Noticed, Always Treated As Hostile. And still my players ask if they can sneak in a cast while someone else is talking to the NPC.

What if the NPCs aren't familiar with spellcasting gestures? I suppose they could be like modern police, who may err on the side of caution by assuming that if you've got a roughly gun-shaped object in your hand that it's a gun. Assume that if the PCs are gesturing it's a threat, even if the NPCs don't know exactly what it is that they're doing.

But speaking of that, why do the NPCs always know about magic? I'm always disappointed to play a magic-user and every non-magic-user NPC seems to know not only that I'm casting a spell but what spell it is. I'd like to encounter some NPCs who are awed/frightened/intimidated by magic. See my earlier complaint about uniformity of spells too - if my character is of a different race or nationality, even another caster who knows that spell shouldn't necessarily recognize it the way I've learned to cast it. Maybe the way I pronounce the draconic syllables of the verbal components has a different accent they can't understand, or I don't use quite the same gestures.

As a side note, I do have a GM who gave me a homebrew feat so other characters who try to identify my elementalist wizard's spells get a small penalty because she's from an uncommon school. And just for fun flavor, all of her spells have her element incorporated into them somehow. Doesn't change the effect, just the appearance of the spell. I think that's a simple way to differentiate spells - maybe if you're a cleric of a good deity your light spell is warm and golden while the light spell of a necromancer gives off a purple light that makes everyone look gaunt and cadaverous. Still light, still affects the same area, just doesn't have the same cosmetic effect.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I should do that. Nic Logue gave me a glimpse of what could be at PaizoCon.
Freehold DM wrote:
Dungeon world seems fun-ish. Super light, but I could see unscrupulous players causing issues. But that's any game system really.

If either of you are going to be at PaizoCon later this month, I'd be happy to run a DW demo for you!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

We'll see if there is time! I may have room for you in my Monday night table as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's a thing that bothers me: People that call all pterosaurs "pterodactyls". Pterodactyls were just one species. I've seen this happen on documentaries when the writers should have bloody well known better.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
We'll see if there is time! I may have room for you in my Monday night table as well.

Alas, I received a work assignment that requires my presence on Tuesday morning, so I had to move uo my departure by a day. Leaving early Monday now.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Shoot, I read that before. I guess I just didn't want to believe it.

251 to 300 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Things that bother you All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.