Things that bother you


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

What things in game bother you?

For example, I can't stand outnumbering an enemy who is ambushing. This has happened twice so far.

(1) Rogue and three henchmen ambush us. The problem is...there are 6 of us. Why set yourself up to be slaughtered like that?

(2) A Mage, two henchmen and a watchman attack us. Again...there are 6 of us. They knew we were coming. They knew how many of us would be there. Why bring such insufficient numbers?

Comparing this to defending a warehouse against another party of 6...that feels like a fight worth remembering. Otherwise it feels like cheating.

That's my pet peeve. What's yours?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Action economy is what this game is all about. I often, even in APs, adjust encounters to have my players outnumbered or equally matched; especially where it makes sense contextually.


I set up an ambush of 12 for a party of three. Eight of them were archers. That's how you ambush.

The party still managed to win...

My annoyance would be when people assume everything is killable, basically the "I have a weapon/spell and this thing is in range therefore I can certainly kill it" I try to keep most encounters possible, but some aren't really meant to go to combat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Things that bother me? People who insist that something is a rule and always has been (when it isn't and has NEVER been).
Example 1: I had a player claim that rolling 20 on initiative would make you go first no matter what AND doubled your result. "At least, it was like that in 3.5". yeah, no, I don't think so.

Example 2: Tie on attack rolls vs AC go to defender. except that it doesn't. oh and he even did this line again: "At least, it was like that in 3.5".
That is actually just the tip of the iceberg with that guy...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While i am at it:
Being forced to enforce the "Roll them where I can see them" houserule.

Example 1: Bringing along a rolling bowl and rolling exclusively into it. generally picking the dice up before I or anyone else gets to look at it.

Example 2: Blatantly rolling multiple times until you get the result you want. My wife is notorious about this one, and I have started calling her out on it.

Example 3: The 'test roll' to see what dice you want to use (and if the result is magically good at any point they try to take it).

These ones, even when i am not behind the screen make me want to pull hair out.


- My Witch uses Evil Eye/Misfortune hexes when we ambush someone, by the time I'm allowed to Cackle the previous hex has expired.
- Our home game's party of 4 includes a Half Ogre Barbarian who's player hasmissed a few sessions. The problrm is that difficulty in combat shifts between "Dark Souls" and "Kirby's Epic Yarn" depending on whether or not he's there.
- Underwater Ghosts.


-The wizard has a massive book with every spell in it and can do anything he wants to on off days.
-The sorceresses has rings of spell knowledge and can do anything she wants out of combat no matter what the day is.
-My oracle would have had to use paragon surge to even get close to that level power had the gm not decided to make the party go mythic.
-I can't even think of how get our bard/fighter to shine without making the cohorts shine instead.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Air0r wrote:
Things that bother me? People who insist that something is a rule and always has been (when it isn't and has NEVER been).

Yeah, you'll run into a whole lot of people who don't even realize how many houserules they play under. I suspect that often it was a case of starting the game under a GM who used those houserules, and the players just assumed said house rules were part of the base game.

Speaking, Critical Fumble rules almost always bug me whether it's Pathfinder or any other game system. Mostly because it tends to turn the PCs into the Three Stooges.


What bothers me is the repeated use of the same word or very similar phrases for different things. It started with D&D and carried over to Pathfinder.

  • The level of a character versus the level of a spell--at least Pathfinder stopped measuring dungeons in levels, too (Order of the Stick reference).
  • Enchantments to create magic items versus the enchantment school of arcane spells.
  • Two-weapon fighting versus fighting with two weapons in iterated attacks (and throw in two-handed weapons for extra tongue-tying confusion).
  • Making an attack versus taking an attack action.
  • Taking a 5-foot step versus regular movement for 5 feet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Although its really silly this sort of thing really ticks me off.

Dark Tapestry - Pathfinderwiki wrote:
Were the Great Old Ones ever to devote even a fraction of their attention to this corner of space, it could very well end existence as gods and mortals know it.

I can not describe how much I hate "I shift slightly to the right and entire solar systems are obliterated" sort of creatures. In my opinion those things are the epitome of stupid and piss me off to no end.

BY THE WAY! Just because I feel this way does not mean everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Please don't take this personally.

As far as mechanics based stuff, houserules like fumbles and crits on skill checks annoy me. It was also ruled that fumbles on skill checks will result in false information or negative consequences even when the skill check doesn't normally have them. So if you rolled a one on sense motive to get a hunch, you wouldn't just "not be able to get read on him," you would believe he is the most trustworthy person in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The enormous issue with fumble rules is that they punish martial characters with iterative attacks (more attack rolls means more chances to roll that nat 1.) I do kinda like the voluntary fumble for a later advantage houserule, though. That can lead to fun slapstick moments.

My pet peeve is people that try to pass off their interpretion of a rule as indisputable fact and are unwilling to entertain or concede another reasonable interpretion may be correct.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The game being reduced to some kind of algebraic formula. Mechanics are merely the "UI" for the game, NOT the game itself.

Dark Archive

The Reactionary trait.

If you are a scaredy cat you shouldn't be adventuring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have two issues that piss me off. Cheaters and GM's who insist you play your character their way. It's one thing if a GM or player make a mistake. It happens and with our group we own up to it after the game usually. Most times it's not really an issue all things considered. It's another when you get that one player that rolls out of sight and never seems to miss, his character can't fail no matter what. This also the same guy who whines when he is caught cheating and his character starts to actually suck.
GMs who insist you play what they want how they want really bug me. I don't mind a GM saying the group needs this class or that class for an campaign or adventure. I played with module characters even having no issue there. It's another when he states you will play the class he wants then states this is how you will play it. Had a GM who asked me to play a Cleric of Tiamat. An old 2nd Ed game. I agreed having an idea of a Scale Mail wearing cleric not afraid to get into melee. The GM shut me down insisting I play a woman when I'm a guy. Okay no real issue there really. Next I can't use any weapons except a dagger. Now I'm having a problem. Next no armor I'm running around in a chainmail bikini having no AC with only a rather useless but supposedly cool looking dagger. Not happy at all now. To insure I got pissed he stated while I was a priest of Tiamat I had no abilities spells or anything to a make me remotely useful. The adventure fell apart quickly with me. In fact in our first real fight I told the GM I am killing my character. I still couldn't believe he whined asking me why. I went off on him telling him what I thought of his character and what mine should have been like. He still didn't see anything wrong with what he did doing the same thing in another game system. I stopped playing with him shortly afterwards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seconding the annoyance at skill check crits/crit fails. I'm always reading stories from games where people roll a 20 on a skill and do the impossible, like achieving world peace on a crit Diplomacy check or unlocking doors that don't even have locks with crit Disable Device. It's so pervasive that I have to constantly remind my players to tell me their total roll when they get a 20 on a skill - if the DC is 35 and you roll a 20 with a +5 modifier, you're still going to fail! Conversely, if you roll a nat 1 with a +5, that DC 5 skill check is going to be impossible for you to fail at.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

1: Game starts at a certain time, you show up at or before that time.

2: Game starts at a certain time, you start playing at that time. Social hour is over.

3: Do not bring your personal issues to the table and expect free therapy. It's called 'Gaming', not 'Group'.

4: Once gaming starts, stay in game, or at least on topic. Do not try to be better than AmTrak at derailing.

5: Figure out your turn BEFORE it's your turn.

6: Take your turn ON YOUR TURN. If it's not your turn, shut your pie hole.

....and this is how my weekly sessions run. The soul saving grace is our GM is really good (when allowed to run the game by the other players), and has more patience than anyone I have ever met.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Delenot wrote:

1: Game starts at a certain time, you show up at or before that time.

2: Game starts at a certain time, you start playing at that time. Social hour is over.

3: Do not bring your personal issues to the table and expect free therapy. It's called 'Gaming', not 'Group'.

4: Once gaming starts, stay in game, or at least on topic. Do not try to be better than AmTrak at derailing.

5: Figure out your turn BEFORE it's your turn.

6: Take your turn ON YOUR TURN. If it's not your turn, shut your pie hole.

....and this is how my weekly sessions run. The soul saving grace is our GM is really good (when allowed to run the game by the other players), and has more patience than anyone I have ever met.

I'd like to change my pet peeve to the above gaming style.


Delenot wrote:

1: Game starts at a certain time, you show up at or before that time.

2: Game starts at a certain time, you start playing at that time. Social hour is over.

3: Do not bring your personal issues to the table and expect free therapy. It's called 'Gaming', not 'Group'.

4: Once gaming starts, stay in game, or at least on topic. Do not try to be better than AmTrak at derailing.

5: Figure out your turn BEFORE it's your turn.

6: Take your turn ON YOUR TURN. If it's not your turn, shut your pie hole.

....and this is how my weekly sessions run. The soul saving grace is our GM is really good (when allowed to run the game by the other players), and has more patience than anyone I have ever met.

Regarding the first point, this is fair to expect on a regular basis. But sometimes people have jobs and families. Sometimes you have to make exceptions for lateness, because of life. If it's really bad discuss it out of game; but if people have genuine responsibilities sometimes you need to be reasonable. Gaming is a fun social commitment, but like all important social commitments, sometimes life comes first.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Delenot wrote:

1: Game starts at a certain time, you show up at or before that time.

2: Game starts at a certain time, you start playing at that time. Social hour is over.

3: Do not bring your personal issues to the table and expect free therapy. It's called 'Gaming', not 'Group'.

4: Once gaming starts, stay in game, or at least on topic. Do not try to be better than AmTrak at derailing.

5: Figure out your turn BEFORE it's your turn.

6: Take your turn ON YOUR TURN. If it's not your turn, shut your pie hole.

....and this is how my weekly sessions run. The soul saving grace is our GM is really good (when allowed to run the game by the other players), and has more patience than anyone I have ever met.

Regarding the first point, this is fair to expect on a regular basis. But sometimes people have jobs and families. Sometimes you have to make exceptions for lateness, because of life. If it's really bad discuss it out of game; but if people have genuine responsibilities sometimes you need to be reasonable. Gaming is a fun social commitment, but like all important social commitments, sometimes life comes first.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree that life comes first. That's not the issue. This has been discussed multiple times at the table and away from it. It's so far past reasonable it's not even in the same alphabet anymore. As frustrating as it is it's an accepted sacrifice to me as I get to play the character and system I enjoy. When the other players decide to play I enjoy their input too. I just wish it was more consistent.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't handle professional gamers. Social hour does not end, the whole game is social hour. It's about kicking back with buds, rolling some dice and playing out fantasies, so I'll throw in quips or jokes when the moment calls for it. I don't support derailing for sport, but I also cannot abide by tables that demand a workplace level of professionalism out of my Pathfinder game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GypsyMischief wrote:
I can't handle professional gamers. Social hour does not end, the whole game is social hour. It's about kicking back with buds, rolling some dice and playing out fantasies, so I'll throw in quips or jokes when the moment calls for it. I don't support derailing for sport, but I also cannot abide by tables that demand a workplace level of professionalism out of my Pathfinder game.

Agreed. Making jokes and occasional side talk is enjoyable. If I'm GMing and some people go off on a lil tangent I'll stop for a bit. If it shows no signs of stopping I'll interrupt and put the game back on track. It gives me time to gather my thoughts too. If we had to be dead serious for hours straight I doubt we would still be playing.

One thing that bothers me is people playing games on their laptop during Pathfinder. My group uses laptops for pretty much everything and this one guy is always playing some damn game half the time (his girlfriend is usually watching videos too). Every time I have to answer one of their "Huh? What's going on?" questions it irks me a bit.


GypsyMischief wrote:
I can't handle professional gamers. Social hour does not end, the whole game is social hour. It's about kicking back with buds, rolling some dice and playing out fantasies, so I'll throw in quips or jokes when the moment calls for it. I don't support derailing for sport, but I also cannot abide by tables that demand a workplace level of professionalism out of my Pathfinder game.

What you describe is what I'm hoping the group I play with can become. As it is we have 3.5 hours to play a week by schedule. By the time everything is said and done we game for about an hour, on the low side. Professional gamers? Sorry, not even close. If we had decided to hang out for an evening a week that would be that and it wouldn't much matter what was done. But we decided to play Pathfinder, and precious little of that actually gets done. I'm not even speaking of story advancement. I keep hoping it will get better focused, or focused at all sometimes. And I try my best to help to that end, as does our GM. Sometimes it actual happens, but mostly it becomes a discussion of how everyone else should play their character, rules questioning, and stories of how good past games have been. Why not focus on the game that is present and make extraordinary memories from it? It just gets frustrating.


Delenot wrote:


What you describe is what I'm hoping the group I play with can become. As it is we have 3.5 hours to play a week by schedule. By the time everything is said and done we game for about an hour, on the low side. Professional gamers? Sorry, not even close. If we had decided to hang out for an evening a week that would be that and it wouldn't much matter what was done. But we decided to play Pathfinder, and precious little of that actually gets done. I'm not even speaking of story advancement. I keep hoping it will get better focused, or focused at all sometimes. And I try my best to help to that end, as does our GM. Sometimes it actual happens, but mostly it becomes a discussion of how everyone else should play their character, rules questioning, and stories of how good past games have been. Why not focus on the game that is present and make extraordinary memories from it? It just gets frustrating.

This sorta happens with my group. There no a huge amount of immersion. We always joke too much, make out of character comments and it's hard to form a bond between characters.

It's more like WE are adventuring instead of our characters. I don't mind the joke, speaking out of character, but when it happens so often, you don't get to think as your character and what would he do.

Combat is fun, but the most important part is how you roleplay your toon, what is he willing to do to save his friends.


It's always a balancing act when it comes to how much table discipline needs to be enforced. You want to keep people reasonably on-target so the game can keep moving, but not to the point of being a tyrant who kills the fun.

My general rule is to be fine with any side talk so long as it doesn't go on too long, annoy the other players, or actually get in the way of playing the game. If one of my players is trying to do something game-related and I can't hear him over someone else's side-conversation, I'm going to ask them to hush for a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pet peeves that my wife has:
my biggest pet peeve is someone who stops the game in its tracks to argue about a rule. That can wait till after the game ends or look it up on your own time.

Another one is when i mentioned learning that a rule i had been following for a while was actually a house rule which i thought was cool and then basically being yelled at by the gm saying that i was trying to control his game and being a rule lawyer (i have only been playing about a year there is no way i can be a rule lawyer)

Another one: STORY TRUMPS RULES where it doesn't even apply like in combat. i understand that sometimes to make the story work you need to bypass rules but not in the middle of combat. For example: when i am holding the wizard in my hands and have the ability to smack him when he casts a spell but then the gm says i can't smack him so he is able to do the spell anyway.

Last one: Flanking. People always arguing about what is considered flanking especially when trying to flank a medium size character. Best way i ever heard it explained was it had to be like Adele. it has to be "hello from the other side" to be flanking otherwise it isn't


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest resolution for a lot of the issues mentioned above (players being late or missing sessions, too much off-topic talk derailing the game, etc.) is keeping the groups small. A GM and 3 or 4 players, 5 at the very most. These 6-8 person parties exponentially increase the likelihood of real life interfering, increase the chances of there being some sort of personality conflict and they often cause combat to draw out so much that players get bored waiting for their turn and the phones come out or they start joking about unrelated topics and so on.

I hold to two truths when it comes to gaming: 1) there is no 'wrong' way to play and 2) a group made up of players with dramatically different views on how to play the game will ultimately be fun for no one. I always carefully interview potential players for any group I'm going to GM and I am very selective. The selection isn't judgmental - my best friend in the world wouldn't be a welcome addition to my table - I'm just looking for compatible players so that my time and everyone else's time isn't wasted. Many of those initial auditions take place during PFS games without players even knowing.

FWIW, my standards are much lower in the rare instances when I'm a player.

To answer the original question, my biggest pet peeve is game systems with never-ending rules bloat, glut, whatever you want to call it, to the point that the rules and their endless errata become almost impossible to track and properly prepare for. I prefer systems remain 'clean' and that the efforts of the designers be bent towards story-related material rather than presenting a constant cycle of new, game-breaking and the requisite game-altering nerfs and adjustments to reign in and accommodate those new rules which weren't needed to begin with. After all, when someone starts to play a system because they like the system, why would it need to be endlessly altered?

Pathfinder got me with the AP's. Being able to work in modules and even PFS scenarios set in the same environment makes them even better. But between Mythic, Unchained, PFS-legal vs. non-PFS-legal, errata more expansive than the original rule book and the fact that by the time a group finishes an AP, the characters they started with are all now technically illegal... that crap is what's got me starting to look elsewhere.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In-game, a big pet peeve of mine is characters being built around specific gear with the presumption that gear will automatically be available to them, wealth by level being an entitlement on the part of the players and characters being more defined by what they can buy than what they can do.

My games tend to feature lots of custom magic items that usually keep players technically 2-3x standard wbl, but will rarely provide those broken or nearly broken combos some players build their entire characters around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a player the thing that bothers me the most is me.

I almost exclusively run games, have for my whole life as a gamer. Players keep telling me how much they enjoyed the game, so I figure I am good at it. My expectation that I will be similiarly inspired to compliment the gm when I am a player gets in the way of me just relaxing and enjoying being a player. This bothers me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to admit, I usually GM... So here is one that has come up a few times... The "One Trick Pony" build with a glaring flaw (Example: Barbarian or Paladin with no ranged weapons "My character wouldn't use them", Archer that doesn't even have a Dagger written on his sheet, caster with only one type of magic "I only use Enchantments")...

and then complaining that "I can't do anything"... this is my actual problem, not the build itself, the complaining on you're turn that you're one "Super Attack" is ineffective at dealing with something as common as "It Has Wings" or "It's a Skeleton".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll second above that one trick pony builds that don't work if their gimmick doesn't are frustrating to play with.

But at the same time I don't entirely blame the player. Part of it is systemic, because certain specialist builds are going to be fine in every encounter, whereas others are going to suffer against a ton of enemies because of how Pathfinder is designed.

Wiggz wrote:

In-game, a big pet peeve of mine is characters being built around specific gear with the presumption that gear will automatically be available to them, wealth by level being an entitlement on the part of the players and characters being more defined by what they can buy than what they can do.

That's not a character thing. That's how pathfinder works. It has math expectations based on gear and you're expected to be able to meet them in order to function. It's a core mechanic of the game.


swoosh wrote:


That's not a character thing. That's how pathfinder works. It has math expectations based on gear and you're expected to be able to meet them in order to function. It's a core mechanic of the game.

I think he might be referring more to things like "My Build requires me to have 5 fist level pearls of power to recall shocking grasp."

Or, as I saw once before... "Can I buy 4 Quickrunners Shirts, and just put a new one on at the end of each fight?"

Dark Archive

Dexion1619 wrote:
swoosh wrote:


That's not a character thing. That's how pathfinder works. It has math expectations based on gear and you're expected to be able to meet them in order to function. It's a core mechanic of the game.

I think he might be referring more to things like "My Build requires me to have 5 fist level pearls of power to recall shocking grasp."

Or, as I saw once before... "Can I buy 4 Quickrunners Shirts, and just put a new one on at the end of each fight?"

Wait so teloporting every fight wasn't the intended use of this item?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dexion1619 wrote:
swoosh wrote:


That's not a character thing. That's how pathfinder works. It has math expectations based on gear and you're expected to be able to meet them in order to function. It's a core mechanic of the game.

I think he might be referring more to things like "My Build requires me to have 5 fist level pearls of power to recall shocking grasp."

Or, as I saw once before... "Can I buy 4 Quickrunners Shirts, and just put a new one on at the end of each fight?"

I doubt that's what they're talking about either, as everything you mentioned is a 1k throwaway item.

I'm assuming they meant things like an agile weapon, or other things that completely define a build. There's some items that are just build defining, and I'm not a huge fan of that, but I also don't mind them because they let people play a build they want.

I myself can't stand people who are absolutely wedded to the flavor of something. Being told my rogue has to be sneaky, my bard has to be foppy, or my barbarian has to be dumb regardless of what I want to play is infuriating.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:

The Reactionary trait.

If you are a scaredy cat you shouldn't be adventuring.

The Reactionary trait.

Because that's not what that word means, damn it.


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

Laser guns. There aren't enough laser guns.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:


I myself can't stand people who are absolutely wedded to the flavor of something. Being told my rogue has to be sneaky, my bard has to be foppy, or my barbarian has to be dumb regardless of what I want to play is infuriating.

Oh yeah. "You can't play a Bard as a Veteran Soldier who inspires his allies with rousing speech's and picked up some magic tricks haphazardly along the way?!! That's not what a Bard is! You need a Lute!" (Facepalm)


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

I made a mime once.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Captain K. wrote:

The Reactionary trait.

If you are a scaredy cat you shouldn't be adventuring.

The Reactionary trait.

Because that's not what that word means, damn it.

I too was confused about how clinging to old ideas made one faster.


Dexion1619 wrote:
swoosh wrote:
That's not a character thing. That's how pathfinder works. It has math expectations based on gear and you're expected to be able to meet them in order to function. It's a core mechanic of the game.

I think he might be referring more to things like "My Build requires me to have 5 fist level pearls of power to recall shocking grasp."

Or, as I saw once before... "Can I buy 4 Quickrunners Shirts, and just put a new one on at the end of each fight?"

Builds that are enhanced by specific gear doesn't bother me at all, and unfortunately in some cases, gear is the *only* way to make a concept come online (I'm looking at you, agile.) This isn't the player's fault that these features aren't available in the form of feats.

Then there are things like an Oradin wanting Bracers of the Merciful Knight of a Phylactery of Positive Channeling to help them shine better at what they're already doing with the class features, feats, and playstyle they're already focusing on.

With things like Quickrunner shirts, though, we just go with the good ol' 24-hour attunement rule. But it helps that our gaming group has been playing together nearly twenty years and we all regularly take turns DMing, so we each have a good concept of what we consider balanced and will self-nerf character builds that turn out to be stronger than we intended.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

As a player: When a GM gets upset when I point out a rules correction.

As a GM: When a player points out a rules correction.

The eternal struggle.

The Exchange

7 people marked this as a favorite.

People who use the word 'decimate' when they actually mean 'devastate'.

GMs who claim that Charisma-based skills are useless... and then ignore all the actual rules on Charisma-based skills, thus making them useless.

People who think it's okay to mind-control (in a 'puppeteer' rather than a 'can you role-play this' way) your character: the entire point of the game is getting to play your character - take that away and you may as well go home.

Longswords not being longswords, bucklers not being bucklers, spears needing two-hands to use, and other related mis-information inherited from generations of D&D.

Archetype names being chosen randomly from a thesaurus and having no relation to what the archetype actual is or does.


ProfPotts wrote:


Longswords not being longswords, bucklers not being bucklers, spears needing two-hands to use, and other related mis-information inherited from generations of D&D.

Lol I feel you on this one! I think it's even worse for me... considering I actually use a Long-Sword on a weekly basis.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
The game being reduced to some kind of algebraic formula. Mechanics are merely the "UI" for the game, NOT the game itself.

Mechanics are the game's engine, its code, not merely a UI.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When one player will not or cannot co-ordinate with the rest of the group. Even worse when the GM doesn't know how to deal with this.

When the GM doesn't want any PC to die, and the above sort of player takes advantage of this.

As a GM, when a player notices that I got something wrong and has to get an apology and redaction out of me right now, instead of going with it until I can look it up for myself.

Doubly so if the player was wrong about it after all. I've never had a player do this intentionally to trick me, though, so I'm glad for it.

When I point out something like that, I'm either fine with continuing until the GM can read the rule, or accepting it as a house rule. Two GMs have declared "Ties go to the defender" instead of to the one who's rolling the d20, and I don't mind either way.


Helel13 wrote:

As a player: When a GM gets upset when I point out a rules correction.

As a GM: When a player points out a rules correction.

The eternal struggle.

Indeed. There's no perfect way to handle it, since even the rule or "wait until after the game" only really works if it's a non-critical issue. I've seen GMs make calls (and might have made one or two such calls myself while GMing) that were so bad they just couldn't wait until the end of the session to be dealt with.


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

Disintegrate me once, shame on me.

Disintegrate me twice, okay, s$#* happens.

Disintegrate me 87 times... F#@$. You.

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
captain yesterday wrote:

Disintegrate me once, shame on me.

Disintegrate me twice, okay, s~@! happens.

Disintegrate me 87 times... F$#$. You.

If I cast disintegrate 87 times on someone and they kept making their saves... I'd kinda be running the other way. Very quickly. teleport quickly.


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

Mostly Beholder related.


captain yesterday wrote:
Mostly Beholder related.

Beauty is in their eye(s), rest of party is in their stomach.

1 to 50 of 313 << 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.