As a GM, is there a player type you personally don’t allow at your tables?

[McDaygo]

I know the GM guide covers different types of players and conflicts but I’m curious if any of You flat out ban a player type at your tables.

For me Unless I am playing with an advanced group that is there for the story vs. just rolling dice to kill s!*# I soft ban antagonist players. (The player that is always counter productive to the party to slows down sessions. Now with an advanced group and I have a a player I speak to them about it instead who I know can be the subtle hidden villain I’ll allow case by case but that also depends the group. I’ve seen some players get majorly mad out of character at in character betrayals.

Then other one isn’t so much a ban but a warning to my players to don’t build just for combat because my games are more then just murder marathons and actions have consequences.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I don't remember the types from the GMG, and I don't know that I BAN any players, but here's what I'm looking for: non-murderhobos. Like, folks that doodle character art, or name their weapons, or set goals other than leveling for their PCs.

Its not about roleplaying mind you. Like, if you have social anxiety or don't remember the history of the setting, I got no problem if you want to use a die roll to stand in for character dialogue. Its more, don't treat everything in the game as a combat.

I wish I could find players who value the non-combat areas of the game as much as they do the combat. I want players who care about: what does your character LOOK like, how do you worship your deity, what are your hobbies, do you have any friends, and so on.

I'm not exaggerating. My current megadungeon game uses the Downtime mechanics for example. Until forced by me as the GM, none of their businesses had names, floor plans, locations on the city map, signage or anything, but the players could tell me exactly what Rooms and Teams made up said businesses and what their bonuses are.

Who PLAYS like that?

By contrast, the last time I got to play I ran a halfling warpriest/hunter in the RoW AP.

Spoiler:

He had ranks in Profession: Tanner, Profession: Trapper and Survival. Early game, when you're traveling the Irrisen countryside village to village, I was hunting and trapping along the way, scraping and braining hides, tanning leather and then working it to make masterwork backpacks, slings, bandoliers, and pouches.

More than that, I took a piece of treasure and made a unique belt for it. I drew said belt and had it made into a magic item. The plan was to make THIS my signature magic item and keep adding abilities to it over the course of the campaign. Like, I wanted to make some aspect of this generic campaign MY campaign.

My fellow players looked at me like I was crazy. WHY make all these leather goods? Well, I gave them away for free to my allies or to villagers we met along the way. My character was just trying to bring SOME measure of happiness to the common folk of a land that is super oppressive. In one instance I DID use these gifts as an inroad for a Gather Info roll and earned a +2 Circumstance bonus, but that wasn't the point.

Like... I'm roleplaying a nice, generous guy that promotes good and positivity wherever he goes. I made crafts because that's my hobby, and I gave stuff away because its a kind thing to do.

I miss players who raid a small dungeon and go "I wonder what we can make out of this place," or folks that talk to intelligent villains; not INTERROGATE said villains, just TALK to them. I want to have players like this in my games again.

[Neriathale]

We play most of our games at home (or used to before the recent unpleasantness), so by default ban anyone I don’t want in my house. Like the violent ones and the smelly ones and the guy whose wife had to get a restraining order to keep his hands off the kids.

But because of the way they roleplay? No.

[VoodistMonk]

I really try not to ban anything, ever... some options being "available" helps weed out the clowns that would use such BS... but when it comes to "those people"...

1. Bigots and the purposefully ignorant... life is too short to share time with such a vapid waste of life.

2. Smelly people... wash your freaking @$$ if you are going to socialize.

3. Clowns... you know who you are, and why I don't associate with you.

4. Murderhobos... see also, #3. I am all for optimization, but you will absolutely NEVER convince me your character NEEDS both Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage. Never. I smell cheese, and GTFOH.

[DeathlessOne]

I pretty much have one rule on who I ban from my table. I haven't had to USE it in quiet a long time in my home games because those are reserved for close friends (we've been gaming together for 10+ years). For online games, it was about a year ago I last had to use it.

1) We are here to have fun. Don't be an a-hole. That goes for both out of character interaction between players and in character interaction with the other PCs.

I don't have to worry about real world ideological issues either. If someone can't leave them at the door and play, they aren't invited to my table to begin with. If you are easily offended and can't suspend your real world beliefs from the game world, you have more growing up to do before you are welcome here.

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't know if "people who are jerks" is a player type, but I won't play with people who are bigoted, cruel, callous, just plain mean, unpleasant to be around, etc.

Basically if you're not someone I'd be happy to hang out with outside of the game, I don't really want to play a game with you either.

[McDaygo]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I don't remember the types from the GMG, and I don't know that I BAN any players, but here's what I'm looking for: non-murderhobos. Like, folks that doodle character art, or name their weapons, or set goals other than leveling for their PCs.

Its not about roleplaying mind you. Like, if you have social anxiety or don't remember the history of the setting, I got no problem if you want to use a die roll to stand in for character dialogue. Its more, don't treat everything in the game as a combat.

I wish I could find players who value the non-combat areas of the game as much as they do the combat. I want players who care about: what does your character LOOK like, how do you worship your deity, what are your hobbies, do you have any friends, and so on.

I'm not exaggerating. My current megadungeon game uses the Downtime mechanics for example. Until forced by me as the GM, none of their businesses had names, floor plans, locations on the city map, signage or anything, but the players could tell me exactly what Rooms and Teams made up said businesses and what their bonuses are.

Who PLAYS like that?

By contrast, the last time I got to play I ran a halfling warpriest/hunter in the RoW AP. ** spoiler omitted **...

Dude I love love love fully fleshed out characters. Like yes tell me about your fake family. How do you support yourself when not adventure time.

I reward my players that take the extra step to bring life to a character and I agree it has less to do with acting like a thespian and more do with bringing a character to life.

[Mark Hoover 330]

A couple of folks now have some variation on don't be a murderhobo, myself included. It is ironic to me, statistically, that I've run games for 28 players in PF1 over the past 12 years meeting IRL and out of all those players, 2 stand out to me as folks who put AS MUCH effort into non-combat aspects of their characters as the combat stuff.

Like, do I just have supremely bad luck or my standards way too high?

[Mark Hoover 330]

McDaygo wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I don't remember the types from the GMG, and I don't know that I BAN any players, but here's what I'm looking for: non-murderhobos. Like, folks that doodle character art, or name their weapons, or set goals other than leveling for their PCs.

Its not about roleplaying mind you. Like, if you have social anxiety or don't remember the history of the setting, I got no problem if you want to use a die roll to stand in for character dialogue. Its more, don't treat everything in the game as a combat.

I wish I could find players who value the non-combat areas of the game as much as they do the combat. I want players who care about: what does your character LOOK like, how do you worship your deity, what are your hobbies, do you have any friends, and so on.

I'm not exaggerating. My current megadungeon game uses the Downtime mechanics for example. Until forced by me as the GM, none of their businesses had names, floor plans, locations on the city map, signage or anything, but the players could tell me exactly what Rooms and Teams made up said businesses and what their bonuses are.

Who PLAYS like that?

By contrast, the last time I got to play I ran a halfling warpriest/hunter in the RoW AP. ** spoiler omitted **...

Dude I love love love fully fleshed out characters. Like yes tell me about your fake family. How do you support yourself when not adventure time.

I reward my players that take the extra step to bring life to a character and I agree it has less to do with acting like a thespian and more do with bringing a character to life.

Does that work, incentivizing your players to make up a role to play in a roleplaying game? Like, a role beyond "Name, DPR, AC" etc?

If so, HOW do you incentivize this? If the goal is to move away from focus on the mechanics of the character, I have to expect you're not rewarding folks with mechanical incentives like minor bonuses and such. So, do you bribe the players with food or free character art or something?

[DeathlessOne]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

A couple of folks now have some variation on don't be a murderhobo, myself included. It is ironic to me, statistically, that I've run games for 28 players in PF1 over the past 12 years meeting IRL and out of all those players, 2 stand out to me as folks who put AS MUCH effort into non-combat aspects of their characters as the combat stuff.

Like, do I just have supremely bad luck or my standards way too high?

Just like in every area of life, you have those who play as a hobby and those who practice an art. You are an artist and have met two other fellow artists. Yes, your standards are high but, as a fellow artist, I tell you "No, your standards are not TOO high." Just lower your expectations and foster your apprentices so that they may become artists too.

[McDaygo]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

McDaygo wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I don't remember the types from the GMG, and I don't know that I BAN any players, but here's what I'm looking for: non-murderhobos. Like, folks that doodle character art, or name their weapons, or set goals other than leveling for their PCs.

Its not about roleplaying mind you. Like, if you have social anxiety or don't remember the history of the setting, I got no problem if you want to use a die roll to stand in for character dialogue. Its more, don't treat everything in the game as a combat.

I wish I could find players who value the non-combat areas of the game as much as they do the combat. I want players who care about: what does your character LOOK like, how do you worship your deity, what are your hobbies, do you have any friends, and so on.

I'm not exaggerating. My current megadungeon game uses the Downtime mechanics for example. Until forced by me as the GM, none of their businesses had names, floor plans, locations on the city map, signage or anything, but the players could tell me exactly what Rooms and Teams made up said businesses and what their bonuses are.

Who PLAYS like that?

By contrast, the last time I got to play I ran a halfling warpriest/hunter in the RoW AP. ** spoiler omitted **...

Dude I love love love fully fleshed out characters. Like yes tell me about your fake family. How do you support yourself when not adventure time.

I reward my players that take the extra step to bring life to a character and I agree it has less to do with acting like a thespian and more do with bringing a character to life.

Does that work, incentivizing your players to make up a role to play in a roleplaying game? Like, a role beyond "Name, DPR, AC" etc?

If so, HOW do you incentivize this? If the goal is to move away from focus on the mechanics of the character, I have to expect you're not rewarding folks with mechanical incentives like minor bonuses and such. So, do you bribe the players with food or free character art or...

For me I have found success. The incentive besides of the obvious of world building (I only run home brew games) is I will actually build quests around the backgrounds example: One of my players is a brewer (adopted half drow raised by dwarves on surface) so I’ve built a story around her backstory by working it in. Her other percs is a discount on non magical gear in her family’s town only (they still need to make a profit but but don’t charge her full price).

I have another player that is a LG cleric that is super active in the RP of her faith not just being a healbot. So her reward is One a month (she isn’t aware of time frame) I have her roll a religion check to see how well of a arrow stash she stumbles upon in her journey. I add modifiers she isn’t aware of depending on how well she plays her faith by my opinion (I read up on her diety). Her god is one of archery so last time I gave her 6 holy +1 arrows (nothing game breaking but cool little flavor that shows her god is approving of her non combat actions).

[Themetricsystem]

Hard-headed munchkins who only care about having a nearly fully optimized PC and/or abusing RAW to dominate the game and cares nothing about the balance between the players and GM.

The kind of person who isn't happy unless they're doing a TON with huge numbers every round or has some broken OP nonsense build/combo that removes any future where the game can be balanced for the party as a whole versus the opponents/challenges. If they can't be happy making a "normal" character that doesn't have a "net-deck" build and the exact same feats and traits that discussion forums drool over being optimal then they don't belong at the same table as me, at least when it comes to 3.X games (PF1 included). I dealt with about four or five such players when I actively played 3.X games but each and every time they ruined the game to the point where the adventure/campaign dissolved after only a few actual sessions.

Nothing against anyone who loves playing optimized PCs personally, I just cannot and will not run a game for you if that is the way you choose to play the game.

[Sysryke]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

A couple of folks now have some variation on don't be a murderhobo, myself included. It is ironic to me, statistically, that I've run games for 28 players in PF1 over the past 12 years meeting IRL and out of all those players, 2 stand out to me as folks who put AS MUCH effort into non-combat aspects of their characters as the combat stuff.

Like, do I just have supremely bad luck or my standards way too high?

I think the answer to this depends on how broadly or not you use the term "murderhobo". When I here this term, I think of the super optimized, min-maxed, everything must be a combat, AND every enemy must be tracked down and slaughtered type. I've played with plenty of players who were number crunchers, heavy optimizers/specialists, not the strongest role players, OR just loved to focus on combats. Most of them are pretty nice. You have to check all of those boxes to be a "murderhobo" to me, and those aren't particularly fun to play with.

As to the OP, I don't know for types either but there are certain behaviors that will be called out, and if not curbed, the person will be invited to leave.

1.No players/characters who willfully and intentionally don't fit the setting or story and actively work against the flow. I think you called that an "antagonist".

2. No players (of GM's) who try and fundamentally change or control another players character away from that players concept and will. Curses are all fine and dandy, but no hand wavey "You're a new race/class/gender/look" type B.S.

3. No Woke/PC crap. We believe in fun, fair play, and real inclusivity, which means EVERYTHING is fair game for a joke, because NOTHING is serious/real. At the same time, don't be a jerk, or pick someone to death.

4. No obvious/intentional cheating. Some of our players aren't as solid on the rules as others, some folks build a little fast and their math is shaky. As long as everyone is having a good time, and no one is getting steam rolled, we're good. But, if all the sudden you're the heavy hitter/star/M.V.P./answer of every scene, it's time to check those numbers.

5. No HEAVY intoxication. The couple that hosts our current game like to have a drink or two, every once in a while at our games. The husband also takes green meds, as does mine. Nobody is allowed to be sloshed, staggering, or stupid. As long as you still have all your faculties about you and can follow/participate in the game, we're good. The host's brother who used to play with us crossed that line every damn session. We took a long holiday break and . . . "Sorry man, the game just kind of died" (Chicken $#!+ way to do it perhaps, but it helped keep family peace, and get game back on track)

[Sysryke]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Hard-headed munchkins who only care about having a nearly fully optimized PC and/or abusing RAW to dominate the game and cares nothing about the balance between the players and GM.

The kind of person who isn't happy unless they're doing a TON with huge numbers every round or has some broken OP nonsense build/combo that removes any future where the game can be balanced for the party as a whole versus the opponents/challenges. If they can't be happy making a "normal" character that doesn't have a "net-deck" build and the exact same feats and traits that discussion forums drool over being optimal then they don't belong at the same table as me, at least when it comes to 3.X games (PF1 included). I dealt with about four or five such players when I actively played 3.X games but each and every time they ruined the game to the point where the adventure/campaign dissolved after only a few actual sessions.

Nothing against anyone who loves playing optimized PCs personally, I just cannot and will not run a game for you if that is the way you choose to play the game.

I whole heartedly agree with this with one possible caveat. IF the super optimizer is willing to share his abilities with the rest of the group,so that EVERYONE can have an optimized character, then the party is balanced again. At the point, in theory, the GM can just throw out equally optimized challenges. It's the responsibility of all players to help make a good story and game sessions, so as long as the players are willing to work with the GM as much as the PCs work against the enemy NPCs, all is good.

But, for the optimizer who wants to be the star while everybody else sits back and watches . . . . Yeah, F&@* that guy!

[Tonya Woldridge]

Removed a post that used harassing terminology, along with trying to sidestep the profanity filter.

[Senko]

I don't ban anyone but I'd have words with the player who's deliberately disruptive (how severe the words would depend on their experience). Things like "Wait did you just steal the life savings of the NPC friend of party member X?" "Hey I'm chaotic neutral." or party agrees to wait while the person who made contact with the hermit talks to them only for one to go "I didn't agree to that, I follow them."

Of course I'd discourage that kind of approach if I saw it coming in character creation. I don't care if you are chaotic neutral your character is NOT an idiot and would know that stealing everything they have from the NPC a party member has essentially adopted like a stray puppy is going to cause party issues.

I guess it can be summarized as a party must trust each other totally to stay alive, if your going to be doing actions that disrupt that then as a GM I need to give you advice, warnings, reign you in and ask you to leave in that order. It doesn't matter if the party's all "I don't like you die" murderhobos or "You are a goblin and thus evil die" lawful stupid paladins they all need to be pulling the story in one direction ->. If you have one party member pulling > and one pulling < and another pulling ^ then its going make things less fun for everyone.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

I'm lucky in that I've generally had good players and never had to ban anyone. I would draw the line at someone who consistently makes things less fun for everyone else. Character drama is fine, player drama is not.

I have had players that need some supervision. A couple are just bad at bookkeeping and need to have their characters checked occasionally to make sure they aren't missing some modifier or something. The worst I've had is one player actively cheated (though in part it was less intentional than slight delusion) on a regular basis but he was a friend and fun to play with otherwise so we kept him on a tight leash and things worked out.

[Mightypion]

If I GM, I ask myself these questions:

1: Is the character overpowered compared to the rest of the group, and to hat extent is the player aware of this?

2: Does the player demand other players to do something?

3: Personal hygiene

4: Does he contribute to fun?

At most tables, system mastery and tactical awareness will be unequal.
If you are the more system/tactically aware player, and you wish to make suggestion, like, be polite and offer options.

"Hej, I could see the following options, you could move to this square, provide flanking on that guy, and then stab this guy in the face, or you go to this square, not provide flanking, but have one enemy less who can attack you. Both are these are completely valid options."

You can even make this out of turn "Bleh, out of spells I am gonna ray of frost" "Noooo, our cunning bard greased the Big Bads weapon, he dropped it, mage hand it into the rabid alligator pit!" but ideally not in every turn.

[McDaygo]

See I never understood cheating at A table top RPG. There is literally nothing at stake but pride which shouldn’t be am issue in a game.

[VoodistMonk]

McDaygo wrote:

See I never understood cheating at A table top RPG. There is literally nothing at stake but pride which shouldn’t be am issue in a game.

People are rife with insecurities... and to the insecure, one's pride is ALWAYS on the line. People will cheat at literally everything, almost out of impulse, regardless of risk or reward.

This game offers a lot of opportunity for "reward", and this game also happens to be pretty easy to cheat in because a million monkeys with a million typewriters randomly wrote the rules without any proofreading or editing before publication. Those rules are easy to find or force [through argument] loopholes to exploit.

Even the unwilling often find themselves cheating by accident due to a lack of understanding the monkey-written rules.

[Senko]

VoodistMonk wrote:

McDaygo wrote:

See I never understood cheating at A table top RPG. There is literally nothing at stake but pride which shouldn’t be am issue in a game.

People are rife with insecurities... and to the insecure, one's pride is ALWAYS on the line. People will cheat at literally everything, almost out of impulse, regardless of risk or reward.

This game offers a lot of opportunity for "reward", and this game also happens to be pretty easy to cheat in because a million monkeys with a million typewriters randomly wrote the rules without any proofreading or editing before publication. Those rules are easy to find or force [through argument] loopholes to exploit.

Even the unwilling often find themselves cheating by accident due to a lack of understanding the monkey-written rules.

There are also people who accuse you of cheating when you aren't but are just having a lucky streak. I recall one game (board not table top) where I was teaching some new people to the club how to play it and a couple of other people accused me of cheating because I kept getting good tiles and must have "memorized the placement" (each tile has a reward/punishment on the flip side). Neat trick to pull off when I'd given said tiles to the new players and had them do the placing (best way to learn is to do in my opinion) so to cheat as they accused me I'd need to have looked at the bottom, kept track of their shuffling and then where they got put down by 2 other people along with remembered this for an entire hour long game.

[Mightypion]

McDaygo wrote:

See I never understood cheating at A table top RPG. There is literally nothing at stake but pride which shouldn’t be am issue in a game.

Psychologically, its essntially ego born from overconnecting with your character too much. The latter is very frequent, and actually increase roleplay and engagement.

A low key thing you can do to reduce "my character is me" things, softly and gently establish "Minmaximus sneaks up to the door, does he hear anything" rather then "I sneak up the door, do I hear anything.".

It is frequently less of an issue if the player character is very different from the player.

But of course make sure that you are correcting a problem you are actually having in the first place.

[Jane "The Knife"]

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."

[DungeonmasterCal]

I don't think I've ever banned anyone from my game. Ever.

[Mightypion]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."

How can anyone hate Simone Simmons?

[Ryze Kuja]

Kids.

[Sysryke]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."

"Eh! Dutch Hater!" . . . . "Oooh, that's a nice flake. Save me from myself."

[Jane "The Knife"]

"I can tell people are judgmental just by looking at them."

[ErichAD]

Whiners, gossips, bullies, and everyone else who prefers endurance antagonism to conversation as their primary method of coercion. This sort of thing is too time consuming. If you can't convince people with reasoned debate, and won't accept that you could be wrong, and instead drag everything down with you, then I'm happy to drink with you, or go on a walk through the park, but I'm not wasting a table full of people's time on you.

People who aren't interested in playing: anyone who's just there for the social aspect, or who's there because their romantic partner is there. I lost too many games to breakups and too many hours to disruptive party people, and now I'm too old for that nonsense.

[Mark Hoover 330]

ErichAD wrote:

People who aren't interested in playing: anyone who's just there for the social aspect, or who's there because their romantic partner is there. I lost too many games to breakups and too many hours to disruptive party people, and now I'm too old for that nonsense.

So, what if it's reversed? People who are only interested in mechanically playing the game but for whom the social aspect is virtually non-existent?

I vent on these boards. A lot. Last session of my megadungeon game, I had a couple scenes that were very much intel gathering and talking to an NPC. I had only 2 of 4 players participate in any of the dialogue, and amid the 2 non-participants one of them made one Knowledge check. That's it.

I talked to the players afterwards and the 2 non-participants said they don't really like the "talking" encounters, preferring to resolve everything by die rolls. Now, this isn't a social anxiety thing; both of them socialize during breaks in the game and have no issues being verbose when they're comfortable. For them, the game is just simply a mechanical exercise; when the session is running, their job is to roll dice, calculate math and deliver results. Period.

I'm wondering if a ban against purely social players that aren't interested in the game would work the opposite with players that aren't interested in any of the social aspects of a session and just want to roll dice like a board game.

[Sysryke]

ErichAD wrote:

Whiners, gossips, bullies, and everyone else who prefers endurance antagonism to conversation as their primary method of coercion. This sort of thing is too time consuming. If you can't convince people with reasoned debate, and won't accept that you could be wrong, and instead drag everything down with you, then I'm happy to drink with you, or go on a walk through the park, but I'm not wasting a table full of people's time on you.

People who aren't interested in playing: anyone who's just there for the social aspect, or who's there because their romantic partner is there. I lost too many games to breakups and too many hours to disruptive party people, and now I'm too old for that nonsense.

Very much agree, with a small caveat. I'm totally fine with folks who come for the social element, IF they're up front about it from the beginning, AND they just come to observe. Have had one or two players over the years who would have probably had more fun just watching, and have had a couple of watcher who just liked to hear/"see" the story.

As for the couples, unless both are enthusiastic players, "Honey, just stay home!" (Funnily enough a couple hosts our games at their house, and I play with my husband ;p )

[Sysryke]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

ErichAD wrote:

People who aren't interested in playing: anyone who's just there for the social aspect, or who's there because their romantic partner is there. I lost too many games to breakups and too many hours to disruptive party people, and now I'm too old for that nonsense.

So, what if it's reversed? People who are only interested in mechanically playing the game but for whom the social aspect is virtually non-existent?

I vent on these boards. A lot. Last session of my megadungeon game, I had a couple scenes that were very much intel gathering and talking to an NPC. I had only 2 of 4 players participate in any of the dialogue, and amid the 2 non-participants one of them made one Knowledge check. That's it.

I talked to the players afterwards and the 2 non-participants said they don't really like the "talking" encounters, preferring to resolve everything by die rolls. Now, this isn't a social anxiety thing; both of them socialize during breaks in the game and have no issues being verbose when they're comfortable. For them, the game is just simply a mechanical exercise; when the session is running, their job is to roll dice, calculate math and deliver results. Period.

I'm wondering if a ban against purely social players that aren't interested in the game would work the opposite with players that aren't interested in any of the social aspects of a session and just want to roll dice like a board game.

"MUST HAVE BALANCE!" --Mr. Miyagi

[ErichAD]

I don't mean the social aspects of game play. It'd be fun to run a pure dungeon crawl as a one shot, but not weekly. That said, making social encounters entertaining is much more challenging than making combat entertaining, so I feel like many players get turned off by that type of encounter due to poor experiences early in their gaming life.

I'm referring to players who are there exclusively to socialize, drink, digress, and so forth. Most people seem to have the social wherewithal to balance playing the game and chatting without being rude or slowing gameplay for everyone else.

The only two people I can think of that I've expressly stopped inviting for this reason also have drinking problems, and have difficulty sharing attention with other people.

[Katisha]

Ryze Kuja wrote:

Kids.

Some of my best players have been "kids"...

Heck, I can remember one game where a young lady (9 year old) who seldom talked during our game, but then one encounter she went first. It was during an "Ambush by Mooks in an Ally" encounter early in a game. Her Sorcerer won Initiative and so when asked by the judge what she wanted to do, she said in a very soft voice "I'll scare them away".

The exchange went something like this...

Judge: "so that would be an Intimidate skill check. So what do you say to them...?"
Sorcerer: (after a bit of 'deer in the headlights' time, everyone is watching her...) says in a very small voice "I wave my knife at them and say Go Away or I'll stick you!"
Judge: "Roll your Intimidate..."
Sorcerer: "19 plus my 5 gives me a ...ah..."
Me - next in initiative and running a Bard with a great Intimidate, do a BAD THING and jump right saying I'll "Aid Another"...: "and I'll aid her play (I have an auto aid on Intimidate) by pointing at the Rangers Snake animal companion and saying (change to my PC voice) 'see what happened to the last guy who didn't do what she told him? If I were you, I'd fade away home now... '"
Some of the other players Ready Actions incase a fight starts...
And the mooks faded away into the night on their Initiatives....

You know, I'll bet that young lady didn't remember the +2 I gave her - but she stole the line "...you should fade away home now..." and used it in later games. In fact, I'm pretty sure she practiced that at home... In her 9 year old little girl voice... It was (IS!) creepy when she repeated it again later...

And I think her Sorcerer put ranks in Intimidate next time she leveled... and looked into taking the spell cause fear.

[Ryze Kuja]

I should clarify, kids that are well behaved, involved, and act like adults are different, and more than welcome. Kids that act like kids, or adults who act like kids, aren't.

[Claxon]

The kind that argues with me at the table after I've made a ruling.

If you think I'm wrong that could be legit, but I don't want to bog down the game with discussion of rules that I've made a ruling on. If you want to discuss it, let's talk about it outside of the normal game session and figure out how to go from there.

[TOZ]

I ban jerks. Sometimes this includes myself.

Ryze Kuja wrote:

Kids.

Let me tell you, getting a bunch of kids at GenCon for the special removed any anxiety of having to put on a good show.

[Corvo Spiritwind]

McDaygo wrote:

See I never understood cheating at A table top RPG. There is literally nothing at stake but pride which shouldn’t be am issue in a game.

That has always been weird. It's not even pride since there's nothing to be proud of when cheating in a party game. It's really just a fragile ego sort of thing.

[Michael Talley 759]

nope, I welcome all types. a few Murderhobos often complain after a few sessions when they notice their monstrous race character builds are being treated as monsters.

Mostly they complain that I use a "common sense" style of running NPC's when it comes to players playings things in the uncommon and rare categories.

Like the player that was playing a Lizardfolk Barbarian, that ended up slaughtering a village of women and children and was shocked to be hunted down by the surviving men that had been out hunting, that and to be reminded that Speak with dead was a way to get information about a killer and was even more upset that the other players didn't back him up.

The same player later down the road ended up getting his characters killed 12 times but only after events of his own making.

He did finally start finding his method of fitting in with a Grippli Rogue I think they went with the scout Archetype. The character ended up being more heroic in the end than the Paladin.

It's one of the reasons I don't disallow players types. All types can bring something to the table, and a few of his murder hobo moments were helpful, his planning and tact, however, were what did him in so many times in the past.

I think I heard he is a pretty decent player and starting to become a Game master now as well in Alaska.

[Senko]

Michael Talley 759 wrote:

nope, I welcome all types. a few Murderhobos often complain after a few sessions when they notice their monstrous race character builds are being treated as monsters.

Mostly they complain that I use a "common sense" style of running NPC's when it comes to players playings things in the uncommon and rare categories.

Like the player that was playing a Lizardfolk Barbarian, that ended up slaughtering a village of women and children and was shocked to be hunted down by the surviving men that had been out hunting, that and to be reminded that Speak with dead was a way to get information about a killer and was even more upset that the other players didn't back him up.

The same player later down the road ended up getting his characters killed 12 times but only after events of his own making.

He did finally start finding his method of fitting in with a Grippli Rogue I think they went with the scout Archetype. The character ended up being more heroic in the end than the Paladin.

It's one of the reasons I don't disallow players types. All types can bring something to the table, and a few of his murder hobo moments were helpful, his planning and tact, however, were what did him in so many times in the past.

I think I heard he is a pretty decent player and starting to become a Game master now as well in Alaska.

Sounds like a typical hero origin story for one of those villagers. Inhuman monster kills parents/family they hunt it down and slay it mounting its head somewhere.

[Mightypion]

Honestly, I like common sense NPCs when I am playing Orcish/Thiefling Abyssal Bloodrager. It kind of akin to a free bonus to intimidate, or even to diplomacy if you are polite and this surprises them.

Even for extra rewards,

Said chaotic Neutral Orcish Abyssal bloodrager won act 1 in WOTR and, wishing to have Galfrey fork over more cash, starts humming the tune of:

"Warcrimes may just happen,
unless you wish to pay me more,
ill go off
and raid once more!"

Queen Galfrey of Mendev:
"Why would I pay you more money to have you warcrime less demons?"

Character:
"My Queen, if you want more warcrimes on the Demons, that can also be arranged, would you want the anti-demon-warcrimes to be humilating, painfull or massively murderous?"

Queen Galfrey of Mendev:
"Yes."

The $ signs in the chaotic neutral bloodragers mercenary murder hoboes eyes suddenly change into hearts and thus began an unusual romance.

[Michael Talley 759]

Senko wrote:

Michael Talley 759 wrote:

nope, I welcome all types. a few Murderhobos often complain after a few sessions when they notice their monstrous race character builds are being treated as monsters.

Mostly they complain that I use a "common sense" style of running NPC's when it comes to players playings things in the uncommon and rare categories.

Like the player that was playing a Lizardfolk Barbarian, that ended up slaughtering a village of women and children and was shocked to be hunted down by the surviving men that had been out hunting, that and to be reminded that Speak with dead was a way to get information about a killer and was even more upset that the other players didn't back him up.

The same player later down the road ended up getting his characters killed 12 times but only after events of his own making.

He did finally start finding his method of fitting in with a Grippli Rogue I think they went with the scout Archetype. The character ended up being more heroic in the end than the Paladin.

It's one of the reasons I don't disallow players types. All types can bring something to the table, and a few of his murder hobo moments were helpful, his planning and tact, however, were what did him in so many times in the past.

I think I heard he is a pretty decent player and starting to become a Game master now as well in Alaska.

Sounds like a typical hero origin story for one of those villagers. Inhuman monster kills parents/family they hunt it down and slay it mounting its head somewhere.

Honestly, I had debated making an Islander that had made it to the mainland to become a Human Ranger NPC with Humanoid - reptilian that would be an encounter (friendly type) but never did

[Sylvan Scott]

McDaygo wrote:

For me Unless I am playing with an advanced group that is there for the story vs. just rolling dice to kill s%&# I soft ban antagonist players. (The player that is always counter productive to the party to slows down sessions. Now with an advanced group and I have a a player I speak to them about it instead who I know can be the subtle hidden villain I’ll allow case by case but that also depends the group. I’ve seen some players get majorly mad out of character at in character betrayals.

There are types of players I have a lot of trouble with but few resources to replace them with. Basically, I'm stuck with the pool I've got. Otherwise I'd ban the moody, edgelord, dark-and-mysterious, never-talks-except-to-insult-someone, gets-everyone-else-in-trouble-because-they-never-learned-to-be-social types...

[Sylvan Scott]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I talked to the players afterwards and the 2 non-participants said they don't really like the "talking" encounters, preferring to resolve everything by die rolls. Now, this isn't a social anxiety thing...

I'm not sure that's true. Plenty of people have trouble "performing" in public ... singing, dancing, giving a speech, acting out what their character does, etc... I have had many players like this who don't seem socially awkward but feel embarrassed about speaking as their character. They always preface things with, "My character asks about such-n-such" rather than role-playing and simply asking the question in their character's role.

That's all.

Not saying you're wrong but there could be another type of social anxiety going for these two than just the shy person who doesn't speak up easily.

Yours,
Sylvan

[*Thelith]

Sylvan Scott wrote:

McDaygo wrote:

For me Unless I am playing with an advanced group that is there for the story vs. just rolling dice to kill s%&# I soft ban antagonist players. (The player that is always counter productive to the party to slows down sessions. Now with an advanced group and I have a a player I speak to them about it instead who I know can be the subtle hidden villain I’ll allow case by case but that also depends the group. I’ve seen some players get majorly mad out of character at in character betrayals.

There are types of players I have a lot of trouble with but few resources to replace them with. Basically, I'm stuck with the pool I've got. Otherwise I'd ban the moody, edgelord, dark-and-mysterious, never-talks-except-to-insult-someone, gets-everyone-else-in-trouble-because-they-never-learned-to-be-social types...

Is this your entire group?

:)

[Mark Hoover 330]

Michael Talley 759 wrote:

nope, I welcome all types. a few Murderhobos often complain after a few sessions when they notice their monstrous race character builds are being treated as monsters.

Question: did you TELL the players up front their monstrous race characters would be hunted as monsters?

One of my homebrews, had a backstory involving orcs and barbarism both being very bad and socially prejudiced against. I gave the players a "player's guide" to the region with this info, then reviewed it at Session 0. One of my players decided to be a half-orc barbarian.

I asked her "are you SURE you want to play that character in this region, based on the negative perception everyone has of both barbarians in general and all things Orcish?" She's like, umm... yeah, why?

2 adventures in, the PCs make it to a backwater village. The half-orc barbarian is stopped at the stockade wall and told she'll have to sleep in the barn with the rest of the pigs; the other PCs were welcome. What ensued was a near total murder of the village militia, halted only by swift intervention from the party's wizard.

The player was genuinely peeved that her character was so blatantly discriminated against. I calmly handed her the printed copy of the player's guide and pointed to the "Orc Wars" section.

I always try to tell my players, up front, if their PCs will have some disadvantage based on the way I'm running the setting, their race, class or whatever, preferably before they've even decided what to play. That being said, I have no control over whether or not they remember or care about those disadvantages.

[Sylvan Scott]

*Thelith wrote:

Sylvan Scott wrote:

McDaygo wrote:

For me Unless I am playing with an advanced group that is there for the story vs. just rolling dice to kill s%&# I soft ban antagonist players. (The player that is always counter productive to the party to slows down sessions. Now with an advanced group and I have a a player I speak to them about it instead who I know can be the subtle hidden villain I’ll allow case by case but that also depends the group. I’ve seen some players get majorly mad out of character at in character betrayals.

There are types of players I have a lot of trouble with but few resources to replace them with. Basically, I'm stuck with the pool I've got. Otherwise I'd ban the moody, edgelord, dark-and-mysterious, never-talks-except-to-insult-someone, gets-everyone-else-in-trouble-because-they-never-learned-to-be-social types...

Is this your entire group?

:)

Just the one...

...And he's a roommate, too. That makes it REALLY awkward!

How *do* you talk to someone who lives with you 24/7?

Yours,
Sylvan