PDA

View Full Version : What do people hate?



root9125
2009-10-15, 07:52 PM
As a new DM, I can't really tell when people *aren't* enjoying the adventure. So what are some common mistakes people make that bore the players?

Thanks!

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-10-15, 07:55 PM
Railroading. Giving a nudge in the right direction from time to time is fine and well, but forcing players along a storyline they don't care for often leads to misery and boredom.

Kylarra
2009-10-15, 07:56 PM
massive railroading
DMPCs
too much of either heavy RPing or Hack 'n Slash, depending on your group.
riddles

industrious
2009-10-15, 07:56 PM
Railroading is a big one. If the PC goes outside your plot, and then get forced back into it, they don't like it. If they come up with a creative, out-of-the box way of solving a problem, reward them.

Ex. You are on a boat. You see a set of pale luminescent eyes peering at you from twenty feet away.
"I attack with my longbow!" (rolls)
...you miss.
"But I got a natural 20!"
...you still miss. That person is an important part of the plot. Stop killing my NPCs!

Mr. Mud
2009-10-15, 07:57 PM
massive railroading
DMPCs
too much of either heavy RPing or Hack 'n Slash, depending on your group.
riddles

Riddles/Puzzle at the wrong time. After you DM a bit more, you'll understand when, and when not to through out a puzzle/riddle at your players.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-10-15, 07:58 PM
Railroading. Giving a nudge in the right direction from time to time is fine and well, but forcing players along a storyline they don't care for often leads to misery and boredom.

This, this, and this again. Railroading will not only cause much annoyance, it will cause rebellion. In an extremely railroaded game I'm in right now, another player and I have started a sport we call "Screwing with the DM's traintracks".

Tengu_temp
2009-10-15, 08:01 PM
Screwing with their characters without their consent. Changing their alignment, forcing them to take levels in this and that, causing paladins to fall, hacking off their limbs when regeneration is not easily available, raping them, et cetera.

Dienekes
2009-10-15, 08:01 PM
Blatant railroading.

No plot at all and the players have no clue what to do

Not giving the players the ability to play their character

Letting the players have their character be overbearing on everyone elses

impossible opponents

boringly easy opponents

not enough description

vividly Tolkienesque descriptions about everything and their shoes

immemorial npcs

annoyingly memorable npcs

GM pcs

lack of time for each character (especially when the group is divided for an extended period of time)

encounters that are painfully set up so only 1 or 2 characters can shine

f**king tier 1 characters in a group of tier 4-5s

f**king tier 4-5 characters in a group of tier 1s (note for this and the last one, only really a problem if one group or the other blatantly dominates the game so the other can't do anything)

Being a stickler for rules

Being too loose with the rules

GMing is a balancing act. When I started out I annoyingly asked everyone at the group what they liked and didn't like and begged them to be as candid and harsh as possible. Now I'm regarded as the only competent GM of the group.

root9125
2009-10-15, 08:01 PM
Thanks. :D

Is it railroading if I have a plot set, they totally derail the plot (read: killed my freaking NPCs again and started an international war), and have to live with the consequences of their actions (read: joined up with the Evil group under implied threat of violence)? Or should they be allowed to do nearly anything they like, without regard to consequence? Because... saying "okay, you're chaotic evil now" doesn't seem like enough. XD

Flickerdart
2009-10-15, 08:04 PM
Thanks. :D

Is it railroading if I have a plot set, they totally derail the plot (read: killed my freaking NPCs again and started an international war), and have to live with the consequences of their actions (read: joined up with the Evil group under implied threat of violence)? Or should they be allowed to do nearly anything they like, without regard to consequence? Because... saying "okay, you're chaotic evil now" doesn't seem like enough. XD
"Ok, you're Chaotic Evil now, and the entire Paladin Order of Pelor is coming to curb-stomp you. Your new allies are willing to offer you shelter in exchange for etc etc etc."

root9125
2009-10-15, 08:05 PM
"Ok, you're Chaotic Evil now, and the entire Paladin Order of Pelor is coming to curb-stomp you. Your new allies are willing to offer you shelter in exchange for etc etc etc."

Yeah, like this, but is it railroading to have the "etc etc etc" *actually happen*, or is it necessary to have my NPCs (their new "allies") *enforce* the terms of the bargain?

Iku Rex
2009-10-15, 08:07 PM
Ex. You are on a boat. You see a set of pale luminescent eyes peering at you from twenty feet away.
"I attack with my longbow!" (rolls)
...you miss.
"But I got a natural 20!"
...you still miss. That person is an important part of the plot. Stop killing my NPCs!http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=780

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-10-15, 08:07 PM
Thanks. :D

Is it railroading if I have a plot set, they totally derail the plot (read: killed my freaking NPCs again and started an international war), and have to live with the consequences of their actions (read: joined up with the Evil group under implied threat of violence)? Or should they be allowed to do nearly anything they like, without regard to consequence? Because... saying "okay, you're chaotic evil now" doesn't seem like enough. XD

No. That's rational. Railroading would have been if they couldn't kill the npcs, and if they somehow could, another would appear to fill the same role.

jiriku
2009-10-15, 08:09 PM
+1 railroading. Also, forced character stupidity or blindness. By this I mean a situation where the DM fails to inform players of things that would be blatantly obvious to anyone in the PC's situation, or rules that the character has done something boneheadedly stupid simply because the players have not explicitly stating they are not doing it.

Example of the forced character stupidity: My character, on a 20' wide balcony with a heavy stone railing, is taking cover behind the railing. An enemy fires at me, hits the cover, and blows away about a 3' wide stretch of the railing. I continue to cover behind the railing. On the following round, the monster shoots again, and the DM informs me that I've been hit because I was "taking cover" in the 3' section of destroyed railing. Apparently because I didn't explicitly state that I was going to shift 2' to the left to gain cover behind the undamaged railing, my character choose to stand in place and try to cover behind thin air. Duh.

Example of forced character blindness: characters hear a strange noise, and say they look around for the source of the noise. Monster is located on the ceiling. DM rules that the characters don't see the monster because they didn't specify they were looking at the ceiling.

In general, players get most upset when the DM arbitrarily forces their characters to act foolish or incompetent, or when he "steals" power from them by arbitrarily causing their abilities to fail. As DM, you never need to do this: players will act foolish and incompetent and fail in spectacular ways entirely without your intervention!

Dienekes
2009-10-15, 08:09 PM
Thanks. :D

Is it railroading if I have a plot set, they totally derail the plot (read: killed my freaking NPCs again and started an international war), and have to live with the consequences of their actions (read: joined up with the Evil group under implied threat of violence)? Or should they be allowed to do nearly anything they like, without regard to consequence? Because... saying "okay, you're chaotic evil now" doesn't seem like enough. XD

Depending on the players (some just want to kick down doors and kill dragons) I would generally say make sure that they understand that their actions have consequences. (And rookie mistake. Always keep 3-4 separate plots in your notes, chances are your big one will crumble before your eyes as that annoyed mage gets bored with your villain and decides to disintegrate him)

If they kill the king, the royal family will be out to get them with all their vast resources. If they're going on a rampage across the country, well there are gods for a reason in the campaign world.

deuxhero
2009-10-15, 08:17 PM
Lazy Tolkien plagiarism. Nothing makes a world more mundane (except setting it in medieval Europe, avoid that as well).

root9125
2009-10-15, 08:20 PM
Lazy Tolkien plagiarism. Nothing makes a world more mundane (except setting it in medieval Europe, avoid that as well).

Heh, I did the opposite. I took it on myself to write backstory for an entire universe before I proposed running a campaign. I thought to myself, if I can't write this stuff, what will I do with NPCs and plotlines?

Unfortunately, it leads to a lot of explaining as to what countries do what, and why. Meh, the price you pay, I guess.

industrious
2009-10-15, 08:21 PM
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=780

Exactly. DM of the Rings FTW.

deuxhero
2009-10-15, 08:22 PM
No elfs, dwarfs orcs ect? Good job.

Dienekes
2009-10-15, 08:31 PM
No elfs, dwarfs orcs ect? Good job.

Ehh, this is a bit loaded. Some groups want to have their dwarves and orcs. Hell some people even want to have elves for some ungodly reason. The trick is to not make them exactly like everyone else has made them. And be reasonable and believable with them.

If you're dwarves and elves hate each other, ok a bit bland. Tell me why they hate each other, and make it a good reason. If it's a good enough reason the blatant cliches aren't as bad.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-15, 08:32 PM
No. That's rational. Railroading would have been if they couldn't kill the npcs, and if they somehow could, another would appear to fill the same role.

You mean like backup mayors?

Flickerdart
2009-10-15, 08:48 PM
Yeah, like this, but is it railroading to have the "etc etc etc" *actually happen*, or is it necessary to have my NPCs (their new "allies") *enforce* the terms of the bargain?
Their new allies don't have to enforce anything. Your players just angered a swarm of Paladins, and they're being given a chance to survive, for a price. If they don't take it, don't force them to. Don't make the Paladins unkillable, nor homing: the tracking and the chasing and the fighting is another chance for players to escape, albeit on their own terms. The difference here is one between "you're not following my plot so rocks fall Paladins kill you" and "you've made your choice, these are the consequences, deal with them as you will".

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-10-15, 08:50 PM
As a new DM, I can't really tell when people *aren't* enjoying the adventure. So what are some common mistakes people make that bore the players?

Thanks!Ask your players. It varies from person to person.

Pika...
2009-10-15, 08:51 PM
As a new DM, I can't really tell when people *aren't* enjoying the adventure. So what are some common mistakes people make that bore the players?

Thanks!

Assuming everyone likes the same thing.


I swear, if I have to sit through another hack-and-slash module I will scream. Then again, I know most people I game with are quite glad to do modules, so I appreciate it when a DM asks the players their thoughts and trices to balance a bit for everyone.

ericgrau
2009-10-15, 08:51 PM
Railroading
DMPCs
Riddles

You may note a common theme with these and most complaints thus far: the DM takes over and doesn't let PCs do what they want. Bad consequences for bad actions are fine, but forcing along a path, being the PC that does things for the real PCs, giving challenges with predetermined solutions, etc. are annoying.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-10-15, 08:54 PM
DMPCs aren't always a bad idea. If the players all want to play meleers, having a skillbot/healer DMPC following them around and being useful is a grand idea.

arguskos
2009-10-15, 08:59 PM
DMPCs aren't always a bad idea. If the players all want to play meleers, having a skillbot/healer DMPC following them around and being useful is a grand idea.
And sometimes (mostly my group for some reason), the players really LIKE an NPC the DM has made, and so asks them to tag along and be with the party as party members. Really, I've had players drag NPCs along and force me to flesh them out into full characters who chill with the party and be party members. :smallconfused: Strange, but true.

ericgrau
2009-10-15, 09:01 PM
DMPCs aren't always a bad idea. If the players all want to play meleers, having a skillbot/healer DMPC following them around and being useful is a grand idea.

These are NPCs and yes they are great. Technically DMPCs are NPCs too, but they act more like PCs. Or super PCs since the DM can do w/e he wants. Hence what I said before about the DM taking over.

Yukitsu
2009-10-15, 09:01 PM
Middle of combat rules changes that help the enemy.
Middle of combat rules changes that counteract other middle of combat rules changes to help out the enemy.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-15, 09:03 PM
Screwing with their characters without their consent. Changing their alignment, forcing them to take levels in this and that, causing paladins to fall, hacking off their limbs when regeneration is not easily available, raping them, et cetera.

Remember, the plot is the DMs, but the characters belong to the players. You can set up the world however you like to make your cool adventure happen, but always, always, always remember that the players decisions are final on what their character does.

If it's something particularly stupid, they can and will face consequences in the world for their choice, but it's still their choice. If you take this aspect away from them, it *will* ruin the game.

Dienekes
2009-10-15, 09:09 PM
And sometimes (mostly my group for some reason), the players really LIKE an NPC the DM has made, and so asks them to tag along and be with the party as party members. Really, I've had players drag NPCs along and force me to flesh them out into full characters who chill with the party and be party members. :smallconfused: Strange, but true.

Happened to me for one actually. For a nameless guard of all things.

Masaioh
2009-10-15, 09:09 PM
I don't get why everyone hates DMPCs. Is there some specific criteria I'm missing, or is this all characters played by DMs?

ericgrau
2009-10-15, 09:20 PM
I don't get why everyone hates DMPCs. Is there some specific criteria I'm missing, or is this all characters played by DMs?

DMPCs are PCs played by the DM that act like or often even outshine the real PCs. Like I said, NPCs are fine.

SartheKobold
2009-10-15, 09:41 PM
DMPCs aren't that bad, so long as they have a purpose... Mostly as "Superman Gone Bad" badguys... That overleveled, overequipped DMPC leads the charge through the Alhoon's inverted tower, handles most of the heavy work, is incredibly overbearing the entire time, and at the end of the session... Psychically Dominated as he turns on the PCs...

You'd be suprised how much they'll enjoy a terrible night as soon as they get to cut the smug bastard to pieces...

Dienekes
2009-10-15, 09:43 PM
I don't get why everyone hates DMPCs. Is there some specific criteria I'm missing, or is this all characters played by DMs?

You know that character that the GM controls, and seems to love as his very own character? You can tell he's trying not to be blatantly biased but somehow the monsters (that he rolls) don't seem to hit him quite as much. The character seems to always know the way the plot is supposed to go, even when the actual character the GM was playing wouldn't. And generally, when he talks you know you essentially have to listen, since for all intents and purposes the character has a direct link to God. He knows how to win every social encounter because he directly knows how every other NPC will react to everything.

That's a GMPC. And may they all be burned in the fiery pits for eternity.

Now, take that with a party NPC. Since I can only comment on my experiences I'll talk about Nolan (the nameless guard I mentioned a post or two up). Nolan has a set personality, and occasionally feels like a fish out of water. He's a guard, and a loyal one. And he gets incredibly uncomfortable when the PCs make their dealings with the other higher ranking NPCS as such he tries to stay in the background, unless it goes against his set personality. He makes obvious mistakes, but he contributes so the players don't rely on him. In combat, he is helpful. He'll put himself in some position so that the party rogue can flank. He'll defend the wizard so that he can cast his spells with ease. Essentially in combat he does what the party requires him to do. And his rolls, like every other player his life is determined by the d20 and his luck, not the GMs desire to play through him.

That is, to me, the major differences.

sadi
2009-10-15, 11:35 PM
Telling the players no evil characters, then letting one of them take levels in assassin.

Insisting that all the players form a group and stick together. (The new pc shows up, you are forced to accept them and move on even if the character is a complete and utter buffoon and no one else would voluntarily associate with them)

Insisting they have a great plot and ignoring the fact that the players don't care about it a all and want to do something else (railroad)

Letting players sit for hours while someone has to go into great detail about something that is basically irrelevant to the game. (Actually had someone decide they wanted to marry some random princess they never met, out of the blue. We played 6 hours combined over 2 game sessions, and he spent a good 3 1/2 hours straight on it, half the other players went with him during the second session to try to keep him out of trouble, the rest of us sat and basically did nothing because someone had tol wait to meet someone relevant to the plot.)

Favoritism

Screwing over players for no reason other than the DM is sadistic.

DMPC (In general I hate having npcs follow the party around with the only real purpose to annoy the party or show them up, especially when there are twice as many players as probably should be in the game)

Games where people have to play a super secret race and class, so you don't have any idea what type of casters you have, if at all, until after the game has started.

Kallisti
2009-10-15, 11:42 PM
Blatant railroading.

No plot at all and the players have no clue what to do

Not giving the players the ability to play their character

Letting the players have their character be overbearing on everyone elses

impossible opponents

boringly easy opponents

not enough description

vividly Tolkienesque descriptions about everything and their shoes

immemorial npcs

annoyingly memorable npcs

GM pcs

lack of time for each character (especially when the group is divided for an extended period of time)

encounters that are painfully set up so only 1 or 2 characters can shine

f**king tier 1 characters in a group of tier 4-5s

f**king tier 4-5 characters in a group of tier 1s (note for this and the last one, only really a problem if one group or the other blatantly dominates the game so the other can't do anything)

Being a stickler for rules

Being too loose with the rules

GMing is a balancing act. When I started out I annoyingly asked everyone at the group what they liked and didn't like and begged them to be as candid and harsh as possible. Now I'm regarded as the only competent GM of the group.

This is actually a pretty damn good list. Not comprehensive, of course, and it depends on the group. Railroading can be the absolute worst of all, though. Or, depending on the group, not giving them enough plot rail ro guide them.

Kylarra
2009-10-15, 11:46 PM
DMPCs aren't always a bad idea. If the players all want to play meleers, having a skillbot/healer DMPC following them around and being useful is a grand idea.

All DMPCs are NPCs, but not all NPCs are DMPCs.

I cannot stress this point enough. A support character that you (as the DM) have no stake in their lives and are not living vicariously through is an NPC. A character that is your avatar in the party/game is a DMPC.

Jerthanis
2009-10-16, 12:32 AM
Not getting anywhere, or spending an overly long amount of time dealing with consequences of PC actions that were forced on the party.

There was this time in a Hunter: The Reckoning game where we were talking to some Drug dealers or something and on our way out we were jumped by some Ghouls. It got lethal really fast and we spent the next three sessions running from the cops and trying to throw them off our trail. It was annoying because it wasn't like we were on the Hunt at the time, and went out of our way to kill them. The ST just had them pop up and draw down on us. Dealing with it was a waste of time.

Obvious GM timestalling also grinds my gears. Sometimes a GM doesn't know what he wants to happen next, so will facilitate arguments between PCs or players, or will prompt the PCs to roleplay amongst each other during a long car ride scene, without letting the scene end and the game move on. "Looking something up" also becomes common, and lasts several minutes as they look at the page in silence.

Also *twitch* roleplaying scenes of the characters eating. Double points if the food items are described in vivid or exhausting detail.

Oh, I guess this is more of a list of things I hate, not people in general.

Eldariel
2009-10-16, 12:39 AM
No elfs, dwarfs orcs ect? Good job.

No humans? Good job.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-16, 01:31 AM
I don't get why everyone hates DMPCs. Is there some specific criteria I'm missing, or is this all characters played by DMs?

It's generally recurring characters played by the DM that tend to be with your party for encounters.

If it's a one time disposable mook...nobody cares. If it's just a guy you see in town that frequently offers missions...that's not a DMPC either.

The DMPC is like gandalf in LOTR. Overpowers the rest of the party combined, does whatever the hell he wants, is never in any actual danger, and ends up telling the party what to do. Basically, the Dms playing with himself.

They should be avoided like the plague, because they invariably do ruin games. I suggest that if you think your party has some massive need for an NPC, you give it to one or more players to control. It's vastly safer.

ondonaflash
2009-10-16, 10:18 PM
It's generally recurring characters played by the DM that tend to be with your party for encounters.

If it's a one time disposable mook...nobody cares. If it's just a guy you see in town that frequently offers missions...that's not a DMPC either.

The DMPC is like gandalf in LOTR. Overpowers the rest of the party combined, does whatever the hell he wants, is never in any actual danger, and ends up telling the party what to do. Basically, the Dms playing with himself.

They should be avoided like the plague, because they invariably do ruin games. I suggest that if you think your party has some massive need for an NPC, you give it to one or more players to control. It's vastly safer.


"If you want to play with yourself, do it in private"

Asheram
2009-10-16, 11:36 PM
What I hate...

First, it'd be; Being covered in fish.

Second; DM Favorism

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-16, 11:43 PM
It's generally recurring characters played by the DM that tend to be with your party for encounters.

If it's a one time disposable mook...nobody cares. If it's just a guy you see in town that frequently offers missions...that's not a DMPC either.

The DMPC is like gandalf in LOTR. Overpowers the rest of the party combined, does whatever the hell he wants, is never in any actual danger, and ends up telling the party what to do. Basically, the Dms playing with himself.

They should be avoided like the plague, because they invariably do ruin games. I suggest that if you think your party has some massive need for an NPC, you give it to one or more players to control. It's vastly safer.

DMPCs can also be great big baby sitters that are there too keep the party on the plot rails. Anyone seen the second Gamer's movie? Check it out on Youtube as Sir Osric is a prime example to the point where the DM makes alignment-based justifications for his railroads. That's a PLAYERS line!

What I hate is fetch quests that are simply that. If I want to do a straight forward fetch quest I'll play a computer game.

Mongoose87
2009-10-16, 11:52 PM
It's funny, everyone's complaining about DMPCs outshining the party - the one that travels with my party, despite being our only real caster has a way of also being the first one unconscious in a given fight, and often the only one.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-17, 12:10 AM
He's not a DMPC then if that happens. If he was one he'd have uber hit dice.

Mongoose87
2009-10-17, 12:14 AM
He's not a DMPC then if that happens. If he was one he'd have uber hit dice.

If you only saw his Con score.

Magnor Criol
2009-10-17, 12:45 AM
Keep the pacing up. It's not necessary to have everything planned and memorized ahead of time, of course, but a measure of preparedness goes a long way.

For example, if you know a certain fight is going to happen, jot down important combat statistics (AC, hp, saves, attacks, special abilities) for all the monsters you know are going to be involved on a easy-to-reference sheet and keep it handy. That way you don't have to spend a lot of time in the middle of a fight scene flipping back and forth in the monster manual or the module's character pages looking up what they can do and whether or not they're hit by that arrow. If you go a step further and become familiar with the tactics the combatants you control would employ ahead of time, so you can react to your PCs quickly as they act in combat, even better.

Also, there's some rolls you can make ahead of time. Initiatives, for example - roll them and jot them down on a separate piece of paper for each fight, and then all you have to do is slide the PCs in wherever they roll. Your players have to trust that you're not rigging things, though.

It's not like players expect things to click along at a fast pace all the time - and they'll certainly take their own sweet time on their turns sometimes - but it becomes obvious to both the players and to you if the mood and excitement from a fight drains out because things moved too slow.

Sharkman1231
2009-10-17, 09:41 AM
So I have this cleric in a campain, lvl 12. His (my) favorite tactic, shatter every important door we come across. My DM responds by making every door "magical" and every adjacent wall "magical" so I can't do that. He says "Oh you're being too loud, etc". My response "We have a clunky clecic, pally, and really clunky warhorse. I can make noise to shatter freakin' doors."

Pisses me off...
I guess that would count as railroading, right?
Or maybe just nerfing spells...

And I cant shape stone a hole in the wall either. :-(

magellan
2009-10-17, 11:52 AM
No humans? Good job.

Of course an orc with a funny hat isn't much more than a simple orc. :)

Eldariel
2009-10-17, 11:58 AM
Of course an orc with a funny hat isn't much more than a simple orc. :)

Orc manly!

Glass Mouse
2009-10-17, 01:05 PM
Lots of random thoughts here... Maybe you can use some :smallsmile:


Yeah, like this, but is it railroading to have the "etc etc etc" *actually happen*, or is it necessary to have my NPCs (their new "allies") *enforce* the terms of the bargain?

Let me answer that question with another question:
What would be the most realistic? To have the NPCs do their best to get the PCs to fulfill their end of the bargain, or for them to just shrug and say "yeah, we did threaten with that, but you're okay, so I guess we'll let it slide."

Do NOT "actually make it happen". Give the PCs the opportunity for it to happen, maybe more than one chance. If they turn it down... then just look to your NPCs' goals and wishes, and take it from there.


A signature on this forum (don't remember who's, sorry) contain the following clever words:
Railroading is not saying "There is a wall here".
Railroading is saying "There is a wall everywhere BUT here".


Actually, a generally good rule of thumb is: Never say 'no'. Instead, say 'yes, but...'
"Yes, you can fireball the merchant, but remember you just saw an entire cityguard outside."
"Yes, you can do this weird and cool battlemaneuvre, but you're looking at a pretty high DC."
"Yes, you can shoot Gollum, but do you even have a good reason for doing it?"
"etc."

"Are you sure?" is always a great question :smallbiggrin:



stuff about GM assuming that every PC is completely and utterly retarded

That just sucks. The very least the GM could do (if it's something obvious) is ask.
I always do that - at the very least, it eases my conscience when I screw the PCs over afterwards! Sure, their prisoner escapes in the middle of night... but maybe you should have tied him up, or put up a guard... like I specifically asked if you did. Not my problem that he returns and kills you all :smallbiggrin:

Generally, I think this problem is either because:
a) GM is stupid, or
b) GM is plain railroading (on a small scale)

Reminds me of another story I read in here.
*big fight against BBEG - party is winning*
*BBEG slips out through window*
PCs: Wait, there's a window!
GM: Yep.
PCs: Why didn't you tell us???
GM: If I had, you would've just prevented his escape.
PCs: ...


What I personally hate the most?
GMs taking over my character! I've thankfully never had a GM trying to determine my build, but when the GM say "No, your characters feel this and that, not that and this!", I seriously start considering to screw their game over... That character is the only thing I control, and I. Want to. Control. It! :smallfurious:

Also; OP, have a look at this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76474). It's full of really, really good advice for a new GM :smallsmile:

CockroachTeaParty
2009-10-17, 01:19 PM
One of my big personal beefs is when a DM starts conveniently sparing PCs who otherwise should by all logic be dead. This has happened to me more than once.
I've had situations where a DM has thrown an incredible challenge at us (the party), and when the PCs start to drop like lemmings, the DM starts avoiding attacking helpless or weakened characters, or asking things like 'how much hp do you have?' before telling you how much damage you're about to take.

Dammit, if you're going to TPK us, DO IT! Don't realize suddenly that you've made an unbalanced, terrible encounter. See it through. If you start putting the kiddy gloves back on after you've taken them off, then the suspense starts to fade. Death should have real consequences, and the PCs should have a reason to be afraid. Otherwise, you can just do whatever you want in an encounter, confident that you'll survive regardless of what happens.

I suppose this is similar to railroading, but it just makes me even more angry than normal railroading. I can understand the railroading impulse; it can be hard to make a plot, and you want to see it through. But reducing the danger of an encounter during the fight always cheeses me off.

"Whoops, that's a x4 critical hit with a scythe from a raging ogre barbarian. How much hp do you have? Uh... wow, he rolls all 1's... and um... you're at -1 hp..."

Bull. If you're going to give your raging ogre barbarian a scythe, be prepared for obscene crits, and don't tell me my level 3 wizard survived. The x4 power attack damage alone should have cleaved my head clean off! :smallfurious:

Fishy
2009-10-17, 01:25 PM
I hate spectating.

I hate standing around and watching NPCs fight other NPCs. I hate when my abilities fail for no reason. I hate when my abilities 'fail' for thinly justified and entirely arbitrary reasons. I hate getting knocked unconscious in the first round of a battle. I hate Dominate, I hate Confusion, I hate the Panicked condition. I hate nearly every spell with the [Mind Affecting] tag. I hate being punished for trying something different. I hate getting ignored or interrupted when I want to say something. I hate when I don't get a chance to re-interrupt the NPC who just interrupted me. I hate long chunks of text and time without any opportunity for me to act or contribute.

I hate being prevented from making a decision, and I hate when my decisions become irrelevant. Pretty much everything else is gravy.

CockroachTeaParty
2009-10-17, 01:30 PM
I hate Dominate, I hate Confusion, I hate the Panicked condition. I hate nearly every spell with the [Mind Affecting] tag.


Nothing makes me happier as a DM when a character bans enchantment. It's a double-edged sword; having NPCs that took hours to make suddenly becoming mind slaves is really frustrating.

I personally think enchantment and telepathy are more evil than necromancy, both morally and from a mechanics perspective.

Kaldrin
2009-10-17, 01:37 PM
What do I think makes incredibly poor experiences?

The GM vs the Players syndrome

This can go both ways, actually. If the players act like they're trying to win or the GM is trying to beat the players. It's meta-gaming at it's worst. The concept of role-playing is for the GM to set up the world and the situation and let the players react to it in a fashion that makes sense. As I said, both players and GMs are guilty of meta-gaming and it's really annoying for me to both run a game where players are doing it and to play in a game where anyone else is actively doing it and not trying to avoid it.

Railroading

The act of forcing your players to do your plot. It's only ugly if the players know it's happening and feel like it's not a choice. Realistically all campaigns that aren't purely sandbox games are railroads. You have an objective. You try to lead the players to it. If you do it in a way that's fun and seems to the players to be fluid and reactionary to what they're doing it won't feel like railroading.

As an example, I had players once kill the BEBG while he was part of the adventuring party... he was supposed to stumble into an artifact that corrupted him and gave him some funky powers. Did I say he wasn't killed? Nope. I just had them go on a tangent for a few sessions until it made sense to the storyline that there was another BEBG who, as it happened, was doing the exact same horrible stuff that the first one was going to do.

DMPCs

I hate them. They're for when the GM wants to play a godly character that no one would have possibly allowed in another game. Leave that kind of thinking at the door. Regular NPCs can be part of the group, but their job is to help out when the PCs get stumped by something... and even then they don't really do a lot other than provide sounding posts for the PCs.

My NPCs are there to provide reactionary entities for making my players role-play a little more, have a sub-plot that can be either investigated or ignored at the players' choice, or add a little to round out the group's abilities. They are never to take the spotlight in anything but a transitory way.

Freshmeat
2009-10-17, 01:38 PM
What I hate most are players who aren't honest with you.
Not a single one of the campaigns I've ever been in has gone past their fifth session. By that time there are always people who suddenly decide to stop playing yet aren't willing to say what's wrong and just make up excuses as to why they can't make the next session until the DM just gives up and stops asking. I've seen this happen again and again as both a player and a DM.

As for railroading... worst DM I ever had tried to force the plot of Looking For Group on us, word for word and action by action. His notes were literally a transcript of the first ten comics or so.
The lack of originality was absolutely staggering. Needless to say, that campaign died rather quick.

Kaldrin
2009-10-17, 01:46 PM
One of my big personal beefs is when a DM starts conveniently sparing PCs who otherwise should by all logic be dead.

Yes, this bugs me too. But it winds up in the larger railroading bin.

I once played a character who encountered an divine aberration when he was some distance away from the party while scouting. He started leading it in the other direction to give my party time to escape. When it announced that it could tell my PC was leading it away from the party it attacked. I fully knew this was going to happen. Instead of giving my character a death fitting a hero the DM decided to have some deus ex machina happen and he survived. I have been gaming for over 20 years and I have never felt so cheated in a game.

Poil
2009-10-17, 03:11 PM
I hate getting ignored or interrupted when I want to say something.

This. Even though I'm interrupting the other players all the time, otherwise I can never get a word in. Still, I interrupt to say stupid things too often but I'm working on it.

I've spent ALL of my rp experience with the dm running a fellow pc in the party and it only bugged me once (the dm's character was way more competently built so it was a lot more powerful and I felt a little superfluous*) but the dm got bored of it and switched back to his old one so it's no issue at all. I don't really recognize any of the complaints against it but I could be lucky and a bit oblivious.

*Currently playing Shadowrun 4e, dm's magician had 16 dice to resist drain and 20 when using Centering while mine only had 13/15. Thanks to some undeserved karma I'm currently at 14/16.

Drascin
2009-10-17, 04:17 PM
And sometimes (mostly my group for some reason), the players really LIKE an NPC the DM has made, and so asks them to tag along and be with the party as party members. Really, I've had players drag NPCs along and force me to flesh them out into full characters who chill with the party and be party members. :smallconfused: Strange, but true.

Tell me about it. In my current multiversal campaign, the players got really attached to a particular Imperial Guard sergeant when they were forcibly drafted into the Guard. He didn't have a name, because the squad was supposed to be almost annihilated. But he survived by a miracle of luck, and the players liked him, and he started rolling awesome rolls, and in the end they brought him with them when the world they were fighting in was finally overrun with Orks and they escaped to another dimension. So now the scarily practical sergeant John Russ is a permanent fixture of the party. They even got the man a Device energy crossbow, and I had to upgrade him from PL 6 mook to full-fledged PL9 hero (they're 10, but I like to keep the party npcs a bit below).

mostlyharmful
2009-10-17, 04:17 PM
Rules-Lawyers, and that's something I know I'm vulnerable to as well, it's just not fun to segway off into an interminable argument over a tiny piece of rules one-up-manship.. slows the whole game down and even if it's called against you move on and get on with it. course, it's a fine line between that and getting a game where you don't have any real say or understanding of whats happening but the way to deal with that is with delicacy and tact, not a three hour 'negotiation' while the rest of the group considers homicide due to extreme boredom.

waterpenguin43
2009-10-17, 06:46 PM
Nothing makes me happier as a DM when a character bans enchantment.

You would love my wizards (usually ban enchantment + necromancy)

waterpenguin43
2009-10-17, 06:48 PM
What I hate most are players who aren't honest with you.
Not a single one of the campaigns I've ever been in has gone past their fifth session. By that time there are always people who suddenly decide to stop playing yet aren't willing to say what's wrong and just make up excuses as to why they can't make the next session until the DM just gives up and stops asking.


Ugh...
I know....

Rixx
2009-10-17, 07:15 PM
I don't like being put in situations where it's clear that I can have no effect on the outcome.

Kulture
2009-10-18, 02:08 PM
I love roleplaying.
I love it more then the old dice rolling, though I find fulfillment in insta-gibbing people with destruction as much as the next necromancer.
Not many groups around even bother with social scenarios, especially at high level.
They gloss over them, even something like Tavern stays.
I understand that it could, in theory, take weeks, but Back in the dark days when I had to RP using world of warcrack, I'd sit in those taverns for hours, a high level character offering advice, provoking fights for my amusement, and generally dispensing awesome where I saw fit.

Occasionally I'd like my virtual invulnerability indulged from time to time...

And it's important that characters develop togeather, it helps build a foundation of a campaign.
Otherwise it's just some random strangers who happen to kick peoples' teeth in togeather.
Sometimes I miss the old times...

I miss when roleplaying had a comeradery, when characters and players meshed perfectly togeather, breathing life into every creation.
I miss the old days of over-arcing, but independant plots.
I find it bitterly ironic that the best roleplaying I ever had was back in WoW..

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-10-18, 02:25 PM
I don't like being put in situations where it's clear that I can have no effect on the outcome.

We'll file that under 'choo choo'.