Table-Trust

[big teej]

a curiosity.

what, if anything, makes you trust the people at your table less?

issues covered by "trust" in this particular instance include.

- not screwing over your character
- not making the DM's life difficult
- not ruining anybody's fun
- not making people wonder if you're following the rules

etc.

as I said, a curiosity, nothing more.

[nyarlathotep]

From a PC perspective

*Having all of my efforts invalidated by an NPC who is so powerful I am unneeded
*Having my backstory destroyed in the first session for no reason other than cheap pathos
*Reactive bans on things simply because they make the DM think more

From a DM side

*PCs being unmotivated but not helping me on how to engage them more
*PCs who are significantly better at optimizing than the rest of the party and stealing their thunder
*PCs who are significantly worse at optimizing than the rest of the party and refuse build help

[SleepyBadger]

From a PC perspective

*Having all of my efforts invalidated by an NPC who is so powerful I am unneeded
*Having my backstory destroyed in the first session for no reason other than cheap pathos
*Reactive bans on things simply because they make the DM think more

From a DM side

*PCs being unmotivated but not helping me on how to engage them more
*PCs who are significantly better at optimizing than the rest of the party and stealing their thunder
*PCs who are significantly worse at optimizing than the rest of the party and refuse build help

I second these. I'd also add:
From a player's point of view:
*DM totally negating some of your new found abilities by making everything immune to them
*Superintelligent enemies you've never met knowing your weaknesses better than you do

From a DM's point of view:
*A player who cheats on dice rolls (or attempts to)
*A player who moans constantly about having chosen a weak combo (but not asking for help at creation)
*A player who tries to blackmail you into changing the storyline the way it would suit him/her (Otherwise I'm out!)

[WarKitty]

From pretty much everyone's point of view:
*A player who doesn't roll out in the open (we have a tradition that all rolls are made onto the board)
* A player who refuses to modify his class or roleplaying to function in a party

As a player:
*A DM who uses alignment or class restrictions to muck with my character
*A DM who goes out of his way to invalidate abilities without talking OOC first
*A player who does things to invalidate the actions or abilities of other characters

As a DM:
*A player who refuses to abide by rules and/or complains about things he agreed to (e.g. my backstory rule "you can either make one or let me make one for you, but if I do it don't complain")
*A player who refuses build help and complains that they get killed too much
*A player who complains about getting killed or ko'd on occasion

[Thrice Dead Cat]

A lot of the broad ones have been covered.

In general
*Out of character natter. I play RPGs to, well, roleplay. It's one thing to give a witty line about something silly out of character, but actually stopping the game really bugs me.

As a PC
*Everything nyarlathotep and WarKitty said, straight up.
I like getting plot. The storytelling aspect of all roleplaying games appeals to me. It need not be my plot, but having plot makes me feel more involved in the game world.
*DMs not actually making encounters. It's fine to not have a plan or creatures ready at every session, especially if it is a sandbox-styled game, but I like knowing that I'm fighting something with stats. Having a DM wing every encounter all the time bugs me, as it feels more like "Okay, now you guys win" rather than actually overcoming something real.

As a DM
*I like knowing what the PCs want. If I have the intention to round a political game, but if they are not enjoying that, well, I want to make sure and alter what I plan to accommodate everyone's tastes.
*I like having a rough idea of what the PCs are capable of. Screwballs are fine especially when they level up - and I do enjoy some surprise - but if something happens that doesn't quite "fit" based on what I've seen a player due for the last several sessions without there being a level up and something just plain wrong like a 5th level human wizard popping around rods of >3-4th level spells to the entire party, well, I kind of want to know when this happens.:smallconfused:

[Stix]

all views:
*rules fudgers. "oh i didn't think that's what it meant"
*people who play the alignments chaotic stupid, lawful stupid, or neutral apathetic.
*Characters that are nearly impossible to successfully work together with.

as a DM:
*players that purposely ruin story lines for fun. "there's an important task that only we can do? nah i'm gonna go over here and kill some named NPC's"

as a player:
*Trains
*DM's that take pride in their ability to construct situations in which characters must lose abilities (I.E. Paladin must kill one of two helpless children to save the other before they both die)
*DM's that force-change characters to limit character options. (warlock moving towards hellfire warlock. dm thinks locks are OP and Hellfires are worse so he forces the PC to become undead. no con score no hellfire warlock. he did the same to a monk who's mission was to cleanse the world of undead monk did the only thing it could, it killed itself and player quit)

[WarKitty]

As a DM
*I like knowing what the PCs want. If I have the intention to round a political game, but if they are not enjoying that, well, I want to make sure and alter what I plan to accommodate everyone's tastes.

Corollary: Players insisting that everything's fine and then acting bored.

[big teej]

for the record guys... the topic isn't "things that ruin fun" it's things that breach the trust at the table.

the first (i think) 2 or 3 replies were spot on to what I was talking about.

to give an example of a former player

when I DM, I tend to tell people to go roll their characters at home, I have them on an honor system to take what they actually rolled, or to run it by me if they want a re-roll.

I had a player (just the one) who constantly whined about my "harsh and lame character generation" he would constantly beg to bump up a number here or reroll another one there.

consequently, I didn't exactly trust the guys stats as legit. but, given that there was nothing I could do, I just let it go.

however, this lack of trust repeatedly manifested itself by asking the player to add up his humbers more often.
"how did you get a 38 to hit again?"

[Honest Tiefling]

I honestly prefer to roll in front of another player if the DM is not around or too busy to monitor character creation. I have nothing to hide, so why not?

What bothers me, and makes me lose faith in another player is the refusal to discuss characters ahead of time. I like to think that I'm pretty flexible, but I rather have an idea of what to make for a party then wind up with four rogues of opposing alignments. Kinda wierds me out when people don't want to discuss their characters when the problem is usually getting DnDers to shut up about them! Maybe I am being too harsh on these people, but it does make me wonder sometimes.

[Anderlith]

A player that thinks he can take on anyone in the party. This tells me that they have Point A; optimized instead of going with a character based theme (which in & of itself is harmless to the party but is dangerous when added to point B), & Point B; they have thought about attacking the party. This has me thinking that if they don't get their way they may attack the party over stupid things; loot, decisions, interactions with the enemy...etc

[LaughingRogue]

In general:

* Players who monopolize role-playing
* Players who don't role-play enough
* Players who continually ask for game cancellations with little or no explanation ("X player cancelled that one time, so I can cancel without even telling you why")
* We have a player at my current group, and I have no problems with him normally, but he does tend to leave the table quite often --- he also does sits a part from the rest of the group at times (He sits on the steps of the basement instead of at the table, granted it's only about 10 feet away --- but it bothers me quite a bit)
* Texting
* Talking about fourth edition :smallamused:

From a DM side of things

* Players who make characters that are retardedly better than the rest of the group
* Players that will continually question about rules and want to stop the game continuously in order to find out if this rule or that rule is exactly the way we think it is (I do not like Rules-Lawyers) -- even if the situation is not dire enough to warrant this type of stoppage.
* This has only happened once, But a player of mine has invited a friend to come along and watch the game (which was not okayed by me and it was not his house to be inviting people to) --- which caused much OOC banter and other issues (but that is for another post)

From a Player Side

* DM's who are not prepared to play the game (don't have the battled planned out)
* DM's who show favoritism towards another player (Girlfriend, Boyfriend, Best friend)
* DM's who can't think of things on the fly and Railroad so that they do not ever happen


I'm sure there are more but those are some...

[MesiDoomstalker]

I honestly prefer to roll in front of another player if the DM is not around or too busy to monitor character creation. I have nothing to hide, so why not?

What bothers me, and makes me lose faith in another player is the refusal to discuss characters ahead of time. I like to think that I'm pretty flexible, but I rather have an idea of what to make for a party then wind up with four rogues of opposing alignments. Kinda wierds me out when people don't want to discuss their characters when the problem is usually getting DnDers to shut up about them! Maybe I am being too harsh on these people, but it does make me wonder sometimes.

This. This exactly. The people I normally play with absolutly love to play the seedy background, possibly evil characters. Which means the party is usually evil when I always make good characters (I can't RP evil very well, I just fail at it) so it always leads to conflict. That and we have issues of no one playing a healer role and thus we die alot. All I ask is the possiblity of a group dynamic, the ability to build our characters cooperativly and that our tactics and choices will mesh very well.

As such, whenever I DM, I ask for volunteers for the healer role. And I encourage people to discuss their characters ahead of time (not that they actually do).

[Anxe]

Before, during, and after a Risk game. That's when my group trusts each other the least.

[big teej]

. And I encourage people to discuss their characters ahead of time (not that they actually do).

interesting...

whenver I'm putting a new* group together (which seems to be a recurring event)

I insist that no discussion of class take place. so as to insure that everyone plays what they really want to.

case in point, the group I put together at school ended up with 3 rangers. (two have since died, but I digress)


*new in the sense of "nobody or almost nobody has ever played before"

[WarKitty]

interesting...

whenver I'm putting a new* group together (which seems to be a recurring event)

I insist that no discussion of class take place. so as to insure that everyone plays what they really want to.

case in point, the group I put together at school ended up with 3 rangers. (two have since died, but I digress)


*new in the sense of "nobody or almost nobody has ever played before"

This really depends on the DM. If the DM says no discussing things beforehand, I expect a few concessions.

(1) Adjust encounters and give us chances to make up for any missing roles.

(2) Be lenient on any classes with alignment or roleplaying restrictions.

(3) Let me redo anything that *really* doesn't work.

For example, one time I came to the table with a druid. The DM is one that enforces the restrictions on druids - one of which being they are supposed to abhor undead. Another character came to the table with a necromancer who used undead servants. If we didn't get any chance to work things out, then either my druid would fall or one of us would have to leave the party.

[Remmirath]

As a Player:

- The DM favouring/going soft on a particular player because they've a tendency to whine; example would be the stereotypical 'DM's girlfriend' behaviour (enemies mysteriously don't attack her character, always do minimum damage, what have you). This because, well, they're obviously not being fair at that point.

- The DM insisting that they roll the dice and add the PC's modifiers. This because it makes me feel as though the DM doesn't trust me not to use player knowledge, and also because - while I realise the DM really can't cheat per say - it's not the way I like the results to be cooked. I'd rather a straight up lie, oddly enough; feels more honest.

- The DM going soft on any/all of the players, myself included. Things like the enemies suddenly running away or starting to die when they weren't very injured at all. Makes me feel like the DM thinks that we can't handle a party wipe.

- The DM claiming we'll be having the game any week but never actually having it, and then when cornered admitting it had been dead for months. This one... should be obvious.

- DMs who insist on auditing character sheets frequently, because, well, that does have the obvious 'lack of trusting the players' implication (though it can be warranted, of course).

As a DM:

- People cheating is a pretty obvious one, but I'm a little funny about it. I don't really care if people cheat a little if they have more fun that way, unless it has a negative impact on other players or the campaign as a whole. Then I care.

- Players trying to read the campaign plans. Pretty obvious one there.

- When the players insist that they know exactly what this monster is like (having looked it up in the Monster Manual, of course) and clearly there is something fishy going on because it doesn't have exactly those statistics. Well, yeah. :smallconfused: Your party is higher level than it's intended for; of course I beefed it up. Things like that.

- Players using player knowledge.

- Players who simply fail to show up without any warning, especially if they do so repeatedly and with no explanation after the fact.

[WarKitty]

As a Player:
- The DM insisting that they roll the dice and add the PC's modifiers. This because it makes me feel as though the DM doesn't trust me not to use player knowledge, and also because - while I realise the DM really can't cheat per say - it's not the way I like the results to be cooked. I'd rather a straight up lie, oddly enough; feels more honest.

I try to do this for checks PC's shouldn't know they're making. Mainly because I've found even the best players have a hard time when they *know* they rolled a one on the check.


- DMs who insist on auditing character sheets frequently, because, well, that does have the obvious 'lack of trusting the players' implication (though it can be warranted, of course).

You've never dealt with my players. They're honest, but half of them will add 2+3 and get 4.

[Remmirath]

I try to do this for checks PC's shouldn't know they're making. Mainly because I've found even the best players have a hard time when they *know* they rolled a one on the check.

It's harder, certainly, but I know quite a few people who will go right along exactly as they would've while laughing about their character's potential impending doom on the inside. Heck, I like getting natural ones on listen checks (for example) and knowing it - it's great fun for me to play the character being utterly convinced of something false.

It is probably a good way to go about it with some players and in some campaigns, I'll not argue that, but it does certainly imply a lack of trust to me. I'm used to a group where we do all trust each other like that, so when that's lacking I tend to notice it.


You've never dealt with my players. They're honest, but half of them will add 2+3 and get 4.

Well, that's one of those situations where it's warranted. :smallbiggrin: I do have one player who tends to do... interesting things while building characters, with completely honest intentions, and I check her sheets over every now and again (partially at her request) - but I always feel a bit bad about it.

[big teej]

This really depends on the DM. If the DM says no discussing things beforehand, I expect a few concessions.

(1) Adjust encounters and give us chances to make up for any missing roles.

(2) Be lenient on any classes with alignment or roleplaying restrictions.

(3) Let me redo anything that *really* doesn't work.

For example, one time I came to the table with a druid. The DM is one that enforces the restrictions on druids - one of which being they are supposed to abhor undead. Another character came to the table with a necromancer who used undead servants. If we didn't get any chance to work things out, then either my druid would fall or one of us would have to leave the party.

naturally,
I never (purposefully) throw an encounter at a group that cannot be solved with what they have.

for instance, said party rolled up 3 rangers, a druid, a Fighter, and a paladin.
I was not about to throw lots of traps and magic-y stuff at them.

2 - I suppose this is the only one I might have an issue with. but I'm very clear and upfront about alignment in my game with my players. and I while I don't enforce restrictions such as "don't play evil" I do enforce the restriction of "alignment is not a straight jacket" and "you can play evil, but if you break my game, so help me. you will pay"

as an example, I'd let a paladin adventure with a evil something or other, the burden would be on the paladin not to boss people around. the burden would be on the evil person not to make this harder than it should be.

3 - naturally, though I must confess I can't think of anything that is in and of itself "totally unworkable"
barring something outrageous like a blackguard and a paladin in the same group.



- The DM insisting that they roll the dice and add the PC's modifiers. This because it makes me feel as though the DM doesn't trust me not to use player knowledge, and also because - while I realise the DM really can't cheat per say - it's not the way I like the results to be cooked. I'd rather a straight up lie, oddly enough; feels more honest.


hm... I tend to only institute the policy when I see players metagaming, consciously or not.

I'm a huge fan of getting around subconscious metagaming.
I offer my players three options when it comes to certain skill checks.
1) they can give me their modifiers and let me roll and add and whatever.
2) they can roll behind my screen and I'll add their modifier
3) they can fill out "the grid" which is a grid of checks they roll before the session starts, they do all the math, and I reference the grid as needed.



- DMs who insist on auditing character sheets frequently, because, well, that does have the obvious 'lack of trusting the players' implication (though it can be warranted, of course).


depending on how you define "frequently" I do this one as well. not because I don't trust my players, but because I realize people make mistakes. and because 90% of the people I play with are new.

so I audit sheets every 5 levels. my logic being, if there's a problem in their understanding, it'll have cropped up and become noticable by now.

I check to make sure they're within the average of hit points (don't want people being to fragile)

I check how they've added their AC
I check their saves to make sure they're adding them properly

I check number of feats
I check skill points

and I check wealth by level, this one is mostly for me. I have the players add up their net worth and check and see if it falls within 2,000 gold pieces of starting wealth for that level. with a difference greater than 5,000 being corrected as soon as possible.




- People cheating is a pretty obvious one, but I'm a little funny about it. I don't really care if people cheat a little if they have more fun that way, unless it has a negative impact on other players or the campaign as a whole. Then I care.


intresting, call me Lawful Anal but I've actually made it clear to my players if I catch them cheating they'll be ejected.
mostly because I consider it a maturity issue, if you're not mature enough to take what the dice give you, are you really mature enough to be sitting at my table?

probably not.



When the players insist that they know exactly what this monster is like (having looked it up in the Monster Manual, of course) and clearly there is something fishy going on because it doesn't have exactly those statistics. Well, yeah. :smallconfused: Your party is higher level than it's intended for; of course I beefed it up. Things like that.


I've luckily never encountered that one. though I must say, my more experienced players are all huge fans of immiedietly boosting a creatures power based on statements like this.

for instance, if a player makes a comment like "oh no worries, it only has 4 hit die."

or, "there's no way it can be alive, it only has 8 hp" or something similar.

well now it suddenly has more* hit die

*more being whatever is deemed necessary.




- Players using player knowledge.

- Players who simply fail to show up without any warning, especially if they do so repeatedly and with no explanation after the fact.

the former is one I tend to nip in the bud with a simple "you don't know that" or "you're character can't act on that information"

the second...
easily my greatest pet peeve, though honestly, it becomes a pattern, it makes me happy because it means I have an open spot at my table.

naturally I've been ninja'd heavily by now. :smallsigh:

[Bob]

I insist that no discussion of class take place. so as to insure that everyone plays what they really want to.

I approve of this.



now on topic, trust killers for me:

*someone won't accept a chance to change their behaviour.

*People who wont allow someone a chance to change their behaviour.

*people with RL issues: any behaviour situations i have seen at the table have been forgivable and resolved, with the exception of when they have been between people who have issues with each other outside of the game. Grudges kill games.

[Delcor]

Something that lowers trust for me would be another player constantly talking to the DM alone. All it does is make me paranoid, particularly because said player is a true neutral rogue.

As a DM, anything involving dis-honorable/questionable stat manipulation.

[big teej]

Something that lowers trust for me would be another player constantly talking to the DM alone. All it does is make me paranoid, particularly because said player is a true neutral rogue.

As a DM, anything involving dis-honorable/questionable stat manipulation.

I find this amusing, as there is a CN rogue in my group who I'm constantly calling away from the table. :smallbiggrin:

[Delcor]

I find this amusing, as there is a CN rogue in my group who I'm constantly calling away from the table. :smallbiggrin:

Does he enjoy loot jacking from the party, because my party is level 12ish and the rogue has stolen a total of around 13,000 gp worth of stuff so far.

[big teej]

Does he enjoy loot jacking from the party, because my party is level 12ish and the rogue has stolen a total of around 13,000 gp worth of stuff so far.

in fact, I gave him the opportunity to swipe a cloak of resistance +2 and he turned around and offered it to the party.

most of the away from the table time has to do with the demon hovering over his shoulder.

as for the party thief, I recommend having the party tank grab him by the ankles and giving him a few good shakes.