DM Pet Peaves

[FlashFire]

I thought this could bring up some interesting things to talk about on here, so let's discuss what our pet peaves as DMs are.

#1. I'm starting a level 1 campaign and the player asks to play some obscure race with an ECL of +12 from the Savage Species book with a million alternate rules, and then he even changes THOSE to be more powerful.

#2. "There's no way that someone couldn't open a door, swing their sword, run ten feet to the right, and then dive on the ground while putting away their sword and drawing a heavy crossbow!!!"... Face it... you ran out of actions, my friend...

#3. You get a little generous and give a good roleplaying XP bonus to a player that did VERY VERY well that day playing their character. Then another player does NO roleplaying and complains that you didn't give him bonus XP for doing well in combat.

#4. You take the time to set up a player's home and even have them start in the same house as their ill mother... Player to mom ---> "Bye mom."
Mom to player ---> "Where... are... you ... going, my son?"
Player to mom ---> "I'm bored. I'm going away. It's time to go."

Could you BE any more callous to your dying mother?!

[Gordon]

I thought this could bring up some interesting things to talk about on here, so let's discuss what our pet peaves as DMs are.

#1. I'm starting a level 1 campaign and the player asks to play some obscure race with an ECL of +12 from the Savage Species book with a million alternate rules, and then he even changes THOSE to be more powerful.

Quoth the DM: "No."1


#2. "There's no way that someone couldn't open a door, swing their sword, run ten feet to the right, and then dive on the ground while putting away their sword and drawing a heavy crossbow!!!"... Face it... you ran out of actions, my friend...

Quoth the DM: "No. Suck it."


#3. You get a little generous and give a good roleplaying XP bonus to a player that did VERY VERY well that day playing their character. Then another player does NO roleplaying and complains that you didn't give him bonus XP for doing well in combat.

Quoth the DM: "I did. You're alive."


#4. You take the time to set up a player's home and even have them start in the same house as their ill mother... Player to mom ---> "Bye mom."
Mom to player ---> "Where... are... you ... going, my son?"
Player to mom ---> "I'm bored. I'm going away. It's time to go."

Could you BE any more callous to your dying mother?!

Quoth the Player: "I'm not asking my mother for permission to be a PC. Suck it."

Sometimes it does go the other way.

1If you absolutely must tell a player "no," it should never under any circumstances be followed by a reason. The player will weasel a way around that reason, and you'll be playing "No, because/ But what if" until the heat death of the universe.

[Gamebird]

#5 - One player puts in a great deal of effort over 10 game sessions to become ennobled. A couple games later, the other players say, "Hey, he became a knight when he was 5th level. Now I'm 5th level. When will I get knighted?" My directions to them to duplicate the in character efforts of the other player have resulted in very little action. Kind of hacks me off that they have a roadmap (laid out by the more zealous player) and they want the reward, but aren't willing to put in the effort.

#6 - Rolling your attack, Spot check, or whatever out of turn. I run online games and order of action is fairly important. We have an initiative order. I repost it frequently. I prompt people for actions. But there's one player who always tries to act one or two people before his turn. And he won't say, "Can I go now?" He just rolls his attack or whatever and says, "I hit!"

#7 - Players not responding for long periods of time. Again - online game. I know what they're doing. They're either cruising other websites, doing other chat, or away from the keyboard. Things that would be downright rude at a table top game. And it's rude in an online game. At least say "I'll be right back" or "I'll be back in 20 minutes". And stay tuned in when you're playing. I only have two players who are a problem for this. One does it during combat (I have no idea why - I think maybe he sort of freezes up or something) and the other does it during any sort of role play (because all he wants to do is fight stuff).

[FlashFire]

Absolutely. I didn't allow the player to do any of these things, but the mother thing worked itself out. There literally held the key to a problem that they had, and unless he talked to his mom for a little while, he wasn't going to be getting it. I knew the player in question might behave that way (poor roleplayer), and built in a little safeguard there. No big deal... just a poor example of roleplaying from a Lawful Good character.

[FlashFire]

#8. Player shows up to game after bad day at work and says "Hurry up, I wanna' kill some #@$%."

[The Prince of Cats]

#7 - Players not responding for long periods of time. Again - online game. I know what they're doing. They're either cruising other websites, doing other chat, or away from the keyboard. Things that would be downright rude at a table top game.

No... Things that are downright rude at a table top game. My brother brings his lap-top to sessions and always fires it up when my guard is down...

[FlashFire]

No... Things that are downright rude at a table top game. My brother brings his lap-top to sessions and always fires it up when my guard is down...



AHHHH!!!! I had a player bring a laptop once for the sheer utility of his electrong character sheet... then turned around and played Neverwinter Nights all night.

[Gordon]

#5 - One player puts in a great deal of effort over 10 game sessions to become ennobled. A couple games later, the other players say, "Hey, he became a knight when he was 5th level. Now I'm 5th level. When will I get knighted?" My directions to them to duplicate the in character efforts of the other player have resulted in very little action. Kind of hacks me off that they have a roadmap (laid out by the more zealous player) and they want the reward, but aren't willing to put in the effort.

Short answer: "When you deserve it."
Longer answer: "When you have put forth the effort that Sir Bob did."


#6 - Rolling your attack, Spot check, or whatever out of turn. I run online games and order of action is fairly important. We have an initiative order. I repost it frequently. I prompt people for actions. But there's one player who always tries to act one or two people before his turn. And he won't say, "Can I go now?" He just rolls his attack or whatever and says, "I hit!"

Short answer: "No, you didn't."
Longer answer: "No, you didn't. You miss a turn."


#7 - Players not responding for long periods of time. Again - online game. I know what they're doing. They're either cruising other websites, doing other chat, or away from the keyboard. Things that would be downright rude at a table top game. And it's rude in an online game. At least say "I'll be right back" or "I'll be back in 20 minutes". And stay tuned in when you're playing. I only have two players who are a problem for this. One does it during combat (I have no idea why - I think maybe he sort of freezes up or something) and the other does it during any sort of role play (because all he wants to do is fight stuff).

I don't play online-- how rapid is response expected to be? If the combat freezer isn't lagged, I'd just let him Delay.

My top pet peeve:

#9. Player gets called for his action, at which point he says, "I'm casting... " (cue speech slowing to bullet time) and starts to look up a spell. He's had the entire round since his last action to pick something and be ready with it. Especially bad is if he's cast it in every game so far, but still doesn't have the spell information written down for fast access.

#10. Attention Ho'ing. Player insisting on jumping into the middle of an interaction when the character has no skill in the area, no idea of how to interact with the NPC, and all the charisma of dried bacon.

#11. Attention Ho'ing Part Deux: Plan Porking. The Bard has just settled hostilities down, the Druid has just Calmed the raging Animal, or the Rogue has just Feinted the opponent preparatory to knocking him out with non-lethal damage. Enter the Attention Ho swinging wildly to derail the plan in motion so that he can hit stuff, and bring the resolution crashing to the floor.

[FlashFire]

#12. "I swing my axe!" The shopkeeper is just cutting you a deal, man... "I swing my axe!!!" *sigh*....

[Gamebird]

#13 - In the same party, within the same 10 minutes, one player says, "I want to do more role play" and another says, "I want to go kill stuff". While this isn't the player's fault (for liking what they like), it bugs me as a DM. It makes it really hard to satisfy everyone.

[GreyRat]

14) Players who argue that NPCs should have penalties for distance/darkness/weather/being tired/etc, but whine like hurt puppies when you tell them to take similar modifiers. (And the corrolary, when players want a bonus for the PCs, but grumble when the NPCs get the same benefit for the same reason. Sigh.)

15) Players who chronically show up with no character sheet, no dice, sit down and say "Ok, what were we doing again?" Are you really gaming, or do you just show up out of habit?!

[rising_dragon]

16) drawing on battlemap while in use. (note: not drawing in the far off corner, actually screwing with the map that already drawn out >:()

[FlashFire]

17) This was once covered in another thread, but obsessively rolling dice loudly for no reason while you're trying to handle other things.

[Gamebird]

#18 - Trying to engage the DM in conversation about politics, religion or current events in the middle of the game. (Okay, that's a pet peeve as a player, but still.)

[Kalbereth]

18 ) Munchkining. Period. Munchkining is defined as bending the rules to max/min your characters.

I step on it immediately. I tell my players this is going to be a serious game, that there's going to be a story, there's going to be roleplaying, and I it's going to be intense. One player tried to get away with a spiked chain half-giant crap and died in the first session. It didn't take a genius to figure out why...he was attacked by a monster triple his CR which left within two rounds of his untimely demise. And I worked the whole thing in perfectly with the story. The players, I think, were actually wondering if it really was DM justice.

[Gamebird]

#19 - Not keeping track of your own freaking hit points. It's gotten to where I keep an informal track of every PC's hit points as the combat progresses, because inevitably someone will say, "Oh, I was never hit" or "I only got hit that once" and they'll be full of it. I don't think they're trying to cheat, I just don't think they keep decent track.

[valadil]

20) PCs who think they're the DM. "Okay, I wait until the guard leaves, then I break the bars to the jail." Rolls die. "K, I got a twenty, the bars break and I rescue people."

and shortly thereafter...

21) PCs who save die rolls. After explaining that the guard doesn't just walk away and ignore them, the PCs figured out how to distract him. Fine. As soon as its time to work on the bars again, "Okay, I use my twenty from earlier that you said didn't count. The bars break, right?"

Yes, this did all happen, and no that player won't be invited back.

[Seffbasilisk]

Players who roleplay HORRIBLY, then expect nothing to happen!

(I had one guy who when rescued, healed, clothed, fed, and sheltered by dwarves when he was found dying in the wilderness actually wanted payment for something the dwarf king said he might need help with. Then when they struck the agreement, and when he was being tempermental when the cleric cast geas/quest on him to follow it, he ATTACKED the cleric.)

[Gamebird]

That's not role playing horribly. That's simply role playing an evil alignment well. Though I agree I've seen lots of people who play an evil character and then get all huffy and bent out of shape when others don't like them/trust them/etc.

#22 - Players who want to argue about the DM's perception of their alignment. It's one thing to bring things up the DM may have forgotten. It's another to baldly state that "X action is not evil". If the DM says it's evil, chaotic or whatever, then it is.

[Thrune]

#23: People who focus on derailing the adventure. Often psychic; they use their psychic talents to find out which way you want the adventure to go; and then change directions. ;D

#24: People who feel that; without having any Knowledge skills; they can look at the MM for detailed info on monsters.

I also share many of the peeves of others; including #3 and #22. Especialy #22.

[ghostrunner]

#25: Players that won't learn the rules. I don't mind teaching people the game, but there are limits. My last group was almost all new to D&D, so I gave them all CDs with the SRDs on them and just asked them to read about 10 pages worth of material before the next game. Not a single one did.

#26: Unreliable players. With that same group, we had a date set for the initial adventure, and only one showed; the rest had something else come up. That is, they decided to hang out with friends and blow me off. That's fine, so long as they don't expect to play in one of my games ever again.

[valadil]

Gamebird, yeah players who get upset that they can't get away with being evil are irritating, but its equally irritating to play an evil character with a group of people who use metagame knowledge to realize that you're evil. Just because the players were all in the same room as a PC who was out stealing is no reason for their characters to know what went on.

Silanas #24, that's why one of my DMs gave us standard looking monsters with radically altered stats. It was the only way to deal with some players.

As long as we're sort of on the topic of knowledge skills...

#27 Players who deside that they should know something because they have a couple points in a skill. Every week this one guy keeps saying that the GM should just give him knowledge or that he can make any diplomacy check if he cares because he has high skills. His idea of good skills is 4-7. That's the total score, not ranks spent. Granted we're only level 4, but putting 2 ranks into a knowledge does not give you all that much knowledge. And having a 6 diplomacy check really doesn't mean all that much. Especially when the rogue (aka, me) has a 13.

[TheThan]

#28 I don’t know if anyone else has come upon this, but I have a player who will try to improvise weapons that were not meant to be use as an improvised weapon. He is always trying to stuff like this: he loads his sling and charges the enemy swinging his sling over-head; then attempts to bash the guy in the head with the sling.. What made this really annoying is my character had previously cast entangling roots on the enemies, so he ran right into my spell and got trapped. (Someone else was the dm for this game) He should have just fired the bullet from it in the first place. Since he knew I had cast the spell in the first place.

#23. Is the biggest one for me, plot derailing is just rude and immature. If someone isn’t having fun they should talk about it to the DM, and work something out. Ruining all the work the DM puts into adventures and campaigns is rude and plain mean. So is ruining the fun the other players are probably having.

[Jades]

28) Players who get drunk while you're "In Game".

29) Players who bring their hatred for authority figures into the game and kill guards gratutiously.

30) Players who fall asleep during the gaem.

31) Players who think that, just because you bent the rules once 'cause they were royally screwed if you didn't, the change is permanent.

32) Music being plaid on the radio while I'm trying to give information.

[Yami]

33.) Players who Ask to uses classes or abilities from an expansion book the DM doesn't have, and then never know what thier abilities do.

34.) Players who complain that the game takes too long because you have to keep looking up spells or rules that the PC's are too lazy to remeber.

[Brianish]

35) Players who spend twenty minutes planning/debating/arguing over strategy for every door they open, even when they know that it's nothing incredibly threatening.

Nice corrolary: Players who recognize the the glazed, frustrated look in my eyes when this happens and say "Ok I open the door and walk in."

[Excalibran]

35) Throwing things at the DM. Period.

36) Players who demend to be able to make a custom race, go into all sorts of detail about its culture and such, and then gives it abilities found in another existing race and never RP all of that background.

[Dark]

#37. Players. They ruin everything.

[Excalibran]

#37. Players. They ruin everything.


You may have struck upon something there...
;D

[prufock]

20) PCs who think they're the DM. "Okay, I wait until the guard leaves, then I break the bars to the jail." Rolls die. "K, I got a twenty, the bars break and I rescue people."

and shortly thereafter...

21) PCs who save die rolls. After explaining that the guard doesn't just walk away and ignore them, the PCs figured out how to distract him. Fine. As soon as its time to work on the bars again, "Okay, I use my twenty from earlier that you said didn't count. The bars break, right?"

Yes, this did all happen, and no that player won't be invited back.

Die rolls can't be saved. No dice.

#38. I had a couple players (one worse than the other) who would consistently roll their dice wildly so that it went across the room. I hated that. So, new rule: if your dice goes on the floor, you lose a turn. Dice miraculously manage to stay on the table after that.

On a related note...

#39. Players who, when they roll poorly, claim that there was "dice interference" if it hits a pencil or something. New rule: no such thing. If you don't want to hit that pencil, don't. If you do, tough, you take what you get. The only rerolls are when it lands against something on an angle.

#40. Players who speak out of turn. If your character isn't in the room, you can't give the others advice! So, new rule, -50XP every time you do it.

[Gamebird]

#40. Players who speak out of turn. If your character isn't in the room, you can't give the others advice! So, new rule, -50XP every time you do it.

I had a DM who had this habit of teleporting characters into wherever the conversation was happening. Then whoever you were talking to would get offended at this uninvited person showing up and have them tossed out.

Funny thing is once a PC got smart on the DM and interrupted just so the DM would have him be there. He got himself teleported clear across the kingdom for nothing and in no time at all. The DM didn't realize the player had done it on purpose until most of the game session later. To his credit, he just laughed it off and went on. But even today, I'm real careful about kitbitzing when I'm not there, for fear I'll suddenly show up!

[Nidae]

Yeah, I want to say that these are all pretty good. I came up witha solution to all of my pet peeves and typed up a document for a new game I wanted to run. I eliminated everything that could peeve me and made sure the PCs knew what could and couldn't play. I totally nixed elves from being a playable race. I made them the rare fey they are suposed to be, so when all of my players saw this they started to whine. My response. "Well, if you want to DM, then do so. You guys asked me to run a game and I am. Without elves." I also was tired fo no roleplaying, so I limited classes by race. So if you wanted to be a cleric, you had to be human or a dwarf. A rogue? A halfling. A barbarian? Half-orc. When the players began to ask 'Why?' I asked them if they had actually read the paper. All four of them shook thier head. *insert blank expression* I finally read them the whole document and they understood why they couldn't do certain things.

I just wonder, that when one decides to become a PC, why is it that they become unable to read?!!?

[anime713]

40) Players who think that they always have a 5% chance to do anything, because they could roll a natural 20.

Player: I attempt to swim across the raging river in my full plate mail while still carrying my Tower Shield.

DM: *sigh* make a swim check.

Player: 20!

DM: With your -32 armor check penalty, you still fail. You begin to sink.

Player: You can't fail with a natural 20!

I get that a lot. Especially from people who only know a little bit about combat, and never bothered to read up on skills.

41) Players who split up the group, wait for something to happen to one of them, and use metagame knowledge to reconvene. Especially in towns. Like when the rogue is marking people on the street, and starts to be chased by a pissed off wizard who detected him, and the fighter, who's been drinking in the bar, suddenly decides it'd be a good idea to step outside to catch a breath of fresh air.

42) Players who say they want to play an evil character, and then try to be sociopathic serial killers.

42 A) Players who whine that they were treated unfairly when their sociopathic serial killer character gets locked up by the guards and sentenced to execution.

42 B) Players who whine that I won't let them create another evil character.

[stainboy]

43) Players who cry "attack of opportunity!" whenever anyone near them does ANYTHING, and then whine whenever they themselves are subject to attacks of opportunity.

44) Diplomacy-whores with no understanding of negotiation. No, I don't care if you got a 36 on a Diplomacy check, the enemy's guards are not going to give you a detailed map of the compound including optimal ways to kill all their friends, in exchange for nothing. Yes, you are correct, that does not follow the printed rules for the Diplomacy skill. Yes, you wasted your skill points. No, you cannot reassign them. Serves you right for trying to break the game.

45) Players who, when told they can't do something, ask again the next session in hopes that I'll forget. I've explained to one player that you can't take the total defense action while moving at least a dozen times.

46) Players who refuse to show up at the stated starting time, instead requesting that I call them when everyone else has shown up and is ready so they can head over, just because they're too important to wait thirty minutes for everyone to get settled in.

[The Prince of Cats]

#24: People who feel that; without having any Knowledge skills; they can look at the MM for detailed info on monsters.
I used to have a player like that. I once made a campaign where a group of level 0 villagers were fighting off undead, so I made special not-in-the-f'ing-manual monsters. Half-way through, he hears the word hook and I end up with a 2nd ed monster-manual dropped over the DM screen and onto my notes.

"Does it look like this?" he asks, pointing to the Hook Horror (or whatever it was)

Shortly after, it rolled max damage and a critical on him...

[Oeryn]

47) Players who bring a significant other against their will, and then divide their attention between the game and the SO who is bored to tears and sighing melodramatically.

47 b) Afore-mentioned SO who doesn't stand up for themselves enough to stay at home, if they're not interested in the game.

[The_Werebear]

48) Insane PCs. Chaotic does not mean insane, unlike some people think. Madness is reserved for Bad Guys, with PC's being limited to eccentricity.

If you try to play an insane character in a campaign of mine, people will treat you like it. For example, a half orc in my party declared he was taking a bite out of the captain of the guards desk. He spent the rest of the session in the brig.

[heretic]

49) Players who roll dice where I can't see them. Every one of my players does it, even if it is just behind a couple of books piled up. I make them reroll them, but they always do it. It's almost unconscious.
Player-"Natural twenty!"
Me-"That's nice, reroll it."
Player-"What!?"
Me-"I didn't see it, so I don't know if you actually did."
Player-"You're just trying to kill my character! You're favoring everybody else! Gaaaaa!"
Me-*sigh*

[Scorpina]

#50) Players who insist that their Half-Orc Barbarian with six intelligence just instinctively knew that lobbing the torch at the troll was a good idea. No, really...it wasn't based on metagame knowledge...honest... ::)

[Leperflesh]

#37. Players. They ruin everything.


Exactly!

HOW am I supposed to write this brilliant novel, if the damn players keep screwing everything up??

[RandomNPC]

51) when a monk tails a barbarian because he thinks somethings going to happen, and I allow the monk to grapple the barbarian during the surprise round, ya know, coz his character thought the barbarian would do something... and then everyone wants in on the surprise round.

[Umael]

Curiously, I have done a number of these and not pissed off the DM, while my players have done a number of them to me, and not pissed me off.

My players have done #9, 15, 18 (both of them), 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, almost 40 (the second one), 41, 42, 45, 49.
I've done 18 (both of them), 20, 21, 22, 41, and 49.

Not all at once, and not in the same gaming group. Some of them have been bad, others have been just *shrug* and move on.

Let's not talk about #37 though.

Interesting point on #7 - I have a player who quietly plays or goes on-line whenever we game. Yet he plays attention and interacts when his character is involved (it does help that his character doesn't talk much and is kinda creepy). He also uses a computer program to roll his dice... I suspect him of "nudging" his die rolls up a bit, or maybe even using an unbalanced system, but it doesn't really affect the game that much (heavy role-playing, the dice matter little), so I don't mind. Weird, huh?

*shrug*

It's all good in the end, I guess. My friends still like me and want to game with me.

Also, prufock, on #40 (the first one), you might want to make that penalty based on the character level. -50XP hurts the low levels, but people sneeze at it come 10th. Now if the penalty was 50*character level, that would be -500XP at 10th... definitely enough to make the players behave.

#52) Players who cannot keep their hormones and sexual-themed perspectives out of the game. Most of my players in my current group have done this at one point or another, and usually it's all good. Ocassionally, it annoys me.

#53) Quit breaking the Tao!!!
At the beginning of every Rokugan game session, I read from Tao Teh Ching, a book full of Taoism sayings. Ideally, it is meant to get the players in the mood to play an Oriental-style game. However, when the players get it in their heads to mentally pervert every phrase I utter into something sexual, pretty soon I'm dealing with a bunch of giggling gamers. Part of the idea of the Tao is to transcend your base desires, not pervert everything into them.

[MrNexx]

#53) Quit breaking the Tao!!!
At the beginning of every Rokugan game session, I read from Tao Teh Ching, a book full of Taoism sayings. Ideally, it is meant to get the players in the mood to play an Oriental-style game. However, when the players get it in their heads to mentally pervert every phrase I utter into something sexual, pretty soon I'm dealing with a bunch of giggling gamers. Part of the idea of the Tao is to transcend your base desires, not pervert everything into them.

Just to be sure, you have told them that's why you're doing this, right?

[JungeonJeff]

47) Players who bring a significant other against their will, and then divide their attention between the game and the SO who is bored to tears and sighing melodramatically.

47 b) Afore-mentioned SO who doesn't stand up for themselves enough to stay at home, if they're not interested in the game.

While this _has_ happened in our group a few times, we have also had the good experience of GF's/BF's has acctually just come to hear a "tale", keept quiet, (some did their home-work, or the like), and just well.... been there!

#54: Playes that play the same role ALWAYS, and does the same thing ALWAYS. A few examples from our group would be:

Player #1: He always plays the buisness woman, that in the end, even though he wants her to be noble, always does sexual favours to get anything done.

Player #2: He always back-stabs player #1, period. every game, every system... I mean even in Werewolf ffs!

[The Prince of Cats]

#55. The Langauge Barrier.
I am not talking about other languages, just English. When I joined my current group, I was lost by the pronunciations they used. First of all, there was "wivv-uhn" (wyvern) and then "dr-oh" (drow) but "Lich" caused a few arguments. I pronounced it as the Germanic word. The players had a fit that what they thought was... well, I am not sure what they thought it was, since they kept saying "lick", no matter how often I corrected them... was in fact what they called a 'lit-sh'.

Then there was a certain player from New York. I don't care what anybody thinks; "cr-oik-sant" is confusing until you find out they mean "croissant" ("kwuh-son"), at which point it is hilarious... She didn't see the joke...

#56. Players with no interest in mythology or language of other cultures.
This links with the previous one. If you want to play D&D, at least learn what cultures spawned the basic enemies. Dragons may be common in mythology but Eastern dragons (and the welsh perspective or Western dragons) are not evil cow-munching machines. The Medusa was defeated by a great hero with divine assistance, not a bunch of farmers with a scythe...
If we play a Norse campaign and you meet a 7' elf, don't quote the player's handbook... If you see a green dragon in Wales, it is not necessarily evil (and that Monster Manual is going where the sun don't shine if I see it one more time...) and may even be on your side.

[FlashFire]

Indeed... the Monster Manual, is... like all things in D&D... a guide, not a final word. You should occasionally break with the stereotypes presented in there, just for variety.

After all, not every drow should meet the Monster Manual stats, should they?

[Manave_E_Sulanul]

57) Players who assume you use every optional rule in the new book you don't have when you explicitly state you don't use any of them because he hasn't given you photocopies of the rules he promised to let you look over.

58) People who assume that named NPCs who promise revenge arn't coming back

59) The assumption that because someone has ranks in perform anything, they are bards. Especially NPCs who show no particular powers and roll 7-8s on the perform checks. No, you can't recruit him, he works here.

[VariaVespasa]

#50) Players who insist that their Half-Orc Barbarian with six intelligence just instinctively knew that lobbing the torch at the troll was a good idea. No, really...it wasn't based on metagame knowledge...honest... ::)

#-1. I see complaints like that frequently enough from DMs. I do have a counterpoint though- to me it seems entirely reasonable for the players to know a lot of the basics about critters from their area. After all, they DO live in the game world, and they've been SPECIFICALLY TRAINED as adventurers in many cases. Do you really think their elders/trainers/storytellers taught them nothing??? That is not a reasonable position, unless the characters have unusually sheltered and isolated origins. Most characters will naturally know a number of details about the more common local creatures, many of the creatures that have caused trouble in their area over the past 10+ years common or not, and many of the more famous critters of the world in general. Trolls specifically most certainly qualify as famous, as will vampires, skeletons, zombies, etc. All the iconic monsters that exist in the specific game world.

*Hugs*
Varia

[Gordon]

60. Players who try to pull a fast one by playing vague and coy.

"Can I try something from a book I have?"

"No-- but you can try telling me exactly what it is you want to do and I'll tell you if you can do it."

[FlashFire]

61) This one pretty much covers a LOT... but...

PLAYERS WHO ARGUE WITH THE DM!!!!!!!!

[valadil]

#62 Players that can't keep track of their own abilities. Usually this refers to spellcasters who rely on the title of a spell to tell them what the spell does, but in this case I'm thinking of a character from this summer's game. During the big boss fight the group was fighting a bunch of rogues, and not once, but every single turn I heard, "they can't sneak attack me, I have evasion." Then the player would try and convince me that between dodge, mobility, and evasion they should somehow be immune to sneak attacks.

#63 This one goes for players and DMs both. Games where the PCs play against the DM. I think this is the more powergamey type of game. The problem with it is that usually its just a chance for the DM and the powergamers to stroke their own egos. Whenever I've run games I've made it explicit to all involved (and to some who aren't involved because they decided they weren't interested in this type of game after being invited) that I'm trying to work with the players to tell a story.

[Umael]

Just to be sure, you have told them that's why you're doing this, right?

Not so precise and directly, but many a time, with lots of allusions to pondering, yes.

The message is clear. I have mentioned this several times, one way or another. The response, especially from two of my players, is, yeah, but we like it our way better.

Per-verts.

[Allis]

So you started doing something that was supposed to hava a positive effect. Now, while doing it, you find out it has a negative effect. Why still do it?

[prufock]

Also, prufock, on #40 (the first one), you might want to make that penalty based on the character level. -50XP hurts the low levels, but people sneeze at it come 10th. Now if the penalty was 50*character level, that would be -500XP at 10th... definitely enough to make the players behave.

Yeah, I haven't systematized it to that degree. YET. Actually, right now most of the party is at level 11, and the 50 XP seems to do the job. Sometimes, during shorter sessions, 500 XP is all they get, so I don't want to dock them that much. I used 25 until level 6 or so, and I'll probably up it to 100 in another level or so. Thankfully, they're pretty good roleplayers, most of the time, and can just pretend that they didn't hear it.

Maybe 10xlevel would be effective.

#64. Players who try to dictate what NPC or OTHER PARTY MEMBERS are doing. Such as "I do a backflip and everyone is all impressed." No, you don't tell me how everyone reacts, I tell YOU.

[Gamebird]

#64 - Players who believe that because they have "Dodge", they can avoid being hit. Yes, it applies to your AC and makes you *harder* to hit, but no, it doesn't mean you are always missed!

#65 - Players who believe they can always act, whenever they want, to do something like "I interpose myself between Foe A and Ally B." Did you have a readied action for that? No? Then no, you can't teleport in between the two of them.

#66 - Players who act like a butt, and then rant at the DM when the other players don't trust them, saying that the other players are using out of character knowledge or reacting to the player, not the character.

#67 - Players who have a deep, dark secret about their character and then blurt it out to other players indiscriminantly, then later insist their blurting was obviously out of character, since they'd never *tell* such a secret to anyone.

#68 - Players who can't keep track of their money.

#69 - Players who keep trying to take their non-war-trained mounts into combat and then act frustrated when they can't make the DC 20 Ride check to control their mount in battle.

[DeathQuaker]

A comment on #49, I believe it was--needing to see the dice rolled? Wow. I am sorry you have players you need to do that with. That sucks. I'd never want to have to babysit my players like that. They're good about die rolls; I'm good about mine (and they don't see mine). And as a player, I have a DM who's blind. We have to read HIS die rolls to him! So we're good about being honest for that. It shouldn't be a big deal.

My own Pet Peeves:

65) Players who, during combats, try to get you to pick the best strategy for them. "What would happen if I do this?" "What would happen if I do this?" "But what about this?" Usually I don't answer but I have some players that can be particularly obnoxious about it and they waste a lot of time.

66) This has been touched upon somewhat, but Players who talk over other players, especially announcing an action when another person is in the middle of announcing an action. Especially when they're being attention whore-ish about it (someone already complained of the attention getting). I hate this as both a GM AND a player.

67) Players who interact with NPCs more than their fellow party members, and complain when the party doesn't get along with them.

68) Players who insist upon playing standoffish lone wolf characters and then complain that their characters don't fit in the party, as if that's somehow the flaw of the other party members. (I admit, I've done this myself--but it's all the more irksome because I've realized the idiocy of it.)

69) Players who speak LOUDLY out of character in conversation while I'm trying to resolve something with another player. I don't mind OOC chatting if I need to work out something with one person before getting back to the group--I try to avoid such situations, but the party will inevitably split--but loud obnoxious OOC chatter is annoying.

70) Players who constantly split the damn party! :)

[Gamebird]

#71 - Players who backstab the party, betray them or just go off on their own and don't tell the others what they're up to, and are then upset when the party kicks them out, abandons them, or gives them a dressing down for acting irresponsibly. What really ticks me off is when the player in question insists they were "role playing" or just doing "what their character would have done", as if the other PCs aren't equally role playing how put out they are.

[prufock]

#72. Incorrect spellings of "peeve."

[dragonfly83h]

#70 is really annoying. I've made a house rule, that all focus will be lost on those who take the initiative to split the party. You leave the party, you leave the spotlight.

#73. Indicisive players. When my group were creating their characters, one of them actually spent no less than TWO HOURS in deciding whether to play a gnome or halfling.

#74. Players who decide which rules I should ignore. One example is an elven cleric who wants to cast a spell with somatic components while wielding a rapier and a heavy shield.

[ChubsMcGee]

#75 - Players who base their decisions on which NPC's have name.

"Oh, Sir Smiles-Alot is wrestling Monk of StrongGod. I bet on Sir Smiles-Alot because he has a name."

[The_Werebear]

76) Players who try to convince you to do things based on their past DMs. Oh, well, my other DM let me have this item for my cleric, and lets me use these rules, and blah blah blah. Guess what? I am not your other DM and I will run it how I run it.

[Seffbasilisk]

77. Players who dont keep track of thier items. IE not marking off charges on a wand, not erasing a potion once used...


and Gamebird? It would make sense if he was evil, but he's Chaotic-Good. Like his last character who tried to use that as an excuse to kiss a halfdragon in midfight. Kiss as in suck the air out of his lungs. Because OBVIOUSLY there's no air at 300ft up...

[Umael]

So you started doing something that was supposed to hava a positive effect. Now, while doing it, you find out it has a negative effect. Why still do it?

Because, broken or not, it still works. It is a ritual that gets the players into the mood to play the game. I guess it gets some of the silliness out of their system so that they can concentrate on the game a little more.

And they don't do it every single time. There are times when they stop and actually understand a little about what it was all about.

[Fatso]

Whee! First post ever!

Being a DM since 1983 I didn't really come up with pet peeves until the last 3-4 years or so.

These being:

1:
Players who walk away from the table as soon as they're not in focus. These players then proceed to do stuff like layin on the couch to "rest", with no good cause for being tired in this case. If they're so tired they should cancel their session. Or rummage through bookshelves and start reading with their backs turned, only barely responding when their characters get back in focus of the game.
Now, I don't mind people slacking off a little bit when things slow down, but this type of acting I described was nothing but pure rudeness and childish protest for not being constantly entertained in my opinion.

2:
Laptops. God, I truly hate them at the gaming table.
I know they can serve excellently as character-sheets and help keeping track of stuff but those who insist on using them just can't seem to keep from fiddling with their 'puters. Adjusting a setting here, modifying an icon there... and when they are adressed by someone regarding something related to the game they look up and go "Hunh? Whut? I wasn't listening!". And let's not get started on those who who are connected to The Net...I'd get banned in no time if I started to express my feelings regarding those.

3:
Players who play only to gratify their ego. Also, here I can deal with people who do it in a nice way without ruining the fun for other players. Everyone wants to be cool and heroic. But when it's done for the sake of ego-stroking alone and very much at the expense of the campaign and the fun of the other players I get very upset.

4:
Players who literally squirm in their seats to run off and pursue some other activity that happens to be their current favourite pasttime. It is inconsiderate to "take the seat" from someone who could have put the gaming session to better use. if whatever you want to do is so d*mn fun, why did you pester me to be in my RPG-campaign in the first place?!

If any of the guilty parts of my players read this...well... boohoo! ;)

[Crazy_Eben]

Hmm...let's call those #78-81.

82. Players who have no idea what they should do on their turn and who take forever to come up with "I attack." I have adapted a rule that my Shadowrun DM used - if someone has a turn and hesitates, loudly count down from six. If no action has been stated once the countdown reaches 0, that character forfeits his action for the round. Of course, to be fair, the DM should also have actions for NPCs and monsters decided quickly ;)

[Exitor]

I have actually found that I like the players to all contribute during single conversations, the advantage is that the character who is interacting probably has more diplomancy/bluff/tactics then the player, and if another player comes up with an idea that the character may have figured out I like to allow it. This is a team effort after all. Sometimes they need to help each other out, especially since i game with some kids who have never gamed before, they need encouragement and nudging sometimes.

[kleedrac]

#83: (More a corollary to the SO one) when a DM brings an SO or good friend to the table and then babies them giving them more loot/xp/makes-them-centre-of-the-campaign stuff like that. I've had more than one character lost to another player that the DM was crushing on or something like that. I even had one DM that gave a close friend of a player a "Flying cow from Space"!!

#84: Players who ignore any charisma score that's not theirs or a member of the opposite gender. I've had characters who were ignored for some reason even though their charasma was 18+ and they had a good diplomacy etc ... as a DM this becomes even more annoying when they decide that they want double the offered reward from the beautiful elven princess who's been trained in negotiation since she was a small child because "It would be out of character for a group of our renown to accept so little." and then two freaking seconds later it's "Does the princess think I'm hot ... I've got a charisma of like 14" ... no ... no she doesn't ... not to mention the fact that you are of a different SPECIES!!!

#85: Flaky players who add alot if/when they show ... twice now I've had players with a 10%- attendance which sucks cause we really want them there and they add lots to the campaign. The other problem with this is that these players are such good roleplayers they tend to weave themselves into the story so tightly that the group suffers every week they don't show then rock the casbah the week they show up!!

I know I have more ... just can't think atm :)

[Gamebird]

#86 - Players who get all upset and hate any NPC who tries to use social powers of persuasion on them. This was a particular problem in Vampire, where a common power is the ability to make people like you. I swiftly discovered that telling someone, "Oh, you feel this guy is really charming, but it has no other effect" was a fast-track to the party vowing revenge on the guy for manipulating their emotions. (Sadly, NPCs with this ability could rarely defend themselves physically because - no surprise - they'd spent their points on social stuff.)

#87 - Players who go virtually beserk when charmed and do everything in their power to attack and kill the creature who charmed them, far in excess of what they would have done to someone who just shot them with a couple arrows or whatever. The only time this doesn't happen is when there's another PC in the party the charmed guy has been longing to beat up anyway, in which case they attack that person beserkly, sometimes without ever even needing the BBEG to tell them to.

[Lysander]

#88 - Players keeping the bodies/body parts of enemies they kill.

[ccelizic]

89) Players who will argue to me that something cannot be done because it makes no sense. LIke an archer taking a 5 foot step back and firing, thus avoiding an AOO, or how 2 rogues can flank someone and both sneak attack. Not only argue it but do so for over an hour and derail the entire game.

90) Players who try to blame bad mojo/luck/cursed dice/anything else supernatural, on their bad die rolls. And just because the same die rolls a 20 when I roll it for npc's attacking them doesn't prove their theory true.

91) Players who state their actions as questions, "I attack?" To which I always have the wise ass response, "I don't know, do you?"

[The Demented One]

#88 - Players keeping the bodies/body parts of enemies they kill.


What's so bad about this?

[Gordon]

#88 - Players keeping the bodies/body parts of enemies they kill.

bwahahahahahahahaha :D

I have a Sorcerer who does this-- Lizardman cape with hollowed head hoodie, dire wolf head pauldrons, Grizzly bear footie boots... it's way too fun.

And oddly enough, he's the party face...

[LordMiritar]

92) Players who insist that stuffing prisoners in bags of holding is a good way of performing a quick in-and-out jail break.

93) players who have their characters 'jump in' a bag of holding when the going gets tough.

[Seerow]

Pfft, bag of holding...

Portable Hole is much better. Just have a trained monkey or raccoon or something with useable hands(yes a racoons hands could do that :o) that stays out and folds up the hole when you climb in, have it trained to go a mile in X direction and unfold.



Okay, so back of holding is easier. >_>

[Seffbasilisk]

Thats why jails have a twenty minute processing to let visitors IN or OUT of a jail. And all magic items are confiscated at the door. (only 10 minutes of air in a bag of holding)

[LordMiritar]

The situation was more like them breaking into an old jail with about 15 innocent villagers in prison. The party realizes they could not get everyone out in time, especially since half were unconscious, so they stuffed them in a few bags of holding and ran out before more guards showed up.

[The_Werebear]

Yeah, when a bag of holding or a portable hole is closed, it doesn't have unlimited air. However, if you chose to put a bottle of air in there ahead of time...

[Gordon]

Pfft, bag of holding...

Portable Hole is much better. Just have a trained monkey or raccoon or something with useable hands(yes a racoons hands could do that :o) that stays out and folds up the hole when you climb in, have it trained to go a mile in X direction and unfold.

I'm getting lfashbacks from the Head of Vecna story...


Okay, so back of holding is easier. >_>

Easier to sunder, too... bweeheeheeheehee!

[VariaVespasa]

#88 - Players keeping the bodies/body parts of enemies they kill.

Heh, I do this too from time to time, depending on the character(s). A small, weak group of characters I played in a 1 on 1 game with a DM had a habit of keeping trophies from their various dungeons (ornaments or items representative of the dungeon), including stuffed and mounted examples of the main monster types from that adventure. Forinstance from their second extended adventure they kept as trophies a log of the adventure, a huge gold-plated helm with jewels and diamonds, a gold plated helm, a decorative gold plated shield, a gold handled dagger with jewels , 4 heavy silver signet rings (from a puzzle in the dungeon), 4 heavy brass signet rings (same), 5 miscellaneous pieces of junk jewellery, 10 of each type of (antique) coins, plus 5 small gems apparently used as large bills in the antique currency system, an urn of troll ashes, the armor and weapons of a half-orc fighter/cleric that could have wiped the floor with them if theyd fought properly, a bottle of purple worm ichor, a giant chicken egg, a stuffed gnoll and a stuffed minotaur. They housed all this is an alcove in their museum at their home base, with the adventure log on a pedestal at the front, the trophies arrayed behind it, and the 3 walls of the alcove covered with murals of the castle, the dungeons below the castle, and the purple worm and harpies from the area. And they did another alcove for each adventure they went on- a log, some trophies, some stuffed monsters, and some murals of the highlights.

Had a space marine in a traveller-style campaign who was swallowed by a sand-burrowing wormish kinda thing. He killed it from inside with his plasma gun, hollowed it out, and had the hide made into a home-away-from-home-with-a-two-car-garage-sized tent.

So think yourself lucky if they just take a couple of body parts... :P

And I' ve had in games I've run more than one wizard who was habitually up to his elbows in someones internal organs rooting around for spell/potion components. Gooey.

*Hugs*
Varia

[dragonfly83h]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.

What on earth is wrong with a recurring villan? They are going to fight someone eventually, and a recurring villan is more interesting than a new one IMHO.

[The Prince of Cats]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.
With some creative DM'ing, you could probably make that an alignment violation.

[The_Werebear]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.

What on earth is wrong with a recurring villan? They are going to fight someone eventually, and a recurring villan is more interesting than a new one IMHO.

That is fine. They decapitate it, and guess what?

Bring in the headless horseman.

[Lysander]

I've done 88 myself. For instance after killing a giant bear-like demon I took one of its bones and carved it into a flute. When I played it I asked, "It's made from demon bone. Does playing it do anything special?" So with that here's #95, a corollary to 88:

#95: Players assuming parts from monsters they kill can always be turned into better equipment than they have now.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

#96. The players who always ask if they can play a drow, tiefling, or vampire even when you have in big bold letters 'You cannot play these races as follows...'

Then when they find out you won't let them play one of these gothy mcgoth races they find a loophole, 'How about a demon, drow or vampire bloodline from Unearthed Arcana?!'

'NO!'

'Ok, then how about a necromancer whoes aiming to become a vampi...'

'LEAVE MY GAME YOU MASCARA WEARING, DARKNESS CLOAKED, ANGST-RIDDEN EMO!'




*cough*

#97. The player who no matter how many times you say the game is high RP and that battles should be described as more than 'I swingeth the sword.' does exactly that the very next combat. 'I swing my sword at it!'

#98. And anyone who wants to join my games who sends me a message like this...

<<<WARNING! THIS QUOTE MAY CAUSE YOUR BRAIN TO EXPLODE! >>>



"Unfortunately, I don't have any dice or books with me to build a character. But, if you'll let me submit a backstory now and build my character on paper later tonight when I'm home, that'd be great.

In deference to horror stories everywhere, I propose a human female teenager - Tess - 18 years old (and a virgin, of course). She's smart, gorgeous, energetic, fun to be around, likes to wear skimpy clothes - in short, the girl every guy is dreaming about, and the perfect horror movie victim..... BUT - she's also got a few other personalities in there. One is an eleven year old boy that only curses, another is an incredibly shy, introverted 15 year old female who is telepathic.

Her multiple personalites are unknown to her, she just knows that she can't seem to keep track of time. And that she's been doing that more frequently as of late. "

[prufock]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.

What on earth is wrong with a recurring villan? They are going to fight someone eventually, and a recurring villan is more interesting than a new one IMHO.

If the villain has some henchmen, a Raise Dead may be prudent.

But, from the players' perspective, why would they leave alive a Big Evil Dude that just tried to gut them all?

[Premier]

... but "Lich" caused a few arguments. I pronounced it as the Germanic word. The players had a fit that what they thought was... well, I am not sure what they thought it was, since they kept saying "lick", no matter how often I corrected them... was in fact what they called a 'lit-sh'.

Gotta say in your players' credit, their pronounciation WAS closer to "Germanic" than yours. I'm quite sure that the word "Lich" was made up based on Old English "lic", meaning "body". The same word evolved into "Leiche", "lig", "lik", and "lijk", all meaning corpse and/or body in German, Danish, Swedish and Dutch, respectively - note that NONE of them have a "tsch"-like sound like English "change". Furthermore, "lic" is also the root of "Dwimmerlaik" ("sorcery-corpse"), which is what Eowyn calls the Nazgul in Lord of the Rings.

Therefore, it was your players who used a "Germanic" pronounciation, and you were the one used an exceptional, "non-Germanic" one.

[dragonfly83h]

If the villain has some henchmen, a Raise Dead may be prudent.

But, from the players' perspective, why would they leave alive a Big Evil Dude that just tried to gut them all?

Well the way I see it, coup-de-graceing someone that you've just hacked down is metagame, based on the players knowing about the 10% chance each round to stabilize.

It would be more realistic to assume that someone you've cracked over the chest with a big battleaxe, and falls unconcious, is as good as dead, or at least that he'll definately bleed to death with a few moments.

With this in mind, chopping away at a bloodied-ripped-to-shreds corpse seems like a complete waste of time in-game.

[Zangor]

Well the way I see it, coup-de-graceing someone that you've just hacked down is metagame, based on the players knowing about the 10% chance each round to stabilize.

It would be more realistic to assume that someone you've cracked over the chest with a big battleaxe, and falls unconcious, is as good as dead, or at least that he'll definately bleed to death with a few moments.

With this in mind, chopping away at a bloodied-ripped-to-shreds corpse seems like a complete waste of time in-game.
Depends. If there's no other threat left around, it might be a good idea. If you're known to be a thorough adventurer, you'd almost certainly not just leave your foe to die, but be sure he's dead. Also, if you've had other enemies come back in such a manner, you'd be more inclined to be sure they stay dead in the future.

[Lysander]

'LEAVE MY GAME YOU MASCARA WEARING, DARKNESS CLOAKED, ANGST-RIDDEN EMO!'

Beautiful.

[Seerow]

Vorpal Tribe, your post makes emos everywhere weep, and I salute you for it.

[kleedrac]

Well in addition:

#99 : Players who try to build a CG Drow who weilds two Scimitars named Gizzit Mo'Murdon!! If you can't be original then leave my freaking table now!! This also applies to "Melminster the ageless mage" and applies doubly to "Donan the Barbarian!" I don't know why people seem to want to play someone else's character instead of their own. Though for the Drizzt clones I generally just make them a victim of a hate crime :) .... let's face it when 95%+ of a race is evil and actively tries to cause pain to the rest of the world there's not a whole lot of chance that people are going to stop and listen to him explain he's denounced his evil ways ... they'll probably just murder them on the spot :)

[dragonfly83h]

yayy, the 100th...!

#100. Players who think that initiative is based on who declares their actions first.



DM (me): You hear a gruff voice: "Stop! You go nowher'!"

Players: I turn and look.

me: You see two angry orcs equipped with maces. They say: "Dis our land! You pay to walk it!"

Barbarian: I throw my throwing-axe. That counts as a surprise round, right?"

me: No, it doesn't count as a surprise round. They saw you before you saw them. If anything, they should get a surprise round against you.

Druid: But he was the first to declare his action.

me: Everyone roll initiative, please.

*some rolls, orcs win initiative*

me: You reach for your throwing-axe, but fumble it slightly. They see your hostile intentions and attack.

*rolls, both miss*

Druid: Right, now I order my animal companion...

me: No, you don't. It's not your turn yet, it's the sorcerer's. She gets to act now.

Druid: But I said it first...!

[Gordon]

In deference to horror stories everywhere, I propose a human female teenager

In deference to drama queens everywhere, human female teenagers are horror stories.

101. Players who play female characters because they assume that ovaries constitute a "Get Out Of The Consequences Of My (Character's) Epic Rudeness And Stupidity Free" card.

[Seffbasilisk]

It doesnt, but a female character with a good charisma CAN usually get away with little harm. Buttercup (Female Halfling Evil Paldain) and Venderholfen (Male human Neutral Barbarian/Rogue) found themselves in a demon summoning BBEG's lair. Both get captured. Venderholfen is given demon skin, Buttercup? She's given a new weapon, and told not to attack his summons again. After Venderholfen was beaten unconscious for threatening one of them.

[The Prince of Cats]

Gotta say in your players' credit, their pronounciation WAS closer to "Germanic" than yours. I'm quite sure that the word "Lich" was made up based on Old English "lic", meaning "body". The same word evolved into "Leiche", "lig", "lik", and "lijk", all meaning corpse and/or body in German, Danish, Swedish and Dutch, respectively - note that NONE of them have a "tsch"-like sound like English "change". Furthermore, "lic" is also the root of "Dwimmerlaik" ("sorcery-corpse"), which is what Eowyn calls the Nazgul in Lord of the Rings.

Actually, I was the one saying "lik" (like the North-German 'ch') and they said "Litch" but I compromise by using the Bavarian pronunciation that is more like 'sh' but not quite. Now, however, I will go back to my full-throated plegmy pronunciation.

[Gordon]

It doesnt, but a female character with a good charisma CAN usually get away with little harm. Buttercup (Female Halfling Evil Paldain) and Venderholfen (Male human Neutral Barbarian/Rogue) found themselves in a demon summoning BBEG's lair. Both get captured. Venderholfen is given demon skin, Buttercup? She's given a new weapon, and told not to attack his summons again. After Venderholfen was beaten unconscious for threatening one of them.

Yep, I'd say that fits peeve 101. Also Player peeve 1, which is "DMs who suck up to players with ovaries in the hopes of favors, while landing all the harshness on the other players."

[Thomas]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.

What on earth is wrong with a recurring villan? They are going to fight someone eventually, and a recurring villan is more interesting than a new one IMHO.

Er. Raise dead and resurrection are hardly exclusive to PCs.

As for it being metagaming - what? Some people will batter away at unconscious or even dead opponents. Coup de grace seems fine for this (you waste a round you could be using to pummel living opponents and preventing them from hurting you). Every professional killer (i.e. adventurer) is going to know that an unconscious enemy is not always dead. After the battle is done, it would be very reasonable of PCs to check every single enemy and cut their throats (while, for example, looting them), not just the obvious BBEG.

As for recurring villains;

The idea of a villain recurring after actually being beaten and left lying on the floor has never occurred to me. Dramatic apparent-death (falling from a height, being buried under whatever, etc.) is different, but if an enemy is left at the PCs' mercy, they have slim chances at coming back to pester them. Moreover, recurring villains shouldn't be KO'd at all, to begin with - they should make last-minute escapes.

[Jades]

I keep my laptop at the gaming table... I've got books on it. (One player doesn't have a PHB, so I let him use mine, and keep my PDF open.)

It also becomes helpful when one character goes off to speak with the BBEG alone leaving the two other players present sitting on an airship talking to eachother for the entire session. I did master Sleight of Hand however, playing solitaire.

"Just out of curiosity, if I rolled a 37 for my Sleight of Hand check and a 19 for Spot, do I successfully stack my deck without noticing?"

The rogue won a lot of games of Solitaire that night. (I was actually playing Freecell, I like it much more. But, if its one person and the DM working for the entire session, what else can I do? I got XP for each game of Freecell that I won, since its what my character did.)
______________________________________

My party takes pieces of monsters we are proud of killing. We have an Umberhulk head, Illithid head, Beholder Eyestock, Drow head, Duergar head, Troll Head, and a Dragon's Head in our keep.

______________________________________

102) Players who don't want to face the consequences of their actions.

103) Players who insist on playing their niche character to the point where it screws up the entire game. "Actually, I don't want to go find that sword, or defeat the evil necromancer. I'd like to meet him, shake his hand, and ask to be his student. No, lets not go on the quest to find the magic sword that can kill him."

[Jarlax]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.

What on earth is wrong with a recurring villan? They are going to fight someone eventually, and a recurring villan is more interesting than a new one IMHO.

teach em a lesson, use some kind of exploding enemy so when they all gather round to coup de grace, BAM.

also things like shape shifters and teleport rings designed to trigger at near death will save your reccurring villian from certain death.

[The Prince of Cats]

#104 Players who think they are funny.

Sometimes, players miss the subtle clues that you are close to breaking. Tonight, my little brother (well; 23, 6'4 and 250lbs) decided that his rogue was going to use his disguise proficiency. He decided to become a tree. Somehow, he decided that the description that was right in front of him did not preclude his disguise.

I almost broke the cluebat, beating him with it. (the cluebat is actually a Lego foam short-sword)

[ChubsMcGee]

a cluebat, I gots ta get me one of them!

On the collecting of body parts, I think it can be well played. I had a little gnome rogue/wizard, who would collect teeth of some of the bigger monsters they faced. First one started with this huge crocodile almost ate him, left him with a scar all across his chest, and a tooth that he pulled out of the wound.

And laptop can be very useful, I use mine as I DM, pdf's can be very useful. Although I think a tablet-PC would be just about the ultimate in DMing tools.

105. Players who demand something because so and so got such and such. I don't care if I gave him a flaming dagger, you do not get a ice warhammer.

106. Players who do not appreciate the items you give them. So I gave you a +1 longsword, and your character wanted a +1 greataxe, well thats too bad, the BBEG used a longsword, it didn't change when he dropped it.

[valadil]

Laptops are quite nice if the players are mature enough to not get distracted. Honestly, I prefer the d20srd over books for a lot of cases. Like, if I'm looking at spells for a 3rd level wizard, and the blurb in the 3rd level wiz/sorc list is inadequate, I can click on the link to the full description instead of hunting through several pages. And if the spell I'm looking at is summon monster III, it's oh so convenient to click on the link to any of the monsters you can summon, rather than having to pull out some other book and go look up said monster.

Way back in middle school, when we were playing MERP, our GM had a copy of the Treasures of Middle Earth. One day he showed it to us, and everyone at the table (myself included) seemed to think that that meant that we all got to pick one item out of the book for our characters. Never saw that book again.

[prufock]

Well the way I see it, coup-de-graceing someone that you've just hacked down is metagame, based on the players knowing about the 10% chance each round to stabilize.

It would be more realistic to assume that someone you've cracked over the chest with a big battleaxe, and falls unconcious, is as good as dead, or at least that he'll definately bleed to death with a few moments.

With this in mind, chopping away at a bloodied-ripped-to-shreds corpse seems like a complete waste of time in-game.

That big dude that just came at me swinging a sword? Yeah, I'm going to put one more notch in his chest, even if I don't take the whole six seconds that it takes to line up a coup de grace. I'm making sure that guy doesn't get up.

[Vaynor]

107) Players that have tons of gold. You know, apparently gold weighs absolutely nothing nowadays.

108) Players who think they can store virtually everything they have in their belt pouch, or a backpack.

[Gordon]

106. Players who do not appreciate the items you give them. So I gave you a +1 longsword, and your character wanted a +1 greataxe, well thats too bad, the BBEG used a longsword, it didn't change when he dropped it.

Our cheating former DM, note the word "former," made a specific habit of this. He always and deliberately made sure that any magic weapon dropped, used, or owned by a villain was one the party couldn't use proficiently, and made sure the party couldn't get enough money to create or commission magic weapons of their own.

Of course, our opponents were often DR/magic. Go figure. We learned to take whatever magic weapons the villain left behind him, go to a large city and trade them for a usable weapon. He nearly blew a gasket at the thought that we'd be able to fight his nice monsters.

[Umael]

That big dude that just came at me swinging a sword? Yeah, I'm going to put one more notch in his chest, even if I don't take the whole six seconds that it takes to line up a coup de grace. I'm making sure that guy doesn't get up.

I have to agree with this notion (although in real life, I am not so likely to coup de grace a mugger who got on the losing end of a fight with me).

PC1: Is he dead?
PC2: Well, I'm no healer, but...
PC1: Better make sure.
PC2: Right.

I cannot see anything wrong with making sure that the enemy is dead unless it is based solely on meta-gaming. If the players say things like "Well, he has a 10% chance of stabilizing, so I am going to coup de grace to make sure," then yes, you have a point. But if the characters have a good reason...

Also, villains who deserve the "re-occuring" status usually have better options available to them than simply going into the negatives after a fight and hoping the adventurers don't kill them. From the villain's point of view, that's hinging on the hope of your enemy (you know, the guy that was trying to kill you and you were trying to kill first). From the adventurer's point of view, that's being foolish.


If you want your villains to be re-occuring, I suggest the following:
• Avoid physical confrontations. Some villains are better as social menaces. Others only show up for a cut-scene and then leave, letting their minions do the dirty work.
• Have a good escape plan. Every good villain that wants to be re-occuring should consider how best to get away. Give the PCs the experience points for defeating the BBEG, but have the BBEG run away at 50% hit points. Make use of natural abilities, like a superior movement, flight, and obscenely high Hide skill modifiers.
• Be too tough. Make sure the PCs are smart enough to run or that the villain has a reason not to kill them.
• Make the PCs need the villain. Or at least, need the villain alive. Although he was one of the protagonists in the story, Sean Connery's character in The Rock was necessary for the adventure to continue. Having to seek out information from a lich and knowing that they will have to do so several times over the course of a campaign helps keep the lich a re-occuring villain.
• Death is no obstacle. Make use of clones, robotic doubles, alternative universe dupes, whatever. Have the minions of the BBEG raise the dead, or worse, have the BBEG come back after making a deal or beating Death.
- Rub salt in the wounds by giving hints both pre- and post-death. Have a wise sage tell the PCs about the danger of the BBEG, but warn them not to "bring doom upon his head, else greater doom befalls the land." After failing to heed the warning (and one coup de grace later), the PCs uncover a prophecy saying that the BBEG will come back, stronger than ever, and that it was the PCs' fault ("...after ernest-of-heart, but short-of-brains mean-wells do with battle and slay...").


If the trouble is with the players "abusing" coup de grace (and not with preventing re-occuring villains), then you should see about "demonizing" wanton killing.
• House-rule that an opponent can be conscious while bleeding to death, then have said opponent plead for his life ("I need to feed my family! My lord took everything! I had to become a bandit just to survive!").
• Point out that characters with good-alignments might have just cause to re-consider coup de grace. Even neutral and evil characters should consider the value of a prisoner over a corpose (information, hostage for ransom).
• Make it the law or the social custom to never make sure someone is dead when they are downed in a fight - living villains must be taken into custody to be tried in the courts.
• Bring in some cultural taboos about using a weapon on "an enemy once defeated." The culture could be the PCs or that of an NPC whose help the PCs need (and make sure the NPC(s) will know about and be disgusted by the coup de grace). If you need reasons, think about "honor given to the dead", "test of a warrior", "respect given a fallen foe", and some such.
• Have the PCs encounter vengeful spirits intent on revenge because their bodies were savaged. Do this a few times and they might get the hint that coup de grace indiscriminately is a bad thing. (For added insult to injury, make them spirits incredibly tough, always re-occuring, just happening to show up at the worse possible time (such as while scaling up a mountain to another vilain's fortress... and look, this one has rope-cutting scissors!), and most insulting of all, they are worth no experience points for being defeated!).

[Lysander]

If a recurring bad guy is incompetant enough to be at the PC's complete mercy than they're doing you a favour by taking him out of the game. That's Darwinism in action. Maybe the next named enemy will be clever enough to escape.

[dragonfly83h]

I cannot see anything wrong with making sure that the enemy is dead unless it is based solely on meta-gaming. If the players say things like "Well, he has a 10% chance of stabilizing, so I am going to coup de grace to make sure," then yes, you have a point. But if the characters have a good reason...
d![/i]).

I was probably not specific enough, but I meant it is the first thing they do after combat has ended.

I have an example:
The PCs plus an NPC follower were riding at the bottom of a chasm, when suddenly two hill giant show up at the top and start throwing rocks at them. The NPC got knocked off his horse by a rock, and lay unconcious. The party cleric casts a spell that causes them to fall down the edge, into a melee fight (they were 9th level party). After a brief struggle, the giants are knocked down.
I left the miniatures lying on the battle grid, and one of the players (cleric) says out loud: "Hey, she hasn't removed the minies. That must mean they're not dead." They went around carving up the giants, and only afterwards went to check if the NPC was OK.

Situations like this one. Sorry if I didn't make it clear to begin with.

[Thomas]

The reasoning there was definitely faulty and an example of metagaming, but the action was reasonable for the characters.

[The Prince of Cats]

If you want your villains to be re-occuring, I suggest the following:
Contingency (Sor/Wiz 6)

I have also been known to create magical items that have a single charge of teleport and are activated by breaking the item. (like a glass jar, crushed against their chest, or perhaps even their armour; in case of sunder...)

In one case, I gave a staff like that to a BBEG mage and that shook up the party...
ME: The robed figure looks ropey, another hit like that might finish him. On his turn he dashes his staff against the ground.
P1: I run.
P2: I run faster...!

When did I say anything about retributive strikes?

[prufock]

I was probably not specific enough, but I meant it is the first thing they do after combat has ended.

I have an example:
The PCs plus an NPC follower were riding at the bottom of a chasm, when suddenly two hill giant show up at the top and start throwing rocks at them. The NPC got knocked off his horse by a rock, and lay unconcious. The party cleric casts a spell that causes them to fall down the edge, into a melee fight (they were 9th level party). After a brief struggle, the giants are knocked down.
I left the miniatures lying on the battle grid, and one of the players (cleric) says out loud: "Hey, she hasn't removed the minies. That must mean they're not dead." They went around carving up the giants, and only afterwards went to check if the NPC was OK.

Situations like this one. Sorry if I didn't make it clear to begin with.

Alright. In that case, yeah, total metagaming. Deduct experience points. Alternatively, never pick up the minis until the next time you need the mat. Just leave them there. See how many CDG attempts they make before they figure it out. Alternatively, pick up the minis the second they lose consciousness.

[prufock]

If a recurring bad guy is incompetant enough to be at the PC's complete mercy than they're doing you a favour by taking him out of the game. That's Darwinism in action. Maybe the next named enemy will be clever enough to escape.

I know what you're trying to say, but that is not "Darwinism" in any sense of the word.

[Gordon]

I know what you're trying to say, but that is not "Darwinism" in any sense of the word.

Non-survival of the Unfittest? Sounds pretty Darwinian to me, in most commonly accepted uses of the word.

[FlashFire]

109) Players who insist that you play every opportunity you get... no matter what gets in the way. For example... I'm in the military.. and I ran a campaign while I was stationed in Korea. There were days when I wouldn't get off work until about 8 o'clock, and then there's my crowd of players "Hey man... gamage? (Gamage was our word for D&D)", when they knew full well that we would have to get up at 0400 the next day!!!!! I love D&D... but every once in a while, reality takes precedence, people!

[prufock]

Non-survival of the Unfittest? Sounds pretty Darwinian to me, in most commonly accepted uses of the word.


Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest," either.

[EDIT] Actually, he did use it, but preferred Natural Selection. He didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest", though.

[FlashFire]

Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest," either.


The mighty creator of the thread comes by and says in a shallow, drawn out whisper whisper "Offffff.... tttooopppiiiccc.....

Just kidding. :-) Well ... it is off topic but I could care less, really. Anyway... "darwinian" is still an acceptable use, and I believe you're even find it in the dictionary.

[Thomas]

( darwinian: adj : of or relating to Charles Darwin's theory of organic evolution; "Darwinian theories" [syn: Darwinian] n : an advocate of Darwinism [syn: Darwinian] -- It is a misuse only if Darwin did not, in fact, speak about survival of the fittest; a misuse can very well be understood, but that doesn't mean that it is correct, or that the misuse should be allowed to stand uncorrected. Not having ever actually read Darwin's work directly, and having never been taught explicitly about Darwin's theories, I feel making any claims about what is, in fact, Darwinian is beyond me. Suffice to say that the adjective is widely abused, in terms like "social darwinism", and the ideas are frequently misperceived and twisted.)


Peeves, peeves, peeves...

No, really, I can't think of any I have. Some of the above, at times - people don't pay attention, invite people who aren't there to play, and that sort of crap. No biggie.

However, one I am sure my players could empathise with:

#110 : A GM who can't pick one game system, setting, or campaign and stick to it long enough to get anything finished! Oh, the amount of half-completed campaigns I have left in my wake... weep for them!

[Umael]

#111: Corollary to #110. The DM spends years months weeks a really long time coming up with a campaign, only to have the players suddenly become unavailable or uninterested in playing.

[Jades]

112, Corrollary to 111) After spending hours/days on a session, having players decide the day before to try out a new system; and REFUSING to listen to reason.

[WhiteMonkey]

#111: Corollary to #110. The DM spends years months weeks a really long time coming up with a campaign, only to have the players suddenly become unavailable or uninterested in playing.

Yes however, this could also be partly your falt.

Though #112 is just plain silly behavior on behalf of the players

[Gordon]

Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest," either.

However, Natural Selection is not so different from what is meant by the later phrase Survival of the Fittest as you are pretending it is.

[Leperflesh]

Except that both Darwinist natural selection, and modern neo-darwinism, is about:

-efficacy of reproduction. If you cut down an enemy after it has spawned (and its progeny are past the point of requiring parental support) then you have not thwarted the Darwinist principle.

-survivability of individual genes (see Dawkins). One family member sacrificing itself to save the rest is a survivability trait, because family members tend to share their genes.

-fitness for the environmental niche. Engaging in killing for reasons other than competition for limited resources, competition for mates, etc. is not a practice that fits into Darwinist theory. So if you kill the BBEG because he's evil, say, rather than because you have a better chance of reproducing if you do it (or your kids are starving, or you're saving your own life or the lives of your genetically-similar family/clan/people) you are neither 'helping' nor 'hindering' natural selection.

At any rate, yes, the term was used in its popular manifestation, as "one who removes himself from the gene pool through actions that demonstrated his own unfitness for his ecological niche", or put another way, the 'too stupid to live' principle.

But it's also fair to say that Darwin himself would have been shocked at how badly the public has misconstrued and misunderstood what was, to him, merely an explanation of common ancestry and proposal of a mechanism that explains speciation and extinction.

-Lep

[Seffbasilisk]

107) Players that have tons of gold. You know, apparently gold weighs absolutely nothing nowadays.

50gp = 1lb. So if they have 500...thats 10lbs.


108) Players who think they can store virtually everything they have in their belt pouch, or a backpack.

Most magical bags have limits, so you should set limits for mundane as well. If they go over, give them an armor check penalty (hey, its bulky!) and roll % die every so often to have things fall out. like a 10% chance an hour or so. Bigger % if they're running or fighting. And if a potion falls? It breaks spilling out onto the ground.

113. Players who when you are cutting them a break argue.
P: I sneak attack the assassin-vine!
DM: You can't sneak attack a plant.
P: You let me sneak attack the tendriculos
DM: That's because it had eaten and paralyzed half the party and I wanted you to have half a chance.
P: So I can sneak attack the vine?
DM: *envisions death of player* No. You can't. In fact. Roll grapple. There's another one right behind you.

[prufock]

However, Natural Selection is not so different from what is meant by the later phrase Survival of the Fittest as you are pretending it is.


That's true, and I was wrong: he did use it. He preferred the term "natural selection," though.

"Survival of the fittest" was actually first used by an economist, who saw similarities between evolution and marketplace development. But the phrase has been twisted and misused so much that people think it means "survival of the strongest, fastest, smartest, etc."

Besides, what does "fit" mean, anyway? "Fit" really means "more able to survive." So it's the survival of those most able to survive.

[prufock]

The mighty creator of the thread comes by and says in a shallow, drawn out whisper whisper "Offffff.... tttooopppiiiccc.....

Just kidding. :-) Well ... it is off topic but I could care less, really. Anyway... "darwinian" is still an acceptable use, and I believe you're even find it in the dictionary.


No, it's not acceptable. If he had used the phrase "survival of the fittest," I probably would have let it slide, but not "Darwinian."

Darwinian evolution has 3 basic principles:
1. Natural variation within species (due mostly to mutation).
2. Heredity (parents pass their traits to offspring).
3. Selection (those traits that aid in reproductive ability are more likely to be passed to offspring).
Being overpowered and leaving yourself open is neither a natural variation or heritable, nor is the ability or tendency to perform a coup-de-grace.

[Jades]

114) Players when, as soon as something in game reminds them of an out of game conflict, feel the need to resolve this conflict (be it with the DM, or another player) while the game is running. It sidetracks things so much when player A starts arguing about how last night player B insulted him and blah blah blah.

[Gordon]

Except that both Darwinist natural selection, and modern neo-darwinism, is about:

-efficacy of reproduction. If you cut down an enemy after it has spawned (and its progeny are past the point of requiring parental support) then you have not thwarted the Darwinist principle.

Feel free to cite the studies establishing the prome reporductive ages of BBEGs. ;D


-survivability of individual genes (see Dawkins). One family member sacrificing itself to save the rest is a survivability trait, because family members tend to share their genes.

IFF, the sacrifice is actually efficacious, i.e., it does not leave the family less likely to survive (due to the loss of that family member) than before.


-fitness for the environmental niche. Engaging in killing for reasons other than competition for limited resources, competition for mates, etc. is not a practice that fits into Darwinist theory. So if you kill the BBEG because he's evil, say, rather than because you have a better chance of reproducing if you do it (or your kids are starving, or you're saving your own life or the lives of your genetically-similar family/clan/people) you are neither 'helping' nor 'hindering' natural selection.

You have forgotten a primary source of Selection: predation.

[Spuddly]

LET US NOT FORGET SEXUAL SELECTION!!!

Ever hear of the handicap hypothesis? It was put forth by Zimmer & Zimmer I believe, and it explains a lot of traits that are not immediately appearant to the survival of a species, and are in fact, handicaps.

For instance, peacocks have lots of feathers, male birds are often far more colorful than their female counterparts, male deer have large racks.

Animals that have these handicaps, and survive, demonstrate that they have extraordinary genes. Not only can they survive predation, the climate, disease and procuring food, but they can also grow huge antlers or have bright plummage.

Man, this was way off topic.

In a non-biological sense, what Lysander used is completely acceptable. He used a rhetorical device, commonly called a metaphor.

Just let it go man. You were nitpicking where nitpicking wasn't necessary. We all knew what he meant, and in fact, individuals that remove themselves through their own ineptitude when in competition with other individuals is a form of Darwinism.

Sort of like how Leninism or Stalinism are forms of Marxism.

[The Glyphstone]

individuals that remove themselves through their own ineptitude when in competition with other individuals is a form of Darwinism.

And they even have their own website!The Darwin Awards: Chlorinating the Gene Pool (http://www.darwinawards.com/)

[blackfox]

115: Players who actively try to outsmart you, when they're the only one in the party who doesn't know that they're acting very, very stupidly. grrrrrr... *cough cough*

116: Players who CHEAT.

[Crazy_Eben]

116b) Players who cheat and are surprised when they get punished by getting less xp, being targetted more often, or having to hit higher ACs than the rest of the group.

117) Players who use the laptop that is supposed to be for their character sheet to play games and then are surprised to find their experience reward significantly reduced.

[Jades]

118) Players who complain about morals being too black and white (when they find out that they can't use that magical axe 'cause they killed some innocent people) and a few sessions latercomplaining that morals are too grey (when the BBEG turns out to be a member of the "good guy's" race.

119) Players who don't take a hint.

120) When I forget a small little detail about something important that would have saved the party.

121) When I suddenly remember said detail after the fact.

[Gordon]

118. Players who complain about morals being too black and white (when they find out that they can't use that magical axe 'cause they killed some innocent people) and a few sessions latercomplaining that morals are too grey (when the BBEG turns out to be a member of the "good guy's" race.

Occasionally players need the clue-by-four.
"That's not fair!"
"You thought it was fair when you cast Protection from Evil" last week."
"That's different!"

"He can't be an Elf! I'm an Elf!"
"You do know that H*tl*r and the B*ddha were both human, right?"
"That's different!"

Both players need the same reminder:
Place your nose in the Book of G'Kar.

[Jarlax]

120) When I forget a small little detail about something important that would have saved the party.

121) When I suddenly remember said detail after the fact.

122) when players forget that ability, spell, bonus that would have changed the outcome of somthing, after the fact. and then want you to go back in time 4 rounds to change it.

[dragonfly83h]

113. Players who when you are cutting them a break argue.
P: I sneak attack the assassin-vine!
DM: You can't sneak attack a plant.
P: You let me sneak attack the tendriculos
DM: That's because it had eaten and paralyzed half the party and I wanted you to have half a chance.


You kinda brought this on yourself. One of the most integral parts of the game is consistency. If you let a player sneak attack something that is immune (whatever the reason), you can be sure she is going to want to keep doing that.

Look at it from her perspective. It seems really wierd if she sometimes can, and sometimes can't.


[edit] and here's another

#123. Players who want a given spell to do more than what is stated in the spell description.
Such as the evil cleric who wanted to cast 'enthrall' on the last enemy to make him stop running away, and then complains because I refuse to 'bend' the spell description.

[FlashFire]

Sometimes if you bend a rule because this one time it seemed to make sense - you really should make it clear to the players that this is a one time thing, and they shouldn't get used to it.

[prufock]

LET US NOT FORGET SEXUAL SELECTION!!!

Ever hear of the handicap hypothesis? It was put forth by Zimmer & Zimmer I believe, and it explains a lot of traits that are not immediately appearant to the survival of a species, and are in fact, handicaps.

For instance, peacocks have lots of feathers, male birds are often far more colorful than their female counterparts, male deer have large racks.

Animals that have these handicaps, and survive, demonstrate that they have extraordinary genes. Not only can they survive predation, the climate, disease and procuring food, but they can also grow huge antlers or have bright plummage.

Man, this was way off topic.

In a non-biological sense, what Lysander used is completely acceptable. He used a rhetorical device, commonly called a metaphor.

Just let it go man. You were nitpicking where nitpicking wasn't necessary. We all knew what he meant, and in fact, individuals that remove themselves through their own ineptitude when in competition with other individuals is a form of Darwinism.

Sort of like how Leninism or Stalinism are forms of Marxism.

I love that stuff. There is the other explanation for such selection though -- that the large tail feathers and huge antlers actually were beneficial at one point, and they just got selected for to be even bigger. Antlers, for instance, would have been useful when competing with other deer for mates by butting heads.

I believe that it was a necessary correction. It's not rhetorical or methaphorical. Yes, it's a common use of the term. More particularly, it is a common misuse of the term.

[Gordon]

I love that stuff. There is the other explanation for such selection though -- that the large tail feathers and huge antlers actually were beneficial at one point, and they just got selected for to be even bigger. Antlers, for instance, would have been useful when competing with other deer for mates by butting heads.

Remember also that a trait doesn't need to be advantageous in a sense we understand to be retained. It can also be linked to another trait that is advantageous, so long as it does not itself confer a notable disadvantage.

As for the big male "display" traits, they can themselves confer an advantage if they make it more likely that the female of the species will select you as a mate.

[FlashFire]

The mighty creator of this thread comes by and this time RAMS the thread back on topic

:-)

Okay...

#124 - Players who make up EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE EXCUSE as to why they don't show up reliably, and then complain when you have a doctor's appointment and can't play.

#125 - The DM frequently hosts the games - players who show up, eat the DM out of house and home, and never contribute any munchies.

[valadil]

#126 Players who don't listen to authoritah.

So many of you keep pointing out that the best way to shut up some players is to just tell them no, and not offer an explanation. This keeps them from arguing or finding loopholes in your explanation.

When I ran my first game it was very heavy roleplaying. I made a point of not inviting powergamers. One of them heard about the game anyway, and called me up 10 minutes into the game. My first response was to tell him that I had enough players and didn't want more. That got ignored. He told me he had a character already. I told him I needed to approve characters beforehand, and that we've already started, so he couldn't join this game. He proceeded to start listing his character's stats. Then I told him that the character approval thing was so I could write a good introduction to the game that was conducive to roleplaying and I obviously couldn't write him in at that moment. His response? Oh that's okay, I'll be over in 10 minutes. *sigh*

FWIW I did eventually get the message through, but I had to go back into the room and ask the other players if they wanted him there, just to prove that the game was fine the way it was, and then agree that if we needed another player he would be the first one asked. Good thing we never needed more players.

Seriously though, how can he expect me to reward manipulative behavior like that by letting him in the game? If he shows me that he's not gonna listen to the GM and won't take no for an answer, why would that convince me to let him into the game?

[Ladoran]

#125 corollary - If the people usually not paying for food pays for something they will be dead set on getting every penny back for it

[Gordon]

Seriously though, how can he expect me to reward manipulative behavior like that by letting him in the game? If he shows me that he's not gonna listen to the GM and won't take no for an answer, why would that convince me to let him into the game?

Wasn't it sweet of him to advertise to you so clearly that you didn't want him under any circumstances?

[prufock]

And they even have their own website!The Darwin Awards: Chlorinating the Gene Pool (http://www.darwinawards.com/)

As funny as they are, it isn't Darwinian. Still, I was saddened when I read at www.snopes.com that most of them are either unsubstatiated or entirely fictional.

[prufock]

Remember also that a trait doesn't need to be advantageous in a sense we understand to be retained. It can also be linked to another trait that is advantageous, so long as it does not itself confer a notable disadvantage.

As for the big male "display" traits, they can themselves confer an advantage if they make it more likely that the female of the species will select you as a mate.


Exactly!

Back on topic,
#127. Players who either intentionally or unintentionally avoid a whole story arc.

[stainboy]

#86 - Players who get all upset and hate any NPC who tries to use social powers of persuasion on them. This was a particular problem in Vampire, where a common power is the ability to make people like you. I swiftly discovered that telling someone, "Oh, you feel this guy is really charming, but it has no other effect" was a fast-track to the party vowing revenge on the guy for manipulating their emotions. (Sadly, NPCs with this ability could rarely defend themselves physically because - no surprise - they'd spent their points on social stuff.)

#87 - Players who go virtually beserk when charmed and do everything in their power to attack and kill the creature who charmed them, far in excess of what they would have done to someone who just shot them with a couple arrows or whatever. The only time this doesn't happen is when there's another PC in the party the charmed guy has been longing to beat up anyway, in which case they attack that person beserkly, sometimes without ever even needing the BBEG to tell them to.

This is a personal taste thing. If you like all the 'social' powers in White Wolf, then cool, but personally I despise them. Dreadgaze was especially frustrating, since the mechanics for it were so poorly written in earlier editions as to make it almost impossible to resist, and it lead to physically-oriented Gangrel, Brujah, and Nosferatu running in abject terror from limp-wristed Toreador socialites. Summon (or whatever the Presence 4 power was called) was also a huge problem if the player with it has a powergaming streak or the Storyteller didn't know how to run White Wolf (the rules suck, amend them as needed), as nothing stops the player with Summon from "spamming" it on a target until the target runs out of Willpower to resist it. I actually lost a character to this exploit.

I've also had a DM that went so far overboard with the mind control, illusions, and geasa that even in D&D I don't have a lot of patience for it.

Which leads me to...

#128: Players who build their characters around mind control. What's the point of making up cool NPCs if they're just going end up as one of the PCs' b*tches? What's the point of having any investigative component to the plot if all it takes to break it wide open is one NPC who's susceptible to mind effects?

#129: Players who acquire constantly changeable magical disguises (i.e. Hat of Disguise) and then change their appearance every 5 minutes. This especially includes "retroactive" disguising - "how do the assassins recognize me! I disguised myself when I walked out of the inn!" - and whining when people see through their disguises even when they obviously would. Look, moron, the assassins have noticed that every time they see the rest of the party there's one person that they'd never seen before and that person always seems to have the same abilities. They know it's you. Get over it.

[soahc]

#129: Players who acquire constantly changeable magical disguises (i.e. Hat of Disguise) and then change their appearance every 5 minutes. This especially includes "retroactive" disguising - "how do the assassins recognize me! I disguised myself when I walked out of the inn!" - and whining when people see through their disguises even when they obviously would. Look, moron, the assassins have noticed that every time they see the rest of the party there's one person that they'd never seen before and that person always seems to have the same abilities. They know it's you. Get over it.


And how do they aquire constantly changing magical costumes? That seems oddd that you would let that happen and still have a problem with it. :-/

[stainboy]

I made the mistake once or twice, and have since stopped. I now have a couple of players (although one in particular is really bad about it) who whine whenever I keep them from using magical disguises. This one player spent no less than an hour arguing how it "wasn't fair" that the party artificer couldn't make him a Hat of Disguise. This was, admittedly, a decision I made contrary to the Eberron book and with no stated in-game reason. I was pretty straightforward about it - "Look, I don't want you to have the damn thing. I hate long-duration magical disguises. That's why I said no changelings this game." (The truth is that I don't mind long-duration magical disguises, I just hate it when powergamers and attention-whores get them. This particular player is kind of both.) He then decided he was going to try to buy one off the black market in Sharn. So I said "fine, you can get one off the black market," and planned out an elaborate unwinnable encounter in which he'd be robbed blind and wouldn't get the stupid hat. I think he figured it out, because he never went to meet his contact.

[Jades]

130) Players who assume that just because the DM introduces a member of a specific class that means that it is free.

I mean, seriously, just because an NPC you met had a PrC from the Book of Erotic Fantasy it does NOT mean that you can now use the material in the book. I keep some books that are "For DM's Eyes Only" and the spells/feats/skills are for the BBEGs.

Why do I do this? 'Cause the Book of Vile Darkness just screams out BBEG; not PC. A PC needs to prove worthy of the Book of Exalted Deeds before I'll let them look through it. That book is an RP reward. The Book of Erotic Fantasy... well, I really don't like that book. Used one PrC from it 'cause it was needed.

[The Demented One]

130)

Why do I do this? 'Cause the Book of Vile Darkness just screams out BBEG; not PC. A PC needs to prove worthy of the Book of Exalted Deeds before I'll let them look through it. That book is an RP reward. The Book of Erotic Fantasy... well, I really don't like that book. Used one PrC from it 'cause it was needed.


The question begs to be asked...what PrC?

[Rastl_Deeperdown]

131) Players who can't do basic math.

132) Players who make their own character sheets and then can't find any of the basic stats on them.

133) Players who need the basic concepts explained to them EVERY FREAKIN' TIME they need to use a skill.

M-kay. I'm good now.

[Jades]

The question begs to be asked...what PrC?

Harem Protector. The female character was such a slut I needed to put an enemy in her path that she couldn't seduce. She tried to, and down came the axe.

[valadil]

131-133 does a nice job of covering the obnoxious player in our current game. I'm gonna add one to it though in order to complete him.

134: Correcting rules (very loudly) and doing it wrong.

This player gets into each and every rules dispute, yet his 18 wisdom magically has a +5 bonus. Nobody knows how. All we know is that the GM is letting it slide because the character is made so poorly.

Another time the GM had laid out 9 markers on the board. After 5-10 minutes of poking around in that room, this character points to each one and says, "1, 2, 3 ... times 3 ... Okay guys, there's 9 of them," like it was a helpful piece of information. Granted I'm gonna steal that and use it in other groups, but when I do it it'll be a joke.

[Gordon]

Harem Protector. The female character was such a slut I needed to put an enemy in her path that she couldn't seduce. She tried to, and down came the axe.


You know... <eg> ...you could happily let the players know that yes, since you used that Prestige Class from the Book of Erotic Fantasy, they are welcome to take that (and only that) Prestige Class themselves.

It's almost worth the looks on their faces when they finally take their first level of Harem Protector and learn its true prerequisite cost...

[Jades]

You know... <eg> ...you could happily let the players know that yes, since you used that Prestige Class from the Book of Erotic Fantasy, they are welcome to take that (and only that) Prestige Class themselves.

It's almost worth the looks on their faces when they finally take their first level of Harem Protector and learn its true prerequisite cost...


You, sir, are evil. Shall I start worshipping you now, or would you like to take over a small and underappreciated country, like Canada, first?

[Chaos]

It's almost worth the looks on their faces when they finally take their first level of Harem Protector and learn its true prerequisite cost...


Let me guess... *snip* ;D

[VariaVespasa]

You, sir, are evil. Shall I start worshipping you now, or would you like to take over a small and underappreciated country, like Canada, first?


What the heck? *I* appreciate Canada, so take off eh, you hoser! :P

*Hugs*
Varia

[Gordon]

You, sir, are evil. Shall I start worshipping you now, or would you like to take over a small and underappreciated country, like Canada, first?


LOL
I'll settle for taking over Texas. I won't get political, I'll just say that I was double-plus-unhappy with yesterday's voting, and am currently deeply ashamed of living there.

Happy gaming to you... :)

[ccelizic]

135) Players who don't make adventurers, yes, you got it right, I've seen someone make a halfling rogue and then set up the personality so he doesn't want to go on an adventure and forced the rest of the party and the GM to convince the character otherwise. he actually got left on the roadside too. And then he got indignant about how we weren't roleplaying it well.

136) Guys who think they are good roleplayers but they aren't. This falls into a couple catagories, on one hand you got guys who will talk up big storms about how they love the roleplaying aspect of the game and how wonderful they are at it. When it comes to game time however, their characters are, without fail, always vacous and lost in their own world, they never say anything or do anything until one of the other PC's pokes them into doing something. The other is someone who does one of the previously listed peeves and goes for the most angsty, contrary character ever who prima donnas the stage enacting out all those scenes they thought looked cool in their head but when they do it in game it's disruptive and annoys all the players.

This is why I like my RPXP system I lifted off a fellow GM. At the end of the session everyone gets a certain amount of votes, and by secret ballot they let me know how many votes each player gets according to good roleplay, I tally up the numbers and multiply by something else and in the end you get the RPXP total of each player as determined by a jury of his/her peers. Those "good roleplayers" are often taken down a notch by this system, they never get votes.

137) Pokemon Syndrome. It's a name I use to describe a character type, I forgot which one of my fellow gamers termed it, but it's so fitting. Basically it refers to anyone who makes a character but is of such a vacant personality both in real life and rolepllay that the character has absolutely NO initiative. In fact, you end up with all the other characters commanding this one player around, like a Pokemon.

Let us, consider a hypothetical rogue named Bob.

Party comes up to a door, it looks important, fighter turns "Bob, search the door."

Bob, who had been following the party silently (and not in the good rogue silent fashion) searches the door and responds "I found a trap."

"Well why don't you disarm the trap."

"Ok I disarm the trap, the door is still locked."

"Ok Bob, pick the lock."

"Done"

They open the door, monsters come in, fighter sets himself up as a screen, monsters crash in, he's now engaged with them, bob's turn comes up, fighter says, "Bob, tumble and flank this baddy right here so you can sneak attack him."

"Ok, I tumble and flank that baddy right there so I can sneak attack."

You can't fault the fighter either, because you were sitting there through the first few adventures where all bob did was demonstrate his "leet" follow the party skills despite numerous hints to try something else, and fights where he couldn't seem to grasp simple concepts such as "hit monster repeatedly with sharp object until it falls over." Mind you, to top it off, Bob has been through several DnD games apparently and seems to have a total immunity to any attempts to educate him.

[FlashFire]

I think I've had the proverbial Bob as a player of mine before.... It's especially frustrating when Bob was playing a Dwarven fighter, and the other players had to tell him to "Swing your Axe, bob."

[Seffbasilisk]

138) Players who are always asking which die to roll. If it doesnt say otherwise, its a d20.

"Roll spot"
"ok...4+...what dice do I roll again?"
"d6"
"ok....5+4=11...do I see anything?"

[FlashFire]

Sadly enough... I think that my wife is falling in with #138... she's from back in the 2nd Edition days, and didn't play in any groups I was running from 3.5... she's quite used to using different dice for different things, and is still having trouble grasping the simplification of d20+modifiers for all things short of damage and other effect.

[Knifie_Sp00nie]

139) Players who want to roleplay mundane events and hold up the real story.

The party hits a town on the way to adventure and checks in to an inn for the night. The offending player has to know exactly what is on the menu, types of ale, what sort of sleeping arrangements, etc.

Roleplay is fun and good, but is it neccessary for a non-event? We use a "lifestyle" payment system, so we don't even have to keep track of day-to-day expenses if we're in populated areas.

[FlashFire]

139) Players who want to roleplay mundane events and hold up the real story.

The party hits a town on the way to adventure and checks in to an inn for the night. The offending player has to know exactly what is on the menu, types of ale, what sort of sleeping arrangements, etc.

Roleplay is fun and good, but is it neccessary for a non-event? We use a "lifestyle" payment system, so we don't even have to keep track of day-to-day expenses if we're in populated areas.


Hm... that's an interesting one. The funny thing is that you're sort of obligated to answer all of those miniscule questions when you're the DM, because you're providing information that the character is requesting that he would normally have access to.

I dunno... I guess I would just talk with the player and tell him that perhaps he is starting to drag the game down a little bit with these details. I usually like my players to roleplay some of the stupid details, but it really can get old pretty quickly. Sometimes it's better to just jump ahead a few days.

[valadil]

As my group's resident guy who roleplays too much, lemme answer that to 138. Roleplaying out every little thing is nice, but should be restricted. If you've got something interesting planned or its the first time you're doing something, fine. But theres no need to spend 30 minutes chatting with every barmaid just because your character would do it. As much as I'm in favor of supplying reasons with every diplomacy or bluff check, I'm also in favor of giving a brief outline of what your character would be saying if you had the time to say it. I'm much more concerned with whatever purpose the dip check served than every last detail of the check itself.

[ccelizic]

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me

140) Guys who always always always always, and I mean go out of their way to do this, try to roleplay only with the NPC's at the complete disregard to roleplaying with the rest of the party. I mean come on, I'm trying to run a game, at least get to know the guys you spend all our time with rather then every random barmaid that comes your way.

I mean yes, PC's chat up NPC's I can deal with that easily in fact it's a diversion on my part that I can jump in a random personality quick a few seconds. But some PC's take it to excessive limits, mind you, I tend to get terse when it gets to that point and they eventually figure it out.

[Dark]

The party hits a town on the way to adventure and checks in to an inn for the night. The offending player has to know exactly what is on the menu, types of ale, what sort of sleeping arrangements, etc.
Hmm, I actually like roleplaying that sort of thing, especially since there's an occasional eeeevil tavern. It's hard to subtly introduce the eeeevil tavern if you don't normally play such things out.

[Gordon]

138) Players who are always asking which die to roll. If it doesnt say otherwise, its a d20.

"Roll spot"
"ok...4+...what dice do I roll again?"
"d6"
"ok....5+4=11...do I see anything?"

Played for years (well, it seemed like years) with one of these guys. He insisted he loved to play. But for some reason, after years of playing, it seemed to be soembody else's job to learn what dice he should roll, what he should add, what maneuvers he should use. Unfortunately, our former hceating GM loved having him play that way, because it helped him cheat with impunity.

What I longed to see was this:
"Roll Spot."
"Okay, +4... what dice do I roll again?"
"A 4? Not good enough; you're surprised. It leaps out and (rolls) hits you for 6 as its mighty axe cuts across your middle."
"Wait, I get to add a d20 to that +4!"
"Guess you'll know that next time, won't you?"

[Gamebird]

141 - Players who describe every single character of theirs as absolutely drop-dead gorgeous and then want advantages for it. I don't care if they describe their character as gorgeous or devastatingly handsome. But, I'm not going to give them bennies for it time after time when they didn't actually "spend" anything for it. They get the benefit of their Charisma modifier - no more (well, barring the occasional, plot-related point, but my peeve is about players who push it, not players who behave).

This said, I want to say I have one player (or had, as she retired from the game a short bit ago) who always had her characters be knock-outs, going so far as to provide soap opera or action star pictures for them. That didn't bother me. (Now it did bother me that she tried to provide similar pics for every NPC in my game - many of them just aren't that good looking. But I told her to quit and she did and that was that.)

[FlashFire]

This said, I want to say I have one player (or had, as she retired from the game a short bit ago) who always had her characters be knock-outs, going so far as to provide soap opera or action star pictures for them. That didn't bother me. (Now it did bother me that she tried to provide similar pics for every NPC in my game - many of them just aren't that good looking. But I told her to quit and she did and that was that.)

I have to admit - this player was putting themselves to very good use at least. :-)

[Thrune]

142: Players who roleplay a completly different alignment then theirs and use an alignment-based class; then complain when you change their alignment and they loose their class features.

[FlashFire]

143. Players who will swear to their grave that their idea is correct, but a quick book referrence will show them clearly to be wrong. Example

DM - "Paladin, I think I'm going to house rule that you get to keep your mount all day once it is summoned, but you will have to quest for it.

Paladin - "Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?"

DM - "According to the PHB, you get to keep it for two hours per level. I don't like that and want to change it."

Paladin - "Now way, dude... I know this one..."

DM - "Look it up..."

Paladin - "Oh... well... the DMs guide has conflicting information!!!!!"

DM - "No it doesn't."

[dragonfly83h]

143. Players who will swear to their grave that their idea is correct, but a quick book referrence will show them clearly to be wrong.


Another example

Cleric: "I cast Hold Person!"

DM: "You can't. It has a somatic component, and you're wielding a rapier and a heavy shield."

Cleric: "But I'm proficient with shields."

DM: "You still can't provide the S component. Look the PHB."

*flip flip*

Cleric: "Well... uhh... if clerics are proficient with shields, then why can't we use them AND cast spells!?"

DM: "Sigh..."

[Jades]

Players who insist that I'm cheating when their spell ends. "No way, the duration is longer than that!"

Yeah, in 3.0...

"My spell is still in effect!"

No, I've been tracking it.

[Rigeld]

Cleric: "Well... uhh... if clerics are proficient with shields, then why can't we use them AND cast spells!?"

DM: "Sigh..."

Simple solution - drop the rapier and pick it up next turn after you Held the bad guy in front of you :p

or 5ft, drop, cast, pick up next round

but yeah.. that and the fact that natural 1s arent failures on skill checks.

[EB]

Further to the above:

145) Players who try to get away with using outdated splatbooks for spells. :(
No powered down 3.5 equivelant for these spells, so they're okay as is, right? Wrong!

Some players, some books...

[Jestir256]

144. Players who call the results of an ad-hoc skill check before I call the DC. It puts me in the position of having to choose whether they succeed or fail, and the whole point of the die roll is to avoid that.

145. I have this one player, known him for years, love him to death, but he has a six-pound d20. Rolling it usually vibrates everything off the table

[valadil]

146. Players who won't accept die rolls. We had this one guy who, whenever he rolled a 1-4, would exclaim, "that's BS," and reroll. It wasn't like he'd do that if he was having a bad day, but in his book those values shouldn't exist. Eventually we just had him autofail whenever he did that. It didn't stop him.

[DrakeEvancore]

141 - Players who describe every single character of theirs as absolutely drop-dead gorgeous and then want advantages for it. I don't care if they describe their character as gorgeous or devastatingly handsome. But, I'm not going to give them bennies for it time after time when they didn't actually "spend" anything for it. They get the benefit of their Charisma modifier - no more (well, barring the occasional, plot-related point, but my peeve is about players who push it, not players who behave).

This said, I want to say I have one player (or had, as she retired from the game a short bit ago) who always had her characters be knock-outs, going so far as to provide soap opera or action star pictures for them. That didn't bother me. (Now it did bother me that she tried to provide similar pics for every NPC in my game - many of them just aren't that good looking. But I told her to quit and she did and that was that.)

A carry over from some of the older campaigns I was in was the comliness roll d100. It took into account racial adjustments for being for example elven or orcish plus your Cha modifier. I ended up with one of the ugliest Dwarves on the face of the planet 3/100. I decided to wear a mask, so I could go into town, without people running away screaming, and the town guard trying to kill me. On the opposite end the next character ended up with 110 Elven Sorcerer plus double odd.

[DrakeEvancore]

#147: Rogue PCs that are always Kleptomaniacs, and steal from the own party members.

[Jades]

148) When the entire party just knows that the new party member is a rogue.

I have this problem when playing too. While the new party was looking around, I walked over to the door, picked the lock and disarmed the trap. They were in another room. Later on in the day, I'm getting lectures about how we don't need rogues stealing from party members from every party member...

[Gordon]

146. Players who won't accept die rolls. We had this one guy who, whenever he rolled a 1-4, would exclaim, "that's BS," and reroll. It wasn't like he'd do that if he was having a bad day, but in his book those values shouldn't exist. Eventually we just had him autofail whenever he did that. It didn't stop him.

What's so funny is that often he probably didn't need to reroll. The mantram of our group has become "Add it up." People get this Fear of a Small Number, and assume they've missed because they rolled a 3. But most of those times, when they actually add up all their modifiers, they turn out to have hit anyway.

[FlashFire]

Especially true in combat with fighters anytime after level 6 or so. People get a 3 and freak out - then realize that after all of their nifty feats, and cleric's pumping spells..... it always seems to work out.

[Zho]

#147: Rogue PCs that are always Kleptomaniacs, and steal from the own party members.
Thank you!

148. Rogue PCs that steal from EVERY NPC, from the lowest commoner to the highest guard, then complain when the guards come after them.

[GreyRat]

149) (I think?) Players who make sneaky characters (usually rogues and/or monks) and insist on spending every second of darkness on solo expeditions. "I'm going to break into that shop and check their record, then I'll eavesdrop on the local guard tower for a couple hours, then I'll lurk down by the docks a while, and then I'll sneak into my friends house and booby trap his closet, and then..." I'm glad you have plans, but the other players don't want to spend two hours watching "The You Show".
I was pleased and impressed last week when the GM actually told a ninja wanna-be: "No. You're tired. You should go to bed now."

150) Players who act as though the passage of time is an optional rule when travelling, talking, or eating. If you want to visit the docks, the marketplace, the temple, and the palace, and each of those is a half-mile from each other, don't be surprised when the GM tells you, "It's now late afternoon." Figure it out, guys.

[Gamebird]

151 - When players obsess with determining class and level of every NPC of importance that they meet.

152 - Similar to #151, when players watch my die rolls, back-calculate to figure out the modifier the bad guy/whoever had to apply to succeed, then estimate a stat modifier and figure out the probable range of the NPC's save modifier. Then based on probable class (based on armor, weapon choice, spellcasting, etc.), figure out primary/secondary save categories and cross reference for level of NPC. Then they tell me, proudly, as if they expect me to give them a cookie or something for doing it.

It's the sort of thing that makes me understand why DMs sometimes change monsters on the fly or make up new classes/monsters *just* to thwart the players.

153 - Players who think that after a full day of traveling, they can perform for another 4-6 hours at the inn, or engage in any other time-consuming, difficult activity (like scribing scrolls, training an animal, etc.)

154 - Players who think their characters can sleep under any conditions, no matter what. In wagons, going down bumpy roads. On a horse, tied into the saddle. In the early afternoon, after a full night's sleep, so they'll be "fresh" for the ambush that night.

Nope. Just doesn't work that way, folks.

[FlashFire]

#155 - Going along with Gamebird... when players believe that every single person that they meet has to have class levels, NPC or otherwise. Face it - I didn't bother rolling up the stats for the armorer... I don't care that he qualifies as a Commoner LV 5... it really doesn't matter to me. If you attack him, you'll probably make quick work of him. At the same time... it annoys me when DMs actually do make everyone in the universe have class levels!

EDIT - Late post

[Gamebird]

156 - When the PCs insist in talking in metagame terms: "Okay, I ask the knight how many hit dice the dragon has."

157 - When PCs imply that NPCs wouldn't understand that it is possible for certain people in the game world to be unusually capable and tough customers. "The count must think we're really incredible and awesome to have taken out that dragon, doesn't he?" Well, as a matter of fact he's pretty pleased the dragon is gone, but would you cut out the simpering, insecure bull sh-t? If you really want to know his reaction, go make an appointment, hang out with him, and make a Sense Motive check. And don't forget HE has a lot of Sense Motive too (that's a big part of his job, nitwit) and he's going to know you're just there being an insecure goober. So congratulations, he's happy you took out the dragon and he's bothered that you're wasting his time.

[SolusTempus]

153 - Players who think that after a full day of traveling, they can perform for another 4-6 hours at the inn, or engage in any other time-consuming, difficult activity (like scribing scrolls, training an animal, etc.)

Seeing as an average day's travel is 8 hours you do have time at the begining or end of the day to do that kind of stuff.



154 - Players who think their characters can sleep under any conditions, no matter what. In wagons, going down bumpy roads. On a horse, tied into the saddle. In the early afternoon, after a full night's sleep, so they'll be "fresh" for the ambush that night.

Sleeping in a wagon is possible, the horse thing isn't. If a player sleeps during the day too much though he would end up with a scrwed up sleep schedua lthough.

[Gamebird]

Seeing as an average day's travel is 8 hours you do have time at the begining or end of the day to do that kind of stuff.

Check the Force March rules: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#forcedMarch

To quote: "In a day of normal walking, a character walks for 8 hours. The rest of the daylight time is spent making and breaking camp, resting, and eating." Emphasis mine.



Sleeping in a wagon is possible, the horse thing isn't. If a player sleeps during the day too much though he would end up with a scrwed up sleep schedua lthough.

I would find you laughable if it wasn't so sad and frustrating that many of my players have the same idea that sleeping in a wagon going down a bumpy road is possible and restful.

[Democratus]

I would find you laughable if it wasn't so sad and frustrating that many of my players have the same idea that sleeping in a wagon going down a bumpy road is possible and restful.

On this particular point I must disagree. One of the most common traits that I have found among combat veterans is the ability to sleep at any time under almost any conditions. My uncle fought in WWII and personally described sleeping in a horse drawn cart crossing rugged terrain.

[valadil]

156 especially annoys me. Last game I had a player who, when asked to describe herself say, "I look like a scout." When asked for more description I just got a paraphrase of the previous sentence.

Strangely enough I've never encountered the type of rogue that steals from the party. I've only ever seen a PC rob another PC once, and that was because the item in question was being used to scry on the group.

[Gamebird]

I would accept it if a character had taken a feat that allowed them to do it, or if they made some manner of check. A DC 15 Fort save sounds about right. Most Fighters, Barbarians and tough-types will find it easy, which correlates well to stories of modern soldiers. Most pansy-type Wizards, sensitive sorcerors and the like will find it difficult, which also works fine.

Pet Peeve #158 -
Players who believe that because they have heard a story about a friend/relative/total stranger accomplishing activity X, they believe their character will be able to accomplish this also, automatically. This includes things like sleeping in wagons that are going down bumpy roads, but it also includes falling from a great height, kiling a grizzly bear with your bare hands, climbing tall buildings without gear, surviving long periods without sleep, food or water, etc. Just because someone in the real world managed something does NOT mean that your character can do the same. You might be able to, especially if you happen to have the appropriate abilities/traits/spells/etc. You can not do it automatically though just because some guy in the real world did it. Ditto for stories of little old ladies lifting cars off children during periods of hysterical strength.

Which reminds me...
DM pet peeve #159 -
Just because game system A that we are not playing has rules for something, doesn't mean those rules are accepted in THIS game. I don't care if Vampire allows you spend a Willpower point to get an automatic success. Your D&D character doesn't have Willpower and you can't use it. No, we're not going to merge the rules.

DM pet peeve #160 -
Just because splat book A has a spell/feat/power/whatever in it that you really like doesn't mean it's allowed in my game. You may not take a spell out of a non-core book without asking me. And so help me, the next time someone tries, I am so freaking tempted to just say, "Nope, can't have it, and by the way, your attempt took up that spell slot. So no, you can't replace it. Next time, follow the rules that I've freaking repeated to you every freaking level when you've tried to do the same thing."


Wow. I'm really way too tense lately.

[SolusTempus]

Check the Force March rules: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#forcedMarch

To quote: "In a day of normal walking, a character walks for 8 hours. The rest of the daylight time is spent making and breaking camp, resting, and eating." Emphasis mine..

You aren't making camp if you've made it to town and are goign to stay at an inn. Bards are preforming on those days, not the days in the middle of the wilderness. Scrolls and such are another thing, but a day also includes watches through the night, if somone had a source of light they could possibly do that kind of thing while on watch.

[FlashFire]

Gamebird, I think we already covered #160... but honestly... it IS annoying. A player just did that to me YESTERDAY when I talked to him. It went a little bit like this....

Player - "Hey, do you 'Complete Warrior' ?"
DM - "No."
Player - "Have you ever SEEN it?"
DM - "Yes, I've flipped through it a little."
Player - "Well... remember the Kansai?"
DM - "Yes."
Player - "Well that's where I'm going with my Paladin."

.... Um... dude...I didn't say you could take that class from the OPTIONAL book, did I?

#161 - Players who can't leave the game in the game. I work with this player in question (same as above), and while I'm TYPING THIS POST he's behind me talking about our last gaming session. Dude... we're at work... please stop talking about the game for just ONE FRIGGIN' MINUTE!!!

[dragonfly83h]

#162. Players who polarize their abilities, and insists that Int 8 means that they can't speak properly. It's only slightly below average for crying out loud.

[edit] changed 158 to 162

[Varen_Tai]

#161 - Players who can't leave the game in the game. I work with this player in question (same as above), and while I'm TYPING THIS POST he's behind me talking about our last gaming session. Dude... we're at work... please stop talking about the game for just ONE FRIGGIN' MINUTE!!!

I humbly submit that if we all kept this rule, these boards wouldn't exist.

So there ARE those who take it too far, but keeping the game in the game really puts a big crimp in my conversational abilities. :)

[Gamebird]

You aren't making camp if you've made it to town and are goign to stay at an inn. Bards are preforming on those days, not the days in the middle of the wilderness. Scrolls and such are another thing, but a day also includes watches through the night, if somone had a source of light they could possibly do that kind of thing while on watch.

Yep, laugh or cry. It's one or the other. This is exactly the kind of attitude that makes that one of my pet peeves. If this were possible, then everyone would be able to work three full time jobs. Perhaps in your game world, this is possible. It is not in mine, nor is it in any sensible world (with exceptions for unusual jobs that don't take up much time).

I can just see your explanation that you can eat, urinate, defecate, and travel to job locations instantly, because the rules don't specify that these activities take up actual time. Plus obviously you can perform in the evenings without taking force march rules because performing is so EASY, you know, it's not strenuous at alll! And the Perform check says it can be "an evening's work", so any inn you show up to unannounced and unexpected will surely have a stage and audience set up and waiting for you right then, for you to run in and start performing while your friend begins teaching his horse tricks - the same horse that just put in a full day hauling his butt around the country. Oh yeah, sure. I'm positive all this will work out.

IN YOUR MIND. Not in my game. My game, while based in a fantasy world with dragons and magic, has a nod towards REALISM. Like there are so many hours in a day, you can't operate at full steam for all of them, and if you spend your watch scribing scrolls, then you don't get a check to see or hear any monsters who might wander into camp and start eating people.

[Sacrath]

#163 - Stop playing with the dice, seriously. I don't care if your newest dice-tower is going to break a world record, the barbarian needs his d12.

Now some of it can be attributed to my overly long room descriptions, but the reasons for those leads to;

#164 - Players who don't pay attention when you are describing a room and then imedialtely ask questions about it once you are done.

Edit: Because it takes to long to read them all, and once you get to the end, people post before you.
Edit Again: Because I suck at counting (or reading as the case may be.)

[Gamebird]

#165 - Players who ask how to do something that's in the basic rules, when the Player's Handbook is as close to them as it is to me. This wouldn't be so irritating in a table top game, as it is in my online games. I have two different players, both playing fighters, who will message me to let me know "Next round I'm going to try maneuver X, but I've never done that before. How do I do that again?"

This leaves me with two options:
1. Stop the game while I look up the stupid rules that they could be looking up, then type them out to them, or
2. Tell them to look it up themselves and go on.

I suppose it's my fault because invariably I look the rules up anyway, because I don't trust these particular players to relate the rules truthfully.

[valadil]

#166 Players who make up backstory as its convenient. Just because you haven't defined your father in game doesn't mean that he just happens to be the warden at the jail we're being held at.

#167 Players who declare that their backstory trumps your in game abilities. A fighter who came from a land where people lead by example instead of just talking was in a game with me. I was playing a rogue. He decided his character was immune to skills involving charisma, so he saw through every bluff check I made and metagamed against me. My response? "Yeah, well, my character came from a planet with a krypton sun, so I can fly and shoot heat rays." It don't work that way. Sadly, the player was immune to satire. (Strangely enough this is the same player who couldn't accept die rolls below a 5.)

[Dark]

#164 - Players who don't pay attention when you are describing a room and then imedialtely ask questions about it once you are done.
Sounds like you could skip the first part :)

Start with "You're in a room", and wait for questions.

[Severus]

I would find you laughable if it wasn't so sad and frustrating that many of my players have the same idea that sleeping in a wagon going down a bumpy road is possible and restful.

PCs aren't like you and I. My brother was an airborne ranger. he could and did sleep anywhere. PCs are like that. I don't what kind of prisses your players are, but people who stomp around the wilderness, killing things aren't likely to be the kind that can't handle harsh conditions.

Your tone is prissy too.

[Gordon]

Player - "Well... remember the Kansai?"
DM - "Yes."
Player - "Well that's where I'm going with my Paladin."


DM: Wow! That'll be so cool. Damn, I'm gonna miss you.
Player: HUH?!?
DM: Who's your DM gonna be?
Player: Uh.. well, you are. Aren't you?
DM: LOL Don't be silly. You're going to play a Kensai, and I've already told you that I don't allow that book in the campaign. So really, who are you playing with?
Player: Well, I--
DM: Let me know when you're available for our campaign again; it'll be neat to have you back. Your new character can come in one level lower than the lowest current PC.
Player: Cant I... just keep my old character?
DM: Naw, don't be silly. He's a Kensai, and my campaign world doesn't have those. Well, have a great day!

[Jades]

Players who get mad when you screw around with their backstory to make them more important to the story.

[Gordon]

Players who get mad when you screw around with their backstory to make them more important to the story.

In the same way that some DMs would resent a player "screwing around with" their game world to put stuff into their backstory, I would also resent a DM changing my backstory without talking through it with me. The game world is his creation, and so he is solicitous concerning its integrity. My backstory is my creation. Somebody else doesn't just get to rewrite it without talking with me.

169. The perfect player for your campaign, who gets a new class or a new job that makes it impossible for him to attend.

[Spuddly]

I think this really shows the extent of her prissiness:


I can just see your explanation that you can eat, urinate, defecate, and travel to job locations instantly, because the rules don't specify that these activities take up actual time.

I don't know about you hun, but taking a crap doesn't eat up an eighth of my waking hours. Especially in the woods. I just drop my pants, squat somewhere comfortable, then clean up with whatever'ss handy, pull my pants up and keep moving. Took me all of 7 minutes.

Pissing takes all of 70 seconds. Heck, I can pee and ride a bike at the same time. If I could ride a horse, I bet I could pee while I was in the saddle. And not make too much of a mess out of myself.

Traveling for 8 hours isn't that much time to walk. If the party spent 12 or 16 hours, then yeah, you're too tired to sit down and scribe some scrolls. But only 8 hours? As far as I'm concerned, anyone who's just walked 8 hours has at least another 8 hours of walking in them. Traveling on roads is ridiculously easy, as well. Easy on the feet, no navigation required, travel goes quick.

Wake up at dawn, take an hour to make & eat breakfast, take care of toiletries, gear up and break down camp (which is really quite a generous amount of time), spend seven hours walking, get to town and be entirely alright to go sing a few ditties in the local pub. It's not like strumming that lyre really takes it out of you. Heck, the bards been strumming and singing all day.

Walking for a day isn't much different than a day's work. 8 hours spent on an activity gives you 8 additional hours to spend on what you please and another 8 to sleep. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Seems perfectly reasonable to these folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_hour_day


Parnell is reported to have said: "There are twenty-four hours per day given us; eight of these should be for work, eight for sleep, and the remaining eight for recreation and in which for men to do what little things they want for themselves."

[Jades]

In the same way that some DMs would resent a player "screwing around with" their game world to put stuff into their backstory, I would also resent a DM changing my backstory without talking through it with me. The game world is his creation, and so he is solicitous concerning its integrity. My backstory is my creation. Somebody else doesn't just get to rewrite it without talking with me.


By "screwing around with" I mean making the npcs in the story living characters. The NPC wizard holds a grudge against your father because when your father was an adventurer...

"But I didn't write that!"

Or how'bout that guy that was writen into the backstory that the PC owes a favor to; but the player gets mad when the npc calls in the favor? That's screwing around with backstory, by my definition.

No, I would never change a persons backstory, but I will screw around with it in that I use it to enhance the world that they are in.

[valadil]

170. Players who get pissed when you exploit their weaknesses. This isn't so much a DnD thing, as character flaws are optional. But let's just say that someone wants to play a troll because they're oh so badass. 9 times out of 10, that player will get pissed off when the GM attacks the troll with fire. Even if it only happens once in the game, just to test the troll PC. Do they really expect to get nice stats and regeneration for free and never have to pay for it? This sort of thing comes up more in World of Darkness, where a common flaw is a phobia of some sort. I'm sure the player uses the 2 points earned from the phobia every game, he should pay for it somehow.

[Gordon]

By "screwing around with" I mean making the npcs in the story living characters. The NPC wizard holds a grudge against your father because when your father was an adventurer...

"But I didn't write that!"

Or how'bout that guy that was writen into the backstory that the PC owes a favor to; but the player gets mad when the npc calls in the favor? That's screwing around with backstory, by my definition.

No, I would never change a persons backstory, but I will screw around with it in that I use it to enhance the world that they are in.

Ah, much clearer, thank you. I don't think I'd object to either of these things -- I would say the DM was exploiting, or using my backstory (especially calling in the favor, that's a good move), and I'd feel my time writing the backstory had not just been a personal exercise.

[Umael]

#162. Players who polarize their abilities, and insists that Int 8 means that they can't speak properly. It's only slightly below average for crying out loud.

[edit] changed 158 to 162

Look at the player and calmly explain that someone with Int 8 isn't that bad because you are looking at one now.

Repeat with the other stats as necessary.

[Piotr]

Traveling for 8 hours isn't that much time to walk. If the party spent 12 or 16 hours, then yeah, you're too tired to sit down and scribe some scrolls. But only 8 hours? As far as I'm concerned, anyone who's just walked 8 hours has at least another 8 hours of walking in them. Traveling on roads is ridiculously easy, as well. Easy on the feet, no navigation required, travel goes quick.


I 'm not so sure. I have recently walked 15 km. It took me about 3 hours, and by the end of it I was tired. When I came back home my legs really hurt. And I wasn't in that bad condition, some people who walked with me were in worse. In 8 hours adventurers could probably wlak about 30-40 km on even road (but they often walk through wilderness, which is even more tiring).



Walking for a day isn't much different than a day's work. 8 hours spent on an activity gives you 8 additional hours to spend on what you please and another 8 to sleep. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Seems perfectly reasonable to these folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_hour_day


The only problem is, after 8 hours of constant working you are usually so tired, you don't want to go to a pub and to a concert. You want to go home, sit down and have some rest. So during 8 hours on what you please, you rest.
Also 8 hours of work can't be cut from, and you have to eat, wash yourself, go to and from work. I don't know abnout you, but I loose at least 1.5 hour each day just to get to and from work. Sometimes more. If I want to sleep 8 hours, I have only 6.5 on my own activities.

[dragonfly83h]

Look at the player and calmly explain that someone with Int 8 isn't that bad because you are looking at one now.

Repeat with the other stats as necessary.


PMSL :D I'm gonna use that one!

[Rigeld]

I 'm not so sure. I have recently walked 15 km. It took me about 3 hours, and by the end of it I was tired. When I came back home my legs really hurt. And I wasn't in that bad condition, some people who walked with me were in worse. In 8 hours adventurers could probably wlak about 30-40 km on even road (but they often walk through wilderness, which is even more tiring).

In Basic, we did our 10k road march in... an hour? 1.5? Something like that. Thats full gear, weapon, and a full rucksack. Out of 200ish people, 4 fell out and got on the wimp truck. After that march, we had a full day of training ahead, including the gas chamber (wuwu).

People who are in shape and walk everywhere for a living can walk/ride/get there, and not feel any more tired than a normal day of work. Sure, they want to sit down... you can play an insturment sitting.


The only problem is, after 8 hours of constant working you are usually so tired, you don't want to go to a pub and to a concert. You want to go home, sit down and have some rest. So during 8 hours on what you please, you rest.

Hell, after 8 hours at work, im GLAD to go to a pub :p Thats a form of resting. Resting does not always have to equal sleep.


Also 8 hours of work can't be cut from, and you have to eat, wash yourself, go to and from work. I don't know abnout you, but I loose at least 1.5 hour each day just to get to and from work. Sometimes more. If I want to sleep 8 hours, I have only 6.5 on my own activities.


Rarely does anyone actually sleep 8 hours; I know I never have unless im extremely worn out (advance team for the company and put up 7 tents and set up the motor pool area.. full day of hard labor, so yeah, I slept 8 hours). Plus, the "getting to work" for adventurers is the road march.

[Umael]

I 'm not so sure. I have recently walked 15 km. It took me about 3 hours, and by the end of it I was tired. When I came back home my legs really hurt. And I wasn't in that bad condition, some people who walked with me were in worse.

After one week of hiking, a group of us in our teens managed to go 21 miles along mountain trails.

And no, we didn't collapse from exhaustion. None of us.



The only problem is, after 8 hours of constant working you are usually so tired, you don't want to go to a pub and to a concert. You want to go home, sit down and have some rest. So during 8 hours on what you please, you rest.

That is your experience. It is not universal.

Look, D&D does not take into account different kinds of working. There is a reason you are actually more tired from a day of shopping in which you only walk five miles than you are from jogging fifteen miles. Sure, after the jog, you can feel bad (especially if you are not in shape), but if you ARE in shape, you recover in an hour and feel great - not so with shopping.

This is because shopping is a stop-and-go routinue. It is like how your car gets poorer gas mileage in the city than it does on the freeway.



Also 8 hours of work can't be cut from, and you have to eat, wash yourself, go to and from work. I don't know abnout you, but I loose at least 1.5 hour each day just to get to and from work. Sometimes more. If I want to sleep 8 hours, I have only 6.5 on my own activities.


Actually, I would argue the 8 hours necessary quite easily. People who are in good shape and exercise regularly sleep better and thus require less sleep time than those who are not and do not. I am not as active as an adventurer, but I tend to sleep only six hours, and I do okay.

As far as the 8 hours and what you can do during it, businesses assume that an employee will lose about 2 hours to simple things from time to time during the day. Stop and talk with a co-worker, take a moment to check the news on-line, and so on, these things add up. Furthermore, there is some studies that show these little breaks can actually be quite helpful. One guide on study habits suggested taking a 2-3 minute break every half an hour; presumably, the same would hold true for working.

[RowanOakleaf]

I'm going to agree with Rigeld. If you're in shape and walk for a living, then you can do an 8 hour walk in the day (maybe 6 if you're pushing through the woods or other rough terrain) and have some time left in the evening to do something besides set up camp and fall down.

My pet peeve as a DM is my PCs nit-picking at me for descriptions and other minute things that apparently I should have 100% memorized out the the books like they do. I'm still learning how to DM and everytime I forget or mix up even the TINIEST thing, they're right there helping to correct me. >.<

[Seffbasilisk]

Just yesterday in the rain and the dark I trudged about nine miles in four hours with a heavy pack and no raingear. And I usually don't walk more than a mile and a half in a stretch so it was a bit of something. Now adventurers are always walking along, so they should be able to do what I did as well. And when I got there I was in good enough shape to keep my gf happy so I'd easily be able to play a song or something. That was four hours, but adventurers are ALWAYS doing stuff like that, or they're riding horses. So they should be able to.

[GreyRat]

To some degree, whether or not 'being tired' impacts on the PCs depends on the game and the players.
I've had games where the GM *expected* the PCs to be on call 24/7, and they were happy to ignore such minor details as whether the PCs had shin splints. I've also been in games where the players took care of their characters like spoiled Tamagochi ("I think he's tired. I'm going to give him some food and put him down for a nap. I'll pay for a massage before bed.")
And you shouldn't be afraid to vary it. Some days, I work all day, then perform 2 or 3 errands on the way home. Other days, it would take a fire under my butt to get me out of bed. Why shouldn't PCs be the same way?

[RowanOakleaf]

And you shouldn't be afraid to vary it. Some days, I work all day, then perform 2 or 3 errands on the way home. Other days, it would take a fire under my butt to get me out of bed. Why shouldn't PCs be the same way?

It may be partially because a lot of DMs and players don't mind skipping that part of the day.
DM:"Ok, it's morning. Is anyone doing anything important this mornign besides praying or studying for spells?"
Players: "nope, we're good to go."
DM: Ok. So, later on, you're walking through the woods, its' been about an hour since your broke camp..."

I dont 'think I ever roleplayed getting my character up in the morning while we were out tramping through the woods or mountains, only while we were in towns at an inn. It's fun to rp breakfast at an inn, not so much when you're out of town.

[FlashFire]

I'm with the poster who talked about basic training and the road march there (Of course... that was almost five years ago for me, but hey...). That would qualify as a "forced march", and yes, you can make it pretty far. But if you were to keep that up all day - you WILL pay for it. Eight hours is a long time to be marching anywhere, and odds are that's about all the productive energy you can muster that day.

That's not to say that you can't make it work... a human can pull some pretty remarkable feats of endurance... but these things usually take a long time to recover from. Speaking of feats of endurance.

#170 - Players who like a house rule until it works against them. Example? I house ruled that unless you have the endurance feat, sleeping without a sleeping roll on the cold, hard ground will wear on your character, and at the end of the second night, he will be fatigued, and will remain so until he sleeps comfortably. The players all said this sounded reasonable (they enjoyed the role playing aspect). Until it worked to the disadvantage of someone who neglected to retrieve their sleeping mat from the dungeon - saying "I'll get it later".. Well the walls caved in and they couldn't return to that dungeon. Suddenly the rule didn't sound so good anymore.

[RowanOakleaf]

I'm all for house rules as long as their balanced and everyone can agree. One of our house rules is that wizards get more skill points than alotted in the PHB, and that their spell save dcs are 10+spells' level + int modifier or some such thing because of how ridicuously low the save dcs are. It works out pretty good.

[Piotr]

Hell, after 8 hours at work, im GLAD to go to a pub :p Thats a form of resting. Resting does not always have to equal sleep.

I couldn't. I don't like noise and loud places. If there is smoke, it's even worse. I can go to a pub only when I'm in good form, and want to come back in worse ;)



Rarely does anyone actually sleep 8 hours

I know that this amount varies with each person, but my point is the amount of sleep is more or less constant for each person under the same conditions (i.e. if you are just as tired as everyday). You shouldn't cut time from your sleep. If you normally sleep 6 hours, sleeping for only 5 will make you feel tired. We assumed 8 hours of work, 8 of free time and 8 of sleep before, bout it could be 8 of work, 10 of free time and 6 of sleep.
BTW, the amount of time adventurers will spend on walking will vary with season of year. In winter traveling is much more tiring, and it gets dark much sooner for example, so I doubt they would walk for more than 8 hours even if they were in shape.

[Gamebird]

Maybe I'm just a big priss. For the record, in my game that's not 8 hours spent "working", including lunch breaks, stopping for directions, etc. It's 8 hours spent MOVING. I take the slowest movement rate of the party and multiply it by 8. I assume you move every minute of that time.

Additional to this time, I assume characters eat, barter for their rooms at the inn, get directions, talk to each other, tack up their mounts, run minor errands (like buy normal equipment) and have plenty of time to knock back a yard or two of ale and appreciate whatever passes for entertainment wherever they happen to be. I have no objection to characters making notes of their journey, adding the day's travels to their journal or self-maintained map, doing minor repairs on gear, casting spells, having sex, and so on.

When I get pissed is when someone tries to do a four to eight hour task that requires concentration, effort and constant engagement.

Umael said, "That is your experience. It is not universal." And I agree heartily. A high level, experienced soldier in our world who has the benefit of superior training, nutrition, and supplies can probably sleep all sorts of places with minimal negative effect. But, if a character wants to be able to get two full shifts of activity done in my game, then buy a freaking ring of sustenance. They're not that expensive. Heck, I'll let you get two full days of work in plus a fair bit of hanging out and personal time.

Otherwise, you're stuck with the usual force march rules just like everyone else.

[FlashFire]

#171 - You're running a level one campaign, and the players map out their characters through level 20.it's annoying when you and the player says "I'm going to be playing a Fight/Monk/Dwarven Defender".

You're level 1... you're going to be a Fighter. And no one even said that I'm going to allow the Dwarven Defender prestige class!

[dragonfly83h]

I'm all for house rules as long as their balanced and everyone can agree. One of our house rules is that wizards get more skill points than alotted in the PHB, and that their spell save dcs are 10+spells' level + int modifier or some such thing because of how ridicuously low the save dcs are. It works out pretty good.

10 + spell level + Int modifier is exactly a wizard's spell save DCs. No house rule needed there. ;)


#172. Players who keep thinking that we are using the old AD&D rules.

Player: "What speed factor does my weapon have again?"

DM: "There is no such thing as speed factors anymore. This is 3.5e. Remember?"

Player: "Okay, then what is my weapon's initiative factor!?"

DM: "Sigh..."

[EB]

#173 Attention seekers who can't seem to grasp the fact that there are other players besides them in the game.

[Seffbasilisk]

174. Players who when making thier charcter give them a melee weapon OR a ranged weapon. Not both. Then btich about how the DM should have fit the encounters to them. Your only weapon when you go adventuring is a huge greatsword? Don't be surprised if I spring a manticore on your munchkin ass.

[Umael]

174. Players who when making thier charcter give them a melee weapon OR a ranged weapon. Not both. Then btich about how the DM should have fit the encounters to them. Your only weapon when you go adventuring is a huge greatsword? Don't be surprised if I spring a manticore on your munchkin ass.

This is the key part, and while I as GM will tailor some things to suit the PCs, I will also tailor things to make them uncomfortable.

Playing a fighter? Get invited to the royal ball as a bodyguard. You get one weapon and there is going to be lots of Spot checks and Sense Motive checks.

Playing a druid? The grand council is holding a meeting in the middle of the city.

Playing a wizard? Mud-wrestling.

And in some cases, your character is going to have trouble with certain things. Monks, for example, are lousey with ranged combat. But if I play a monk, I won't be complaining when you use a manticore against me.


175. Players who ignore the clues and expect you to hand the storyline to them on a silver platter.

[ChubsMcGee]

176.a. Players who play druids who are nature crazy and refuse anything to do with civilization. Just because a druid doesn't necassarily like civilization does not mean he doesn't understand how to interact.

176.b. Players who play druids as so neutral they never take a stand on anything. Just whatever happens is fine with them.

[Umael]

176.a. Players who play druids who are nature crazy and refuse anything to do with civilization. Just because a druid doesn't necassarily like civilization does not mean he doesn't understand how to interact.

To simulate this for my druid, I picked up the traits of Illiterate and Uncivilized. My druid WILL eat meat raw, has not understanding of why people go into cities, and would rather enjoy a good fire and a song or two over a pile of gold. My DM allowed my character to have Craft: natural weapons, but to make it fair, I ruled that I could only use natural material (I think I only get wood, flint, vine, and feathers) and I could never make masterwork (what is masterwork quality for me would be normal quality for someone else). This gives me daggers, spears, clubs, crude axes, bows (no proficiency in them though), arrows, and staves. I would like to get Craft: leather tanning eventually (for making leather armor, hide armor, and most importantly, clothing).


176.b. Players who play druids as so neutral they never take a stand on anything. Just whatever happens is fine with them.

My druid is neutral too, but I play like a wolf. Who is in my pack, do I need to hunt again, are you threatening my mate, that diseased and rotting abomination is moving (have a serious problem with undead, although I don't run from them). I also had a problem with the gnome-invented freezer room - it made mechanical noises and it was unnaturally cold.


(I know, neither of these peeves were directed as me, but I had to comment on how I pulled off both of those - my druid does not go into cities and is strongly neutral. But then, my druid also cannot read, put no value in gold or treasure, and gets unnerved by unnatural things.)

[dragonfly83h]

175a. Players who, when confronted with a strange storyplot, do absolutely nothing in-game to investigate the events. But instead, at the end of the game, rants about how odd that event was, and wants an explaination.

177. Barbarians who fly into rage mode over the slightest thing.

178. Players who enter combat against an overwhelming foe, then complain because the encounter was too difficult. "I placed the hill giant there. His back was turned. You chose to fight him."

[edit] corrected spelling

[Jades]

179, corrolary to 177) Barbarians who never rage. Ugh! If you're going to play a barbarian you have to use the Barbarian Rage! Its like being a wizard and never casting spells!

[ChubsMcGee]

Umael: I think you did well. But you treated these things in a logical manner. Yes, you don't go into cities but would you have your character act completely inept within a city to the detriment of your party? That is what bothers me. Also the neutral thing is fine how you played it. While still not being good or evil, or lawful or chaotic you still had a stance. You did not like undead, and that is something you would try to stop. It is when the druids start becoming "neutral" to the point that they will really only protect themselves, they seem to take no initiative. Anything happens, and they are like, meh, no big deal, it will all be okay.

[Gordon]

176.a. Players who play druids who are nature crazy and refuse anything to do with civilization. Just because a druid doesn't necassarily like civilization does not mean he doesn't understand how to interact.

176.b. Players who play druids as so neutral they never take a stand on anything. Just whatever happens is fine with them.

Basically these seem to fall in to the same category as "players who use X alignment as an excuse to be an @sshat."

[Democratus]

Basically these seem to fall in to the same category as "players who use X alignment as an excuse to be an @sshat."

*raises hand*

Ohh! I want to play Chaotic @sshat!

[Gordon]

*raises hand*

Ohh! I want to play Chaotic @sshat!

Sorry, that Prestige Class is NPC only! ;D

But you do get to kill them with impunity, even if you've taken the Oath of Non-Violence.

hmm, the Great Kender Hunt of '05, now there's an adventure scenario. Sounds like a good module for "Kender Stole My Baby!"

[DeathQuaker]

Playing a wizard? Mud-wrestling.

I am SO going to find a way to include mud wrestling in my game now. Not really for the wizard. But just because.



175. Players who ignore the clues and expect you to hand the storyline to them on a silver platter.

Agh, yes! But there is also the player corrollary (yes, I realize this is DM pet peeves, but bear with me)--GMs who THINK they're being obvious with their clues but really aren't. And sometimes there's just a complete lack of communication somewhere between both parties.

I had a GM give us this situation (this was in Exalted, not D&D): we're in a vehicle with limited flight/hover capabilities, high up in the mountains where it's snowy. We see ahead of us the tower we need to get to, with giant birds flying around it, but there is a sheer cliff face between us and the tower. We can't fly up the cliff because the vehicle works by propelling itself off the ground and since there's no slope it can't hover its way over, and we've reached max altitude otherwise; can't see any other path around. After being told "you can't do that" to various suggestions of climbing, jumping, manipulating the vehicle, and so forth, a player with a cloak that allows him to do a limited teleport zaps himself onto one of the giant birds and then manages to get his way into the tower. Our GM is absolutely flabbergasted. "That's not how you were supposed to do it!!!!" He let us do it, because it worked and it was creative, but he was clearly both mystified and frustrated by our solution. "But what the HELL were we supposed to do?" we asked, "We tried EVERYTHING." He blinks and looks at us like we're all idiots. "You were SUPPOSED to find a way to create an avalanche to create a slope, which would then allow you to hover the vehicle up the cliff." Note beyond mentioning we were near snow capped peaks, he never mentioned falling rocks and ice or anything happening in reaction to loud noises (the vibration from the engine of our vehicle should have caused SOMETHING alone, if it was avalanche territory). Nor even that there happened to be, say, a ton of snow hovering precariously near the cliff.

THAT, I do not think, was our, as player's, fault.

But then I had a situation in one of my D&D games I was running where the players had found a hidden holy icon, left behind by a priestess of a temple which had since become corrupted (she died before it was corrupted). The icon was full of positive energy and could repel undead if they came near (meaning within a foot or so) it, but did not have any other powers in the players' hands. They came upon the tomb of the priestess's successor--in a graveyard, which, like the temple, had become corrupted and filled with undead. In the tomb, they found the successor's holy icon--identical to the one they had found except slightly cracked and the gems set in it were glowing a foul dark color--set into a slot at the doorway of the tomb. The party pried out the corrupted icon and destroyed it. I said, "The tense, dark atmosphere dissipates slightly but you still see the zombies in the distance chasing [the NPC henchman who was distracting them so the party could deal with the plot]."

The player (incidentally, the GM described above) with the icon, after a game of 20 questions and only after the other party members practically force him into it, puts the holy icon they have into the slot. I say, "The gems in the icon come to life, shooting out rays of golden light as if the sun goddess herself were looking down upon the land. The tense atmosphere is completely gone, it feels warm and safe, and the zombies chasing Kalara crumble to dust."

The player then says, "No, I want to take the icon back. It's clearly too valuable; I think we were meant to keep it."

He takes the icon. I say, "The gems stop glowing. The air cools, and you feel a chill come across the land again."

He then says, "Yeah, I think we should take this with us."

I nearly banged my head into the table. Hard.

So was I being too subtle (or stupid for giving them a holy icon to begin with) or was he being obtuse?

[Edited as I forgot something.]

[Gamebird]

DeathQuaker, I think yours should be:

180 - Players who can't stand to leave anything worth even a gold piece behind.

Which is related to:
181 - Players who insist on getting a tally on every copper and silver they make performing while traveling, even when I say, "Your performance pays for travel expenses." Then they want an accounting of what the travel expenses are, even after I remind them that I don't want to bog the game down with upkeep and support. Then I get a whine about how I'm not letting him use his abilities. What?! The ability to bog the game down and drive the DM to fits over exactly how much silver or copper you'd make in an undefined number of hours, performing at an inn I haven't laid out, in a village I haven't even named, that the group is specifically never coming back to again? Cripes!!! Get over yourself! The freaking group consists of SEVEN men and their horses, plus that stupid wagon you decided to bring, and I'm letting EVERYONE skate on how much it costs to house and feed you. And you want to scrape a few more copper out of the system with your performance? Quit pushing it, bub.

[anime713]

179, corrolary to 177) Barbarians who never rage. Ugh! If you're going to play a barbarian you have to use the Barbarian Rage! Its like being a wizard and never casting spells!


In the party I GM for, there actually is a wizard who never casts spells. He'd much rather fire off a shot with his crossbow than use his oh-so-valuable magic missiles! The bard casts more spells than him; he at least tries to daze his enemies.

[Democratus]

182 - Players who constantly complain and moan "that's not how my old DM did it!"

[Jades]

183) Players who do something really stupid and complain when you call them to task.

I was doing a Spycraft mission (two days after I got the Rulebook... jerks) where the entire party got arrested except for the hacker. He hacks into the system of the sheriff and puts in a Release Order.

Unfortunately, the party hadn't been processed yet, so the release order came in before the computer said that they had been arrested.

I get two middle fingers when the sheriff turns to the party leader, hands him the release order and askes "How do you explain this?"

"Somebody high up wants us released."

"It appears that way, except for the fact that I still haven't put any of you into the computer. There's no way to know that you've been arrested.

[McAdoom]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.

What on earth is wrong with a recurring villan? They are going to fight someone eventually, and a recurring villan is more interesting than a new one IMHO.

Last time we tried that we failed to notice that we were in an area of strong negative energy, so all of the corpses got up a day later and started hunting us.

[McBish]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.

What on earth is wrong with a recurring villan? They are going to fight someone eventually, and a recurring villan is more interesting than a new one IMHO.

Reminds me off a time when my party met up with a recurring villian for 10 levels. (1st to 10th) He was a lich and we managed to kill him. Knowing how sometimes undead come back to life we crushed him into a fine powder. None of our carachters knew about the thing with the lichs soul in it. My bard failed the bardic knowledge check. We now have about 7 days in game to find his soul thingy figure out to destroy it and destroy it. Goddam lich.

[kimana]

184. Players with no backstory who resist all attempts to be plothooked...
I play online with some friends and the DM decided the game was too hack and slash and not enough RPing. He asked for ways to plothook the characters and my firend and I used are better schedules to help him, but one player (who had vanished when we had our final session of the last adventure) had to practically be beaten over the head to come up with more motivation for his character than "he's a kobold, he wants money!" (we eventually decided that was the only thing keeping his character from killing mine ;))

185. Kind of along with the coup de grace one: good characters that tourture pointless enemies who are already doubly incapacitated before killing them. (He got deducted 50xp for breaking alignment for that, and next time the other characters or fate itself is going to make him suffer for that)

[dragonfly83h]

#186. Players that expect the DM to do most of their stuff for them.


DM: "Why are you constantly splitting the party?"

Player: "We haven't got a strong motivation to work together. You need to think of reason why we should." (how about thinking one up yourself.)


DM: "You haven't written the crossbow's range increment on your sheet."

Player: "I'll let you deal with ranges." (why? you do know basic math, don't you?)


DM: "You seem to be ignoring all the adventure hooks."

Player: "I will help the people in the town... if they ask me to." (why should they? none of them know who you are or what you stand for)

[Umael]

#187 Players who whine about your game... and aren't even in them.

[Dark]

#94 Players who coup de grace all the villans after combat just to make sure that none of them will come back as recurring villans.

What on earth is wrong with a recurring villan? They are going to fight someone eventually, and a recurring villan is more interesting than a new one IMHO.
Hmm, I think it's entirely in character for PCs to want to make sure that their enemies are dead. In fact, if they carelessly let a villain live, they'll share some responsibility for his later evil deeds. The argument you suggest, about the nature of villains and the needs of dramatic storytelling, would be metagame reasoning. Which is another peeve, so it shows how players just can't win,

If the PCs know that destiny will always craft a villain of the appropriate power level to oppose them, then the paladin in the group will probably have to kill himself or something.

Hmm, you know, applying this reasoning in-game might work out for the villains...

Zorbar Ironthew kicked away the last of the chittering imps, and continued his implacable advance toward Soulpit the Necromancer, who scrabbled into the furthest corner of the despoiled throne room and tried to hide.
"Your reign of darkness is about to end, foul hellspit!" Zorbar bellowed, as he raised his greatsword +5 of graphically explicit violence.
"Wait, wait!" the necromancer squeaked. "Can't we talk about this?"
"Talk? TALK? You would beg for mercy? Did you offer mercy to the children of Unremarkable Village #5? Did you offer mercy to Queen Aynia when she begged for her husband's life? No! And you shall have none, either!"
"No, no, I mean... not mercy! I just mean... just listen! Don't do something you'll regret. You're missing a chance here!" Soulpit babbled frantically. "Don't do something foolish now, that you may regret later!"
Zorbar's brow furrowed. His companions often chided him for acting foolishly. Was he about to do so again? Perhaps he had better listen. The necromancer wasn't going anywhere, after all.
Relieved at the barbarian's hesitation, Soulpit quickly made his case. "Look, you're obviously a man of Destiny, right? It shines right off you. You're touched by the gods, and great legends will be sung of you. But a hero like you is never a hero alone. What you need is enemies! Great and powerful villains, whose defeat will assure your place in the halls of the gods."
Zorbar shook his head. This was getting complicated.
"No! It's really easy", said Soulpit, who had a Mediallion of ESP. "Because you have a Destiny, you're going to meet villains wherever you go, more and more powerful ones, until either you die or you go epic."
"What does any of this have to do with you?" demanded Zorbar. "I kill you, I get famous, right? My legend begins!"
"Ah, but you have already defeated me! That won't change, whether you kill me or let me go. But if you let me go now, you can defeat me again later. And you already know you can handle me! With a new, more powerful villain, you'd be taking your chances. Remember, how many legends do you know of famous heroes who haven't died? You'd better plan ahead here."
Zorbar considered this, his double-muscled barbarian brain slowly mulling over the issue. The fortress had gone deathly quiet, except for the distant collapse of burning buildings.
"Look, don't worry about me. You've defeated me, and I'll be sure not to show myself around here again. But later, when Destiny calls for a new villain to challenge you, I'll be waiting! I'll be right there to be another notch on your blade. Who knows what Destiny might summon if I'm not there? Would you prefer to face a pit fiend or an evil deity? You're not ready for that sort of thing yet. Better play it safe for now."
Zorbar nodded. The foul creature's words made sense. It was good that he had listened, and not done something foolish. His companions would be proud. "Okay. Is a deal," he said, as he sheathed his sword. "Sorry about, uh..." He gestured vaguely at the burning fortress and the scattered and dismembered undead.
"Oh, don't worry about that," said the necromancer. "I can always raise more legions, and there are plenty of fortresses in the world. It'll be fine. You know", he said, as he placed a withered clawlike hand on the barbarian's shoulder, "I think you and I will go far, together."

[Spuddly]

That kinda reminds me of that one movie, Dark. With the guy and the other guy.

Unbreakable, that's it.

[dragonfly83h]

#94 had been solved a long time ago, but seeing that someone brought it to life again, we'll have to put it to rest once and for all:

...and I quote myself...


I was probably not specific enough, but I meant it is the first thing they do after combat has ended.

The PCs plus an NPC follower were riding at the bottom of a chasm, when suddenly two hill giant show up at the top and start throwing rocks at them. The NPC got knocked off his horse by a rock, and lay unconcious. The party cleric casts a spell that causes them to fall down the edge, into a melee fight (they were 9th level party). After a brief struggle, the giants are knocked down.
I left the miniatures lying on the battle grid, and one of the players (cleric) says out loud: "Hey, she hasn't removed the minies. That must mean they're not dead." Based on this reasoning, they decided to coup-de-grace the giants, and only afterwards went to check if the NPC was OK.

Situations like that one.

[valadil]

#188 Players who metagame as a free action in the middle of combat.

Your healer should not know how many hit points you have at all times. That's what the second level spell, Status, is for.

You shouldn't know where the raging barbarian next to you plans on being next turn. That's just knowledge you don't have and shouldn't be basing your own movement on. Now, that sort of tactical knowledge is stuff you learn as you play with certain characters, but you should be acting on your own.

[Renloth]

#186. Players that expect the DM to do most of their stuff for them.

DM: "Why are you constantly splitting the party?"

Player: "We haven't got a strong motivation to work together. You need to think of reason why we should." (how about thinking one up yourself.)


I find this to be a fair and reasonable argument from the players. If playing with any good amount of roleplay, thinking of a reason to keep the party together when your character has none is fairly blatant meta-gaming.