Things Players Do That Rustle Your Jimmies

[Kazudo]

Don't name no names and be as respectful as possible. That being said, what do your DMs or players do that absolutely cheeses you off during a good ol' 3.5/3.0/d20/PF game?

Stuff like:

1. Play a game on their phone during game. I consider this disrespectful.
2. Be watching the TV that's in use in the room by someone unrelated to the game, rather than the game.
3. Start an argument loudly about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM than we're in just because they're "kick in the door" players and I'm feeding the needs of the intrigue players for a minute.

Is there anything else that players do or have done? Stories are welcome!

[Zombulian]

1. Being on phones the whole game is definitely pretty crappy.
2. Someone using "Well I play this game for fun, I don't know what you play for." as an excuse for doing dumb things repeatedly and throwing a campaign off track.

[FullStop]

There's another player in a group I'm in that has a couple of habits in particular that I find annoying: They will frequently ask a speaker to repeat themselves after having been addressed directly in some detail, and they tend to talk over other players. It often bogs down combat.

In general: People not keeping good notes about the abilities they have available, spellcasters in particular (though really any subsystem with that level of detail, too). I'm all about keeping spells, maneuvers, whatever on index cards in various stacks, and it makes it a lot easier to relay rules text to your DM when you have it all written up like that, instead of having to go to the book.

[Mountain]

Continually trying to skip past the "boring" parts (a.k.a. the story), because they only care about getting from fight to treasure and then to the next fight.

[Slipperychicken]

Haggling the GM for 3 real life hours over a 5-silver jar of marbles (or similarly trivial object).

[HaikenEdge]

Players who don't learn the system and are unwilling to learn the system.

[sakuuya]

Continually trying to skip past the "boring" parts (a.k.a. the story), because they only care about getting from fight to treasure and then to the next fight.

Or vice versa! Last time I DMed, a player literally went and took a nap on the couch during a combat encounter, because he finds combat uninteresting. :smallannoyed:

[lytokk]

Not knowing what they want to do when their turn comes around.

I'm not talking about the new player, or the player who's entire plan has been rendered moot based on the actions of another player, or the one who's confused on how something works, or wants to do something, but doesn't know if/how to do it. That's fine and acceptable. I'm talking the ones who didn't pay attention, have been in their own world, and chose now to figure it out.

Had one member of my group like this who always insisted on playing spellcasters. He never even picked up the book to look at a spell until it was his turn. I was still a player at this time, not a DM, and it had me really frustrated. Specifically, since I was playing the front-line fighter, and he would often lob a fireball directly on the square next to me, claiming it was my fault for charging in, and that I have HP to soak it up. Of course, when I don't put myself between him and the baddies, its my fault when he gets hit.

I went off on a tangent didn't I?

[Zombulian]

Players who don't learn the system and are unwilling to learn the system.

The feel when someone has to ask how to make a ranged touch attack every round. :smallfurious:


Not knowing what they want to do when their turn comes around.

I'm not talking about the new player, or the player who's entire plan has been rendered moot based on the actions of another player, or the one who's confused on how something works, or wants to do something, but doesn't know if/how to do it. That's fine and acceptable. I'm talking the ones who didn't pay attention, have been in their own world, and chose now to figure it out.

Had one member of my group like this who always insisted on playing spellcasters. He never even picked up the book to look at a spell until it was his turn. I was still a player at this time, not a DM, and it had me really frustrated. Specifically, since I was playing the front-line fighter, and he would often lob a fireball directly on the square next to me, claiming it was my fault for charging in, and that I have HP to soak it up. Of course, when I don't put myself between him and the baddies, its my fault when he gets hit.

I went off on a tangent didn't I?

Both of these describe one of our players. He isn't even one who's on his phone the whole time or talking to others. He always just looks to be paying attention and when it gets to his turn he has no idea what's going on.

[Grommen]

Reading the first paragraph of a Spell, feat, special ability, and then assuming they know everything about the spell, feat, or special ability.

Only to find out that they are 100% wrong.

[Kazudo]

When I've got the players in a "free roam" scenario, with forewarning, and they all spend twenty minutes looking at each other and trying to figure out where to go or what to do.

When players create too much (or too little) background of a character concept.*


*Not applicable when it's a homebrew campaign setting and this is its maiden playthrough.

[FullStop]

I've thought of another one, probably specific to me due to being anal-retentive about precision in language: people talking about "critting" on things that aren't attack rolls.

[Kazudo]

Right? People assuming that a Natural 20 or a Natural 1 are immediate success/failure just because attack rolls work that way.

They're usually the "Kicks in the door and kills stuff only no gross intrigue or actual plot, guys" kind of people.

Another one: Naturally assuming that, because it takes place in the same homebrew world that my previous campaign did that the two games are in continuity somehow and that I should explain where the continuity lies.

And worse still: when I do decide that it would be more fun, I'm corrected on how it actually happened by a player.

[FullStop]

It's not even the auto-success/failure thing, it's literally just using the word "critical" to talk about it. They're "natural 20"s. You're not talking about getting lucky and doubly-or-triply picking a lock or some nonsense.

[HaikenEdge]

Another one: Naturally assuming that, because it takes place in the same homebrew world that my previous campaign did that the two games are in continuity somehow and that I should explain where the continuity lies.
Not sure where the problem here is; if it is the same homebrew world, then things have to be related in some chronological form, be it prior, after, or concurrent.


And worse still: when I do decide that it would be more fun, I'm corrected on how it actually happened by a player.
Situationally, not seeing the problem here, depending on what they're correcting you on; if it's their own prior character's motivations, I'd make the argument they'd have a better understanding of that than you, seeing they created the character.

[ahenobarbi]

To much dedcriptions. Turns of one player in my current group take much longer than everyone elses (including DM) combined. Because he gives very long (and in my opinion boring because there is much more "you know like um..." than actual content) descriptions each time, even for most basic actions (and asks for bonuses for the description most of the time).

[Kazudo]

Not sure where the problem here is; if it is the same homebrew world, then things have to be related in some chronological form, be it prior, after, or concurrent.


Situationally, not seeing the problem here, depending on what they're correcting you on; if it's their own prior character's motivations, I'd make the argument they'd have a better understanding of that than you, seeing they created the character.

While I understand your first response, they don't HAVE to be related. See rule 0. In most cases, however, you're correct. I build a world and will gladly allow players to shape the world that I've built. The problem is that when they REACH FOR IT too far. Like for example, two games that are literally a thousand years apart using in-game history. The player is looking for the sword of his previous character who never did anything noteworthy and would not be remembered by history.

The player then proceeds to argue that getting to tenth level and killing a mafia boss should be historically relevant, plus he had an awesome sword and wants it again as a first level character!

Thaaaaaaaaaaat's the case in which my jimmies become rustled.

[Slipperychicken]

The feel when someone has to ask how to make a ranged touch attack every round. :smallfurious:


Same goes for AC. And skill bonuses. Every single roll must be arduously, needlessly calculated and recalculated before the game can move on.

Heaven forbid they encounter flanking bonuses. It throws them right off and after 15 torturous minutes of explanation they wind up with an extra 2 points on their Strength score.


Reading the first paragraph only the name of a Spell, feat, special ability, and then assuming they know everything about the spell, feat, or special ability.

Only to find out that they are 100% wrong.

Fixed that one.

I've seen at least 3 players who think the fly (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/fly&sa=X&ei=_N5CU7_bI-vOyAG8goCACw&ved=0CAkQygIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGvdert3tCSsnrGqbZq0G0dMvwGAQ) skill gives them the ability to fly. Or that unnatural lust (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/u/unnatural-lust) will last all night, instead of one round.

It's just sad when people can't be assed to take a minute out of their lives to read a single paragraph of rules.

[FullStop]

To be totally fair, calling the skill "fly" was a pretty bad decision on the designers' part. Maybe like "Flight Acrobatics"?

[hymer]

It can be annoying when a player talks about how people should stay in character and not butt into conversations their character isn't present at - and then goes and does just that themselves. Or when everyone has a good run at being IC, and someone breaks immersion and mood.

It can be annoying when a player picks up the relevant die, and then sits there with it while looking up what the exact bonus is. Most of the time, rolling the die would make it clear whether the check was made or failed, even without remembering if you have +5 or +7.

But really, my players aren't greatly annoying to me.

Edit: Actually, there is one thing that does get my goat. It's when people don't reply to mails or forum posts directed at them. This is the sort of behaviour that has me cutting down on campaign material made for these players.

[Kazudo]

There's this act that some of my players put on. I know exactly which ones, since they're the ones that I started gaming with and they learned it from me (hypocrisy, I know. Though I stopped years ago), and it's this stupid thing where you roll, sit there and start tallying up stupid bonuses you can't possibly have in your head (very deliberate, of course) and then say something to the effect of "What's 18+28?" in order to appear more amazing of a player/character than possible. It's happened at level three with a move silently check. Eventually the player tried to cover by saying "Well, I was sure I'd get at least three +2 circumstance bonuses and some equipment bonuses for stuff and things...". :smallfurious:

Oh, and folk who roll die which fall off the table. It's gotten to where another DM I play with houseruled that when the die hits the floor or isn't immediately visible by at least one other player, it's a 1. We had a few people who would cheat die rolls using that, which is just no fun.

[BWR]

Reading the first paragraph of a Spell, feat, special ability, and then assuming they know everything about the spell, feat, or special ability.

Only to find out that they are 100% wrong.

This happens almost every session when certain players use the Pathfinder app.

Spending their entire round reading spells and abilities and whatnot then ask "What's going on?" when it's their turn in combat. Good grief, you never use anything but the few spells you have prepped all the time, you know how they work and can't do anything else anyway; why don't you pay attention so I don't have to repeat myself every round?
Or trying to be so damn mysterious and evasive and vague as possible every time he roleplays an encounter, to the point where the NPCs can never really make any proper response to his opacity.

I love playing with these guys. They're always energetic and involved and are a lot of fun to play with, but .....argh!

[Slipperychicken]

To be totally fair, calling the skill "fly" was a pretty bad decision on the designers' part. Maybe like "Flight Acrobatics"?

I agree with that. My heart leapt the first time I saw the skill.

"Aerial Maneuvering" might have worked better.

[jaydubs]

Players who insist on explaining how amazing their characters are after every action, even when nothing interesting happens. Show, don't tell! If you want to be the center of attention, do something exciting! Or creative! Or funny! Then we'll happily cheer at your accomplishment.

[lytokk]

Another one that always irked me. When a single player and the DM have a secret, and won't stop talking about it.
I'm fine with a character having secrets, and as a DM, if one of the characters have a secret, I have to know it, otherwise it doesn't exist. BUT, I consider it very bad form to keep bringing this secret up. The last campaign I was a player in completely revolved around the DM and a single players secret that none of the rest of us ever got to know. The whole thing basically came down to them working together for most of the week and hatched plans. Of course, this is also part of the playing favorites irk that I think all of us have.
Anyway, I'm fine with secrets, but you don't have to bring up the secret 5 times a session.

[FullStop]

That said it would be super-cool if there was a DC:"A lot" fly check of "Achieve flight as non-flying creature".

Though, maybe there is? I only really read the core book a couple years back, so I only ever had a cursory understanding of the ruleset as a whole.

[Mountain]

Another one that really grinds my gears:
When I have a player making a new character, and they continually beg for free stuff.

Can I have a couple extra feats?
No.

Can I have 4 extra skill points per level?
No.

Can I have 10 more attribute points?
No.

Can I have a +4 LA for free?
No.

(I'm not making this up. There were many more.)

[Kazudo]

Reading a core rulebook cover to cover is a terrible idea if you're trying to understand it entirely. There are some parts of the core books I don't know because, well, I haven't needed them yet. Sometimes I trip over something in a core or complete that is completely foreign to me and awesome enough that I learn as much about it as possible.

With 100+ rules legal d&d 3.5 books on the market, you can't really be expected to know every facet of everything.

That being said, if you're going to use a rule subsystem that I, the DM, have told you that I don't understand, you will need to assist me with it, and getting upset at me because I didn't pick up that subsystem as quickly as you did and being unwilling to help me understand it (oh, and being angry when I point out that you actually understand it incorrectly and/or have been misleading me on the rules intentionally) doesn't help anything either.

[Slipperychicken]

That said it would be super-cool if there was a DC:"A lot" fly check of "Achieve flight as non-flying creature".

Though, maybe there is? I only really read the core book a couple years back, so I only ever had a cursory understanding of the ruleset as a whole.

If PF ever makes epic skill DCs, that could totally be DC 80 or 100. Then we'll have a thread every week about optimizing Fly checks :smallbiggrin:

[Metahuman1]

No Danger of that ever happening. It would require Pizao to allow Melee/Mundane/Martial none dedicated spell casters to have a Nice Thing. Which as near as I can tell is against there internal design guidelines.

[Kazudo]

An argument could be made that a significant enough Jump Check is indistinguishable from Fly Speeds with Poor maneuverability. :smalltongue:

[Telonius]

Biggest one: be absent without giving any warning. I know things come up, but that's what phones are for. I'd rather not wait around for five minutes after the session is supposed to start, wondering if you're just delayed.

Forgetting to purchase items between sessions, especially if I've requested that you figure out what you're buying between sessions.

Forgetting to give yourself feats and skill points when you level up. For multiple levels. Yes, this actually happened to somebody in a session where I was the player (not the DM). We realized he hadn't been fully leveling up since character creation - and we were level 9. Completely jaw-dropping moment in the session when it was discovered. I had to make an "out-of-character rushed diplomacy check" to smooth things over while I helped him pick a couple quick melee feats. (This is also why I make it a point to review everybody's character sheets every level-up, whenever I DM).

[Kazudo]

Or worse: That guy that purposefully delays spending skill points or feats at level until he needs them, then attempts to secretly fill them into his sheet and start acting like they were there the whole time.

"Alright, I make my attack roll *clink* really high roll"
*scribbles something down as a feat*
"Oh wait. I forgot that I'm taking Power Attack, so I'll Power Attack for 5..."
"Wait. You don't have power attack?"
"I just took it as my feat for 6th level. Forgot to write it down"

Once would be understandable. Ten times in the same game isn't.

[dascarletm]

I have a player that always moves his dice after it's rolled. You know the move, sliding it one facing so that a more favorable result is shown. I know I've seen his dice land as a single digit, but somehow, "Another 20!" It's to the point where I need to be over his shoulder when he rolls. (of course mentioning it meets only defensive anger.) I mean last game his archer got more crits, than non-crits last session. (crits only on a 20 mind you).

[Malimar]

Oh, and folk who roll die which fall off the table. It's gotten to where another DM I play with houseruled that when the die hits the floor or isn't immediately visible by at least one other player, it's a 1. We had a few people who would cheat die rolls using that, which is just no fun.

Most tables I play at have an "always reroll if it falls off the table" rule, but I've heard of tables that use "play it as it lies". Sometimes rerolling, sometimes playing it as it lies is open to exploitation, as your table has found.

[Windstorm]

from a DM perspective, I have two:

Inability to separate OoC knowledge from what your character would reasonably know. I'm not talking about blatant metagaming such as a player acting as if they have knowledge of an event/NPC etc that a different character has discovered things about, but such things as how modern science or engineering work. yes, you may be a biologist by trade, but that doesn't mean your human mercenary character knows the same....

assuming that because something is RaW that it HAS to be that way in a given game. I might be slightly guilty of this in the past, however it is always up to the DM if something either doesn't fit or is unreasonable.

as a player, I have a fairly significant one that is a DM thing:

assuming because you didn't plan it or prepare for it that it doesn't exist. if the player is smart enough to invent a 3rd reasonable alternative, roll with it, even if you need to ask for a 5 minute break to get things back in order.

[Red Fel]

Or worse: That guy that purposefully delays spending skill points or feats at level until he needs them, then attempts to secretly fill them into his sheet and start acting like they were there the whole time.

"Alright, I make my attack roll *clink* really high roll"
*scribbles something down as a feat*
"Oh wait. I forgot that I'm taking Power Attack, so I'll Power Attack for 5..."
"Wait. You don't have power attack?"
"I just took it as my feat for 6th level. Forgot to write it down"

Once would be understandable. Ten times in the same game isn't.

One of my favorite counters to this method is the DM who asks to be able to make photocopies of each character sheet upon level-up. I find this to be very smart, and it can be smartly done - the clever DM may say something along the lines of "so that I can keep track of what you can do, and plan challenges accordingly;" he may even keep a small binder of these character sheets, and offer it to players at the end of a campaign as a sort of memento of the adventure. (Hey, being able to look back and see how your character evolved is kind of neat, when you think about it.)

I hate to speak in cliches, but a player with nothing to hide has no reason to refuse the request.

As for things that rustle my jimmies? I've got one - play your alignment. Play your freaking alignment.

<crotchety> I know alignment isn't a straightjacket; it's descriptive, not prescriptive, it highlights your character's mentality, it doesn't mandate their every action. But if you're playing in an Evil campaign, and your character sheet says Evil on it, you're not a good guy. You can be nice, you can love the cuddly animals, you can scowl at your Evil party members and demand order and obedience and refuse to kill needlessly, but there's got to be something in there that's Evil. Similarly, in any campaign, Evil or otherwise, play what it says on your character sheet or stop complaining when the DM gives you a shift. If you're Good and kill puppies you won't be Good for very long; deal with it. If you're an Exalted Monk who goes out drinking and killing for fun or kicks or because somebody looked at you funny, expect to lose the benefit of your Exalted feats, and expect to become an ex-Monk; deal with it and quit your whining. Alignment isn't just a pair of letters you put on a page in order to qualify for feats and classes!

And git off mah lawn, dagnabbit! </crotchety>

[Slipperychicken]

I have a player that always moves his dice after it's rolled. You know the move, sliding it one facing so that a more favorable result is shown. I know I've seen his dice land as a single digit, but somehow, "Another 20!" It's to the point where I need to be over his shoulder when he rolls. (of course mentioning it meets only defensive anger.) I mean last game his archer got more crits, than non-crits last session. (crits only on a 20 mind you).

I know my brother had some success dissuading a cheater by threatening to make him roll with a cup, like in Yahtzee.

[Yawgmoth]

Not sure where the problem here is; if it is the same homebrew world, then things have to be related in some chronological form People who assume this annoy the hell out of me. If I run an eberron game where house cannith dies and then later run another eberron game, do I have to assume that house cannith is either dead or about to be? No! I absolutely do not. Campaign A does not need to have any bearing on Campaign B, ever. It certainly can, but there is no requirement and demanding such is ridiculous.

My list isn't anything out of the ordinary, really: my biggest issue is when players try to tell me that something I created "doesn't work that way". Are you the DM now? No? Well then guess what! It works the way I say it works. The houserules you use when you DM have no bearing on my game. Nor do your last DM's houserules, nor do anything else in that vein. If you want to know the hows and whys of this thing that is not exactly as you expect it to be, investigate it in character. Make knowledge checks, dissect the whatever-it-is, do things that show you're interested in engaging the game world and being a part of it. Don't get in OOC pissing matches with me in the middle of a session just because I have the audacity to make a plot that doesn't have an obvious and immediate solution you can metagame your way through.

In a semi-related thought, players who just show up and go through the motions. I want players who are interested in engaging with the game world and the people in it and the storyline(s) I have thought up. If you don't care about these things, tell me how I can get you to or just drop so I can find a replacement who will.

[dascarletm]

I know my brother had some success dissuading a cheater by threatening to make him roll with a cup, like in Yahtzee.

We're transitioning to Roll20, so that has helped. Though he does hate the random dice generator... "It's unfair!"

[Yawgmoth]

We're transitioning to Roll20, so that has helped. Though he does hate the random dice generator... "It's unfair!"
To be fair, roll20's dicebot is abysmal. It's definitely not as "random" as they purport, and it's not fun when you roll and for the 5th round in a row nearly all of your rolls are bordered in red.

[Kazudo]

But if everyone's dicebot is the same grade of screwed up, rather than having a group of five with one player cheating...

At any rate, it's something they're working on. Simulating "real-world probability" just isn't easy. Sure, you could make a random number generator that uses something like...I dunno...Atmospheric interference noise as a seed to generate a pretty random 1-20 inclusive number, it wouldn't be the same probability as a real person rolling real dice because it doesn't factor in any factors. It just makes up a number. Tabletop games have had to figure in the probability of real people rolling real numbers to help skew their DCs and TNs in a similar vein to, say, why even though the number 7 has the most combinations of any pair of numbers on 2d6, it's tough enough to roll that games are designed around seeing if you'll get it with staggering results.

The idea is to get a game in which all players' dierolling is at least consistently improbable. Roll20 just helps with the honor system. :smallwink:

A small rustle I get in my jimmies while playing is when other players have rolled up a type of character which is, sadly, the only character of that type in the game (four optimized dungeon delvers and a politician, for example) and then complains that their character isn't doing anything when they've been given several levels to alter the character concept to fit the game a bit better (or given the right to completely ground-up the character by the DM and refusing).

[squiggit]

That player who tells me "I'm just RPing what my character would actually do" every time he sabotages the party's plan. This guy usually plays a rogue or bard so it tends to be robbing important NPCs or shamelessly flirting with the king's daughter. Taking all the loot in an encounter. Starting combat or diplomacy without dealing with anyone else. Funny the first time. After a session or two it's just him completely wrecking the party for everyone else.

Bonus points because he gets mad when any other character interrupts his plan.

I've thought of another one, probably specific to me due to being anal-retentive about precision in language: people talking about "critting" on things that aren't attack rolls.

To be fair, that is a pretty common house rule and a common rule in other games.

[dascarletm]

To be fair, roll20's dicebot is abysmal. It's definitely not as "random" as they purport, and it's not fun when you roll and for the 5th round in a row nearly all of your rolls are bordered in red.

I don't know how they generate their rolls, but I've not really noticed anything within my rolls.

[Darkweave31]

Players that say they're coming, then when they're already an hour late call and say they can't make it. Sadly this happens way too frequently to me and it screws everyone who did bother showing up.

When players get mad/pouting/demanding to redo their characters because their character fails a roll for a stat/skill/etc that they dumped to max other things. No problem with optimization and powergaming, but understand that if your character dumps wisdom, they probably won't be spotting the ambush.

Edit: Rogues that get pissed off when the paladin/cleric/whatever catches them "roleplaying the thief" and carries on about how they can't do anything (like stealing from the party) and generally act like children that didn't get their way.

[JimboG]

In many of the games I've played and DM'd we've always had digital copies of books and used the Pathfinder SRD wiki as our main source of info, and more often than not most of my players will use that as an excuse to ALSO open up their Facebook, post in forums, and even sometimes play some solo games IN THE MIDDLE of the campaign. It almost always leads to the individuals having no idea what's progressing in the session, it heavily bogged down our combat because they weren't paying attention nor preparing their next turn, and it has seriously made me consider banning laptops during our session. And if not banning, then at least only having one laptop that we all share so nobody opens up their personal stuff on it.

[Slipperychicken]

My list isn't anything out of the ordinary, really: my biggest issue is when players try to tell me that something I created "doesn't work that way". Are you the DM now? No? Well then guess what! It works the way I say it works. The houserules you use when you DM have no bearing on my game. Nor do your last DM's houserules, nor do anything else in that vein. If you want to know the hows and whys of this thing that is not exactly as you expect it to be, investigate it in character. Make knowledge checks, dissect the whatever-it-is, do things that show you're interested in engaging the game world and being a part of it. Don't get in OOC pissing matches with me in the middle of a session just because I have the audacity to make a plot that doesn't have an obvious and immediate solution you can metagame your way through.


I've done this one a lot. Most of the time, it's because GMs honestly misunderstand how the rules work. It'll usually be something understandable like forgetting that doppelgangers are immune to sleep effects, or that spell immunity is treated as infinite spell resistance, or mistaking 3rd party stuff for official source material. Or they'll try to homebrew effects and wind up with an unusable mess.


Also, adherence to the rules helps foster trust between players and GM. If both sides play by the rules, then you can be reasonably sure the players aren't cheating, and they can feel reasonably assured that you aren't screwing them out of a good challenge. A cheating GM is like rubber-band AI in a racing game, or an opponent who has an everything-proof shield, sprays more bullets than he can possibly carry (until you check his body, at which point you discover his gun was on the verge of collapse and he was down to his last clip. I'm looking at you, Bethesda), or conjures resources and units out of thin air. Sometimes it's welcome, but most of the time it's a poor substitute for actual challenges.

[hymer]

I have a player that always moves his dice after it's rolled.

One of my players used to roll his dice (which were barely readable), announce the result (possibly), and then quickly pick the die up so nobody would know for sure. I asked him to stop doing that, and he asked why. "Because it makes you look like you're cheating." That was good enough.
Really, the suspicion of cheating is more poisonous to the game than actually cheating is most of the time, so making as sure as possible that cheating isn't possible is my way. Anything that can reasonably be done in the open gets done in the open.

@ Slipperychicken: It's possible he isn't referring to game mechanics. If he is, I'm with you. But players deciding that wolves couldn't attack them because wolves very rarely attack humans in the real world could be the sort of thing he is referring to. Such players OTOH are frequently happy to summon or charm wolves and use them against their enemies, but get peeved if wolves attack them. And then they decide the DM is incompetent rather than they try to figure out why these wolves are behaving in such an odd way.

[HaikenEdge]

People who assume this annoy the hell out of me. If I run an eberron game where house cannith dies and then later run another eberron game, do I have to assume that house cannith is either dead or about to be? No! I absolutely do not. Campaign A does not need to have any bearing on Campaign B, ever. It certainly can, but there is no requirement and demanding such is ridiculous.

Then that's not the same homebrew world; it's a different world with a basis on a similar setting. If anything, you're running the first campaign in Eberron A, and the second campaign in Eberron B; they're not the same at all.

[Zubrowka74]

Cheaters
Griefers / sore-loosers
People who get too drunk or stoned during a "serious" game

[Kazudo]

That player who tells me "I'm just RPing what my character would actually do" every time he sabotages the party's plan.

This only ends up coming up from my end as a player a grand total of maybe once, and it's never been fully catastrophic. I don't DO that kind of thing. Withholding information from the other players if I'm playing a Bothan Spy is just going to happen if that's how my character operates, but it's never going to be critical, need-to-know stuff. Just fluff, maybe motivations, maybe a few of the points that I'm planning to hit privately and they don't need to know about.

One game (the same Bothan Spy who's found the Good side of the Force, apparently) a grenade gets thrown between me, the other spy, and a noble. The noble fails his reflex save horribly and would have died, The other bothan was bartering with the DM to send some of his amazing reflex save to help the noble, and my character does what he would have done and throws himself onto the grenade, absorbing the entire shock himself. This turned into a 30 minute debate about why I shouldn't have done that. No one would listen to "but my character would have done it, and he did." He got better due to spending a Force Point and rolling VERY well to stabilize (also having a decent CON and the DM rolling rather low on the grenade's damage helped a lot). 7 hours of surgery and 3 hours in a bacta tank later, he's doing great. A few artificial ribs, but hey, no major loss.

RPing IC is very important, and sometimes you have to make dumb decisions because of that. However, if your CHARACTER is a douchebag and it's affecting the entire group, the entire group might decide, completely IC, to ditch him which would at times force the player to make a save vs. douchebagginess or reroll a character.

[Slipperychicken]

RPing IC is very important, and sometimes you have to make dumb decisions because of that. However, if your CHARACTER is a douchebag and it's affecting the entire group, the entire group might decide, completely IC, to ditch him which would at times force the player to make a save vs. douchebagginess or reroll a character.

I still stand by my fix, which is to categorize such douchebaggery as PvP, and ban it before before people make characters.

[Kazudo]

Then that's not the same homebrew world; it's a different world with a basis on a similar setting. If anything, you're running the first campaign in Eberron A, and the second campaign in Eberron B; they're not the same at all.

It's the same thing. There can be iterations of a homebrew world as much as there can be an official campaign setting. Just because it's with the same players doesn't mean it's in the same continuity. The thing is, with the small group of offenders in any group, they become so fixated on doing things once I tell them they can't that they will make the game unfun for all the rest of the group including (most of the time) me. If I tell them "It's an alternate plane of existence/universe/unstable time loop/whatever to explain it away "in-universe" rather than DM Fiat that it's a different continuity and didn't happen, that few individuals will go to crazy extents to try to make their wishes a reality to the point of ruining everything else for the rest of the group. It gets old fast when I'm trying to make new material in the same world rather than constantly rehashing a semi-decent...wait. This is a new matter.

Another one: players who port characters from other games. Even if it's a tabletop game. There'll be two or three people from an older group joining a game of mine and one will look to the others and smile and say "I'm totally gonna make ______ from the last game" and they all laugh and look menacingly at me and say "Oh man! He's so hilarious! It's so bad! In that case, I'll make _______ from that other game!" and do the rest of it. I tend to like new stuff when I run a game. Unfamiliar characters, different personalities than characters are used to, new character interactions, backstories, etc.

[AntiTrust]

When you give the players lots of threads for which to proceed forward. Personal story plotlines, NPC's dropping lines about needing work done, grand evils in the shadows whose minions have attempted to off the players. When times comes for them to pick what they want to do, they pick none of the ones I offered and instead they stammer around stupefied as to what to do next. I'm okay with wanting to forge your own path, but at least tell me what that path is, give me some clue as to what you want to do!

[MesiDoomstalker]

Making Evil or Neutral-But-Not-Really character in a what is supposed to be a good game. And the inverse, a Good character in an Evil game.

Misrepresenting a character's mental stats. Specifically, being charming with 8 Charisma, master tactician with 8 Intelligence, or being sage-like with 8 Wisdom.

Playing a pacifist. I don't have a problem with pacifism. But DnD is not a game for a pacifist character. Combat is in every campaign and the vast majority of it is quick and simple. Wasting your first 2 turns trying to negotiate (even though they are obviously hostile and the rest of the party has been attacked, and the DM has said, twice "they refuse").

Playing the same character all the damn time. Worse, is the lone, silent type who always mumbles. It was boring the first time, stale the second and tiresome from then on.

Not using your character's abilities. If you are a Wizard, cast a spell. An Artificer, use Infusions and craft stuff. A rogue, sneak around and Flank for crying out loud. I swear, half my group secretly want to play Fighters with Weapon Focus line but are too afraid to admit it. Same goes for knowing what your character can do. I can't tell you how many times I've had to remind them they get Sneak Attacks whilst flanking, that their Ninja can turn Invisible, or that the Cleric can turn any spell into a Cure Spell.

[VoxRationis]

Players who can't role-play simple things like "Hello, friend blacksmith. We were looking to re-shoe our horses and will pay well for it. As a side note, have you heard of anything like [thing we are trying to track]?" or "Ah, well, I'm sorry you've been so mistreated by these bandits. Rest assured we aren't with them."

[Keneth]

Recalculating their attack bonus every single round. We've been playing the same game for years, you'd think after a few thousand times one would learn how to do it efficiently, or at least write it down in a way that makes it easy to use.

It doesn't really bother me that much, but I play with really smart people, and I always feel like I'm surrounded by idiots. Obviously, I don't expect the same level of system mastery as me, but come on.

[Vhaidara]

Or vice versa! Last time I DMed, a player literally went and took a nap on the couch during a combat encounter, because he finds combat uninteresting. :smallannoyed:

I've done that on 3 occasions. All of them were when the combat starts with me being removed (2 surprise round paralysis and a one-hit-knock-out of nonlethal damage before I got a turn).

[Kazudo]

Recalculating their attack bonus every single round. We've been playing the same game for years, you'd think after a few thousand times one would learn how to do it efficiently, or at least write it down in a way that makes it easy to use.

It doesn't really bother me that much, but I play with really smart people, and I always feel like I'm surrounded by idiots. Obviously, I don't expect the same level of system mastery as me, but come on.

A few players I had once would actually do that to slip in additional points here and there. They'd also "forget" to leave off bonuses that didn't apply anymore (inspire courage, heroism, magic weapon, circumstance bonuses, etc.) so that they would have insane bonuses.

[ImaDeadMan]

One of the biggest things for me is that I'm trying to immerse the players in an awesome setting and have everyone in character because we all really enjoy the game when we can hit that flow, but almost 100% of the time, one of the players gets sidetracked by the simplest things and breaks the immersion even before it can start because they talk about that thing to one or two other people in the group and suddenly only 2 of the party of 5 are actually listening to what I'm saying and sometimes they can't even hear me because the others are talking too loudly or burst out laughing causing the game to temporarily come to a halt. Plenty of times the sidetracking is D&D related and I'm glad that they're having fun because of something that happened in our session but it just truly irks me that we can't go 5 minutes without interrupting the game. That's not even an exaggeration. It's always 5 minutes or less and happens more often in combat because they think since it's not their turn they can do something else and that ends up making combat take longer because then I have to catch them up on what's happening.

[Codenpeg]

I hate players who roll then immediately pick up their dice. Super sketchy.

Players who complain when their actions get them in trouble. "Oh hey you totally robbed those guys! Shame you let them know what you look like."

I have to +1 the always needing to recalculate chance to hit. You're a damned beat stick, how do you not know what your to hit bonus is?!?

Players who don't actually know anything about their spell. Range? Duration? Damage? Saves? What are those...

[VoxRationis]

Forgetting to give yourself feats and skill points when you level up. For multiple levels. Yes, this actually happened to somebody in a session where I was the player (not the DM). We realized he hadn't been fully leveling up since character creation - and we were level 9. Completely jaw-dropping moment in the session when it was discovered. I had to make an "out-of-character rushed diplomacy check" to smooth things over while I helped him pick a couple quick melee feats. (This is also why I make it a point to review everybody's character sheets every level-up, whenever I DM).

All of my players do this, but mostly with languages. In many campaigns, I suppose this wouldn't be a problem, but my campaign world is very in-depth and doesn't just assume a "Common" that everyone speaks by default, so language choice becomes very important.

[Kazudo]

Checking over and photocopying of character sheets at certain intervals to have a glanceover copy would be a great way to combat a lot of what's happening here.

A homebrewed language system that I use for my homebrew campaign setting was to eliminate any of the "racial language" (Orcish, Dwarven, Elven, etc.) and Common and create Imperial languages depending on which nation/kingdom/fiefdom/general area you came from. Ended up with around seven languages. You got one natural one depending on your background (who you were raised by, where they're from, where you were raised, the dominant language there, etc.) and then one from one of the adjacent countries. Then one for each point of INT bonus you have. The caveat there was that it cost one language slot for read/understand and one for speak/write, so if you wanted to be 100% fluent in a language it took up two of those INT points to do so. A character of significant enough INT could be 100% fluent in two languages and able to understand the rest, but it was exceptional to be a polyglot across the entire continent at first level. (required at least a 30 INT. Somewhat lower if you wasted skill points on languages) but there were ONLY 7 languages as opposed to a few dozen. Meanwhile, the planar languages were deemed "impossible for natives of the material planes to speak or comprehend" unless you burned a feat to get them or got them as bonus feats through the plot. Limited book availability. Very good games came out of that setting though...despite the crazy amount of houseruling...

[Sir Chuckles]

Players who don't learn the system and are unwilling to learn the system.

One of my players just last night stated, when making an attack roll with a blowgun, this little gem:
"Do I add anything other than base hit bonus?
I still haven't learned the rules and I refuse to."
He's been playing for nearly 5 years.

That same player, in the same chat-based spurt of playing, attempted to use several dozen spells in ways they just couldn't be used, again stating "I never looked them up, I don't know what they do, but my character does so I didn't just waste 12 spells."

I've been going down my list of problem players in my groups, and doing behind-the-scenes and rather underhanded methods of forcing them to learn rules, from killing them until their characters are functional to making real life intimidate and bluff checks. Now that I'm typing it out, the player I'm talking about just moved to the top of my hit list. Top of the list used to be the guy who's track record over 12 characters is 9 rangers, 1 knife-throwing Rogue, and 2 Scout/Order of the Bow Initiates.

[Splynn]

I am not really sure how to describe it, but it really annoys me when DMs take a given action that a player gives, and then applies it while ignoring changes in circumstance.

Example that actually happened to our group. Group of six is running through some tunnels away from jailers. No equipment, shoes, anything, but we are running. DM describes a hallway after we find a secret passage. We tell him that we run down it. He asks when we stop, we say that we don't until we can't run any more.

He then describes how our calves and feet are burning as we're sloshing through a calf-high pool of acid. We had to cut him off as he was rolling damage.

Also irritates me when DMs take things way too literally. Group walks into a new room, DM asks what we do. We "look around", and roll pretty solid spot/search checks. We are summarily attacked from above by gargoyles. Upon inquiring into why we did not see said gargoyles, the DM promptly informed us that none of us had said that we look up, only that we look around.

Different DMs, and different groups. It happens to me a lot, and it's pretty annoying.

[Kazudo]

Ranger's fun but not incredibly versatile...typically people only care about rangers when it comes to bows or free TWF feats thinking Aragorn or Legolas and decide that's what they want.

The same people who forget that fluff during character creation is mutable. If you want to be a holy knight devoted 100% to your patron deity and the symbol of all that is justice, you don't necessarily HAVE to be a Paladin. You could just be an exceptionally pious Fighter. Depends on where your focus has to be.

[VoxRationis]

The same people who forget that fluff during character creation is mutable. If you want to be a holy knight devoted 100% to your patron deity and the symbol of all that is justice, you don't necessarily HAVE to be a Paladin. You could just be an exceptionally pious Fighter. Depends on where your focus has to be.

That's a different way of refluffing things than I normally see here.

[Sir Chuckles]

That's a different way of refluffing things than I normally see here.

Huh, what kind of refluffing do you normally see?
I mostly see that kind of refluffing, the classic "I call myself a master archer, but that doesn't mean I'm a Ranger or Fighter" is what seems to be most common.

[Coidzor]

Taking too long to decide what spell to cast always gets on my nerves, which makes it even more annoying when I find myself stymied as to what to do next in combat.

I think I'll implement one of those timer rules where one decides an action or else either is skipped or defaults to a basic melee or ranged full attack depending upon positioning to encourage thinking as combat evolves rather than shutting off while waiting for one's turn.

[VoxRationis]

Saying you're a fighter, a very generic class with no roleplaying restrictions or really much fluff besides "trained at fighting things" (not that that's a bad thing) who acts like a paladin is much different from saying you're a paladin, whose every ability and every description is based around a particular concept, and acting like a run-of-the-mill mercenary fighter. And the latter is what I mostly see around here: characters with builds like Ranger/Scout/Cloistered Cleric/Warblade fluffed as though they were just really good Robin Hood-type archers, instead of a strange combination of kung-fu movie hero, survivalist, and never-go-outdoors shut-in.

[Vogonjeltz]

I once had a player argue that natural weapons and iterative attacks could not be used on the same turn, nor against multiple targets. She kept this argument up for 2 hours even after I showed the relevant textual citations.

That is, by far, the most frustration I've ever experienced for no good reason.

[Coidzor]

I once had a player argue that natural weapons and iterative attacks could not be used on the same turn, nor against multiple targets. She kept this argument up for 2 hours even after I showed the relevant textual citations.

That is, by far, the most frustration I've ever experienced for no good reason.

Yeah, that'd get my dander up as well. Almost had a whole thing like that as to whether natural weapons could crit or not, but then I pulled it up on the SRD and that was that thankfully. Arguing against some of the few relatively clear portions of rules text... I don't even. :smallconfused:

[Keneth]

A few players I had once would actually do that to slip in additional points here and there. They'd also "forget" to leave off bonuses that didn't apply anymore (inspire courage, heroism, magic weapon, circumstance bonuses, etc.) so that they would have insane bonuses.

That doesn't work in my case 99% of the time seeing as I can calculate the same bonus faster than the player without even looking at their character sheet. Of course, I don't second guess my players at every turn, that's just counterproductive. My encounters are generally robust enough that a bit of number fudging from the players' side won't significantly change the outcome.

[Sir Chuckles]

Taking too long to decide what spell to cast always gets on my nerves, which makes it even more annoying when I find myself stymied as to what to do next in combat.

I think I'll implement one of those timer rules where one decides an action or else either is skipped or defaults to a basic melee or ranged full attack depending upon positioning to encourage thinking as combat evolves rather than shutting off while waiting for one's turn.

I recently attempted to implement "If you don't state your action in 15 seconds of your turn starting, I skip you.", but the player from my earlier post then, in protest, refused to speak on his turns. When I extended the time limit to 30 seconds, he rolled his eyes and said "I was going to flee this fight anyway."
I kept the rule in without telling anyone, and nobody took that long.
Same player also got mad when I banned him from Tumblr during encounters.
...I've been having a lot of trouble with this guy in the past few sessions...


Saying you're a fighter, a very generic class with no roleplaying restrictions or really much fluff besides "trained at fighting things" (not that that's a bad thing) who acts like a paladin is much different from saying you're a paladin, whose every ability and every description is based around a particular concept, and acting like a run-of-the-mill mercenary fighter. And the latter is what I mostly see around here: characters with builds like Ranger/Scout/Cloistered Cleric/Warblade fluffed as though they were just really good Robin Hood-type archers, instead of a strange combination of kung-fu movie hero, survivalist, and never-go-outdoors shut-in.

Well that's the thing. He's not lying and saying "I'm a Paladin the class", he's saying "I'm a Paladin, the warrior that fights for a holy cause." Two entirely different things.

As for that second example, it's the player trap "You are not your class". A Ranger doesn't have to be a tried and true Survivalist. They could simply be a hunter with a specific form of training. A Scout could be anything from a special military unit to Steve from Accounting's vigilante night life. A Warblade doesn't have to be right out of a kung-fu movie. I'll grant you the Cloistered Cleric, but I will say "never-go-outside shut-in" has found the stereotype side of the fluff, a concept that can be changed, and swan dove into it.

[Coidzor]

I recently attempted to implement "If you don't state your action in 15 seconds of your turn starting, I skip you.", but the player from my earlier post then, in protest, refused to speak on his turns. When I extended the time limit to 30 seconds, he rolled his eyes and said "I was going to flee this fight anyway."
I kept the rule in without telling anyone, and nobody took that long.
Same player also got mad when I banned him from Tumblr during encounters.
...I've been having a lot of trouble with this guy in the past few sessions...

Wiggy. I'd definitely be asking what was going on there. :/ Good luck this resolving this situation.

[Adverb]

The "everyone on a phone/laptop, not paying attention to game" thing is probably my least favorite. Digressions from game, talking about other games, talking about things that have nothing to do with game, all of those are fun. People staring into their own device and not socializing sort of blows the point of showing up. :(

[JimboG]

I once played in a goofy/ lighthearted campaign where after each session we'd let the next player DM a session within the same world. one of our players decided he didn't like his character at one point, and during one of the times he DM'd he used that as an opportunity to introduce his new character. While that in and of itself is no problem, after we started the next session with a new DM he proceeded to tell us the character was a vampire, had nearly 20K worth of items, and was leveled to the same level as the rest of the group. When we tried to explain to him how absurdly insane that is and how that's something we all needed to sort of agree upon before you just up and do it, he proceeded to argue for the next FOUR HOURS why being a vampire is no big deal and won't change anything.

We promptly voted him out of our group a session or two later because he refused to alter even a single thing about his character, who was vastly superior to just about everyone else and could probably solo our entire group if he wanted.

[delenn]

I am not really sure how to describe it, but it really annoys me when DMs take a given action that a player gives, and then applies it while ignoring changes in circumstance.

Example that actually happened to our group. Group of six is running through some tunnels away from jailers. No equipment, shoes, anything, but we are running. DM describes a hallway after we find a secret passage. We tell him that we run down it. He asks when we stop, we say that we don't until we can't run any more.

He then describes how our calves and feet are burning as we're sloshing through a calf-high pool of acid. We had to cut him off as he was rolling damage.


Yeesh. It's an RPG, not an episode of Looney Tunes. "I run at my max speed away from combat, so...160ft" "Ok. Unfortunately, there's a cliff 150ft away, and you fall off, 10d6 damage." "But I'd have stopped!" "You said 160ft!" "Ugh, fine, but I've got slow fall, so it's only-" "Nope, you're 10ft away from the edge."

Your characters would notice the acid as soon as they got to it. Maybe in their haste, the first person takes a step in and jumps back, but that would be it.

[Sir Chuckles]

I'll admit that I occasionally do the whole "But you didn't look up!" thing, as well as taking their words literally, but the last I did it was when an enemy was on a rooftop and had not attacked.
Their action words were "I look all around the alley."

But you don't go full Looney Tunes when it actively hurts the player.

[Yawgmoth]

I've done this one a lot. Most of the time, it's because GMs honestly misunderstand how the rules work. It'll usually be something understandable like forgetting that doppelgangers are immune to sleep effects, or that spell immunity is treated as infinite spell resistance, or mistaking 3rd party stuff for official source material. Or they'll try to homebrew effects and wind up with an unusable mess. I don't have an issue with that, really; 3e is an untenable mess of spaghetti code that no one could realistically could remember 100% of 100% of the time. What I have a problem with is bringing the game to a halt with a tantrum because Thing X didn't act exactly the way Ass PC thought it should. To illustrate:

DM: The erinyes seems to be completely immune to your orb of cold.
PC: You know that devils are fire immune, not cold, right?
DM: Yes I do.
PC: Huh. Knowledge (planes) to figure it out?
DM: Sure!

DM: The erinyes seems to be completely immune to your orb of cold.
PC: You know that devils are fire immune, not cold, right?
DM: Yes I do.
PC: Huh. Maybe we should catch this one to find out how she does that.
DM: Yeeeeeessssssssssss

DM: The erinyes seems to be completely immune to your orb of cold.
PC: Devils are fire immune, not cold.
DM: I know.
PC: This is BS! You can't just change things whenever you feel like it!
DM: Actually, I can. If everything was stock-standard there'd be no way to surprise you guys.
PC: <continues tantrum>
DM: If you don't like it, go find a new game.
PC: <continues raging, conjectures that my mother is a prostitute>
DM: Go find a new game. Preferably by yourself.


Also, adherence to the rules helps foster trust between players and GM. If both sides play by the rules, then you can be reasonably sure the players aren't cheating, and they can feel reasonably assured that you aren't screwing them out of a good challenge. A cheating GM is like rubber-band AI in a racing game, or an opponent who has an everything-proof shield, sprays more bullets than he can possibly carry (until you check his body, at which point you discover his gun was on the verge of collapse and he was down to his last clip. I'm looking at you, Bethesda), or conjures resources and units out of thin air. Sometimes it's welcome, but most of the time it's a poor substitute for actual challenges. I understand where you're coming from, except. However. If I don't change up the stat blocks of the monsters, if I don't give creature X ability Y instead of Z, if location A is naught but a texture pack applied to a white room, why am I even there? You can write/read low quality fantasy novels while rolling dice all on your lonesome. My job as a DM is to be creative, and part of that creativity is spent on making things interesting from a rules perspective. If I'm only "allowed" to use what WotC has put onto paper, then you may as well just track down a random encounter generator (there are many out there) and go to town.

[JimboG]

I'll admit that I occasionally do the whole "But you didn't look up!"

If I was playing in your campaign and you did that I'd promptly reach across the table and slap the Mt. Dew out of you.

It's reasons like this that I've developed that habit of always saying "To the best of my character's ability" anytime I make any kind of dice check. It's a bit of legal speak that gives me more credibility when silly split hairs like this start getting in the way of trying to play the game.

[Coidzor]

I understand where you're coming from, except. However. If I don't change up the stat blocks of the monsters, if I don't give creature X ability Y instead of Z, if location A is naught but a texture pack applied to a white room, why am I even there? You can write/read low quality fantasy novels while rolling dice all on your lonesome. My job as a DM is to be creative, and part of that creativity is spent on making things interesting from a rules perspective. If I'm only "allowed" to use what WotC has put onto paper, then you may as well just track down a random encounter generator (there are many out there) and go to town.

You don't *always* have to change the stat blocks of creatures though. In fact, it likely cheapens the effect if you do while also giving less bang for your buck, unless you're embarking on a massive homebrewing project to revamp what the bogstandard versions of the creatures are, but then, if you were doing that and you weren't upfront with your players about that, you'd still be in sketchy territory at best.

Largely because the vast majority of homebrew and houserules are best served to the players with as much advance notice as possible in order to avoid the hiccups that *not* doing so can lead to. :smalleek:

[Arbane]

The "everyone on a phone/laptop, not paying attention to game" thing is probably my least favorite. Digressions from game, talking about other games, talking about things that have nothing to do with game, all of those are fun. People staring into their own device and not socializing sort of blows the point of showing up. :(

Best idea I've heard yet for dealing with the smartphone addicts: At the start of the game, everyone has to put their phones in a pile in the middle of the table. First person to pick up theirs, outside of a smoke/bathroom break, has to pay for the pizza.

[Coidzor]

Best idea I've heard yet for dealing with the smartphone addicts: At the start of the game, everyone has to put their phones in a pile in the middle of the table. First person to pick up theirs, outside of a smoke/bathroom break, has to pay for the pizza.

That does seem to be a good idea in general. I've heard something similar for who has to pick up the tip when going out to eat and the like.

Though the occasional use of smartphones for sound effects or helping with background music for more dramatic moments can be quite nice if the DM has an assistant who can resist the siren song.

[JimboG]

I understand where you're coming from, except. However. If I don't change up the stat blocks of the monsters, if I don't give creature X ability Y instead of Z, if location A is naught but a texture pack applied to a white room, why am I even there? You can write/read low quality fantasy novels while rolling dice all on your lonesome. My job as a DM is to be creative, and part of that creativity is spent on making things interesting from a rules perspective. If I'm only "allowed" to use what WotC has put onto paper, then you may as well just track down a random encounter generator (there are many out there) and go to town.

I don't think that's quite what he was getting at. I think what he meant was, you find out the next dungeon is a water dungeon, so you spend a bunch of money on items that help with interacting with water, only for the DM to decide AFTER you've arrived to not bother with water rules because they're too complicated for him to track.

That actually happened to me once and it really pissed me off because all the water animals I looked up to Wildshape into ended up not meaning jack because he allowed us to just ignore penalties for wading in 3-foot water.

[Slipperychicken]

[Erinyes is immune to cold. GM doesn't tell anyone]


I would be pretty mad about that. The least the GM could do is call for a knowledge check (at the moment the PCs lay eyes on the Erinyes, not after the PCs spend 4 rounds in combat against it) to know how it works in his homebrew.


And no, I don't mean the PC rolling a 43 on Knowledge(Planes) and the GM replying with something obtuse like "It's a devil. It comes from hell and is very mean to humans" or "your character has never heard of a devil so you have no idea what it is or does".

[TiaC]

I'll admit that I occasionally do the whole "But you didn't look up!" thing, as well as taking their words literally, but the last I did it was when an enemy was on a rooftop and had not attacked.
Their action words were "I look all around the alley."

But you don't go full Looney Tunes when it actively hurts the player.

This will just lead to the players being massively over-detailed in their descriptions of their actions and slowing down the game.

[VoxRationis]

Well that's the thing. He's not lying and saying "I'm a Paladin the class", he's saying "I'm a Paladin, the warrior that fights for a holy cause." Two entirely different things.

As for that second example, it's the player trap "You are not your class". A Ranger doesn't have to be a tried and true Survivalist. They could simply be a hunter with a specific form of training. A Scout could be anything from a special military unit to Steve from Accounting's vigilante night life. A Warblade doesn't have to be right out of a kung-fu movie. I'll grant you the Cloistered Cleric, but I will say "never-go-outside shut-in" has found the stereotype side of the fluff, a concept that can be changed, and swan dove into it.

Yes, I was arguing that they were different things.
Everything about the base ranger, however (obviously, this doesn't apply to ACFs and other variants), is geared towards acting in the outdoors. They might not be a live-by-yourself-for-thirty-years sort of survivalist, but they're clearly outdoorsmen with a lot of training to that regard.
As for the Warblade, you have a point. Its maneuvers aren't necessarily incongruous with a Western character.

[Yawgmoth]

You don't *always* have to change the stat blocks of creatures though. In fact, it likely cheapens the effect if you do while also giving less bang for your buck, unless you're embarking on a massive homebrewing project to revamp what the bogstandard versions of the creatures are, but then, if you were doing that and you weren't upfront with your players about that, you'd still be in sketchy territory at best.

Largely because the vast majority of homebrew and houserules are best served to the players with as much advance notice as possible in order to avoid the hiccups that *not* doing so can lead to. :smalleek: No, I don't always have to. Nor do I. But to imply that WotC is somehow better at balancing encounters for my particular PCs from 1650 miles away than I am is just ludicrous. The abortion of a CR system is evidence of that by itself. If I want to make A Thing, I'm gonna. And I might not say "hey guys next week the monster isn't gonna be entirely from the monster manual!" because that's dumb.


I don't think that's quite what he was getting at. I think what he meant was, you find out the next dungeon is a water dungeon, so you spend a bunch of money on items that help with interacting with water, only for the DM to decide AFTER you've arrived to not bother with water rules because they're too complicated for him to track. Sure, that's rude. But that's not what I was talking about, and he was responding to me, so I clarified.


I would be pretty mad about that. The least the GM could do is call for a knowledge check (at the moment the PCs lay eyes on the Erinyes, not after the PCs spend 4 rounds in combat against it) to know how it works in his homebrew. I just used an erinyes as a quick example, but even in that example there's a ton of reasons it could be immune. Maybe it just downed a potion of protection from energy (cold) before you saw it. Maybe she's got cleric/druid/ranger/sorcerer/wizard levels and cast it herself. Maybe dozens of other things. If your immediate and primary reaction is to get pissy about it, then please never apply to any of my games. If instead you go "huh, weird" and ask to roll knowledge (anything) or perception or whatever, then good job! You have a modicum of reason and thought about you. Play on, use your skills and the scientific method to figure out The Trick.

Monsters change and mutate and evolve. Some of those changes will be obvious (the erinyes in front of you is a total palate inversion!), some will be subtle (the erinyes has purple feathers instead of red), and some might have no visual change at all (because it'd be a rather piss-poor adaptation if it gave away your fancy new immunity and life is not always color coded for your convenience). Hell, you might find the very first instance of A Thing, ever! In which case your knowledge checks will let you extrapolate a few potential immunities/resistances/abilities. Getting your knickers in a twist over seeing something brand new in the world (or so old and hidden that there's no functional difference) seems exceptionally rude, and in such a case I'd direct you to the last line of my previous post.

[jedipotter]

The Lone Wolf It is bad enough when a player makes a ''mysterious cloaked figure''. It worse when they hang back and basically do nothing for the whole game. It is so annoying to have a player just sit there for five hours. They will claim they are having fun, but are just doing nothing.

The Solo Gamer I hate to hear the words ''I scout ahead''. All too often this leads to the scout player trying to play a solo game. They want to spend the full five hours of game time ''scouting'', and killing foes and geting loot and having fun, but all by themselves. While the other players sit and watch.

Keeping Secrets from the DM D&D is just not made for this. And players that do the ''oh, by the way, I put poison on my blade before round one'' just cause endless problems.

Automatic Actions A very annoying one. When a player just takes control of the whole world with a single paragraph. ''I point up at the birds overhead, and when he looks up at them I grab the paper on the table and put it up my sleeve before he looks back down.'' Or ''I throw the rock over in the trees and when the guards walk over to look around I sneak past them and get in the door.''

The ''Can'' Question Ohh, if I had a nickle. When the players stop the game to ask ''Can I jump over the pit?'' or ''Can I cast charm person on him?'' And as DM you have to waste the time saying ''Sure, you can try anything.''

Future looking players A sub part to the asking if the can players. This player is not only asking if the 'can' do something, but they want to know if the action will be successful before they even try it. ''Can I knock the guard on the head with my club and knock him out without making a sound?" And the DM has to say ''sure you can try''.

Descriptive Assumptions Often a DM will not describe every tiny detail of a place as it simply takes too much time. And instead of asking for a more specific description before they try something the player will just assume that whatever it is in question is exactly what they wanted. So in the description of the 10x10 room the DM says ''there are a couple of wooden crates along the wall.'' Now the DM is thinking like three crates that are two foot square. But when the group wants to hide behind them, they assume there are twenty crates that are five foot square.

Pointless Plan A's The players waste a huge amount of time on a plan that would never, ever work. Where the group tries to impress the black market kingpin....with the clay pots they stole. The players...somehow....think the fact that they have stole near worthless clay pots will get the kingpin to let them join the group and be promoted to dark over lord. Or the classic one where the players attempt to start a fire with lamp oil and wonder why the whole building does not explode like it was hit with a nuke.

[Axinian]

The using computers at the table thing annoys me a little. Most of the players are good about not web surfing, and I'm even guilty of it, but sometimes it's annoying to have to call out the character's name 5 times in combat to get them to realize it's their turn.

He closes the computer for RP though, so I let it slide.

[Dr. Azkur]

My druid expects me to keep track of her summons' stats, and she refuses to copy them anywhere except on the back of her character sheet.

[gr8artist]

I don't think that's quite what he was getting at. I think what he meant was, you find out the next dungeon is a water dungeon, so you spend a bunch of money on items that help with interacting with water, only for the DM to decide AFTER you've arrived to not bother with water rules because they're too complicated for him to track.

That actually happened to me once and it really pissed me off because all the water animals I looked up to Wildshape into ended up not meaning jack because he allowed us to just ignore penalties for wading in 3-foot water.

Was that me? I don't think that was me.
And damn you for taking the good Zainen story.

My major complaints have already been covered.
Arguing with me over what my thing is or does. If you think I messed up, speak up. When I tell you I know what I'm doing, shut up. If I'm not sure, we'll do it my way right now, and look it up at the next break. Or, look it up after your turn.
Distracted. I'm liking the idea of only 1 tech source at the table (aside from the DM's). Especially since we're 75% fighter in my current campaign.
Talking about how awesome your character is, instead of just being awesome
Taking over another's actions, ie. picking up another PC. If they ask you to, then go ahead. But know that this is not the norm.
From past games with past groups, we have the infamous "gratuitous rape" problem. Ok, you're the son of Zeus, I expect you to sleep around. Not everything needs something shoved up its bunghole, especially the other (my girlfriend's) PC!
When you're taking turns as DM, and someone gives out loot that's great for their character, or when a couple is playing, and giving better loot to their SO. Fortunately, I don't think we've had any trouble with that in our current group.
Ruining my character. I like critical rules, and I don't mind getting one-shotted from a boss's lucky crit. But I'd rather you kill me off and let me reroll than make me play a 1-armed grappler. You want to deal some ability damage? Sure. You want to do something lasting to me at later levels (when there's an option to get it fixed somehow)? Sure. But don't lock me into a doomed character for 5-6 levels and crush any attempts I make to alleviate my pain, like putting a penalty on rolls I make with the arm I still have.
The worst I ever saw: Leaving, IC, with no intention of returning. We were on a boat, a monster appeared, it was our first game, and the flyer decided he was going back to the mainland to start a family and give up on adventuring. Rerolling? Nope, just not playing with everyone else.

[jedipotter]

I just used an erinyes as a quick example, but even in that example there's a ton of reasons it could be immune. Maybe it just downed a potion of protection from energy (cold) before you saw it. Maybe she's got cleric/druid/ranger/sorcerer/wizard levels and cast it herself. Maybe dozens of other things. If your immediate and primary reaction is to get pissy about it, then please never apply to any of my games. If instead you go "huh, weird" and ask to roll knowledge (anything) or perception or whatever, then good job! You have a modicum of reason and thought about you. Play on, use your skills and the scientific method to figure out The Trick.

The By-The-Book Whiner I'll add this one. Any NPC or creature or monster might have anything. This is part of the game. And the players would not know that the foe drank a potion behind the wall. Or if the foe cast a spell before the players opened the door. And then the character does not want to play the game and figure out what might be going on, they just want to stop the game and whine and complain.

This can get even more crazy in a high optimization type game, where the players get all bent out of shape as a foe cast a protective spell or two before combat. Trolls are a great example. Trolls know that fire can hurt and kill them, so most trolls will seek out fire protection. But the Monster Manual does not list a ring of fire protection in the trolls possessions.

And too many players will stop the game and demand a reason why their spell or effect did not work. They want the DM to tell them, out of character, why the foe was not effected. Then they will ''sort of'' pretend like the character's don't know.

[JimboG]

Anybody have to go through the horror of watching your expensive books and delicate papers be ruined by that one clumsy player who brought a 2-liter to the table and knocked the damn thing over right in the center of the table? I've since demanded all food and drinks be kept on a separate table during games.

[delenn]

I just used an erinyes as a quick example, but even in that example there's a ton of reasons it could be immune.

The only time this would really bother me is when it's obvious that the DM just forgot/didn't research and plan something in the first place, and is trying to cover their butt.

"Yes, I know erinyes are immune to fire. Figure it out :smallwink:." (something that invites the players to try something different immediately) v "Well, uh... this one is immune to cold, too. Because I said so" (and good knowledge/search checks reveal NOTHING to explain it during or after the battle). If you're going to change something like that, I think there needs to be some payoff. And you can't abuse it. The next erinyes they encounter can't suddenly be immune to acid, too, and, oh, her spell resistance is actually 30, and...

Basically, I'm cool with minor adjustments that give players a good challenge, but some DMs can really take it too far (and I don't think your example does). Unusual changes to things PCs know about what they're fighting should always be exactly that - unusual.

[VoxRationis]

The By-The-Book Whiner I'll add this one. Any NPC or creature or monster might have anything. This is part of the game. And the players would not know that the foe drank a potion behind the wall. Or if the foe cast a spell before the players opened the door. And then the character does not want to play the game and figure out what might be going on, they just want to stop the game and whine and complain.

This can get even more crazy in a high optimization type game, where the players get all bent out of shape as a foe cast a protective spell or two before combat. Trolls are a great example. Trolls know that fire can hurt and kill them, so most trolls will seek out fire protection. But the Monster Manual does not list a ring of fire protection in the trolls possessions.

And too many players will stop the game and demand a reason why their spell or effect did not work. They want the DM to tell them, out of character, why the foe was not effected. Then they will ''sort of'' pretend like the character's don't know.

Depending on the level you face the troll, removing its only vulnerabilities seems a bit much. At, say, 7th level, your wizard has a large number of spells that can hinder the troll, but the party has not too many things that can outright kill it if it's immune to the only things that can damage it in any meaningful way (in the SRD, it looks like the big two spells are enervation, which the wizard might not have available (and in any case would require multiple castings), and phantasmal killer, which has two saves to resist).

[JimboG]

I may just be a purist, but I feel like if any player assumes they know anything about any monster without first doing a knowledge check or having some other in-game reason their character would know what a monster is immune to, they've already broken the unwritten rule of keeping player knowledge separate from character knowledge.

[Hazuki]

From past games with past groups, we have the infamous "gratuitous rape" problem. Ok, you're the son of Zeus, I expect you to sleep around. Not everything needs something shoved up its bunghole, especially the other (my girlfriend's) PC!If your players are spending time gratuitously raping NPCs, I think you've got bigger problems than the minor threat of infidelity.

[Sir Chuckles]

This will just lead to the players being massively over-detailed in their descriptions of their actions and slowing down the game.

My players know to tack on a "and the rooftops". I still entitle them to things like Listen, but I don't use it to bite them in the arse. It's mainly to drive him a separate point of "Finish your sentences." I've had a lot of incidents of people magically having their weapons in hand on an enemies surprise round because "I always walk around in broad daylight in a crouched hunting stance, bow fully drawn. In the middle of a church sermon."


Yes, I was arguing that they were different things.
Everything about the base ranger, however (obviously, this doesn't apply to ACFs and other variants), is geared towards acting in the outdoors. They might not be a live-by-yourself-for-thirty-years sort of survivalist, but they're clearly outdoorsmen with a lot of training to that regard.
As for the Warblade, you have a point. Its maneuvers aren't necessarily incongruous with a Western character.

An outdoors man does not need to life on the fringes of society. Many a Ranger could be a hunting lodge smack in the center of a small town. It's only acting outdoors. And once you throw in the ACFs and more than a little imagination, a Wizard can be a "Cleric". Not the divine magic kind, but the kind that lives in a monastery or similar place of worship. Probably a Wizard of Mystra or something. You need to separate the class name with the title.


I may just be a purist, but I feel like if any player assumes they know anything about any monster without first doing a knowledge check or having some other in-game reason their character would know what a monster is immune to, they've already broken the unwritten rule of keeping player knowledge separate from character knowledge.

There is an extreme to both sides. I wouldn't call a Knowledge check on a Goblin or an Orc, but I would for, say, a Kython Slaughterking. Unless you've fought one and made a knowledge check on it before. Or fought a Kython Broodling and had a Wisdom above some arbitrary number, but then it'd just be a "It's related to the thing you saw earlier" and a +2 on the knowledge check.

[Coidzor]

My druid expects me to keep track of her summons' stats, and she refuses to copy them anywhere except on the back of her character sheet.

That's a downright cardinal sin when it comes to being a summoner or minionmancer.

Especially because if you just make extra work for the DM without shouldering your own burden you're likely to have those toys taken away...

[Slipperychicken]

Getting your knickers in a twist over seeing something brand new in the world (or so old and hidden that there's no functional difference) seems exceptionally rude, and in such a case I'd direct you to the last line of my previous post.

I'm just saying that there should be a reasonable DC to at least have a theoretical knowledge (and/or make inferences) of what such a novel creature would be like. Like if a PhD marine biologist (the kind of person who could be expected to make DC 30 checks) bumped into some sea creature he's never seen before while exploring the deep, he could probably make some observations and inferences about it's behavior, strengths, and weaknesses. Or if an expert engineer sees a tool which is completely foreign to him (or even the first of its kind, fresh off the production line), it's completely possible that he could leverage his training and experience to determine its function with a moment of observation. Those situations are analogous to spelunking adventurers running into monsters they haven't heard of before.

[Kazudo]

Letting your players know exactly what homebrewed/edited/altered elements you're using could ruin any surprise they would have. I'm not saying "be sadistic with it", but there is something to be said for eliminating certain things. Wasn't it a 2nd ed DMG that requested that the players not read it? Or am I remembering things stumbling blind drunk again.

At any rate, a lot of these problems stem from players not liking to be duped or have less control than the DM. Which is an inherently flawed notion, since the DM has rule 0 working for him.

[Coidzor]

Letting your players know exactly what homebrewed/edited/altered elements you're using could ruin any surprise they would have. I'm not saying "be sadistic with it", but there is something to be said for eliminating certain things. Wasn't it a 2nd ed DMG that requested that the players not read it? Or am I remembering things stumbling blind drunk again.

At any rate, a lot of these problems stem from players not liking to be duped or have less control than the DM. Which is an inherently flawed notion, since the DM has rule 0 working for him.

And thinking that duping the players is an end unto itself is another inherently flawed notion that comes up with distressing frequency when people are defending the practice of not communicating with the players.

So really you're just picking your poison, and exercising judgment about when homebrew should be revealed, and unless you're actually specifically planning something special with the reveal it's generally best to give at least a general heads up.

Certainly the knowledge that the DM is going to be using homebrew doesn't cheapen the game to know to anyone who wouldn't rather be playing Paranoia instead.

And it's not like most specific details would need to come up until it actually came up in play either through knowledge checks or demonstrated abilities, but things like "I'm completely revamping the way Undead work" would be called for, and certain specific details would need to be shared since those with Turn/Rebuke Undead and Undead manufacturing capabilities or classes specifically geared around necromancy and the undead(Dread Necromancer, Deathmaster[Death Master?]) would need to know whether they still had those abilities and how they were affected by the changes.

[BrokenChord]

Having players going directly against the intended game theme. Stop bringing your politics into my kick-down-the-door and your door-kicking into my magic intrigue! Gah.

[Agincourt]

The ''Can'' Question Ohh, if I had a nickle. When the players stop the game to ask ''Can I jump over the pit?'' or ''Can I cast charm person on him?'' And as DM you have to waste the time saying ''Sure, you can try anything.''

Descriptive Assumptions Often a DM will not describe every tiny detail of a place as it simply takes too much time. And instead of asking for a more specific description before they try something the player will just assume that whatever it is in question is exactly what they wanted. So in the description of the 10x10 room the DM says ''there are a couple of wooden crates along the wall.'' Now the DM is thinking like three crates that are two foot square. But when the group wants to hide behind them, they assume there are twenty crates that are five foot square.


These two complaints are in tension with one another. The "Can" question is designed to elicit more information from the DM. Your players are asking for more detail. If you aren't giving in depth detail—an unfortunate but necessary time-saver—your players have two options. They can either pretend like the description you gave meets their needs or they can ask for more information. The "Can" question is a form of the later. When your players say, "Can I hide behind the wooden crates?" They are not literally asking if it is possible to attempt. They are asking for you, the DM, to fill in that missing information and tell them that these crates are small and there are only 3 of them.

[TuggyNE]

These two complaints are in tension with one another. The "Can" question is designed to elicit more information from the DM. Your players are asking for more detail. If you aren't giving in depth detail—an unfortunate but necessary time-saver—your players have two options. They can either pretend like the description you gave meets their needs or they can ask for more information. The "Can" question is a form of the later. When your players say, "Can I hide behind the wooden crates?" They are not literally asking if it is possible to attempt. They are asking for you, the DM, to fill in that missing information and tell them that these crates are small and there are only 3 of them.

To put it another way, they're looking for DC ballparks so they as players know what they as characters would see: "that's kind of hard to manage, that's pretty easy, that's totally out of the question".

[killem2]

1. When a player tells another player: "I wouldn't do that."

2. When a player constantly brings up what another DM does.

3. Take Backs.

4. When players ask what they have to hit for AC or a particular saving throw.

[Allanimal]

I always find this annoying:

DM: two bad guys enter from the left door, and two enter from the right door.
Player 1: I do XYZ to left baddie #1.
DM: ok, left bad guy 1 is now suffering from some condition that effectively makes him irrelevant but not dead.
Player 2: I do ABC to left baddie #2
DM: ok, left bad guy 2 is also suffering from some condition that effectively makes him irrelevant but not dead.
Player Who Doesn't Pay Attention: I will do an action to the left group that invalidates my teammates actions and still leaves the group of baddies on the right to curb stomp us, even though I am perfectly capable of doing something to the ones on the right that is just as effective.
DM & players 1 & 2: Are you sure?
Player Who Doesn't Pay Attention: yes, do that to the left baddies, not the right ones.

[Red Fel]

Got another one. "Hero syndrome."

Don't get me wrong. I get that (1) your character may be the shining knight archetype, and/or (2) generally speaking, D&D characters are Big D**n Heroes; that's fine and to be expected, but this is neither of those. This is when the player decides that his character is the hero - the one who must be gooder-than-good, the one who gets exclusive dibs on the legendary artifact weapon, the one who issues all of the orders in and out of combat, the one who speaks on the party's behalf with rulers and enemies, the one who gives the monologues, the one who chastises the party for being less than he is. Worse when he also complains that the other PCs (1) don't "contribute" as much to victory as he does, and/or (2) are overshadowing him, which they shouldn't do because he's the hero. Doubleplus ungood when he complains about both.

In an excellent campaign, we are all heroes. (Or better, villains. I admit, I have a problem.) We all contribute in some ways. We're all important. The role of leader, in a truly great campaign, is variable; one person may be the tactical/combat leader, but another takes command in diplomatic situations, and still another in wilderness/survival scenarios. Everyone contributes. Players who decide that their PCs will be the be-all and end-all of party leadership, contribution and success give me a special flavor of rage.

[Kazudo]

I see a stark difference between letting your players know you're using homebrew and showing and telling exactly what homebrew you're using. Ruins the surprise and invites way too much metagame in the groups I run.

That aside.

Another minor issue I have is, as a player, when other players just assume by default that because I'm playing I'll lead the group. Granted, they have evidence, but a trend doesn't establish a known quantity! :smallmad:

Then, as a DM, when players keep trying to run others' players. When one guy keeps ragging on the Cleric's player for not preparing cure spells (when he's got plenty of wands and actions with which to use them, permitting him to use his spells for other things, and can spontaneous cast ANYWAY) to the point of argument, it stops being fun. Or when in a By the Book, no homebrew, no alternatives game a player comes up with an idea that has zero rule support and, when the inevitable fiat or call for evidence comes up, they claim that the DM is "punishing them for being clever".

[Zombulian]

DM is "punishing them for being clever".

What. People say that?

[Slipperychicken]

Player Who Doesn't Pay Attention: I will do an action to the left group that invalidates my teammates actions and still leaves the group of baddies on the right to curb stomp us, even though I am perfectly capable of doing something to the ones on the right that is just as effective.
DM & players 1 & 2: Are you sure?
Player Who Doesn't Pay Attention: yes, do that to the left baddies, not the right ones.

The way to respond is "You know those baddies are already disabled, are you sure you want to attack them anyway?".

[EisenKreutzer]

Players who start talking loudly about somethinig completely tangential the second I close my mouth, even in the middle of a description or exposition, or while an NPC is taking a dramatic pause.

Seriously, yes the joke is funny and yes we all watched that show last night, but can we sit back down and do what we came here and broke out the books, dice and pencils to do?

[RustyArmor]

Here is some of my group in nutshell

One player optimizes his tier ones all the time, taking the best lock down spells, taking best wildshapes, etc making mostly everyone else in group feel useless (I mean that is tier1 for ya but....)
*When he OWNS an encounter in 1-3 rounds with a BBEG I worked hours on he says how the fight was so short.
*When its a fights something that can resist said effects, he goes on rants how his character was under minded and how useless he was the whole quest which he will complain about for months afterwards. (Always seemingly forgetting he completely owns other encounters.)
*THE GODS FORBID if I do any of the same lockdowns on his characters as a DM. (Which is why boss fights are rather lame in my games anymore)
*He will go on fits saying how powerful a creature is if it got more then 100hp (at 10th+ level) and if it does more then 15 dmg to him, how its far above the CR they are suppose to be fighting.
*As above if he even gets hit he proclaims how unfair the fights have been and the DM is out to kill him. (We tested this by having one session where NOTHING targeted him. One other party member died, two got diseased, one broke his arm, most got badly hurt during the session, he took 3 con damage because he was standing in green slime, and he complained how "Everything always happens to his characters.")

One player just does not take the game serious in any degree, roams around town naked, etc. But also totally anti group in the sense he will just go hide from other PCs, or just goes to library or a bar when the group is suppose to be doing something together. He also has a habit of "making it rain" blowing gold on stupid stuff to the point everyone knows he does not keep track of gold. But if you mention it he gets highly offended and wont play for weeks after. So we don't even bother mentioning it and just play along since "At least its not magical items and gear he is blowing money on."

Another is the cell phone junkie. Second its not his turn. Boom! Be it where they are suppose to just be in town RPing, Traveling through a cave system, Exploring some ruins, or in the middle of heated combat...... Out comes the cell phone, messing on facebook, watching video game reviews, or amazing atheist, etc. Then when its his turn again he looks dumb founded as to what he should do. It only gets worst when he is not paying attention and something happens to a character that is interesting, then all of a sudden his character happens to be right there so he can butt in, even when his character was clearly on the other side of town or stayed at camp while another explored. And much like guy #1. Second something happens to his character the jaw drops and he is like WTF. "Why I get hit that is totally unfair" "Uh ... you ran pass him of course he gets OoA" "That is so lame he should totally ignore me because I'm only buffing the party."

Its shame cause they are all friendly RL and nice to hang out with. But I'm seriously getting lingering thoughts of quitting again because of the ordeal.

[Kazudo]

What. People say that?

Yes. In both Rules-heavy and Rules-light games. In a rules-light game, if you can give me a relevant skill roll and do fairly well in it, the rules can be fudged slightly. Like someone who wants to take his halberd and fashion a weighted pendulum onto the bottom so that it gets bludgeoning damage too. Sure, why not. In a rules-heavy game, there isn't a rule for that kind of thing that the player has access to, so no, he can't.

That sort of thing. And yeah, that specific one has actually happened before. But it's more than that. It's the players who think they should get templates for free in rules-heavy games.

It's not like I hide THAT sort of thing. I might sneak a bit of enemy ingenuity in (chug a potion of ____ before combat, throw the players for a loop) or some liberal application of templates (the Chimera one, primarily, in one game) but I do let the players know specifics about the game. The setting, time period, whether it's in direct continuity with any of the previous games in that setting, and whether it's going to be rules-heavy or rules-light, and what books/settings are allowed/disallowed. So when a player tries to go around or circumvent the rules in a rules-heavy game, then complains for being punished for being clever, maybe they're in the wrong game.

[killem2]

Oh also....

- Calling dibs on any treasure they want, and I have to constantly tell them, that's not how treasure works in this group.

[KorbeltheReader]

There are any number of things that rustle my jimmies, but only a couple that will get you banned from my table:

1. standing us up. I have a whole speech about how D&D is like a bowling league or a softball team. Yes, it's a game, but we all carve an evening out of our busy lives, trading dinner/babysitting duties with the spouse and whatnot, in order to play this game. If you blow us off without even having the decency to tell us you're not coming, and we wait around for you to show up and ultimately have to cancel because of you after having waited an hour, you show a stunning lack of respect for everyone else's time. If important stuff came up and/or you genuinely forgot we had a game tonight, I'll let it go if it's rare. If you remembered about the game, didn't have something important come up, and just didn't feel like showing up or calling, you'll get one warning from me. Next time it happens, you get a phone call from me the next day saying it isn't going to work out.

2. interplayer drama. Here I include griefing, sabotaging other PCs, stealing from PCs, skimming from party treasure, all of the stuff that means causing a feud or bringing real world beefs to the table. That stuff can ruin a campaign, and I won't have your toxic attitude poisoning my atmosphere.

[Dr. Azkur]

This won't compare to some of the awful things I've been reading here but let's go:

One of my players goes missing 100% of the times if nobody takes the time to let him know we're playing that week even though I take special effort so that we're a steady game group by enforcing the same hours, days and place every single week. As we already know he's like that, then we do take that extra step and let him know, but even then there's a 40% chance he won't go anyway because of things like getting a haircut, forgetting his bus card and random things like those.
All of this would be fine if he wasn't one of the best players on the group. Seriously, his character is my favourite (although I don't let that change my DMing, if so, I just make things more challenging), he's the one with common sense, and the snarky, witty rogue. So what truly annoys me is that his presence makes everyone's experience even more enjoyable (alliteration yay), yet miss out because he can't take care of his schedule.



That's a downright cardinal sin when it comes to being a summoner or minionmancer.

Especially because if you just make extra work for the DM without shouldering your own burden you're likely to have those toys taken away...

Did I mention she picked up Greenbound Summoning?

I do admit she's getting better and is starting to handle the paperwork more responsibly but she better hurry because levelling up means more summons to add to the list, today I'll find out if she has everything ready (Send me a prayer).


Lot's of horrible things

****. Get an actual gaming group, as you're making them sound, your friends aren't one.

[Dr. Azkur]

There are any number of things that rustle my jimmies, but only a couple that will get you banned from my table:

1. standing us up. I have a whole speech about how D&D is like a bowling league or a softball team. Yes, it's a game, but we all carve an evening out of our busy lives, trading dinner/babysitting duties with the spouse and whatnot, in order to play this game. If you blow us off without even having the decency to tell us you're not coming, and we wait around for you to show up and ultimately have to cancel because of you after having waited an hour, you show a stunning lack of respect for everyone else's time. If important stuff came up and/or you genuinely forgot we had a game tonight, I'll let it go if it's rare. If you remembered about the game, didn't have something important come up, and just didn't feel like showing up or calling, you'll get one warning from me. Next time it happens, you get a phone call from me the next day saying it isn't going to work out.

2. interplayer drama. Here I include griefing, sabotaging other PCs, stealing from PCs, skimming from party treasure, all of the stuff that means causing a feud or bringing real world beefs to the table. That stuff can ruin a campaign, and I won't have your toxic attitude poisoning my atmosphere.

Oh I'm so with you there. In my previous post I said how I take steps to make sure we're a regular table. That includes that most of us have our free work day the same day. The others are currently studying only but the hour is placed so that it doesn't interfere with anyone's duties, and some duties are stretched so we can play at that time exactly.

And on the player drama, my group has had several reforms, and only one of the original players remains, but that happens when someone's life is a ball of pure compressed drama, like seriously, work it out.

[killem2]

There are any number of things that rustle my jimmies, but only a couple that will get you banned from my table:

1. I have a whole speech about how D&D is like a bowling league or a softball team.


Do you have a transcript of this speech? :D Or is it within the quote.

[Asteron]

A lot of mine have already been said, but here's one: bragging on your character constantly!

One of my fellow players is constantly laughing about what his character can do. Right now, he is playing an INT build guide type character. All of his items have an effect that makes them register as non-magical. He insists on mentioning it every time he does something and then laughing about it. Yes, we get it, his items don't look magical. But guess what, you aren't fooling our 15th level characters who all have a 16+ in INT. You are using magic somehow and we all know it. Heck, the Beguiler could probably tell us what you are using!

He does that with every character he has...

Also: using the term "broken" about everything. The same player and his brother (who is DMing the campaign that character is in) use that term for everything. Monk? Broken (and not in the bad way). Factotum? Broken. ToB? Broken. Wizard? Ironically not broken. It gets annoying. It's a banned term an my new game because it is a gestalt game and we are all broken!

[Zombulian]

This won't compare to some of the awful things I've been reading here but let's go:

One of my players goes missing 100% of the times if nobody takes the time to let him know we're playing that week even though I take special effort so that we're a steady game group by enforcing the same hours, days and place every single week. As we already know he's like that, then we do take that extra step and let him know, but even then there's a 40% chance he won't go anyway because of things like getting a haircut, forgetting his bus card and random things like those.
All of this would be fine if he wasn't one of the best players on the group. Seriously, his character is my favourite (although I don't let that change my DMing, if so, I just make things more challenging), he's the one with common sense, and the snarky, witty rogue. So what truly annoys me is that his presence makes everyone's experience even more enjoyable (alliteration yay), yet miss out because he can't take care of his schedule.

I have a very similar player. He's sort of joined the party culture of our school so he often skips D&D night to get drunk with his other friend group, but he is one of the best storytellers and players our group has.


Oh also....

- Calling dibs on any treasure they want, and I have to constantly tell them, that's not how treasure works in this group.

Hey man. Respect the dibs. Just like you gotta respect the nose-goes for who has to go down the possibly trapped corridor first.

[Slipperychicken]

A lot of mine have already been said, but here's one: bragging on your character constantly!

One of my fellow players is constantly laughing about what his character can do. Right now, he is playing an INT build guide type character. All of his items have an effect that makes them register as non-magical. He insists on mentioning it every time he does something and then laughing about it. Yes, we get it, his items don't look magical. But guess what, you aren't fooling our 15th level characters who all have a 16+ in INT. You are using magic somehow and we all know it. Heck, the Beguiler could probably tell us what you are using!

He does that with every character he has...

Also: using the term "broken" about everything. The same player and his brother (who is DMing the campaign that character is in) use that term for everything. Monk? Broken (and not in the bad way). Factotum? Broken. ToB? Broken. Wizard? Ironically not broken. It gets annoying. It's a banned term an my new game because it is a gestalt game and we are all broken!

I knew a guy like that. Every damn thing on his sheet was "SOOO BROOOOOKEEN" (no this is not an exaggeration. He said it like that).

[Malimar]

There's one player in one of my groups who frequently tries to interrupt and ask questions while the DM is in the middle of reading the explanatory text, usually in the middle of the DM's sentence, sometimes just before the DM gets to a sentence that would've answered the question anyway.

[killem2]

Off Topic (D&D related that is) Cross talk also pisses me off. I don't mind when we are dealing with treasure or we are in a break. But when I am in the middle of trying to explain something, please, shut the **** up. :smallbiggrin:

But I must be part canadian, somewhere in my bloodline because I never say anything lol.

[MesiDoomstalker]

When a player grabs my Jimmies Jar and starts jostling it like a Junebug on the Fourth of July.

[KorbeltheReader]

Do you have a transcript of this speech? :D Or is it within the quote.

I've never had anyone ask before! It goes something like this:

"Gaming is a team hobby like any other team hobby. It's like a softball team or a bowling league. Sure, it's all just for fun, but by joining up, you've agreed to put forth a modicum of time and effort to make an honest attempt to show up, give us fair warning when you can't, and stay current on the group's goings-on (and it really is a modicum of time). We've set aside an evening and in all likelihood paid for it by trading dinner/babysitting duties with our spouses. When you don't do those things, you waste the time of X number of other people while we scramble trying to find out where you are, whether you're coming, whether we can still play without you, what/how encounters will have to be nerfed, etc., and our time is precious to each of us. It's unfair to expect us to come find you after the rest of us have already taken care of our business to see if you're going to deign to grace us with your presence. You know where and when the game is. You get a reminder email before every session.

I get that some of us are busier than others, and some of us are under a lot of pressure/overworked. I really do. Nobody expects you to participate in every silly email topic or do a ton of OOG prep work or whatever, no one expects you to be totally unaffected by particularly tense/busy periods at work or major life events, and no one will think less of you for saying you can't show up to a given session because you have other obligations. It isn't unfair of us to ask that you keep up with scheduling, keep us apprised of your own availability, and keep your word when you say you're going to show up, though. Our time is precious, too."

[Thelion]

Getting children.

To be honest, I wasn't there from the start of the group, but appearently the DM's wife never was into D&D until she got fed up with the fact that he actually did something without her so she started playing as well. She's very bad with numbers, doesn't know how to roleplay, but is a pretty good cook and has her moments. She has a weird obsession with ridiculously underpowered twf rangers or paladins, but keeps forgetting the fact that she can smite or takes feats without having the right prerequisites, which we usually find out four sessions later after which the DM alters something on her sheet making it alright. We don't whine about this, since we know how she gets when she's not getting what she wants. If a player speaks to a different player while she is trying to calculate what her attack bonus is (which is 60% of a session) she will get angry, because she can't focus. We know this all and try not to let it bother us, since the DM is a nice guy who builds great encounters.

Enter the child.

I'm pretty sure the child has a certain form of autism, since she won't look her parents in the eyes, keeps wetting herself only when we are around, doesn't react to her mother swearing and shouting at her afterwards (and yes, I've mentioned to both parents that shouting and swearing is not a good thing when your child is like this, taking her to a doctor would probably work better, but I'm no parent so why should they listen?) and simply doesn't listen to anything her parents say until they threaten to throw away some of her toys. Yes, they are sucky parents. Oh, the child is 6 at the moment.

Every session where the child is also present revolves around me and my two friends trying to make the best of the situation with our roleplaying (I'm a flamboyant Favored Soul who specializes in buff spells, the other guy is a very stern cleric of the same god and the last one is a happy and chirpy beguiler that annoys PC's IC, but is really a joy to play with since the guy is an awesome RP'er), since his wife doesn't have any interest in roleplaying or anything that doesn't concern throwing D20's to kill monsters. Since she's a twf paladin, she's incredibly underpowered in comparison to the rest of us who are all tier 1-3, but our DM gives her small minions in encounters in a way that she still gets to kill stuff and think she's awesome. This all works fine without the child. With the child in the room there's not a lot else going on then us three trying to play while she gets angry at the child, which is obviously seeking attention. Honestly, the only time the child actually wasn't annoying anyone, was when I put her on my lap and let her throw some of my dice, telling her we were killing evil snake people and that she could help me. After fifteen minutes she had enough of this and simply left the room. Does mother/father ever think of something like this? No, so they just keep ignoring her or shouting at her.

We love playing there, since everything is pretty cool when there's no child/it's sleeping, all the other hours it's really getting annoying. At the moment it's gotten so far that we actually started a second group with the three of us who aren't related to the child and my girlfriend at my home, since then we will at least have some time for ourselves and the possibility to roleplay. The guy who plays the beguiler is our DM, the one who plays the cleric is a wu jen/rogue/spellwarp sniper, I'm a cleric/ordained champion and my girlfriend is a scout/barbarian/avenging executioner. I'm so happy I don't have kids.

[ElenionAncalima]

My biggest pet peeves.

1. Players who think that because a rule has multiple interpretations, they are entitled to the most game breaking interpretation.
1a. Players who don't ask the DM if something is okay, because they know that they will say no...and instead just try to sneak it past the radar.

2. Players who don't pull their weight in social situations and decision making.
2a. ...especially if they try to absolve themselves of blame when the party faces consequences for making the wrong decision.

3. Players that argue against/sulk about any plan that means that they have to spend 5 minutes not being the MVP.

4. Players who don't think about what they are going to do until their turn.
4a. ...especially when they play spell casters.

5. Players who can't grasp even the most basic combat tactics (ie. If you can flank...do it, If you can either take someone off the board or injure a new person...take someone off the board, If you charge 10 creatures with no back up...it isn't going to end well, if you have a ranged option and your opponent doesn't...don't charge them with a melee weapon.)

[CrazyYanmega]

Letting your players know exactly what homebrewed/edited/altered elements you're using could ruin any surprise they would have. I'm not saying "be sadistic with it", but there is something to be said for eliminating certain things. Wasn't it a 2nd ed DMG that requested that the players not read it? Or am I remembering things stumbling blind drunk again.

At any rate, a lot of these problems stem from players not liking to be duped or have less control than the DM. Which is an inherently flawed notion, since the DM has rule 0 working for him.

Problems start to arise when the DM IS sadistic, has a god complex, and thinks he is god's gift to the world. For example, in a campaign that will be taking place in a few hours, we descended through a tower, killing some overstereotypical "Drunken Dwarves," and encountered a room with a girl in a cage we were supposed to rescue, along with 6 "statues" which were clearly not what they seemed. The Artificer, who did NOT trust the ground, decided to Airwalk over to the gates that led to the cage.

OOPS, turns out the figurines on the gateposts have rays that permanently disenchant any magic items you have, and remove any magical effects you have on you, and prevent you from casting spells for the rest of the day, and they hit everyone in the room, no attack roll, no save, no contingency. And then the statues turn into Large earth elementals and move in, and then the floor crumbles under you and you are all now in an acid filled pit with 6 earth elementals and a deep delver, with no spells and no enchantments.

EDIT: Here is an exchange between the DM and one of the many disgruntled players.

Player: I really want to punch you in the face right now.
DM: You'd die before you even walked through the door.
Me: I've told you countless times, but YOU AREN'T. THAT. STRONG.
DM: Oh, I know that. I'm just that PREPARED. I'm like Batman but cooler.

[dascarletm]

Snip

Don't blame it on the kids! My siblings have kids, and I've been playing DnD with them (siblings and their offspring) for over 10 years now. It's been fun watching them grow irl and in the gaming world as well.

[Windstorm]

-snip-

I'm guessing he's now looking for a new group of players?

[Ansem]

The By-The-Book Whiner I'll add this one. Any NPC or creature or monster might have anything. This is part of the game. And the players would not know that the foe drank a potion behind the wall. Or if the foe cast a spell before the players opened the door. And then the character does not want to play the game and figure out what might be going on, they just want to stop the game and whine and complain.

This can get even more crazy in a high optimization type game, where the players get all bent out of shape as a foe cast a protective spell or two before combat. Trolls are a great example. Trolls know that fire can hurt and kill them, so most trolls will seek out fire protection. But the Monster Manual does not list a ring of fire protection in the trolls possessions.

And too many players will stop the game and demand a reason why their spell or effect did not work. They want the DM to tell them, out of character, why the foe was not effected. Then they will ''sort of'' pretend like the character's don't know.

I consider this alright actually, it's different when you suddenly change a Troll from fire vulnerability to cold for example. Whilst not a big problem in itself, it might get troublesome if you do this to everything. Even then beating OOC knowledge with this is cool.
But from experience this can get out of hand, for example being of the Fire subtype and getting hurt by fireballs because the DM suddenly changes fire damages to 'magic'.
If nothing is discussed beforehand it's alright to assume things are per rules as they are and not having spells and feats suddenly do different things as they describe.

[Keneth]

2. Players who don't pull their weight in social situations and decision making.
2a. ...especially if they try to absolve themselves of blame when the party faces consequences for making the wrong decision.

But... that's a valid personality archetype. :smallconfused:

[Raven777]

The By-The-Book Whiner I'll add this one. Any NPC or creature or monster might have anything. This is part of the game. And the players would not know that the foe drank a potion behind the wall. Or if the foe cast a spell before the players opened the door. And then the character does not want to play the game and figure out what might be going on, they just want to stop the game and whine and complain.

This can get even more crazy in a high optimization type game, where the players get all bent out of shape as a foe cast a protective spell or two before combat. Trolls are a great example. Trolls know that fire can hurt and kill them, so most trolls will seek out fire protection. But the Monster Manual does not list a ring of fire protection in the trolls possessions.

And too many players will stop the game and demand a reason why their spell or effect did not work. They want the DM to tell them, out of character, why the foe was not effected. Then they will ''sort of'' pretend like the character's don't know.

On the other hand, there are DMs who pull arbitrary effects or immunities right out of hammerspace or veto skill and spell uses midgame on a whim when it doesn't get along with their plan or their idea of balance. Which is obviously not OK. If we do not play and build by a common set of rules, why use a game system? We might as well just sit down and share stories.

[killem2]

I'm so happy I don't have kids.

This has a lot more to do with the parents than it does with the children. I've DMed 8 player sessions with 7 kids in the same room. It can work.

This example however, is also a problem with the child, not getting the help she needs. As a parent with a child with autism, it sounds somewhat like the issue, im no doctor though lol.

Don't be worried about having kids under this guise, clearly you were able to control the kid and it wasn't even yours. Kids are great. When they get older, they can play d&d with you. I do set the expectation though, if you bring kids you have to keep them, under control. I also have a play area for child, with video games, netflix, and toys.

[jaydubs]

The By-The-Book Whiner <snip> See above.

To add to the above - While stopping the game for an extended rules discussion isn't kosher, asking why something isn't working is perfectly reasonable. Sometimes the GM just makes a mistake, and asking for an explanation can help them find it.

If there's a reason the creature is immune to something, the GM can say "It's because of something that your character wouldn't know yet. Make a knowledge check." Etc.

But in my experience, about half the time the result is more like:

-GM looks in book for a bit. "Oh, it's vulnerable to electric damage, not immune. You do extra damage instead of no damage."
-GM: "The creature has DR/bludgeoning." Player: "My weapon can do bludgeoning damage." GM: "Oh, it dies then."
-GM: "The creature can't be hit with non-magical weapons." Player: "I have vow of poverty. My attacks are considered magical."

The above are all real game examples, by the way, from 3 different GMs.

Not all GMs have system mastery. The ones that do are still juggling way more things than most players, and usually know less about PCs than the players themselves. A little nudge can push them in the right direction.

[Coidzor]

Enter the child.

I'm pretty sure the child has a certain form of autism, since she won't look her parents in the eyes, keeps wetting herself only when we are around, doesn't react to her mother swearing and shouting at her afterwards (and yes, I've mentioned to both parents that shouting and swearing is not a good thing when your child is like this, taking her to a doctor would probably work better, but I'm no parent so why should they listen?) and simply doesn't listen to anything her parents say until they threaten to throw away some of her toys. Yes, they are sucky parents. Oh, the child is 6 at the moment.

Every session where the child is also present revolves around me and my two friends trying to make the best of the situation with our roleplaying (I'm a flamboyant Favored Soul who specializes in buff spells, the other guy is a very stern cleric of the same god and the last one is a happy and chirpy beguiler that annoys PC's IC, but is really a joy to play with since the guy is an awesome RP'er), since his wife doesn't have any interest in roleplaying or anything that doesn't concern throwing D20's to kill monsters. Since she's a twf paladin, she's incredibly underpowered in comparison to the rest of us who are all tier 1-3, but our DM gives her small minions in encounters in a way that she still gets to kill stuff and think she's awesome. This all works fine without the child. With the child in the room there's not a lot else going on then us three trying to play while she gets angry at the child, which is obviously seeking attention. Honestly, the only time the child actually wasn't annoying anyone, was when I put her on my lap and let her throw some of my dice, telling her we were killing evil snake people and that she could help me. After fifteen minutes she had enough of this and simply left the room. Does mother/father ever think of something like this? No, so they just keep ignoring her or shouting at her.

I'd recommend collecting everything you can recollect about their treatment and interactions with this child because it sounds like you just might need to pass it on to CPS.

[Thelion]

This has a lot more to do with the parents than it does with the children. I've DMed 8 player sessions with 7 kids in the same room. It can work.

This example however, is also a problem with the child, not getting the help she needs. As a parent with a child with autism, it sounds somewhat like the issue, im no doctor though lol.

Don't be worried about having kids under this guise, clearly you were able to control the kid and it wasn't even yours. Kids are great. When they get older, they can play d&d with you. I do set the expectation though, if you bring kids you have to keep them, under control. I also have a play area for child, with video games, netflix, and toys.

I'm great with kids, I just don't feel any need to have some of my own though. ;)

I should make it clear that the whole 'getting kids' angle was only directed to these two obviously not very suitable parents. I'm pretty sure having children shouldn't endanger the majority of games.

[Thelion]

I'd recommend collecting everything you can recollect about their treatment and interactions with this child because it sounds like you just might need to pass it on to CPS.

It's a weird thing, because there's nothing wrong when I'm over there for watching a movie, in that case the mother seems a lot more suited to be a parent and the child isn't trying to attract everyone's attention.

[CrazyYanmega]

I'm guessing he's now looking for a new group of players?

No. For some masochistic reason we're continuing the campaign.

Oh, should I also mention that the "little girl" being guarded by all of 6 elementals and maybe a dozen Lv 5 dwarves was actually a freaking EVIL GREAT WYRM DRAGON?

[atomicwaffle]

People who can't make effective characters. I'm not talking tier 1 optimization. I'm talking crap like making a werewolf or a dwarven fighter in a homebrew, undead heavy campaign. We're fighting vampires, VAMPIRES, and a guy optimizes a dagger throwing rogue with a pitiful will save. It's great you can deal 120 damage a round but you have no will save...against creatures that can Dominate as an ability...Mmkay. And then there's people who make intentionally bad characters for 'teh lulz'. I'm glad you're having fun doing nothing while im getting raped.

[Slipperychicken]

Oh, should I also mention that the "little girl" being guarded by all of 6 elementals and maybe a dozen Lv 5 dwarves was actually a freaking EVIL GREAT WYRM DRAGON?

[D&D Koan]

If you see a little girl in the dungeon, kill her.

[/D&D Koan]

[Arbane]

EDIT: Here is an exchange between the DM and one of the many disgruntled players.

Player: I really want to punch you in the face right now.
DM: You'd die before you even walked through the door.
Me: I've told you countless times, but YOU AREN'T. THAT. STRONG.
DM: Oh, I know that. I'm just that PREPARED. I'm like Batman but cooler.

9_9

Is this guy an aerospace engineer with a katana fetish?

[jedipotter]

These two complaints are in tension with one another. The "Can" question is designed to elicit more information from the DM. Your players are asking for more detail. If you aren't giving in depth detail—an unfortunate but necessary time-saver—your players have two options. They can either pretend like the description you gave meets their needs or they can ask for more information. The "Can" question is a form of the later. When your players say, "Can I hide behind the wooden crates?" They are not literally asking if it is possible to attempt. They are asking for you, the DM, to fill in that missing information and tell them that these crates are small and there are only 3 of them.

I always peg the ''Can question'' players as just cheaters. They want the DM to say ''sure you can do that and it will woirk 100% and you don't even need to roll''. And not ''DM please give me more information.'' I expect players that want more information to ask questions like ''I look over the crates, how many are there and how big are they?''


To put it another way, they're looking for DC ballparks so they as players know what they as characters would see: "that's kind of hard to manage, that's pretty easy, that's totally out of the question".

Well, I know no players of mine are asking for DCs. I never give them out. And that adds another one:

The DC Whiner This player is mostly roll playing. They don't care much about the role part at all. They want to know the DC of every action before they take it. And leads to the :

The DC Stacker Once this player gets the DC they will use whatever they can to get a plus up to a range they feel comfortable that they will make the DC. It really makes rolling the dice pointless when it is ''if I roll a 6 or higher I will make it''.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I always peg the ''Can question'' players as just cheaters. They want the DM to say ''sure you can do that and it will woirk 100% and you don't even need to roll''. And not ''DM please give me more information.'' I expect players that want more information to ask questions like ''I look over the crates, how many are there and how big are they?''


You and me play with very different people. Almost every "Can I" question in the last 6 sessions has been more or less asking for more info. Some answers have been plain no "There's nowhere to hide in the middle of an empty street. I should have said it was empty" others plain yes "oh sure, go ahead, there are plenty of bushes to hide in." Most however had been "sure, roll [whatever]."

[squiggit]

You and me play with very different people. Almost every "Can I" question in the last 6 sessions has been more or less asking for more info. Some answers have been plain no "There's nowhere to hide in the middle of an empty street. I should have said it was empty" others plain yes "oh sure, go ahead, there are plenty of bushes to hide in." Most however had been "sure, roll [whatever]."

This is generally the impression I've had with most every D&D game I had. "Can I" is "Is it reasonable for me to assume that I might be able to do x?" and is generally used to ask for more details.

The opposite extreme here is of course the DM who tells you there's a gap in the bridge and when you want to jump across the gap tells you it's 200 feet across and that you need to roll a new character. I've run into DMs who try to trick the players by withholding information often enough for "Can I do X?" to be a relatively common question.

[Agincourt]

I always peg the ''Can question'' players as just cheaters. They want the DM to say ''sure you can do that and it will woirk 100% and you don't even need to roll''. And not ''DM please give me more information.'' I expect players that want more information to ask questions like ''I look over the crates, how many are there and how big are they?''


Calling this cheating is extreme. In an earlier post, you acknowledged that what you describe and what your players hear are often 2 different things. I'm not sure if you're 1) pedantically upset by the word choice of your players, 2) you have unusually selfish players, or 3) just have issues with players trying to trying to figure out how they can interact with your world.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and hoping it's not #3. When you first mentioned the "Can question" it sounded to me like #1. It reminded me of when I was in elementary school and I would ask the teacher, "Can I use the stapler?" and she would respond, "I don't know. Can you?"

The open-ended nature of the "can" question is what makes it a better question than asking specific questions. For one thing, telling the DM, "I look over the crates" means I am not looking elsewhere in the room. (Am I opening myself up to be punishment from the DM with regards to spot and listen checks?) A character should not have to look over the crates to receive information about what should be immediately apparent: there are just 3 small crates. Besides, there are unlimited factors that affect the feasibility of hiding behind the crates, and it is impossible to ask all those questions. You and your players could play this game endlessly. Do the crates look unsanitary? Do they look like they would collapse if I touched them? Are they covered in dust so that I will leave a trail of footprints as I walk behind them? Do they look heavy and difficult to move so I can get behind them? Seriously, this could be a game of 20 Questions, but 1 simple question should let the players get additional information.

I suppose it's possible that your objection is really #2. You haven't given us a basis to believe that your players are particularly bad. You haven't related any stories to support your contention that when your players ask, ''Can I jump over the pit?'' or, ''Can I cast charm person on him?'' they are really telling you that they want a guarantee of success.

[Kazudo]

9_9

Is this guy an aerospace engineer with a katana fetish?

Thou shalt not inflict Chief Circle on this conversation.

[Sir Chuckles]

As with just about anything a player or DM can do, there's a good and a bad to both sides.

One player I have, who's thankfully gotten better, used to ask the "Can I...?" for anything and everything. This is a nearly word for word transcript of what happened once.

"Can I attack with my bow?"
"I don't see why not, but you do provoke an AoO."
"Can I attack with my bow without an AoO?"
"Well, you're a 3rd level Rogue, so I'm going to doubt you have a feat or ability to do that."
"Can I sneak attack with my bow?"
"No, he is looking right at you and you aren't flanking."
"Can I flank him?"
"Are you two people?"
"Can I sneak attack with my fist?"
"You can punch, but it won't be a sneak attack."
"Can I use an arrow to attack?"
"Yes, but you take a to-hit penalty."
"What do you think I should do?"
"Take turn your turn before I skip your turn."
"Can I tumble?"
"Yes, but not backwards, you're against a tree."
"Why am I against a tree?"
"You put yourself there."
"Can I climb the tree?"
"Yes, but you'll provoke an AoO."
"Can I tumble up the tree?"
"You can try."
"Can I draw my punching dagger?"
"Do you have quick draw?"
"...I forgot to choose feats."
"Then you don't have quick draw."
"Can I take quick draw now?"
"No."
"That's not fair."
"This conversation is not fair to *name*, look at him bouncing in his seat. Poor guy thinks he has a plan that will work."
"I attack with an arrow."
"Roll."
"Wait, I attack with my punch."
"Just roll."
"Wait, do my fists do nonlethal?"
"Yes."
"Can I take improved unarmed strike right now?"
"No."
"I tumble to the left."
*pause*
"Roll, already."
"What's the DC?"
"Just roll!"
"What's my bonus to Tumble?"
"Your sheet is right there."

And so on, until he made his tumble check and began to run away from the fight.

It's also my reason for the chess timer in my DM bag.

[Coidzor]

I always peg the ''Can question'' players as just cheaters. They want the DM to say ''sure you can do that and it will woirk 100% and you don't even need to roll''. And not ''DM please give me more information.'' I expect players that want more information to ask questions like ''I look over the crates, how many are there and how big are they?''

Sometimes people differ on what would be so trivial they wouldn't need to roll. Others have DMs who are... very inconsistent upon what they'll give as gimmes and what they'll require to be rolled out in excruciating detail. Simply asking if an action requires a roll isn't a sign of duplicity. :smalltongue: :smallconfused:


[D&D Koan]

If you see a little girl in the dungeon, kill her.

[/D&D Koan]

Beware Women for they come from hell. (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-beware-the-woman-for-they-come-from-hell/) Especially if they're children or out-and-out jailbait.

[jedipotter]

I suppose it's possible that your objection is really #2. You haven't given us a basis to believe that your players are particularly bad. You haven't related any stories to support your contention that when your players ask, ''Can I jump over the pit?'' or, ''Can I cast charm person on him?'' they are really telling you that they want a guarantee of succe


I mostly see it as players asking ''DM will you tell me if it will work before I try it? I don't want to waste my time if I might fail''. So ''can'' becomes ''will it work''.

Too often it works like this:

Player-''Can I attack the goblin?"
DM-''Yes. Make an attack roll."
Player-"I rolled a two."
DM-"You miss"
Player-"What? Wait! Why? You said I could attack the goblin!''

OR worse:

Player-"Can I shoot a spit ball at the king?"
DM-'Yes."
Player-"I do that! Hahahahah!"
DM-"The guards leap up and grab you!"
Player-"What? Why? You said I could!"

[Hamste]

I wasn't a DM for this (I was a player) but I imagine this annoyed the DM as well. One of the players was a necromancer who could control an insane amount of hd. He filled every last slot of it with 1 hd skeletons. I kid you not, he took 20 minutes to take his turn and did almost nothing. Thankfully, he eventually used fewer but more durable undead after a fireball killed most of the skeletons.

[Vhaidara]

I mostly see it as players asking ''DM will you tell me if it will work before I try it? I don't want to waste my time if I might fail''. So ''can'' becomes ''will it work''.

Too often it works like this:

Player-''Can I attack the goblin?"
DM-''Yes. Make an attack roll."
Player-"I rolled a two."
DM-"You miss"
Player-"What? Wait! Why? You said I could attack the goblin!''

OR worse:

Player-"Can I shoot a spit ball at the king?"
DM-'Yes."
Player-"I do that! Hahahahah!"
DM-"The guards leap up and grab you!"
Player-"What? Why? You said I could!"

This sounds more like a major case of REALLY bad players.

[Zombulian]

I accept the "Can I..." questions if they're prefaced with "Am I right to assume that my character can gauge his own ability to succeed at certain tasks?" Because as a DM, I'm not going to have my player pretend to know anything about escaping bonds, hiding exceptionally well, or climbing sheer surfaces. That's when it's my job as the DM to answer them.

[Raven777]

I accept the "Can I..." questions if they're prefaced with "Am I right to assume that my character can gauge his own ability to succeed at certain tasks?" Because as a DM, I'm not going to have my player pretend to know anything about escaping bonds, hiding exceptionally well, or climbing sheer surfaces. That's when it's my job as the DM to answer them.

This.

It's just that not all players are articulate enough to explain themselves in such a clear manner.

[killem2]

I mostly see it as players asking ''DM will you tell me if it will work before I try it? I don't want to waste my time if I might fail''.

I see that as you looking too far into the word can than the players cheating. Some simple communication would clean it all up.

The way I put it to all my new players:

When we play, you are free to do what ever you want as long as you are doing it in the spirit of your character and their boundaries. I cannot tell you if you will succeed or not, only the dice can tell you that. With that said, the dice cannot solve everything. You tell me what you want to do and I will tell you what happens after you do it.

I also tell them that, if you want to ask me a question that's fine, but if you tell me you are going to do something and it isn't a question and you are directing it at me, it will happen, so speak wisely.

[Zubrowka74]

But I must be part canadian, somewhere in my bloodline because I never say anything lol.

It's actually a feat (Cross-blooded: Canadian) we get for free at level 1.

[torrasque666]

I wasn't a DM for this (I was a player) but I imagine this annoyed the DM as well. One of the players was a necromancer who could control an insane amount of hd. He filled every last slot of it with 1 hd skeletons. I kid you not, he took 20 minutes to take his turn and did almost nothing. Thankfully, he eventually used fewer but more durable undead after a fireball killed most of the skeletons.

That fireball didn't happen to come from you did it?

[Telonius]

Personally, if the player asks me a "Can I?" question (that isn't clearly an, "am I allowed to under the rules" question), I usually answer with, "You can try. If you make a (check) and succeed, it will happen." If it's rules-legal, but obviously stupid or suicidal, I call for a Wisdom check (DC=-4) to see if the character knows that it wouldn't be a good idea. Most players get savvy to the Wisdom check question after the first time I ask.

[Hamste]

That fireball didn't happen to come from you did it?

I kind of wish but no, it was from a sorcerer we were fighting.

[Kazudo]

Hilariously, one of my problem players in my new game last night shaped up right away. Apparently, he'd been playing a Barbarian way too often, and introducing him to the Tome of Battle and more specifically the Crusader was exactly what he needed.

See? Venting about player issues actually can help come up with solutions!

[Coidzor]

Player-''Can I attack the goblin?"
DM-''Yes. Make an attack roll."
Player-"I rolled a two."
DM-"You miss"
Player-"What? Wait! Why? You said I could attack the goblin!''

Then you really need to work on educating your players as to how the game works and getting them engaged in playing, if you're still running into that problem regularly. That's like... part of the first few minutes of D&D 101. :smallconfused: :smalleek:


Player-"Can I shoot a spit ball at the king?"
DM-'Yes."
Player-"I do that! Hahahahah!"
DM-"The guards leap up and grab you!"
Player-"What? Why? You said I could!"

Or... just get different players so you stop assuming the worst about everyone...

[BeastofMadness]

Personally, I haven't been DM'ing long but there is a particular player at my table that just gets under my skin. I mean, he is a good friend outside of the game, but he seriously irritates me. I enabled him this campaign, thinking he would play something serious. He went full on ham on roleplaying and optimizing. This wouldn't have been a problem, I am pretty relaxed. However, he started BRAGGING about his character being optimized and he wasn't pulling any punches. He goes full throttle constantly, and that honestly irritates me because he has the 'hero' complex a good portion of the time, let alone he will argue rules.
After all, the last campaign we were in together, he sat and argued the rules mid combat for 30 minutes. He also randomly would open the monster manual to check on monster stats, and I have seen him just say 'I fail' when rolling a one [we played with crit fumble rules in that campaign]. These are just some things that get under my skin, deeply under it. Illithid tentacles slithering in your ear deep, if you get the picture.

[killem2]

Personally, I haven't been DM'ing long but there is a particular player at my table that just gets under my skin. I mean, he is a good friend outside of the game, but he seriously irritates me. I enabled him this campaign, thinking he would play something serious. He went full on ham on roleplaying and optimizing. This wouldn't have been a problem, I am pretty relaxed. However, he started BRAGGING about his character being optimized and he wasn't pulling any punches. He goes full throttle constantly, and that honestly irritates me because he has the 'hero' complex a good portion of the time, let alone he will argue rules.
After all, the last campaign we were in together, he sat and argued the rules mid combat for 30 minutes. He also randomly would open the monster manual to check on monster stats, and I have seen him just say 'I fail' when rolling a one [we played with crit fumble rules in that campaign]. These are just some things that get under my skin, deeply under it. Illithid tentacles slithering in your ear deep, if you get the picture.


You need to regain control man.

No player is allowed access to monster manual during the game. None. As the DM you do not have to explain why monsters are the way they are, unless they are making a knowledge check and even then you have control over that.

The player needs a swift -ingame- kick in the teeth. If he want to be the "hero", type to come up with the ultimate "anti-hero".

And the if any player has a dispute with the rules, I will give it about 5 mins worth to easily come up with the answer or show me, but if they can't it's my way and they can figure out the correct answer after the game between sessions.

It all comes back to you the DM. You gotta regain control.

[BeastofMadness]

You need to regain control man.

No player is allowed access to monster manual during the game. None. As the DM you do not have to explain why monsters are the way they are, unless they are making a knowledge check and even then you have control over that.

The player needs a swift -ingame- kick in the teeth. If he want to be the "hero", type to come up with the ultimate "anti-hero".

And the if any player has a dispute with the rules, I will give it about 5 mins worth to easily come up with the answer or show me, but if they can't it's my way and they can figure out the correct answer after the game between sessions.

It all comes back to you the DM. You gotta regain control.

Well, I have already established the rule in my campaign, you so much as touch or open the monster manual on your pc, you forfeit all right you have to any exp or loot. This rule was specifically made to combat him doing that, and I already have a plan on doing just as you described. He wants to go running in like an idiot because he can't get hit because I cater to the rest of the party? I may get sadistic with a unique monster, or an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

I may full well institute that rule, because I don't want my campaign getting slowed down because of rules disputes.

[Tathum]

Currently running a campaign with three main characters and a couple of others that guest play every now and then.

My girlfriend, one of the main players, is playing a 6'8" human female fighter with a greatsword who is only interested in rolling attack rolls and will just kick back during anything RP related. She'll intimidate roll every now and then, but gets impatient and disinterested if she can't.

Usually annoying and sigh-inducing from the rest of us, especially when she just tries to intimidate everyone, including 80 year old women who are just trying to get the local miller to donate flour to the church. Yeah, she just tried to intimidate ... THE OLD WOMAN ... into not needing the flour anymore...

That rustles my jimmy.

Other pet peeves include players getting drunk and acting stupid, doesn't happen often anymore.

And then players that throw hissy fits over extremely stupid crap for close to an hour. One night with one guest player included:

"Dude, I should be able to get my crossbow, load it, and fire it all in one round. You shouldn't need quick draw and be proficient, it's a stupid crossbow. They aren't tough to use!"

And the later that night...

"I'm not paying 2 gold for an inn room! He won't take my 10gp gem? (It was actually worth 3gp, bad appraisal roll). I don't care if I failed that bluff check! I'm just gonna sleep outside of town, screw you guys! No, I don't have any points in survival. Pshh, you won't kill me!"

I actually got applause from two other players when I grabbed his character sheet, tore it in half, and told him he was eaten by ogres in the night.

The party ranger, when he came back to play in the next session, found his staff and that 3gp gem as he came into town after foraging for meat for the inn.

[Thurbane]

Players who continually add up bonuses incorrectly, declare a result, then wait until someone else's turn to yell "No wait, I forgot my Dwarven racial bonus against spells, so that Hold Person didn't affect me!"
Once or twice is acceptable, especially when running a new character...but I know players who make a career of it.

[jedipotter]

Players who continually add up bonuses incorrectly, declare a result, then wait until someone else's turn to yell "No wait, I forgot my Dwarven racial bonus against spells, so that Hold Person didn't affect me!"
Once or twice is acceptable, especially when running a new character...but I know players who make a career of it.

The best is players that refuse to play anything except complcated characters with stacked races, templates, alterntive rules, and so on. But can't keep track of it all. So every couple of rolls it is ''oh wait, the 2nd level of my template class makes me immune to sleep'' and ''oh, wait, my sub type is um...."

[VoxRationis]

Players who continually add up bonuses incorrectly, declare a result, then wait until someone else's turn to yell "No wait, I forgot my Dwarven racial bonus against spells, so that Hold Person didn't affect me!"
Once or twice is acceptable, especially when running a new character...but I know players who make a career of it.

I know players who won't calculate ANYTHING properly: their character sheets are rough outlines without any of the detail necessary to play the character.

[Soarel]

Attacking or insulting NPCs when I'm trying to get a story going. I admit I've done this some back in the day but I avoid doing this now after seeing what it does to the DM.

[jjcrpntr]

As a new pathfinder dm here's my list some have already been said.

People who heavily meta game . One of my players dm our dnd 3.5 game and he meta games the hell out of stuff.

same guy plays a rogue with a 15 Charisma and whenever a npc isn't super nice to him he starts yelling "they wouldn't talk to me that way I have a 15 charisma!" As though being good looking and charming means people will be totally cool with the half orc showing up in a town under siege by orcs.

People who complain about role playing elements because all he wants is to fight.

Previous player playing a barbarian charges 20 enemies and when he dies flies off the handle on the dm for pulling some total bs and not giving him a way out to avoid death.

People who complain about loot rules after said rules were established and agreed to.

People who take specific flaws or traits or role play a certain way for admittedly no real reason other then to bother the dm or other players.

Lastly people who continual say " dude what you have to do , you have to give us more xp/loot/combat/whatever because otherwise it's no fun" two days after a session where everyone says they had a ton of fun with the way I ran it.

[killem2]

Well, i am here to report yet something else that rustles my jimmies.

We had a player who committed, and then didn't show up, and didn't tell us he had a change of plans.

So GIANTITP, what do you think about these new rules I have. I think they are pretty fair.

When I sent out the date that we have set to do D&D, I'm going to start setting a date to let me know if you can attend or not. If you can or cannot join, you'll just need to let me know.

If you can join, ok no big deal, world keeps spinning and we all show up. If you cannot come and you let me know by the deadline date, then one of two things can happen.

1. We can reschedule the entire session and work towards a different date.

2. We can keep the session going, if the player who cannot attend is ok with that. If this happens, I won't play your character, it will be as if your character did nothing that entire session, and you will be left back at what ever safe zone there is.

If we post pone two months of sessions in a row, then I will assume you are done playing and I will wait for you to reach out to me to ask when the next session is.


If you do not let me know at all by the deadline:

I won't play your character, it will be as if your character did nothing that entire session, and you will be left back at what ever safe zone there is. ONCE

If you I do not get a response two sessions in a row, then I will assume you are done playing and I will wait for you to reach out to me to ask when the next session is.


If you let us know that you will attend, but then do not show up with zero communication prior to the session:

then I will assume you are done playing and I will wait for you to reach out to me to ask when the next session is. All future emails and D&D chats and emails will not include your name as to not bother you any further.

[Windstorm]

Well, i am here to report yet something else that rustles my jimmies.

We had a player who committed, and then didn't show up, and didn't tell us he had a change of plans.


Seems pretty reasonable to me. I'll second this as something that really rubs me the wrong way. Having real life intrude is something that happens, but if you have committed to a game, you have also committed to the DM and the other players that you will be there and they should include considerations for your character in planning/prep/setup. Not meeting that commitment doesn't just impact you, it impacts everyone involved.

Last time we had a player not show for three sessions and he was holding a significant amount of the party wealth prior to liquidation; the DM has us go and liberate his corpse from a young dragon who wanted the shinies.

[Malimar]

I play with some players who consistently roll their dice directly towards the battlemap, and are somehow surprised when this makes minis go everywhere.

I don't even understand how they can do that; the motions involved are much more awkward than just rolling sideways in front of you.

[Red Fel]

Well, i am here to report yet something else that rustles my jimmies.

We had a player who committed, and then didn't show up, and didn't tell us he had a change of plans.

So GIANTITP, what do you think about these new rules I have. I think they are pretty fair.

When I sent out the date that we have set to do D&D, I'm going to start setting a date to let me know if you can attend or not. If you can or cannot join, you'll just need to let me know.

If you can join, ok no big deal, world keeps spinning and we all show up. If you cannot come and you let me know by the deadline date, then one of two things can happen.

1. We can reschedule the entire session and work towards a different date.

2. We can keep the session going, if the player who cannot attend is ok with that. If this happens, I won't play your character, it will be as if your character did nothing that entire session, and you will be left back at what ever safe zone there is.

If we post pone two months of sessions in a row, then I will assume you are done playing and I will wait for you to reach out to me to ask when the next session is.


If you do not let me know at all by the deadline:

I won't play your character, it will be as if your character did nothing that entire session, and you will be left back at what ever safe zone there is. ONCE

If you I do not get a response two sessions in a row, then I will assume you are done playing and I will wait for you to reach out to me to ask when the next session is.


If you let us know that you will attend, but then do not show up with zero communication prior to the session:

then I will assume you are done playing and I will wait for you to reach out to me to ask when the next session is. All future emails and D&D chats and emails will not include your name as to not bother you any further.

My one issue with a "deadline date" is that it ignores emergencies. And I don't just mean emergencies like "it's five minutes before session and I just got into a car wreck" emergencies. I mean like "It's day of session and my boss just dumped a pile of papers on my desk" emergencies. Emergencies where you can still take a few minutes to text, call, or e-mail, but it's less than 24 hours notice.

My personal policy is that as long as you give reasonable notice - and reasonable is a sliding scale, depending upon the suddenness and severity of your particular fact pattern - everything's fine. I don't believe it's necessary to reschedule due to one person's absence, however. That's one of my jimmy-rustlers right there - when one of a medium-or-larger group says he can't show up, so the rest of us have to reschedule. We might be willing to put the session off a week if everyone is on-board, but you don't get to demand that we reschedule, even if your wife is giving birth. (Congratulations, by the way; invite me to the bris.) I'm totally okay with players who have to miss a session here or there due to life getting in the way; but requiring (rather than requesting) that the rest of us put things on hold because you've got a work deadline or a blown tire is just jimmyrustleworthy.

Which is a word now.

Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet (unless they have and I'm losing what's left of my mind): If we're not playing a Monty Python-inspired session, we need to abstain from the Monty Python quotes. Don't get me wrong, I love quotes at the table (so long as they don't disrupt the mood of the game), but I know my players. We are geeks of high caliber. One quote produces a domino effect. It starts with a rabbit, soon we're in full Holy G mode, followed promptly by the Meaning of Life and Life of Brian. Before long we move west, and we're trading Mel Brooks quips, and then somebody breaks out George Carlin, and somebody else breaks out Jeff Foxworthy, and now it's clean comedy versus honest and ugly comedy, and somewhere along the way we forgot that we're in combat with a dragon.

Please. As a prophylactic measure. No quotes. We all know them. We don't even have to say the whole quote anymore. Somebody can yell "Number seventeen!" And we'll all chuckle, because we know which quote is number seventeen. Please. No more.

[killem2]

My one issue with a "deadline date" is that it ignores emergencies. And I don't just mean emergencies like "it's five minutes before session and I just got into a car wreck" emergencies. I mean like "It's day of session and my boss just dumped a pile of papers on my desk" emergencies. Emergencies where you can still take a few minutes to text, call, or e-mail, but it's less than 24 hours notice.





Oh that is not there because those do not apply to this. If there is an emergency, which happened in march, we had a friend who was in the hospital because of a collapsed lung. He said play with out me, It'll be fine. Otherwise we would have canceled it completely.

[jedipotter]

My one issue with a "deadline date" is that it ignores emergencies. And I don't just mean emergencies like "it's five minutes before session and I just got into a car wreck" emergencies. I mean like "It's day of session and my boss just dumped a pile of papers on my desk" emergencies. Emergencies where you can still take a few minutes to text, call, or e-mail, but it's less than 24 hours notice.


I have never canceled a game just as one person did not show up. We just play without them. There character just gets left behind. And when and if they come back, they have to play catch up.

I get really picky about ''emergencies''. Anything that is a real and true emergency like a car crash or house fire is fine. Anything less....and I will expect you to show up. And three no shows is ''I'm not part of the group'' anymore.

I'm fine if you need to cancel, as long as you give notice. I hate the 6 PM call of ''oh something just came up at 5:59''. Yea right.

I've had far too many players outright lie and say that they wanted to game. And then they don't show up.

[Arbane]

Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet (unless they have and I'm losing what's left of my mind): If we're not playing a Monty Python-inspired session, we need to abstain from the Monty Python quotes.

You know how some people keep a swear jar? Have a Python Jar. Anyone who quotes Monty Python has to put a dollar in the jar.

(My group has a purely notional one so far, but it is keeping the Python quotes down a bit.)

[RavynsLand]

Player: "I turn invisible, move, and attack!"

*next round*

Player: "I become visible, turn invisible again, and attack!"

Me: "He attacks you."

Player: "He can't attack me, he has no idea where I am!"

Me: "That's reflected by his miss chance."

Player: "He doesn't know I'm there!"

Me: "You just hit him, he knows something's there. He's enraged and swings his club at where he thinks you are."

Player: "This is bull****, there should be no way he can know where I am!" *sulkity-sulk-sulk*

*ad infinitum*

[Kazyan]

Don't derail with jokes that you know are of the groan-worthy variety, especially when I'm trying to spur the party into actually doing something.

Don't derail by "cleverly" finishing a quote when something another person says something that turns out to be part of a quote.

Don't derail by getting into arguments over inter-party conflict. The hypothetical Schroedinger's arena battle isn't fun to listen to.

Don't derail by by doing shenanigans with the OOC/IC line, such as taking "in character" actions that are jokes, or drawing attention to the OOC/IC line in-game.

Don't derail with unfunny sex jokes.

Just...can we stay on-topic for more than 15 minutes at a time, please?

Also, upping the optimization level after your character dies is annoying. And run questionable or unusually powerful things by me first; don't just spring them on me mid-combat. (At this rate, the Elder Evil is going to have to be CR 40.)

[Vhaidara]

Also, upping the optimization level after your character dies is annoying.

This one I'm mixed on. If they died because they messed up, then that's one thing. But if they got rocket-tagged, it's only a natural response. We recently had a boss fight in one of my campaigns, and my gnome bard, who is literally a level away from his big story moment (I'm going into Seeker of the Song and we've been planning this questline for the past 6 levels) got rocket-tagged before he even got to activate Inspire Courage. The only reasons I didn't leave are because these guys are my friends, and the DM had given the enemy Merciful weapons.

But yeah, if I ever just get rocket tagged, you can bet I'm going to try and not be in a position to get rocket tagged again. And that usually means upping the optimization factor.

[Kazyan]

This one I'm mixed on. If they died because they messed up, then that's one thing. But if they got rocket-tagged, it's only a natural response.

In all cases, the PCs have gotten at least a turn before the opponents beat them.

Don't try to BSF your way through a bunch of smart kobolds defending their lair, don't continue to fight the Lesser Cranium Rat Swarm when you know it can stun you for ~9 rounds, and don't spend your turn telling the other party member to dismiss their Web against some undead because they didn't immediately attack you (they sure as heck will now that they're on fire).

[Zalphon]

Here's my stories...and they're a result of DM Failing.

Good Party

CG Elf Ranger - Leader
LG Dwarf Cleric - Healer
NG Dwarf Fighter - Meat Shield
CN Human Rogue - Stealthy Stealthy

Well...they first invaded an Orc Fortress. And wiped out the entire fortress by putting poison in their soup.

Then later on in the campaign, the Neutral GOOD (I can not emphasize that enough) Fighter and Chaotic Neutral Rogue arrange a coup to have a noble and benevolent, albeit aloof king assassinated so that a lich can get his revenge for the king's ancestor from thousands of years prior betraying him...

Yeah, that was my fault, but...

[justiceforall]

Me as GM

Player spends hours trying to convince me that assassinating the party paladin is not an evil act and therefore won't cause a loss of powers from the character's Good aligned God. Assassination is necessary because the paladin's player is annoying him in Real Life about things unrelated to RPGs.

Me witnessing as player (but man must have been frustrating for the GM)

GM hands player large stack of maps and other info critical to the plot with a note saying as much. Player reads note, then puts stack of stuff under his character sheet without looking at it. Never looks at it for the whole campaign. When confronted about it after we all die several sessions later, looks confused and surprised to see a huge stack of super important plot information under his character sheet.

[ElenionAncalima]

Players who think optimization = more dice.

I play with a guy who desperately wants us to be impressed by his 21d6...but instead we only get annoyed that we have to wait forever each turn for him to roll and add up his dice, gloating the entire time, only to find he hasn't actually dealt out more damage than the other party members.

Also...players who gloat constantly. If you do something really impressive or clever...go ahead and feel pleased with yourself. I am more than happy the compliment you, high five you and gleefully tell the tales of your accomplishments to future gaming friends. However, if you are bragging every time you hit something, I will be tempted to use a notebook to show you exactly how easy it is to hit someone.

Another fun one is when players don't tell you they are injured (Doing it for roleplaying reasons is the obvious exception). I've had two experiences where this caused major problems:
1. In Pathfinder, a player would forget to tell the cleric he was injured (even when she would outright ask). During one encounter he gets hit for like 20 damage. He does the math and starts pouting, saying he's dead. We all ask how that is even possibly when he has way more that 20hp, not including con score for negatives. He gets furious and yells at everyone saying he only had 5hp at the start of the fight....and we all just stare at him in disbelief that he would go into a major fight at 5hp when the cleric was still loaded with healing.

2. Playing DND Next, we had been waiting for the barbarian at the inn for over an hour (he had wandered off on his own and not told us where he was going). When he returns we are annoyed and want to start doing stuff immediatley. He asks if we can take a break for like an hour before we more on, because he is kind of tired from all the running around he just did. We say no, because we have wasted enough time. This turns into a 10 minute in game argument where he refuses to come with us unless we let him take a break. Finally as a player he gets annoyed and says "Do you guys really want to make the barbarian go into a major fight with a quarter of his hit points"...the entire group facepalms that we just wasted all that game time on an argument would never have happened if he had informed us that his character was badly injured and needed to take a short rest. (We weren't just being difficult for non-meta reasons. He got injured during a solo session that we didn't know about.).

[SiuiS]

I've thought of another one, probably specific to me due to being anal-retentive about precision in language: people talking about "critting" on things that aren't attack rolls.

Aye. Or Mob for a single enemy which isn't a Mobile Hazard, or Toon when referring to their non-illustrated and this not at all a cartoon character. Ugh.


That player who tells me "I'm just RPing what my character would actually do" every time he sabotages the party's plan. This guy usually plays a rogue or bard so it tends to be robbing important NPCs or shamelessly flirting with the king's daughter. Taking all the loot in an encounter. Starting combat or diplomacy without dealing with anyone else. Funny the first time. After a session or two it's just him completely wrecking the party for everyone else.

Bonus points because he gets mad when any other character interrupts his plan.

Those are usually fine so long as everyone plays 'what their character would do'. The fourth or fifth time a retainer you really like screws things up, you fire him.



To be fair, that is a pretty common house rule and a common rule in other games.

Why would it be a common rule to re-name rolling an unmodified twenty as a critical hit when you're not hitting anything and it's not critical?

I think you misunderstood; it's not "20 is a success". The jimmy rustle comes from "yeah! I rolled a critical climb check!" Because you're not critically climbing. You're successfully climbing.