PDA

View Full Version : D&D Player Archetypes



Pages : [1] 2 3

8BitNinja
2016-05-02, 02:29 PM
No, this is not for PCs, these are for the people controlling them.

Have you ever noticed that, although many different people play D&D, some follow the same patterns? Well this is the place to call them out!

The only rules are that it has to be for how the person himself acts, not an individual character

Some examples:

That one guy who always plays CE, he most likely brings the Book of Vile Darkness to every game too

The DM who always tries to make the paladin fall (personal least favorite)

The guy who tries to justify doing horrible acts of evil and stay in an all good/mostly good party by saying "but I'm Chaotic Neutral"

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-02, 03:02 PM
The Succubus/Incubus. Please stop trying to seduce the entire party/gaming group. You're embarrassing yourself.

The Pyromanic, who just wants to see the world burn. Hopefully, you get the variety who DOESN'T bring lighters to the gaming table...

And the HULK SMASH. The answer to every problem is to hit it with something large. Mental stats are to be dumped, and the bard is to be smashed as well if they get into the way of MORE SMASHING. Sometimes, it gets old trying to explain why you can't just murder every merchant.

And then the Kleptomanic. The person who either thinks its funny to steal everything, or the person who wants to steal things from the party and then hides behind rules banning PvP. If the character sheet lists a crowbar, be wary.

And the person who plays out their fetish. I'm glad you've found what makes you happy, but I really rather not know this stuff about you. Do you think you could perhaps, I dunno, this might sound extreme, give your character a personality beyond this fetish? Did...Did you just describe your character as nubile? OKAY BYE NOW.

Quertus
2016-05-02, 04:31 PM
The person who always runs the same character. They've found what works for them, and they stick with it. Lemme guess - another troll-blooded arctic dwaven barbarian? DMing a whole group of these guys would probably be the easiest thing ever.

The old school player. They tend to believe that, if you're rolling the dice, you've already lost. Usually identifiable by the items like 10' pole, 50' of rope, and bag of marbles that show up on every character sheet.

The collector. This guy is all about taking trophies. Whether it's the mane of the insane unicorn, or just a cog out of a trap they disarm, they often need an extra sheet (or more) for their inventory. Bonus points if they either find some way to use these items during the adventure, or have them integrated into their custom-built magic items.

The social gamer. They don't really care about the game, they're just here to hang out with their friends. They usually can't be bothered to learn the system, update their character sheet, or remember anything about the plot. 6 months in, they're still asking,"What do I roll again?"

The cheater. This guy likes to roll his dice behind a pile of books, or behind a screen. Usually has several dice sitting out, to be able to point to the one with the good roll - especially if not running the game. Usually has catch phases that act as tells.

The rules lawyer (basic). Maybe this guy knows the rules, maybe he doesn't, but he's going to try to convince you that the rules do - or might - work in some way that benefits him right now.

The rules lawyer (advanced). This guy might know the rules, he might not (he probably does). He argues, not for personal advantage, but for consistency. He is an advocate of the rules and mechanics.

The rules lawyer (supreme). This guy knows the rules. He could give himself or his party huge advantages, but he does not. You usually only realize how well he knows the rules when a lesser rules lawyer begins to derail the game. He is an advocate of story and gameplay over rules.

I could describe a lot more, but there's one I feel it is important to raise awareness about:

The ADOS (Attention Deficit... Ooh, Shiny). I've probably mislabeled him, and he's often misidentified as someone who doesn't care about the game. He'll have his phone out, playing a game or surfing the web. Or he be painting minis or reading a book while playing the game. But he is actually able to keep track of what is going on in the game while multitasking. Try and take those "distractions" away from him, and his performance will likely suffer.

Aleolus
2016-05-02, 05:58 PM
I actually uploaded a video on Youtube about this a couple of months ago. Not a comprehensive list, but I do cover the most common ones (at least in my experience.

EDIT: Forgot to link the video: Here you go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp42AJLrALY&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

8BitNinja
2016-05-02, 06:00 PM
The few so far were great, here are some more from me

The Creepy Guy- you know that half naked elf chick in your party? when you look across the table, you can clearly see the elf is actually that guy who has a neck beard, Cheeto stained shirt, and breathes really heavy. The only time people are happy when the paladin keeps someone from having the happy times

The Immature One- if a plan is going to go wrong, a battle fails miserably, or someone does the to a trap not being disarmed, it's him. He has a strong "you can't tell me what to do" mentality and can also be a jerk. Does not comply to anything, and may or may not be chaotic neutral

ERPer- The Stage 2 evolution of the Succubus (stage 1 being creepy guy). Brings the BoEF to every game and tries to "get some" every session

goto124
2016-05-03, 02:59 AM
The rules lawyer (basic). Maybe this guy knows the rules, maybe he doesn't, but he's going to try to convince you that the rules do - or might - work in some way that benefits him right now.

The rules lawyer (advanced). This guy might know the rules, he might not (he probably does). He argues, not for personal advantage, but for consistency. He is an advocate of the rules and mechanics.

The rules lawyer (supreme). This guy knows the rules. He could give himself or his party huge advantages, but he does not. You usually only realize how well he knows the rules when a lesser rules lawyer begins to derail the game. He is an advocate of story and gameplay over rules.

New class: Rules Lawyer! Now comes in 3 levels!

Louro
2016-05-03, 08:32 AM
The old school player. They tend to believe that, if you're rolling the dice, you've already lost. Usually identifiable by the items like 10' pole, 50' of rope, and bag of marbles that show up on every character sheet.
Chalk! Don't ever forget the mighty chalk!!!

b4ndito
2016-05-03, 08:41 AM
The person who always runs the same character. They've found what works for them, and they stick with it. Lemme guess - another troll-blooded arctic dwaven barbarian? DMing a whole group of these guys would probably be the easiest thing ever.

The collector. This guy is all about taking trophies. Whether it's the mane of the insane unicorn, or just a cog out of a trap they disarm, they often need an extra sheet (or more) for their inventory. Bonus points if they either find some way to use these items during the adventure, or have them integrated into their custom-built magic items.

The social gamer. They don't really care about the game, they're just here to hang out with their friends. They usually can't be bothered to learn the system, update their character sheet, or remember anything about the plot. 6 months in, they're still asking,"What do I roll again?"

I've got each of these in my campaign right now. In a word, maddening.

JAL_1138
2016-05-03, 09:13 AM
Chalk! Don't ever forget the mighty chalk!!!

Bag of flour, too, in case of invisible enemies, or to check for wind direction and speed (or air currents to find secret doors), or to mark pressure plates and pit traps, or to check for tripwires. (Or to cook with, I suppose.)

Hammer and pitons, too. Got to have those. Not only do they help when climbing, you can tie a piton to some twine and throw it for trapfinding purposes as well.

And a small metal mirror, to check under doors and around corners.

And don't forget to bring bags or sacks, those are handy.

Lorsa
2016-05-03, 09:28 AM
The rules lawyer (basic). Maybe this guy knows the rules, maybe he doesn't, but he's going to try to convince you that the rules do - or might - work in some way that benefits him right now.

The rules lawyer (advanced). This guy might know the rules, he might not (he probably does). He argues, not for personal advantage, but for consistency. He is an advocate of the rules and mechanics.

The rules lawyer (supreme). This guy knows the rules. He could give himself or his party huge advantages, but he does not. You usually only realize how well he knows the rules when a lesser rules lawyer begins to derail the game. He is an advocate of story and gameplay over rules.

I've been a GM for both the (basic) and (advanced) type of rules lawyer. Being a physicist, I usually learn rules and their intricacies pretty quickly, so I never found them to be derailing the game. Maybe I actually would qualify for the (supreme) rules lawyer archetype, as I do advocate story and gameplay over rules. I mean, any random schmuck can abuse the rules, I have hardly found any system that can't be broken in one way or another, and since it's easy it's hardly fun. Having quality gameplay on the other hand, is rather difficult.

obryn
2016-05-03, 09:30 AM
You know, Robin Laws made an actually-helpful list which DMs can refer to, in order to tailor their game for their players. :smallsmile:

hifidelity2
2016-05-03, 09:52 AM
Bag of flour, too, in case of invisible enemies, or to check for wind direction and speed (or air currents to find secret doors), or to mark pressure plates and pit traps, or to check for tripwires. (Or to cook with, I suppose.)

Hammer and pitons, too. Got to have those. Not only do they help when climbing, you can tie a piton to some twine and throw it for trapfinding purposes as well.

And a small metal mirror, to check under doors and around corners.

And don't forget to bring bags or sacks, those are handy.

errr that might be me :smalltongue: - and dont forget wax candles for the ears to block out spoken charms etc :smallamused:
Although I do try and not have it for starting (Level 1 etc) Characters as they need to learn that they need these things

YossarianLives
2016-05-03, 10:14 AM
The Planner: no matter what obstacle is facing the party, this player can come up with a crazy solution that really shouldn't work. Whether it be recruiting the help of that obscure contact they made two months ago, outwitting the GM, or coming up with a creative new use for a spell.


The old school player. They tend to believe that, if you're rolling the dice, you've already lost. Usually identifiable by the items like 10' pole, 50' of rope, and bag of marbles that show up on every character sheet.I wish I had one of these. My players don't even buy torches. :smalltongue:

Joe the Rat
2016-05-03, 10:14 AM
Quertus: Call him "The Multitasker."

The General: Likes to have a plan for everything, maximizing party efficiency while avoiding costs, taking every possible complication or twist into account. Spends at least a half-hour before every fight on the setup.

General Jenkins (aka the Countdown King): As above, except he tries to do all of his planning and careful calculations during his turn, after combat has started.

Epimethius (Mr. Rewind): States what he does, then immediately retracts the statement.

JAL_1138
2016-05-03, 10:18 AM
errr that might be me :smalltongue: - and dont forget wax candles for the ears to block out spoken charms etc :smallamused:
Although I do try and not have it for starting (Level 1 etc) Characters as they need to learn that they need these things

I tend to play skillmonkeys, so I sort of fit the archetype of the one who plays the same character type. I figure the skillmonkey would know some of that stuff, so I usually start with as much as I can afford. After a few levels I usually need a cart and a mule to carry it all around (or a bag of holding, preferably).

Red Fel
2016-05-03, 10:30 AM
The reluctant minmaxer. In almost any media in which an RPG is played, one of them is the reluctant minmaxer. This is the person who instinctively, reflexively, figures out the most optimal way to completely break the game. However, unlike your more typical minmaxer, this player really doesn't want to do that. She wants to play and enjoy the game, for once. She wants everyone to be able to have fun, for a change. But inevitably, a situation will arise where everything looks completely hopeless, and everyone will turn to her and say, "Please, save us! Break the game! We know you know how!" And she'll sigh, and take out an enormous bag of d6s. She will then proceed to completely crack the campaign open, destroy the BBEG, save the party and the world, and reduce the GM to tears, in no more than three rolls.

The shounen hero. Shounen is a genre of anime and manga that's categorized as "action for boys." The basic premise is that your protagonist is an exceptionally gifted prodigy at X (where X is anything, like combat, tennis, chess, or baking, but usually combat) who fights rivals and befriends them. The shounen hero is a player whose characters always resemble the heroes of action shounen. His characters can frequently be described as "like DBZ/Naruto/Bleach, but X." Sometimes, he drops the "but X." His characters frequently call their attacks, often with needlessly long chants, commonly in a mix of Japanese and English (even in a setting where there is no such language as Japanese). Shouting is common. Suddenly finding the strength to overcome adversity is incredibly common, and likely to happen in almost every session. In a D&D game, expect him to play a Warblade and IRON HEART SURGE!!!!! the crap out of everything. He really needs to play Exalted, but you get the feeling that if you give him the book for it you'll never see it or him again.

goto124
2016-05-03, 10:34 AM
He really needs to play Exalted, but you get the feeling that if you give him the book for it you'll never see it or him again.

Google search gives a free pdf (http://kschnee.xepher.net/rpg/exalted/Exalted%20Starter%20Kit.pdf). He has to find another group for Exalted anyway.

wumpus
2016-05-03, 01:00 PM
The old school player. They tend to believe that, if you're rolling the dice, you've already lost. Usually identifiable by the items like 10' pole, 50' of rope, and bag of marbles that show up on every character sheet.


For those wondering: this is mostly due to way too many "roll this or die" popping up all over the dungeon. When your life expectancy is based on the number of times the DM rolls the dice, you absolutely *needed* to keep the dice in the bag.

Modern players observing Sun Tzu's dictum of the outcome of a fight being decided [before the dice are rolled] should take this to heart. You win the fight, *then* roll for initiative. Or preferably without fighting, but some DMs get cranky if you do that too much. But only roll the dice if it can't lead to your death.

8BitNinja
2016-05-03, 01:34 PM
The DM's Nemesis: No explanation here, when the DM says, "the dragon readies his breath weapon" we all turn and look at him. This guy is probably really annoying and immature, and could possibly be stage 1 evolution of the Pokemon "The Immature One." The difference is that now, instead of just the players hating him, the DM does

The Class Encyclopedia: This one is a common one, but not really talked about, he's the one who knows everything about his favorite class by heart. You can usually tell who they are because they don't bring any books, nor do they look at any, but when the cleric has access to a new spell level, he already knows which ones he'll learn for the day and what they do.

The Referencing One: The DM who feels the need to put pop culture references in every campaign, Mr. Burlew may be one. The most notable variation is the Monty Python variation

JAL_1138
2016-05-03, 03:28 PM
As an addendum to the Old School Player archetype: they may never have played a Gygax module, and may have never looked up a result on the to-hit tables or THAC0'd. The archetype can develop in a new-ish player who's played in a game with another Old School Player teaching them, or playing with an Old School DM who lets stuff like that actually work.

8BitNinja
2016-05-03, 05:49 PM
The Hipster: Stage 2 evolution of the Pokémon known as the old school player. This is a newer player who insists on playing OD&D, rolling 3d6 straight down (not that there is anything wrong with it) and insists on calling the fighter the "fighting man" (seriously, who says fighting man?)

Faily
2016-05-03, 05:55 PM
The General: Likes to have a plan for everything, maximizing party efficiency while avoiding costs, taking every possible complication or twist into account. Spends at least a half-hour before every fight on the setup.

General Jenkins (aka the Countdown King): As above, except he tries to do all of his planning and careful calculations during his turn, after combat has started.


Ugh, I have two players like Jenkins in one of my group. It's like they don't even pay attention to the battlemap, or who is hurt, or who did what, until its their turn. :smallsigh:



The reluctant minmaxer. In almost any media in which an RPG is played, one of them is the reluctant minmaxer. This is the person who instinctively, reflexively, figures out the most optimal way to completely break the game. However, unlike your more typical minmaxer, this player really doesn't want to do that. She wants to play and enjoy the game, for once. She wants everyone to be able to have fun, for a change. But inevitably, a situation will arise where everything looks completely hopeless, and everyone will turn to her and say, "Please, save us! Break the game! We know you know how!" And she'll sigh, and take out an enormous bag of d6s. She will then proceed to completely crack the campaign open, destroy the BBEG, save the party and the world, and reduce the GM to tears, in no more than three rolls.



This one is familiar to me. :smallbiggrin:

JAL_1138
2016-05-03, 06:33 PM
The Hipster: Stage 2 evolution of the Pokémon known as the old school player. This is a newer player who insists on playing OD&D, rolling 3d6 straight down (not that there is anything wrong with it) and insists on calling the fighter the "fighting man" (seriously, who says fighting man?)

I don't think many OD&D players called the class the "Fighting-Man." I'd probably call this the "Trying-too-hard OSR newb" instead, I think.

I would think "The Hipster" would instead be the term for someone who avoids D&D, even OD&D, altogether for being "too mainstream." The sort of player who only plays games that never had a huge audience and do something off-kilter mechanically or setting-wise. Even Empire of the Petal Throne would be too mainstream for The Hipster, as is practically anything OSR, since OSR games have a fairly vibrant community around them and are often straight-up retroclones of hugely popular (in their time) games. If it's ever been published or is based closely on anything that was, it's not something they're interested in.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-03, 06:35 PM
The blunderer: cannot come up with a decent plan to save their life. However, if pointed in the right direction can brute force their way through.

The iterator: the level 2 version of the blunderer, normally found in packs. Has a set of steps for a handful of generic situations almost garrunteed to work, and with their bodies can even plan effectively.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-03, 06:40 PM
The Surprise Setting Creator: Telling the DM in advance of any purposed changes to the setting is too much work! You have oodles of great ideas, but the DM doesn't need to hear them in advance, they can surely adapt. You'll just bring them mid-session, especially when the DM is trying to describe something. Everyone loves surprises, so the DM will appreciate your creative ideas and hard work.

Draconium
2016-05-03, 06:47 PM
The Ultimate Railroader: This type of DM loves the story he has set up, and attempts to pull it off perfectly, regardless of the cooperation (or lack thereof) of his players. Should really be writing fanfics or something rather than DMing.

The NPCer: A DM who has one or more NPCs that are "assisting" the party, despite the fact they are far higher leveled and much more powerful.

illyahr
2016-05-03, 06:49 PM
The rules lawyer (supreme). This guy knows the rules. He could give himself or his party huge advantages, but he does not. You usually only realize how well he knows the rules when a lesser rules lawyer begins to derail the game. He is an advocate of story and gameplay over rules.


The reluctant minmaxer. In almost any media in which an RPG is played, one of them is the reluctant minmaxer. This is the person who instinctively, reflexively, figures out the most optimal way to completely break the game. However, unlike your more typical minmaxer, this player really doesn't want to do that. She wants to play and enjoy the game, for once. She wants everyone to be able to have fun, for a change. But inevitably, a situation will arise where everything looks completely hopeless, and everyone will turn to her and say, "Please, save us! Break the game! We know you know how!" And she'll sigh, and take out an enormous bag of d6s. She will then proceed to completely crack the campaign open, destroy the BBEG, save the party and the world, and reduce the GM to tears, in no more than three rolls.

These two are me. I usually have a party member or two to curb the rest of the party from relying on my system skills, though. I'm not allowed to play some high-powered builds, not because I'd abuse them, because the rest of the party would rely on me too much.

Belac93
2016-05-03, 07:03 PM
I have an 'always plays the same character' in my group. As soon as 5e came out, he asked; "Are there goliaths?" I said no. He proceeded to make dragonborn paladins of different oaths until the EE players guide came out. Then he played goliath paladins for a long time. In one of our most recent campaigns, I finally managed to convince him to play a fighter, but he is still a goliath.

Oh, and most of his names are some variation of 'Valcone.'

But, what about good player archetypes?

JAL_1138
2016-05-03, 07:35 PM
I have an 'always plays the same character' in my group. As soon as 5e came out, he asked; "Are there goliaths?" I said no. He proceeded to make dragonborn paladins of different oaths until the EE players guide came out. Then he played goliath paladins for a long time. In one of our most recent campaigns, I finally managed to convince him to play a fighter, but he is still a goliath.

Oh, and most of his names are some variation of 'Valcone.'

But, what about good player archetypes?

Not all of these are bad. The Old-School Player can bring a lot of problem-solving abilities, for instance. I've used this example on another thread, but I've got one in my group now (who is one of the "new" Old-School players who started in a modern edition) who once destroyed an encounter I had meant to be challenging with an axe, a dead pine tree, and a couple of flasks of oil, making for one of the more memorable sessions. He's also serving as the de-facto rogue, despite playing a Fighter (the only differences are that he's not sneaky at all, and often is very loud when finding traps unless the wizard can Silence him).

If you're playing a Wuxia or shonen-themed game, especially a high-level one, the Shonen player might be perfect for the game.

The Rules Lawyer (Supreme) (and often the Advanced as well, depending on whether you try to stick to the rules for consistency or whether you prefer to bend them on occasion) is often a big asset to the group, to serve as a living wiki and save time that would be spent looking something up, explain rules to newbies, and shut down rules-abusers.

The Class Encyclopedia likewise to the Rules Lawyer 2 and 3, but less so; helps out when referencing that particular class, and doesn't take much time looking at their sheet or poring through the book.

While the Blunderer and the Iterators aren't necessarily good, they aren't strictly bad either--they may not come up with good plans, but they aren't so bad that they can't get through something at all. They may even be able to brute-force a solution to something that has the clever player stymied.

The Hipster (by the "nothing mainstream" definition) can be good too, in some cases--they might introduce you to a new, interesting, fun game you'd have never heard of or thought to try otherwise. Although good luck getting them to actually play D&D...

And The Referencer is only bad if you don't like references or if they make lousy ones; good references can add humor and familiarity (which can then be turned on its head later, perhaps).

8BitNinja
2016-05-03, 07:56 PM
The Complainer: Could be immature, could just suck. This guy always openly expresses his anger whenever botching a roll or having a plan fail. He gets really mad when his character dies. This guy here probably has the filthiest mouth, as he will probably continually shout profanities when something bad happens

Âmesang
2016-05-03, 08:55 PM
Honestly I kind of wish my groups had a "shônen player" type 'cause at least that kind of player has energy. At least it sounds like more than just, "I rolled a 23 for attack! I rolled an 18 for damage! I rolled a 52 for Diplomacy!" :smallannoyed:

90sMusic
2016-05-03, 09:12 PM
The Ultimate Railroader: This type of DM loves the story he has set up, and attempts to pull it off perfectly, regardless of the cooperation (or lack thereof) of his players. Should really be writing fanfics or something rather than DMing.

:'(

It is so true and so heartbreaking. My DM creates problems and then only allows one solution: the one he chose. Anything else, no matter how logical or how it should work realistically or how it would work in literally any other game will NOT work simply because he says it won't and he forces you to figure out the "proper" way that he thought up, even if it makes far less sense than proposed alternatives.

JAL_1138
2016-05-03, 09:30 PM
:'(

It is so true and so heartbreaking. My DM creates problems and then only allows one solution: the one he chose. Anything else, no matter how logical or how it should work realistically or how it would work in literally any other game will NOT work simply because he says it won't and he forces you to figure out the "proper" way that he thought up, even if it makes far less sense than proposed alternatives.

This makes me think of a corollary: The Retconning Detail Railroader. A subset of the railroader who tells you details that would stop whatever plan you've got, in order to force you to solve the situation by the One True Method they've thought of...but only after you've said what your plan is, so you keep throwing out "wrong" plans that should by all rights work flawlessly with the information you were presented with initially, but that you'd not have even suggested if you had all the subsequent information. This can apply even to broad setting details or social customs your character ought to know, not just individual puzzles, obstacles or encounters.

quinron
2016-05-03, 09:43 PM
The Timesharer: Any game you drop by in town, this player is there. They're currently part of 6 different weekly D&D groups, as well as in groups playing 3 other completely different RPGs.

The Dodging DM: This player knows and runs the game well enough that they should be running their own game instead of taking up space at your table, but they just can't be bothered; if they could, they'd probably be running for the half-dozen players you've had to turn away because your table is full. Has a habit of putting together games that last only 1-4 sessions before falling apart because they're more focused on playing than DMing.

RazorChain
2016-05-03, 10:32 PM
The Luckster The player that always gets that critical success on time. This is the guy who says "I throw my two handed sword at the eye of the cyclop" and rolls a 20.


The Impulsive One This is the guy when the party is trying to plan some course of action takes matters into his own hand and does something, just anything to get the action started again. Often this takes choice away from his fellow players.

Drakeburn
2016-05-03, 11:05 PM
The crazy one: The one person who comes up with the most craziest plans/ideas.

In one game I've ran for my little sister and her friend. Her friend however, came up with all sorts of crazy ideas, which ranged from setting a boulder trap over the entrance to a kobold lair, to sending a cart filled with rocks to run over the kobolds. Now, I've made her roll to see if she can successfully pull those off (she did) instead of saying no. She wanted to get a cart from a town that was miles away from them. For some reason, even though I said that she found a cart near the kobold lair, from which the kobolds plundered from, she still goes with the story of getting to a town miles away during a combat encounter.
1) My sister and her friend were at level one and 2) we were playing D&D 4e.

One of the annoying things I've had with her however is that whenever she was off to work on these so called "plans", she doesn't tell me, the DM, what her character is doing. The only thing she says is "It's a secret", and leaves me and my sister in the dark until she reveals what her "plan" is.

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-05-03, 11:09 PM
How about The Thespian? The guy who is there to roleplay and do nothing else. He acts and hams it up and overgestures like he rolled Richard III. He only laments that he doesn't have a camera B to play to. So the DM will do. Enjoy being soliloquised at.

That guy is totally me by the way.

Faily
2016-05-03, 11:15 PM
The Luckster The player that always gets that critical success on time. This is the guy who says "I throw my two handed sword at the eye of the cyclop" and rolls a 20.

There's also the opposite of The Luckster, who is cursed by all the dice-gods.

I know two like that.

One rolled a nat 1 on command, when declaring "this is why I shouldn't stand guard".
The second one was a level 9-10 cleric in Pathfinder, who nearly died in a one-on-one battle with a Manticore (a CR5 monster). Partially because of the player lacking tactical skills, partially because the dice hate him.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-04, 12:35 AM
How about The Thespian? The guy who is there to roleplay and do nothing else. He acts and hams it up and overgestures like he rolled Richard III. He only laments that he doesn't have a camera B to play to. So the DM will do. Enjoy being soliloquised at.

That guy is totally me by the way.

I'd take it over the guy who makes the barely legal elf maiden. Or the girl who makes the barely legal elf dude. Or the person who stabs the DM. In fact, I'll take two.

Draconium
2016-05-04, 12:37 AM
There's also the opposite of The Luckster, who is cursed by all the dice-gods.

I know two like that.

One rolled a nat 1 on command, when declaring "this is why I shouldn't stand guard".
The second one was a level 9-10 cleric in Pathfinder, who nearly died in a one-on-one battle with a Manticore (a CR5 monster). Partially because of the player lacking tactical skills, partially because the dice hate him.

When I play my Paladin, he usually ends up like this. At least in combat. Especially if he encounters his nemesis, a Gray Jester with a penchant for riddles. Man, I hate that guy... Oh, well, the character's still fun to roleplay. :smallbiggrin:

Winter_Wolf
2016-05-04, 01:49 AM
There's also the opposite of The Luckster, who is cursed by all the dice-gods.

I know two like that.

One rolled a nat 1 on command, when declaring "this is why I shouldn't stand guard".
The second one was a level 9-10 cleric in Pathfinder, who nearly died in a one-on-one battle with a Manticore (a CR5 monster). Partially because of the player lacking tactical skills, partially because the dice hate him.

Now you know another. Give me a situation where I can only fail on a natural one. I can practically guarantee that one. Or the ever-beloved "failed by one" result. Which is why I have no use for theoretical or practical optimization. It just doesn't matter, because I'm that bad at rolling dice.

Which is probably why I fall under the OSR type; never roll unless you have to.

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-05-04, 02:17 AM
I'd take it over the guy who makes the barely legal elf maiden. Or the girl who makes the barely legal elf dude. Or the person who stabs the DM. In fact, I'll take two.

You have to understand that I and my other thespian D&D players are phenomenally bad actors.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-04, 02:32 AM
You have to understand that I and my other thespian D&D players are phenomenally bad actors.

The person who stabbed the DM was also very bad at it. Doesn't really change my opinion on the matter.

As for bad die luck, I have yet to roll above a 13 when rolling stats for DnD. I really hate rolling for my stats...

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-05-04, 02:36 AM
The person who stabbed the DM was also very bad at it. Doesn't really change my opinion on the matter.

As for bad die luck, I have yet to roll above a 13 when rolling stats for DnD. I really hate rolling for my stats...

So he literally stabbed the DM? Does that happen often enough to be an archetype?

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-04, 02:38 AM
So he literally stabbed the DM? Does that happen often enough to be an archetype?

Well, first, she. It was with a blunt exacto knife, but still. I haven't had too much physical harm happen to the DMs, but there are those people who bring knives and I think I remember one person trying to light the table on fire for some reason. Oh, and Knifey McStabberson also threw a full can of soda at the DM once, that was fun too.

You know what? I think I take back my example of rolling poorly for stats to be my example of bad luck...

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-05-04, 02:43 AM
Well, first, she. It was with a blunt exacto knife, but still. I haven't had too much physical harm happen to the DMs, but there are those people who bring knives and I think I remember one person trying to light the table on fire for some reason. Oh, and Knifey McStabberson also threw a full can of soda at the DM once, that was fun too.

Granted, a table of bad actors isn't quite so bad as that. But, like I said, not really archetypal so out of the running.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-04, 02:45 AM
Granted, a table of bad actors isn't quite so bad as that. But, like I said, not really archetypal so out of the running.

Granted, I'm actually kinda glad most people don't have stories about the time a player attacked the DM.

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-05-04, 02:49 AM
Granted, I'm actually kinda glad most people don't have stories about the time a player attacked the DM.

Granted, I'm pretty sure we could start each response with 'granted'.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-04, 02:55 AM
The Ultimate Railroader: This type of DM loves the story he has set up, and attempts to pull it off perfectly, regardless of the cooperation (or lack thereof) of his players. Should really be writing fanfics or something rather than DMing.

The worst part is when they don't give you enough information and so you spend an hour exploring the abandoned city (termed 'messing around' by the GM because I enjoyed it) rather than going directly to the TowervofcDoomTM in the centre, do not pass go, do not collect 200 quid.


The NPCer: A DM who has one or more NPCs that are "assisting" the party, despite the fact they are far higher leveled and much more powerful.

Inevitably the lost prince who ran off to be a [insert DM's favourite class], I bet. Did I mention I spent a session in a campaign where the GM's DMPC was the lost prince who ran off to be a druid? I didn't get to check for purple eyes.


I'd take it over the guy who makes the barely legal elf maiden. Or the girl who makes the barely legal elf dude. Or the person who stabs the DM. In fact, I'll take two.

Um...this is my next character, a 95 year old female drow rogue. The party's missing a rogue and I don't want to stop the 'all female bar the DMPC.


So he literally stabbed the DM? Does that happen often enough to be an archetype?

I've now heard of at least two occasions, but Lankey Bugger's girlfriend wasn't actually a player.

themaque
2016-05-04, 03:02 AM
We all know THE WALLFLOWER. Quiet, unassuming, and generally just rolls with whatever the party is doing. Doesn't add much but is a nice guy/gal who's nice to have around.

They often hide the SBD (Silent But Deadly) 90% of the time identical to the Wallflower... until they are ready to strike or are needed and bring forth a rath of power that destroys everything around it. Similar as well to the Reluctant Minmaxer.

Giagiá will ensure everyone is fed. They bring snacks, cookies, and might spend half their time in the kitchen making sure everyone is so full thinking much less moving is hard.

The Shyamalan: This player has a secret. Something that no one else knows! Maybe they aren't really human but just LOOK human but are really a Tanooki. Maybe they are secretly a prince? Maybe they Pretend to be a wizard but are REALLY a sorcerer. But no matter WHAT they play there has to be a twist. some secret little thing that makes them unique.

Lacco
2016-05-04, 03:04 AM
My table (not only D&D), at one point consisted of:

"I have a plan!"-guy. The one who, after some situation arises, looks around the table - and if no-one is coming up with something to do, states the sentence that sends chills up my neck. "I have a plan!". He never shares the plan, he just randomly runs away (IC) to do something. Had hilarious quotes.

Shadowrun: They ran out of money. He goes to nearest bar, asks the barmaid "Do you know, where can I find some rich kids...?", steals a hat, conjures three elementals and lets them do a show on the street with the hat placed in front of them to get money. Police shows, he runs away.

"W-w-w-why me?"-girl. The one who, whenever addressed by an NPC (or PC), asked to do some task, attacked or interacted-with-in-any-way, asks the sentence. Had really funny quotes.

"I'll play a paladin!"-guy. The one who was able to murderhobo everything, steal everything that was nailed down, loot the dead bodies, and generally did everything a paladin wouldn't do - and was angry when I made him fall. Was excluded.

"Rapiers are useless!"-girl. The one who always took one of the good choices and used it the worst way (like swinging the rapier against the helmet instead of thrusting it into the face, like taking a wizard and casting only burning hands, like taking a bard and never playing any songs, like taking an investigator and staying at home, watching tv...). Had hilarious quotes.

"When do I get my own helicopter?"-guy. The one who always asks for the overpowered items, and doesn't stop until you give it to them. That was a long time ago... :smallsmile:

"Where's my dog? No idea!"-guy. The one who always plays a ranger with an animal companion and keeps forgetting about the animal companion.

"I'll barrel roll under his feet to trip him!"-guy. The one who puts all points in character creation to get a PhD. in chemistry and puts skills into throwing knives, making drugs and piloting motorboats (in modern game) and manages to use each of these to hilarious ends. The one who drives you insane with his lucky rolls - the barrel-roll was critical failure, but the follow-up attack from the bad guy was too. And then he rolled three criticals, one after another.

Overall, it was interesting. And I also had a player who never remembered anything you told her more than 3 minutes ago. She had a good memory, just switched it off while playing. Suicided herself in Shadowrun within 5 seconds after mission start due to overcasting (mana flow).

Quertus
2016-05-04, 08:25 AM
There's also the opposite of The Luckster, who is cursed by all the dice-gods.

I thought I had some bad dice luck, being able to roll straight 1s for HP (less than a one in a million chance to be so bad by the level I retired him, btw), but I have a friend who is consistently cursed by the dice gods.

Now, interesting points: he is good with tactics, he knows the rules, and he understands probability. He just knows that he is a statistical anomaly. He'll look at a situation, calculate the odds of failing at around 2%, pick up a handful of dice, and roll a fail condition.

I never have figured out how he is so capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Gtdead
2016-05-04, 08:39 AM
Alignment Lawyers are the most usual archetype in my past groups.
In my current group, we have 4 distinct people.

The "I roleplay myself": He created a backstory and a personality that completely differs from his real life character, and he forgot all about it.

The "Silent": He just stares. He never takes initiative, he only keeps notes, and when the DM makes him do anything, he says things like "I try to persuade the guard" and asks to roll something.

The "Paranoid": She thinks that everything the DM says is a lie. A gorverment agent approached her and asked for her superior, she asked for a badge. DM says "He shows you his badge", and she says out of character "I don't believe you".

The "Annoying Roleplayer": That's me. I'm not just roleplaying my character. As long as we are in session, even when arguing out of character, I only talk about my character's point of view and how he would think. It's really annoying for them ;p .

Joe the Rat
2016-05-04, 08:48 AM
Honestly I kind of wish my groups had a "shônen player" type 'cause at least that kind of player has energy. At least it sounds like more than just, "I rolled a 23 for attack! I rolled an 18 for damage! I rolled a 52 for Diplomacy!" :smallannoyed:They do come with a sense of dramatic action and an eye for visuals, which I love.
(Side note: I almost had a wuxia-style monk and a shonen-style monk in my 5e D&D game. I was so looking forward to the style contrasts, when not-Goku decided to make an sniper instead. :smallsigh:)


You have to understand that I and my other thespian D&D players are phenomenally bad actors.I often describe roleplaying as "community theater with the decency to not inflict its performances on an audience."
The question is, how bad is the bad acting? Like "bad" bad, or "so bad it loops around to delicious hot ham and cheese" bad?

goto124
2016-05-04, 09:10 AM
The "I roleplay myself": He created a backstory and a personality that completely differs from his real life character, and he forgot all about it.

I think this could be me as well, mostly because I roleplay what is best for the game and least disruptive towards the other players and GM. Which means I readily discard my characters' personality and backstory in favor of getting to keep playing the game.

Is this bad?

To keep on topic, let's say what I described is an archetype called... I dunno... the 'Play-Along-er'?

kraftcheese
2016-05-04, 09:30 AM
I think this could be me as well, mostly because I roleplay what is best for the game and least disruptive towards the other players and GM. Which means I readily discard my characters' personality and backstory in favor of getting to keep playing the game.

Is this bad?

To keep on topic, let's say what I described is an archetype called... I dunno... the 'Play-Along-er'?
Tbh, I reckon that'd be my Archetype as well; I just want everyone to have a good time and help the other players get involved over me playing out my ideas I guess?

JAL_1138
2016-05-04, 10:08 AM
The Non-Optimizing Gamebreaker: This sometimes overlaps with the Old-Schooler, who can occasionally remove much of the challenge of the game with a 10ft pole and a ball of twine, but sometimes goes far beyond what the Old-Schooler would do. This is a player who hasn't optimized their character to abuse rules loopholes to get ridiculous stats or combo'd a half-dozen overpowered abilities, but manages to break the game wide open with application of relatively ordinary character abilities and in-setting technology. The person who realizes that there are very few problems that won't go away (in the short run at least) if you pack a stolen swoop bike with (probably also stolen) explosives and rig it up to fly into a target. Who reasons that an FTL-capable freighter full of metals and ores can not only fly at FTL but impact a target at either FTL speeds or at least a huge fraction of c, and thus is a more deadly weapon than any giant laser or super-missile. Who realizes that Green Slime can be weaponized with non-reactive but fragile containers and some method of delivery, such as throwing for small containers or a trebuchet for large ones, and can be continually resupplied by feeding it livestock or fallen enemies. Who suggests damming the river miles and miles upstream to deal with a city they're at war with instead of trying to siege it. Who uses noncombat flavor/utility spells like Prestidigitation to somehow one-shot the BBEG (for example, as the BBEG rides across a narrow bridge or ledge across a steep gorge, use Prestidigitation to make his horse think it smells a rattlesnake right under its nose, which, after some failed skill checks and saves, results in the BBEG plummeting to his doom, and the angry glare of the DM who knows in hindsight he could have ruled that differently but now the dice have been rolled.) Who invents (or at least homebrews) incendiary or explosive compounds like Thermite and Tannerite in-game by combining ordinary, readily-available materials. Who redirects a river to flood out the dungeon or uses thermodynamics to asphyxiate everything in it by building a huge bonfire at the entrance. They're not really out to break the game, exactly, even though that's what happens; they're just looking for effective solutions.

I am frequently guilty of this sort of thing and it has gotten me banned from a few character types altogether.


The Henderson: Like the above, but more so--they actually have optimized somewhat, and are not above some shenanigans with what's on the sheet or in the character backstory either. And they're actually out to deliberately break the campaign and annoy the DM, not doing it inadvertently.

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-04, 10:54 AM
If I had to put myself in an archetype, it would be "the problem solver".

No, I don't want to plumb my character's faults and torture them with every one. The fact that my character cares about an NPC shouldn't paint a bullseye on the NPC's back. I'm not interested in tearing my character down or having them go through a catharsis.

I want to solve the mystery, catch the criminal, find the lost artifact, stop the assassins, win the battles, whatever.

The difference between a police procedural and a police drama -- the former is about solving the crimes, the latter is about tormenting the characters ("Who's marriage will be in trouble this week?") A character can be interesting and believable and three-dimensional without a checklist of personal issues to be ticked through.

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-05-04, 11:14 AM
If I had to put myself in an archetype, it would be "the problem solver".

No, I don't want to plumb my character's faults and torture them with every one. The fact that my character cares about an NPC shouldn't paint a bullseye on the NPC's back. I'm not interested in tearing my character down or having them go through a catharsis.

I want to solve the mystery, catch the criminal, find the lost artifact, stop the assassins, win the battles, whatever.

The difference between a police procedural and a police drama -- the former is about solving the crimes, the latter is about tormenting the characters ("Who's marriage will be in trouble this week?") A character can be interesting and believable and three-dimensional without a checklist of personal issues to be ticked through.

http://media.nj.com/entertainment_impact_tv/photo/30-rock-problem-solversjpg-91bed11560aa8398_large.jpg

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-04, 11:17 AM
I haven't been around long enough to know if that's just random word-association humor, or an actual commentary...

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-05-04, 11:39 AM
I haven't been around long enough to know if that's just random word-association humor, or an actual commentary...

The former, sadly. Though your dismissive attitude towards certain writing styles makes me wish it were the latter.

8BitNinja
2016-05-04, 11:56 AM
The Ahnold: If it bleeds, he can kill it, even if it doesn't bleed. If it's in the monster manual, he can do damage to it. This is the guy who over prepares for every adventure, and is also the guy you can depend on to help kill that group of death knights overthere

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-04, 12:18 PM
The former, sadly. Though your dismissive attitude towards certain writing styles makes me wish it were the latter.

I'm not dismissing the writing styles, or that sort of play for people who like it. I've been in multiple games where the "explore character faults" player and I have both had a lot of fun, because the GM tailored things to play to what was fun for every player, instead of saying "everyone gets the exact same share of all parts of the game".

If anything, I wrote that post with a touch of frustration for the way in which parts of "gaming culture" have come to haughtily dismiss characters that aren't built around the plumbing the depths of serious flaws as "murderhobos" or "cardboard". So... there's a touch of irony here, I suppose.

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-05-04, 01:09 PM
I'm not dismissing the writing styles, or that sort of play for people who like it. I've been in multiple games where the "explore character faults" player and I have both had a lot of fun, because the GM tailored things to play to what was fun for every player, instead of saying "everyone gets the exact same share of all parts of the game".

If anything, I wrote that post with a touch of frustration for the way in which parts of "gaming culture" have come to haughtily dismiss characters that aren't built around the plumbing the depths of serious flaws as "murderhobos" or "cardboard". So... there's a touch of irony here, I suppose.

I apologise. I misread.

In any case, it's all academic. I just posted it because that image is my association with the phrase "problem solvers".

Tentreto
2016-05-04, 01:12 PM
The Butterfly:
The one who someway, somehow causes a chain of events that escalates to massive proportions.
Often combines with luck or derailing.
I have managed this twice, one essentially turning my fighter into the god of magic, the other ruining a starting bandit city.

8BitNinja
2016-05-04, 01:19 PM
The Pure Roleplayer: He is absolutely terrible at combat, but he does play really in-depth stories, and is the best RPer

The Pure Combatant: His peices are no more than figurines, is character sheet no more than stats, but is awesome in combat

captain-mills
2016-05-04, 06:53 PM
The collector. This guy is all about taking trophies. Whether it's the mane of the insane unicorn, or just a cog out of a trap they disarm, they often need an extra sheet (or more) for their inventory. Bonus points if they either find some way to use these items during the adventure, or have them integrated into their custom-built magic items.

Well this is definitely me. I always have tons of equipment, made up of whatever I thought might be useful at some point. I'm usually wrong. But I maintain that my fellow players will be thankful for my packrat ways when we find something awesome that can only be accessed/activated/whatever by Obscure Item #537.

8BitNinja
2016-05-04, 07:24 PM
The Slayer: A variation of the Ahnold, the only difference is that the Slayer actively kills everything in his path

Âmesang
2016-05-04, 10:57 PM
Well this is definitely me. I always have tons of equipment, made up of whatever I thought might be useful at some point. I'm usually wrong. But I maintain that my fellow players will be thankful for my packrat ways when we find something awesome that can only be accessed/activated/whatever by Obscure Item #537.
I'm not sure if I count as a "Collector" or some sort of wealthy-minded variant, as an aristocratic character of mine had set aside a portion of character wealth on various fancy outfits, extravagant jewelry, and other baubles that served no other purpose than to make the character look fabulous.

Said character even had a dagger forged from red steel; not only because it'd be considered rare, but because nobody at the table had even heard of RED STEEL™ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Steel_(boxed_set)). :smalltongue:

Malifice
2016-05-05, 12:40 AM
Ugh, I have two players like Jenkins in one of my group. It's like they don't even pay attention to the battlemap, or who is hurt, or who did what, until its their turn. :smallsigh:

Easy fixed. Put everyone on a 2-3 second countdown on their turn. If actions havent been declared by the time you count to 3, they take the dodge action and their turn ends.

That'll keep them focused on the action when its not their turns, and it'll keep combats from drawing out.

My nomination is for player type is the Socially Inept Chatterbox. The guy that misses even the most blatant of social cues and jibbers crap non stop about totally innane and frequently wrong ****. Like how awesome Monks are in 3.5 'because flurry', or how underpowered katanas are in (insert RPG) or how a lance from a mounted knight could easily pierce the side of a modern battle tank, or something equally absurd and annoying and which always results in very awkward (and painful) silences. Usually in their thirties, single and living at home with Mum. Frequently attach themselves to the most charismatic member of the gaming group, and will follow them around like a lost dog seeking approval.

Also; the Gamist Automata. The dude that buys a dog as a force multiplier during session 1, and then promptly doesnt name it, feed it or even remotely care when it dies. A cardboard cutout has more personality than their characters, and you can always accurately guess what each character will do in response to any stimuli regardless of the character in questions alignment, class, gender, race, motivations or any other extrinsic factor (it doesnt change between characters).

Finally - the Arnie the Armsman. The guy that only ever plays big guys with even bigger guns - generally Plasma repeater rifles, or Antimatter cannons or whatever is the biggest and most destructive weapon the game and system offers. His characters are always a direct rip off of a Schwarzenegger movie, and frequently come equipped with an Austrian accent for the first session or two until he gets bored of attempting it. He lives by the gun and they die by the thousands. An extension of the 'Always hit things with heavy objects/ Grog the Destroyer' guy.

quinron
2016-05-05, 04:00 AM
The Panicker: That player who always seems flustered and confused whenever they have to roll, no matter how long they've had the same place in initiative, how long they've been involved in social discussions, or how long they've been working on a plan leading up to this exact event.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-05-05, 07:53 AM
The person who always runs the same character. They've found what works for them, and they stick with it. Lemme guess - another troll-blooded arctic dwaven barbarian? DMing a whole group of these guys would probably be the easiest thing ever.

If you're unlucky, you get more than one of these. Which can hopefully mean you get:

The 24hr Party Person - the group member who tries to fill the party's scenario based needs as best they can, because they want to complete the adventure and the rest of the group have all decided all they want to do is hit things over the head/blow them up, and who could probably solo the adventure themselves if given enough time.

mikeejimbo
2016-05-05, 08:50 AM
Dedicated Support - Almost always plays a support-type role, often a Cleric. Excels at making others better and gets nervous when he has to do something on his own.

That's me. It has its pros and cons. Though lately my group has been playing roles for more narrative than gamist reasons, and I don't always take a supportive role for that. Though I still don't like taking charge.

Lacco
2016-05-05, 09:09 AM
Easy fixed. Put everyone on a 2-3 second countdown on their turn. If actions havent been declared by the time you count to 3, they take the dodge action and their turn ends.

That'll keep them focused on the action when its not their turns, and it'll keep combats from drawing out.

I give them count to 5. If they don't respond, they "hesitated" = they roll to see if they even moved away from the blow... if they fail? Given the system, it usually ends with them being dead.

JAL_1138
2016-05-05, 09:20 AM
The Soloist, or The Jack of All Trades: Often, but not necessarily, and Old School Player as well. Every character they build is capable of filling any role to some degree, as if they were building their character to operate without a party. They can fight in melee or at range, can blast multiple targets, buff, debuff, heal, and usually have several useful skills, such as lockpicking, although they may not be particularly good at any of it. Tends to play bards, clerics, druids, or multiclassed characters. They will do this even when it's not to their or the party's advantage to do so and specialization would be vastly preferable, such as when the party already has specialists in several roles that The JoAT has had to significantly weaken their character to be able to (often poorly) perform.

I'm quite prone to do this.

Malifice
2016-05-05, 10:28 AM
I give them count to 5. If they don't respond, they "hesitated" = they roll to see if they even moved away from the blow... if they fail? Given the system, it usually ends with them being dead.

Im running 5E pretty much all the time now, and we have the dodge action. It grants disadvantage on attack rolls till the start of your next turn so its not a total wash. 5E also does away with the delay action (which is a godsend).

Combat is sharp and snappy.

Oncve your players get used to the 2-3 second timeout, they pay a surprising amount of attention to the game when its not their turn and the game is so much the better for it. Less time to metagame and meticulously take optimal choices all the time also (which is far more realistic and dramatic).

If a TPK looms I'll give them a break however.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-05, 10:34 AM
The 24hr Party Person - the group member who tries to fill the party's scenario based needs as best they can, because they want to complete the adventure and the rest of the group have all decided all they want to do is hit things over the head/blow them up, and who could probably solo the adventure themselves if given enough time.

I've met this kind of person, although his motivation was slightly different. He was used to playing in the old school 'low levels are meatgrinders' way, and so made a character who covered as much as possible so he would always survive. Although I have previously been the guy who took all the science skills in a zombie-bashing game (it was sold to me as zombie survival, so I expected both tougher zombies and less of a focus on combat, I literally took the sword skill just in case it was unavoidable), and everyone outside the group agrees that the character was kind of wasted on that game. Because why would the guy with Intelligence near the cap and an array of science and engineering skills be more useful to the party than someone who dumped Intelligence and Perception (to 0, which I'm not even certain is allowed in Unisystem) in order to pump up Strength and Stamina? Yes, it's been two years now and I'm still not over that game.

For that matter, I submit another one, that annoying bloke, who always puts points into stuff like Intelligence or Charisma, or even skills, in the combat-focused game. Because how could Electronic Engineering ever come in handy?


I give them count to 5. If they don't respond, they "hesitated" = they roll to see if they even moved away from the blow... if they fail? Given the system, it usually ends with them being dead.

Oh, that's nasty. I'll give them at least 30 seconds to think, probably a minute as then I can use my watch, and if they don't move rule that they are 'on the defensive'. I prefer to give my players a chance to survive, although I could be meaner as I always underestimate their abilities these days I think I've killed off one character fairly, and another as plot stuff because he refused to believe 'I'm an Assamite' didn't get him off from having a stained aura [he wasn't a diablerist, but he didn't have the 'Assamite compulsion' and so was suspected of lying, then framed by the baddies*]). EDIT: I should specify that when I GM combat turns tend to run on a bit, the minute time limit is because it's expected that people won't be giving it their full attention, especially on my turn. The upside is that I don't have to resolve monster turns in 3 seconds and can instead take about a minute per monster.

* Even then, another player could have just not handed in the faked evidence and he would have walked free, but nobody cared about the guy who spent his whole unlife obfuscated.


The Soloist, or The Jack of All Trades: Often, but not necessarily, and Old School Player as well. Every character they build is capable of filling any role to some degree, as if they were building their character to operate without a party. They can fight in melee or at range, can blast multiple targets, buff, debuff, heal, and usually have several useful skills, such as lockpicking, although they may not be particularly good at any of it. Tends to play bards, clerics, druids, or multiclassed characters. They will do this even when it's not to their or the party's advantage to do so and specialization would be vastly preferable, such as when the party already has specialists in several roles that The JoAT has had to significantly weaken their character to be able to (often poorly) perform.

I'm quite prone to do this.

Ah, yep. The thing is, it's occasionally useful, for example in a GURPS game where everybody else is playing an IQ monkey, having points in all the DX skills can be incredibly useful. But I have seen people do this when it's just useless, although I've never been the guy myself (I tend to specialise to a near-crippling degree in order to steamroll one type of challenge).

8BitNinja
2016-05-05, 11:52 AM
The Leeroy Jenkins: May or may not be a paladin (but with the name it helps). The Leeroy Jenkins will fight every fight the same, charging straight into battle, no matter the odds, no matter the consequences. No matter if it's honor or stupidity, there will always be one person who will hate it (probably the rogue or cleric) and usually someone who will love it (probably the wizard or sorcerer).

This is me, while you cower in the shadows, I fight with honor! :smallbiggrin:

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-05, 12:28 PM
The Leeroy Jenkins: May or may not be a paladin (but with the name it helps). The Leeroy Jenkins will fight every fight the same, charging straight into battle, no matter the odds, no matter the consequences. No matter if it's honor or stupidity, there will always be one person who will hate it (probably the rogue or cleric) and usually someone who will love it (probably the wizard or sorcerer).

This is me, while you cower in the shadows, I fight with honor! :smallbiggrin:

Alternative Name: Why Anonymous Wizard Should Not Play Fighters.

Seriously, in fantasy games I have a tendency to treat any combat character as a juggernaut who just charges into the fray. I'm much better once guns come on line, because I stay at range, find cover, and pick targets, but I should never be allowed to play a guy with a sword because I will go Leeroy Jenkins. So yeah, keep me away from melee characters.

And people wonder why I play mage after mage. It suits my playstyle to stand back and unleash death (or illusions, I'm fond of illusions, they're the other thing I have a decent grasp on).

Yeah, I'm kind of a one trick player, I don't melee very well, I'm not good enough at tactics for summons, but give me the ability to harm or disable someone at 100 feet and I will start analysing enemies to discover the most dangerous.

8BitNinja
2016-05-05, 01:21 PM
Alternative Name: Why Anonymous Wizard Should Not Play Fighters.

Seriously, in fantasy games I have a tendency to treat any combat character as a juggernaut who just charges into the fray. I'm much better once guns come on line, because I stay at range, find cover, and pick targets, but I should never be allowed to play a guy with a sword because I will go Leeroy Jenkins. So yeah, keep me away from melee characters.

And people wonder why I play mage after mage. It suits my playstyle to stand back and unleash death (or illusions, I'm fond of illusions, they're the other thing I have a decent grasp on).

Yeah, I'm kind of a one trick player, I don't melee very well, I'm not good enough at tactics for summons, but give me the ability to harm or disable someone at 100 feet and I will start analysing enemies to discover the most dangerous.

Even when it comes to guns, I usually choose my favorite automatic weapon and charge in spraying bullets in the general direction of the enemy. I will usually invest in the best armor first though.

I think this is why clerics follow me by riding piggyback

Broutchev
2016-05-05, 01:25 PM
Based on my usual playing group;

The Bot: An evolution of the "I'll play a X!"-guy
He is not content enough to play one and only one style, but he has to pick one aspect and make his character uni-dimensional, for better but usually for worse. Be it a warmage, he will blast until there is nothing else to blast, and when it's no blasting time, he will be on cruise-control. See ''Wallflower''. He is the rogue that only sneak attack, he is the barbarian that only rage and swing... Is he min-maxer, he might not even be one, that's the glory of it.

Mine is a ''HUMANCLERICOFPELORSUNANDGOODDOMAIN CLASS A.1 HEALBOT''
He once won initiative and was confused what to do since everyone was full HP

We have the Special Snowflake Syndrome aka notice me sempai, aka you don't realise how cool my character is.

On a small scale he is the dude with an infinite tobacco pipe that always in game roleplay hoe<w he is smoking while discussing with the npc or when meditating or when... point is, it's stalling the game for no reason. Availlable in small dose but deadly if in overabundance. My player love Marx so when there's a fork in the road he says left, always to the left or turn 270 degrees as not to go right. It's funny, it's silly but don't overdo it. And then is ugly cousin;
His character is a just plain weird mass of weirdness, like scales on a half-elf with no ancestry of lizards whatsoever but in one of the dragon magazines there is some way to do it...and after a while everyone just accept it because of the time wasting but then you realize there's a ton of weird thing, that don't impact RP or Game mechanics, but should, and the main goal is to be that dude set apart from everything else, well it sucks. And when I say it should, when you see a dude with 3 heads as a NPC, you can be scarred to life, but no thi guy has no CHA penalty, so it's all good. Please whoever you are, don't go there. Disclaimer: I only heard about this guy from a player and friend of mine thought I know the guy IRL.

Also I have 2 Social Gamer (what do i roll again), 1 Minmaxer, 1 3rd level rules lawyer (known as, it's YOUR universe, your rules) and one chaotic chaotic player.

Good times:smallwink:

quinron
2016-05-05, 01:30 PM
The Pre-Planner: This player has already thoroughly mapped out their character's progression through level 20 - or higher if you're planning an epic campaign - determining at what point to take which level and why, how to allocate every ability they get, and, if they're extremely committed, how they plan to roleplay all their decisions.

While 3.5 made this a necessity for a lot of prestige class prereqs, my tendency to pre-plan every character even while using strictly base classes is the reason I've come to prefer DMing.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-05, 01:47 PM
Even when it comes to guns, I usually choose my favorite automatic weapon and charge in spraying bullets in the general direction of the enemy. I will usually invest in the best armor first though.

I think this is why clerics follow me by riding piggyback

Eh, with guns I'll actually normally go for something semiautomatic or single shot, and then hit opponents with aimed and/or called shots. It's one of the reasons I prefer d6 Adventure over d6 Fantasy, I can have my rifle and snipe out targets over the course of the combat (this goes well with my specialising, I can probably land a torso hit at least 90% of the time, and a limb or head shot with at least even odds). As a side note I've not noticed other players change their tactics much once ranged weapons are common, and my last guy never went into cover because it would have broken character, but still entered the campaign with a sniper rifle (which I had the chance to use once, and took down one of the big bads in a single shot) as well as his more discrete revolver. I think I was the only one in the party to get their effective rifles skill above 18, and that's with an elf in the party.

As a side note, my characters have rarely needed a cleric, as I tend not to play front line fighters (the one time I have I was the cleric), and the group I prefer to play with tends to go for fast combats that we either tip the scales in our advantage a lot or talk our way out of it (we do that a lot, although at one point our ninja almost killed us by continuing a fight with people who outnumbered us four to one instead of just letting them go).

mikeejimbo
2016-05-05, 03:47 PM
For that matter, I submit another one, that annoying bloke, who always puts points into stuff like Intelligence or Charisma, or even skills, in the combat-focused game. Because how could Electronic Engineering ever come in handy?

Haha in the last GURPS game I was in, I had a character who put 128 points into Electronics Engineering (characters were 180 points), and improved all the other Engineering skills from default. It was not a combat oriented game though, so I was only annoying because the other players thought that I had everything covered. I kept trying to tell them that no, I was an idiot savant - impossibly good at Engineering and useless at everything else. Situations I couldn't solve kept coming up and everyone was surprised, but I told them from the beginning what my skills were.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-05, 03:55 PM
Haha in the last GURPS game I was in, I had a character who put 128 points into Electronics Engineering (characters were 180 points), and improved all the other Engineering skills from default. It was not a combat oriented game though, so I was only annoying because the other players thought that I had everything covered. I kept trying to tell them that no, I was an idiot savant - impossibly good at Engineering and useless at everything else. Situations I couldn't solve kept coming up and everyone was surprised, but I told them from the beginning what my skills were.

Eh, was just in a GURPS game and Engineering was a useful skill. It was really noncombat though, because we were all IQ monkeys and so had 3 characters with the social skills to stop fights. My most rolled skill was Public Speaking, and I was there party warrior.

2D8HP
2016-05-05, 04:39 PM
So he literally stabbed the DM? Does that happen often enough to be an archetype?
Archetype or not I'm adding this to my list of reasons for someone else to be the DM!

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-05, 04:42 PM
Archetype or not I'm adding this to my list of reasons for someone else to be the DM!

From personal experience, that isn't going to help. But I guess you wouldn't have as many books/equipment weighing you down when you need to dodge the things thrown at you...

8BitNinja
2016-05-05, 05:04 PM
As a side note, my characters have rarely needed a cleric, as I tend not to play front line fighters (the one time I have I was the cleric), and the group I prefer to play with tends to go for fast combats that we either tip the scales in our advantage a lot or talk our way out of it (we do that a lot, although at one point our ninja almost killed us by continuing a fight with people who outnumbered us four to one instead of just letting them go).

The Holy Order of Paladins will make sure you won't need the cleric. The 115th Fighter Battalion and the barbarians are also there for you.

Professor Gnoll
2016-05-05, 07:40 PM
The Gold Fevered: The one who just wants treasure. Gold, magic items, statues, paintings- anything cool to add to the loot pile. Ready to steal, murder and cheat for more of that shiny, shiny, imaginary plunder. They'll ignore a poor village desperate for protection from an ogre, but readily take on a dragon for a shot at the hoard. When there's no treasure involved, they become decidedly less interested. The kind of player whos first response to finding an Adamantium door is figuring out how to pry it off its hinges and sell it. Tends to carry multiple Bags of Holding.
The most likely to steal from the other players.
Also the most likely to put on cursed rings or die running into a trap with something shiny on the others side.
The Lost: The one that doesn't even play D&D, doesn't know the rules, and has no idea how they ended up at the table.
The most likely to say 'huh?' in response to every question.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-05, 07:42 PM
The Lost: The one that doesn't even play D&D, doesn't know the rules, and has no idea how they ended up at the table.
The most likely to say 'huh?' in response to every question.


The social gamer. They don't really care about the game, they're just here to hang out with their friends. They usually can't be bothered to learn the system, update their character sheet, or remember anything about the plot. 6 months in, they're still asking,"What do I roll again?"

Usually, the Lost is just the social gamer. Else why are in your house? Do random people wander into your games on a frequent basis? If so, you should probably start closing the door during the gaming sessions.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-05, 08:02 PM
Usually, the Lost is just the social gamer. Else why are in your house? Do random people wander into your games on a frequent basis? If so, you should probably start closing the door during the gaming sessions.

I bet the problem is that there's circus performaners living near him. You have to close all the windows or else some guy practising stilts will end up in your house and begin asking why you aren't playing Dominion.

Professor Gnoll
2016-05-05, 08:18 PM
Usually, the Lost is just the social gamer. Else why are in your house? Do random people wander into your games on a frequent basis? If so, you should probably start closing the door during the gaming sessions.
We're talking a guy who was seriously lost. He wasn't even a friend of anyone at the table.
I can't recall for the life of me how he got involved.

8BitNinja
2016-05-05, 09:27 PM
The Pre-Planner: This player has already thoroughly mapped out their character's progression through level 20 - or higher if you're planning an epic campaign - determining at what point to take which level and why, how to allocate every ability they get, and, if they're extremely committed, how they plan to roleplay all their decisions.

While 3.5 made this a necessity for a lot of prestige class prereqs, my tendency to pre-plan every character even while using strictly base classes is the reason I've come to prefer DMing.

This is me right here, I got a pally in my backpack just waiting to be played.

The Zoner: This is the guy who takes forever to do anything, because he's not paying attention. You usually have to remind him that it's his turn in combat and tell him that someone said something to him. Don't expect this guy to be a good support player

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-05, 09:41 PM
We're talking a guy who was seriously lost. He wasn't even a friend of anyone at the table.
I can't recall for the life of me how he got involved.

...How often does this happen to people to be a archetype? As I get up to lock my door...Please tell me you were at a gaming store.

Kitten Champion
2016-05-05, 11:12 PM
...How often does this happen to people to be a archetype? As I get up to lock my door...Please tell me you were at a gaming store.

The Mister MaGoo? happens all the time.

My players could be described thusly,

One's The MacGuyver - we even refer to him as such, at this point - relishes going through and using game mechanics in unintended fashion. He's also kind of The Nuzlocke and will build his characters semi-randomly around the simple goal of experiencing the broadest range available just to see what he can do with it... but he's fairly savvy in getting them somewhat functional at the same time.

Another is The Pacifist - heavily favouring charisma-focused characters - she likes to try to negotiate her way out of everything. Failing that, she goes The Bilbo route and likes to contrive ways of tricking her adversaries through dialogue. She gets bored fairly quickly with actual combat, if she were making Mass Effect it would all be dialogue trees and cinematics.

Behind door number three there's The Question that wants every NPC's backstory and true motives brought forward, every hidden detail about the setting exposed, every nook and cranny of every dungeon explored. If a detail he wants doesn't exists, he'll kindly suggest some for what it should be, and we'll nod politely. It's almost like he doesn't think he gets his money worth unless he's "completed" the scripted elements.

Then there's the Pokemon Trainer - since Pokemon apparently is on my mind - who loves, loves, loves to have a Pet of some kind. Be it an additional person(s) who is in some way subordinated to him, a familiar, or an animal companion of some kind. Much time and care will be spent on said Pet, and its potential loss is met with existential horror... even more than his PC.

Lastly, I frequently run into The Cat, who sits on our table demanding attention and treats while purring incessantly.

As for me, I like playing a different type of character every time. Not mechanically necessarily, but I like changing up their characterizations to contrast with the previous one's, usually in a number of significant ways. I'm very much an RPer, in the sense that I treat the story as more significant to the experience than my character's success and will do what serves it best as much as possible.

Christopher K.
2016-05-05, 11:17 PM
The Cat, who sits on our table demanding attention and treats while purring incessantly.

Oh jeez, don't get me started - I've got a party of 5 players like this. They get along like cats and.. well.. other cats. And they try to crash my other game, too!

Quertus
2016-05-06, 12:12 AM
The Soloist, or The Jack of All Trades: Often, but not necessarily, and Old School Player as well. Every character they build is capable of filling any role to some degree, as if they were building their character to operate without a party. They can fight in melee or at range, can blast multiple targets, buff, debuff, heal, and usually have several useful skills, such as lockpicking, although they may not be particularly good at any of it. Tends to play bards, clerics, druids, or multiclassed characters. They will do this even when it's not to their or the party's advantage to do so and specialization would be vastly preferable, such as when the party already has specialists in several roles that The JoAT has had to significantly weaken their character to be able to (often poorly) perform.

I'm quite prone to do this.

Does always wanting to have some healing (ring of regeneration, level dip in crusader, amulet of emergency healing, something)... Playing an epic level wizard with EWP:shuriken who took a balor's vorpal blade as his share of the loot... And playing a melee-focused fighter who didn't take the shaky flaw... Both of whom have cross-class rogue skills... qualify me for this archetype? Or do I still need to work on it some more?


Mine is a ''HUMANCLERICOFPELORSUNANDGOODDOMAIN CLASS A.1 HEALBOT''
He once won initiative and was confused what to do since everyone was full HP

I know that feeling. This is why my healbot took the unreactive feat flaw. Of course, he also took the slow flaw, and the slow trait, so if you were going to be bleeding to death and asking for his help, you'd best at least have the courtesy to bring your bleeding body over to him before you collapse from your injuries. :smalltongue:

goto124
2016-05-06, 12:20 AM
They'll ignore a poor village desperate for protection from an ogre

Don't you know how this works? You help out the village and get rewarded with a valuable item from their secret stash! Or they give you something they think is worthless, but is actually very useful!


I'm very much an RPer, in the sense that I treat the story as more significant to the experience than my character's success and will do what serves it best as much as possible.

On the other side of the spectrum:
The Shy: Her characters aren't really characters with personalities, more like a bunch of stats and weapons. She is not familiar enough with the game system to break or abuse it, so not a munchkin. However, she isn't much of a roleplayer - she doesn't say much, plays along with the party, and avoids trouble as much as possible. Every once a while she moans about how she's so uncreative, but quickly returns to her default behavior. Seems she's just too scared to play out an actual character.

That's me. Perhaps a result of playing video games where roleplay isn't rewarded, and there's only one way to do anything ever.

Professor Gnoll
2016-05-06, 04:04 AM
The Old-Timer: Incessantly groans about how they wish they were playing one of the older editions. Can't roll a dice without complaining how much better the mechanic was handled back in their day. Similar to The Old-School Player, but with more of a focus on how much better it all used to be.

The Genre Blind: Seems to be completely unaware of the type of setting and game they're in. Wants to play a cyber-ninja in Call of Cthulhu, an uber-wizard in your gritty low-magic setting, and gets upset when they can't be their latest ridiculous archetype. Has a complete disregard for tonal consistency.

illyahr
2016-05-06, 07:25 AM
The Genre Blind: Seems to be completely unaware of the type of setting and game they're in. Wants to play a cyber-ninja in Call of Cthulhu, an uber-wizard in your gritty low-magic setting, and gets upset when they can't be their latest ridiculous archetype. Has a complete disregard for tonal consistency.

Ugh, I've had a couple of those.

Louro
2016-05-06, 08:51 AM
As an addendum to the Old School Player archetype: they may never have played a Gygax module, and may have never looked up a result on the to-hit tables or THAC0'd. The archetype can develop in a new-ish player who's played in a game with another Old School Player teaching them, or playing with an Old School DM who lets stuff like that actually work.

Are you suggesting that DMs shouldn't allow players to use mundane items efficiently?

Louro
2016-05-06, 08:57 AM
The Old-Timer: Incessantly groans about how they wish they were playing one of the older editions. Can't roll a dice without complaining how much better the mechanic was handled back in their day. Similar to The Old-School Player, but with more of a focus on how much better it all used to be.

That was me every time a combat happened in our 3.5 campaign. 6 level 15 players is not funny anymore. Every combat is a pain in the ass, actually.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-06, 11:37 AM
Are you suggesting that DMs shouldn't allow players to use mundane items efficiently?

It depends on genre conventions. Marbles are much less effective in Wuxia games than in an A Song of Ice and Fire game because in the former enough people possess good enough Lightfoot to keep their balance or just jump over them, while in the latter it would act more realistically. Then there's stuff like 10 foot poles, where I fold the use of them into the search skill (favourable condition, +2 bonus) rather than letting them bypass it.

I actually prefer effective use of mundane items being 'I get a favourable circumstance' over 'I bypass the need for a skill'. So the marbles might help you trip someone, like a sword helps you deal damage. Then sometimes they just let you do something, like a ladder is a DC0 climb check or a lighter can start fires.

Nicrosil
2016-05-06, 11:57 AM
The General Custard: Always plays a charismatic melee character and tries to think tactically in battle, but always devolves into just full attacking the enemy each turn.

The Addicted Optimizer: Whenever they need to make a character, or level up, or even think about playing a new class, they always have to look up a few optimization guides. And then they can never unsee those guides, and always kick themselves for not picking a "better" option.

I am both, sadly.

8BitNinja
2016-05-06, 12:09 PM
The Old-Timer: Incessantly groans about how they wish they were playing one of the older editions. Can't roll a dice without complaining how much better the mechanic was handled back in their day. Similar to The Old-School Player, but with more of a focus on how much better it all used to be.

Must be the Stage 2 evolution of the Pokemon known as the Old-Schooler

JAL_1138
2016-05-06, 12:11 PM
Are you suggesting that DMs shouldn't allow players to use mundane items efficiently?

Pelor's beard, no. I encourage Old School equipment use heavily in my games, as well as actions the rules don't provide for explicitly but should logically work.

But I know of (and have--briefly--played under a couple of) DMs that don't let that stuff work; it's going to be a rolled check with a skill from the skill list with them every single time, even if by all logic it shouldn't be possible to fail to use the items in the manner described or otherwise shouldn't require a roll, and I think a lot of the reason there are fewer Old School Players (and that they're called "Old School Players" instead of just "Players") is that newer DMs and stricter skill lists / rules-as-physics discourage it.


EDIT:

The Old-Timer: Incessantly groans about how they wish they were playing one of the older editions. Can't roll a dice without complaining how much better the mechanic was handled back in their day. Similar to The Old-School Player, but with more of a focus on how much better it all used to be.

Wouldn't this be The Grognard (lit. "groaner" or "grumbler" in French)? Or does "Grognard" imply not even playing newer stuff at all?

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-06, 12:15 PM
Pelor's beard, no. I encourage Old School equipment use heavily in my games, as well as actions the rules don't provide for explicitly but should logically work.

But I know of (and have--briefly--played under a couple of) DMs that don't let that stuff work; it's going to be a rolled check with a skill from the skill list with them every single time, even if by all logic it shouldn't be possible to fail to use the items in the manner described or otherwise shouldn't require a roll, and I think a lot of the reason there are fewer Old School Players (and that they're called "Old School Players" instead of just "Players") is that newer DMs and stricter skill lists / rules-as-physics discourage it.

Rules-as-physics leads to way too much contrarian nonsense for me to ever embrace it -- the quasi-reality of the setting as common-sense override power when the rules result in blatant verisimilitude-breakage in any game I run.

8BitNinja
2016-05-06, 01:26 PM
Rules-as-physics leads to way too much contrarian nonsense for me to ever embrace it -- the quasi-reality of the setting as common-sense override power when the rules result in blatant verisimilitude-breakage in any game I run.

In RPGs, laws such as physics, thermodynamics, and reality don't exist

MintyNinja
2016-05-06, 01:33 PM
So many of these are me and my group, but one that I don't think has been touched on yet is...

The Entrepreneur / Builder: The player that tries to create something long lasting in the world around him, be it a tavern, a church, a guild, or a combination of other ideas. This player needs a central location for the campaign that they can always return to. Real estate prices will make them giggle in glee, as will building material prices and labor prices. And yes, this is me.

Psykenthrope
2016-05-06, 01:44 PM
The Genre Blind: Seems to be completely unaware of the type of setting and game they're in. Wants to play a cyber-ninja in Call of Cthulhu, an uber-wizard in your gritty low-magic setting, and gets upset when they can't be their latest ridiculous archetype. Has a complete disregard for tonal consistency.

I've played with this guy. Add on top of that a bad case of ADHD, so he's not paying attention, always on his phone and always wandering off without letting us know beforehand. I played with him for 3 years, and in that time he never learned how to make a character in any of the systems we used, despite focusing on one system at a time for extended periods. I always had to check his math on stats and rolls because he would always come up with the wrong numbers, refused to write down commonly used numbers and refused to use a calculator to help him with his math troubles. Oh, and he would be perpetually showing other people at the table meme and macro images from his phone. His catchphrase was, no joke, "I'm too poor to pay attention."

Quertus
2016-05-06, 02:20 PM
The Shy: Her characters aren't really characters with personalities, more like a bunch of stats and weapons. She is not familiar enough with the game system to break or abuse it, so not a munchkin. However, she isn't much of a roleplayer - she doesn't say much, plays along with the party, and avoids trouble as much as possible. Every once a while she moans about how she's so uncreative, but quickly returns to her default behavior. Seems she's just too scared to play out an actual character.

That's me. Perhaps a result of playing video games where roleplay isn't rewarded, and there's only one way to do anything ever.

Have you talked with your DM about this? Are there any good RPers in your group that you could have your character just talk to?

I remember this one time, when most of the party bailed due to snow, those of us who made it spent the season with our characters talking about stuff in character while on watch. Of course, the swapping stories part works best if you have existing characters who didn't adventure together their entire adventuring careers.



The Genre Blind: Seems to be completely unaware of the type of setting and game they're in. Wants to play a cyber-ninja in Call of Cthulhu, an uber-wizard in your gritty low-magic setting, and gets upset when they can't be their latest ridiculous archetype. Has a complete disregard for tonal consistency.

Some of us can't help if we're tone deaf. :smallredface:


That was me every time a combat happened in our 3.5 campaign. 6 level 15 players is not funny anymore. Every combat is a pain in the ass, actually.

Having played with parties small armies of ~30 PCs (10-15 players) in 2e, where rolls were counter intuitive (do I want high, or low, or high without going over, or...), why would the homogenized 3.x be less accommodating?

nedz
2016-05-06, 02:33 PM
The Hen Pecked
He had been quite a good player until he started turning up with his non player girlfriend. This was fine until she got jealous of the DM and started asserting her dominance by asking the player to make her a cup of tea, or something, as soon as it was his initiative.

Very disruptive, but it got worse when she stopped turning up - owing to her falling out with the other players for various reasons. He would then miss sessions with no warning, or when he did turn up disappear for very long phone calls when we were in the middle of something.

8BitNinja
2016-05-06, 02:41 PM
The Hen Pecked
He had been quite a good player until he started turning up with his non player girlfriend. This was fine until she got jealous of the DM and started asserting her dominance by asking the player to make her a cup of tea, or something, as soon as it was his initiative.

Very disruptive, but it got worse when she stopped turning up - owing to her falling out with the other players for various reasons. He would then miss sessions with no warning, or when he did turn up disappear for very long phone calls when we were in the middle of something.

I've bumped into this guy once or twice

Louro
2016-05-06, 09:01 PM
Having played with parties small armies of ~30 PCs (10-15 players) in 2e, where rolls were counter intuitive (do I want high, or low, or high without going over, or...), why would the homogenized 3.x be less accommodating?
Homogenized? Other than the rolls everything is a mess and highly non-intuitive. Add a strict rule DM, some splatbooks and voila!

- No dude, you can't charge.
- But... The straight line is not touching any occupied hex, not even tangentially!!
- Indeed, but there is a dead kobold laying on your path.

- What's my attack bonus? Plus 6?
- Dunno, plus one luck here
- Three here, morale bonus.
- I have a 2 untyped one, but I don't know if you are in range.
- Count!
- Well, it's a 40 ft area, but I'm flying and I'm not doing trigonometry.
- And... My bonus damage bonus...?

-DM: What do you mean by "160 DMG"???

- I grapple him
- GRAPPLE!!!
- Yeah! Grapple time!
- Host: Does anyone fancy a coffee?

And that's just the rules. If we take into account the fact that we could easily take over any city, or even the kingdom... That's the big inconsistency problem

Quertus
2016-05-06, 10:06 PM
Homogenized? Other than the rolls everything is a mess and highly non-intuitive. Add a strict rule DM, some splatbooks and voila!

- No dude, you can't charge.
- But... The straight line is not touching any occupied hex, not even tangentially!!
- Indeed, but there is a dead kobold laying on your path.

- What's my attack bonus? Plus 6?
- Dunno, plus one luck here
- Three here, morale bonus.
- I have a 2 untyped one, but I don't know if you are in range.
- Count!
- Well, it's a 40 ft area, but I'm flying and I'm not doing trigonometry.
- And... My bonus damage bonus...?

-DM: What do you mean by "160 DMG"???

- I grapple him
- GRAPPLE!!!
- Yeah! Grapple time!
- Host: Does anyone fancy a coffee?

And that's just the rules. If we take into account the fact that we could easily take over any city, or even the kingdom... That's the big inconsistency problem


Ok, I admit I don't remember 2e charging rules for comparison, but we had players who would add every bonus up each time who needed to be trained to pre-add when they get the bonus. We had AoE buffs (to attack and damage, even), sometimes cast by fliers. We had grapple rules almost no one understood, because "AC 10", and because some items interacted oddly with grappling (bracers of AC, IIRC). And you even pointed out how 3.x has rocket tag to speed up combat, and how in 3.x bonuses have types, so you don't have to cross reference every spell / item / source of bonuses for any special stacking rules - you just know automatically how they stack.

So I'm not buying it. Or, rather, I believe you, but I don't understand the why, and I don't feel that your explanation covers it. In fact, this comparison leaves me even more perplexed that average party size, and average number of players that DMs claim to be able to handle, decreased from 2e to 3.x. :smallconfused:

8BitNinja
2016-05-06, 10:35 PM
Having played with parties small armies of ~30 PCs (10-15 players) in 2e, where rolls were counter intuitive (do I want high, or low, or high without going over, or...), why would the homogenized 3.x be less accommodating?

This isn't a squad, it's a platoon

quinron
2016-05-07, 12:34 AM
The Hen Pecked
He had been quite a good player until he started turning up with his non player girlfriend. This was fine until she got jealous of the DM and started asserting her dominance by asking the player to make her a cup of tea, or something, as soon as it was his initiative.

Very disruptive, but it got worse when she stopped turning up - owing to her falling out with the other players for various reasons. He would then miss sessions with no warning, or when he did turn up disappear for very long phone calls when we were in the middle of something.

Or the converse - The Cha-Kings: The gaming couple who always, always play together, whose characters inevitably either start out or end up together, who prefer to RP their dates/romance/etc. instead of focusing on the plot, and who will be willing to completely ignore a dying teammate because their SO's PC is under 1/2 HP.

goto124
2016-05-07, 02:33 AM
Are there any good RPers in your group that you could have your character just talk to?

I tried that. About 5 seconds in, it turned into a one-sided conversation interview where I was asking questions and the other character would answer. Because I'd run out of things to say.


Or the converse - The Cha-Kings: The gaming couple who always, always play together, whose characters inevitably either start out or end up together, who prefer to RP their dates/romance/etc. instead of focusing on the plot, and who will be willing to completely ignore a dying teammate because their SO's PC is under 1/2 HP.

Why Cha-Kings? That sounds more like a King of Charisma with 3.5e-abused levels of Charisma, to breeze through anything involving social skills and Cha checks.

I've played/am playing one end of a couple who focus a lot on each other, but that's always in solo campaigns where one of us would be the GN. So no other players to worry about, and the plot more or less is about the lovely couple :smallbiggrin:

Louro
2016-05-07, 05:36 AM
Quetus:
I never experienced the combat halts in AD&D, which are way common in 3.5.
And more important, world consistency doesn't fall apart as players level up. (PCs are not that powerful and it takes a lot loooonger to lv up)

There might be some reason behind most tables abandoning their 3.5 campaigns when they reach around lv 15 or so.

Edit: what do you mean by rocket tag?

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-07, 06:18 AM
Edit: what do you mean by rocket tag?

Rocket tag is the phenomenon where characters and their enemies are dealing so much damage that increasing survivability is nigh-useless. This is separate from a game where characters are inherently squishy. So Shadowrun is not rocket tag even though characters can die from a lucky hit, the same for low level D&D.

Rocket tag is essentially what happens when it's easier to increase offensive abilities rather than defensive abilities. It's not inherently bad, as the other real options are either a zero sum game or long combats, but it's not what many people want in my experience (which is a mixture of zero-sum, rocket tag, and curbstomps).

illyahr
2016-05-07, 11:05 AM
Or the short version: rocket tag is when everyone tries to maximize stopping power and initiative so they can end the fight in the first few rounds. The "winner" is the one who always goes first and can wipe out an enemy party in his first turn.

Quertus
2016-05-07, 12:45 PM
Early D&D was all about puzzles, problem solving, thinking, pattern recognition, logic, and debating the merits of your ideas with the party.

Which pretty well describes rules lawyering, IMO.

My brother and I can spend 2 hours debating a single rule, and, if we come to a conclusion on how it should work, will walk away feeling that was a great, productive session. I'm just sad that not everybody enjoys the rules lawyering mini game.

Point is, I have personally derailed many a 2e combat (and re-railed many more), yet even I have the experience that 2e had larger parties.

I'm baffled.

EDIT: my other point is, there's got to be some name for the type of player who doggedly pursues something - always mapping out the dungeon, taking 20 on searching every square, tieing up every loose end, etc. Often a stage 2 Rules Lawyer.

Arbane
2016-05-07, 02:03 PM
The Wolverine: the Moody Loner Orphan who's Too Cool For You Lame-os and your Party. Usually tries to make each session at least half about their solo antics.

The Reluctant Adventurer: Really doesn't want to be doing this 'adventuring' thing, and would rather be at home where it's safe. (I was going to call this 'The Bilbo', but it was already taken.)

The Baker: May or may not want to be adventuring, but has no applicable skills for doing so. In the best case, slightly more useful than an empty seat at the table.

(Over on RPG.net, one frustrated GM says they resorted to handing out 'Congratulations, you have successfully escaped the campaign!' certificates to these players.)

JAL_1138
2016-05-07, 04:00 PM
The Reluctant Adventurer: Really doesn't want to be doing this 'adventuring' thing, and would rather be at home where it's safe. (I was going to call this 'The Bilbo', but it was already taken.)


I have a tendency to play a variant of this, especially when playing bards--a random schmuck who would prefer not to adventure, or at least has never sought it out, but whose conscience and/or pragmatism won't let them turn down the quest(s). It won't stop them from grumbling, but when the chips are down they'll refuse any opportunity to back out, and may well be the one prodding the party to help out the quest-giver.

Madbox
2016-05-08, 01:11 AM
The Indy: This is the guy who always has half of a plan worked out, but then decides to just wing it from there. They'll come up with a plan to infiltrate the villain's lair by posing as a guard, but not have a clear idea of how they'll get the macguffin and get back out.

Whether this player is any good depends on their improv skills. At their best, no one ever realizes how much they made up along the way and are seen as brilliant planners. At their worst, they just seem to be hyperactive loonies.

Named after TV Trope's "Indy Plan", which is itself named for Indiana Jones.

quinron
2016-05-08, 01:47 AM
Why Cha-Kings? That sounds more like a King of Charisma with 3.5e-abused levels of Charisma, to breeze through anything involving social skills and Cha checks.

I've played/am playing one end of a couple who focus a lot on each other, but that's always in solo campaigns where one of us would be the GN. So no other players to worry about, and the plot more or less is about the lovely couple :smallbiggrin:

Heh, Cha-Kings is a reference to a book I read in high school. I remember very little about the story outside of the fact that there were two secondary characters who were an incredibly affectionate couple, and everyone called them the Cha-Kings because "cha-king" is the sound of an airlock closing and they were always glommed onto each other.

8BitNinja
2016-05-08, 01:56 AM
The Ninja: Not what you think it is, the ninja is the one who actually gets worse when they are playing with more people, due to any reason

The Sam Fisher: What you thought the ninja would be. This guy feels the need to sneak attack every attack. He also has lots of points on hide and move silently

Vknight
2016-05-08, 01:50 PM
From my time behind the table in both games at my house and online I have a few.

The Wait I Have To Talk Flower?
Though similar to the wallflower superficially. They will communicate and roleplay with the other characters and at times with the NPC's; but the moment a NPC initiates a conversation with them, or they need to communicate with an NPC to move the plot forwards, for whatever the reason may be they clam up

The Minecrafter
If your doing a game on skype this is the player doing something innocuous that gets them zoned out. Unlike the person that zones out at the table this is because they get to focused on whatever it is they are doing. Sometimes they just were not engaged enough, sometimes they already are a person that zones out whatever it may be they don't do it all the time but it happens.

AFK
This is the player who won't say a word, won't post something in the chat and when you decide to interact with them consistently is not there only for when you decide to go back to the other players for them to return.
There are many variations on this type

The Grid
This player can't stand not having a grid layout map to move across or along, it doesn't matter your playing Shadowrun, FATE, Wild Talents they will get annoyed/angry/stressed at the GM for no maps.
If you give the group a map that doesn't include a grid then s/he gets even more stressed/angry/annoyed as they can't figure out where they can move too

The Hit & Miss
This is the player who hits average on the dice rolls if he can hit 80% of the time then 8 out of 10 shots will hit.
But this player will fail spectacularly at rolls that can be the least important thing 9 times out of 10. They are the player who in Vampire always crit-fails hunting, the guy with Adaptability in Eclipse Phase who rolls 88 twice; what have you.
On the reverse side of the scale they will near always get the roll which wins the group the fight in a single round. They get that amazing roll and are able to sneak attack the Boss and follow it up with a crit for more pain.

Stingy Guy
In a game system where re-rolls and other such things exists, this is the player who has an all consuming inability to spend them even on life or death scenarios because they may need them more later. This player will save them away and build stacks of X and never get to use em.

8BitNinja
2016-05-08, 01:59 PM
The Lunatic: The one guy who may or may not be listening, but instead of asking what's going on when not knowing (probably due to pride), he takes extremely inappropriate actions. Will most likely attack gazebos

2D8HP
2016-05-08, 02:09 PM
The Lunatic: The one guy who may or may not be listening, but instead of asking what's going on when not knowing (probably due to pride), he takes extremely inappropriate actions. Will most likely attack gazebos
What is inappropriate about attacking gazebos? The extreme evil and treachery of the dread gazebo is well known!:smallredface:

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-08, 03:06 PM
The 'I've been Roleplaying for 30 years!' (AKA, giving Old School a bad name): You quickly learn why this purported veteran of role-playing describes their supposed roleplaying prowess in terms of years they've tried to do it: Because they're really bad at it so they don't have a better metric. This doesn't apply to most old-school gamers, just the ones that tend to present themselves as being good solely based on a number of years instead of more sensible ways. They go to prove that experience only teaches when people are willing to listen.

Expect many wonders, such as them trying to play a character they've been playing for a decade, despite the DM wanting everyone to start fresh both in and out of character. They'll never bother to learn the setting properly, and even when faced with corrections or a homebrew setting will insist on being right due to 'experience'. IT was that way in whatever edition of whatever game they started with, so by golly, they're going to plow ahead with their set in stone expectations even if the group is trying to get them to stop murdering the peaceful druidic orcs who want to defend their homelands.

Often coupled with Mary Sues who look down at the rest of the party, just as the player often looks down at anyone born after 1990 who might have enjoyed a round or two of Call of Duty at some point in their life. Clearly such a crime indicates that they can never ever truly enjoy the depths of role playing and must be informed of this at all times.

rooster707
2016-05-08, 06:48 PM
Stingy Guy
In a game system where re-rolls and other such things exists, this is the player who has an all consuming inability to spend them even on life or death scenarios because they may need them more later. This player will save them away and build stacks of X and never get to use em.

Heh, this is me in just about every video game ever.

8BitNinja
2016-05-08, 10:58 PM
What is inappropriate about attacking gazebos? The extreme evil and treachery of the dread gazebo is well known!:smallredface:

You're right! I remember now

Let's all have a moment of silence for Sir Eric, one of the most valiant paladin's to fall in battle

Vknight
2016-05-08, 10:59 PM
Heh, this is me in just about every video game ever.

Its often a temporary title.
I've seen on more then one occasion a player who knows they will be restocked with Fate points or Moxie, or what have you next session save there last 3 for no reason, when they know the game is coming to an end.

Sol
2016-05-08, 11:43 PM
The does something else instead
This is the player who regularly, if sometimes legitimately unintentionally, misses encounters because he's off solo-roleplaying another scenario. Maybe the party gets ambushed by bandits on the way back to the ship, and this player misses it because he teleported back. Or maybe he's just shopping a few streets over, or taking a self-declared map instead of placing his token on the map. Either way, once the split has been acknowledged, making any effort to assist the party would be metagaming, so is to be avoided at all costs.

Yes, one of my groups has one of these. I hate this behavior, but he finds it very funny.

Joe the Rat
2016-05-09, 10:43 AM
The Minecrafter
If your doing a game on skype this is the player doing something innocuous that gets them zoned out. Unlike the person that zones out at the table this is because they get to focused on whatever it is they are doing. Sometimes they just were not engaged enough, sometimes they already are a person that zones out whatever it may be they don't do it all the time but it happens.The key difference between the Minecrafter and the Multitasker is that the Multitasker plays better with a little distraction.


The Hit & Miss
This is the player who hits average on the dice rolls if he can hit 80% of the time then 8 out of 10 shots will hit.
But this player will fail spectacularly at rolls that can be the least important thing 9 times out of 10. They are the player who in Vampire always crit-fails hunting, the guy with Adaptability in Eclipse Phase who rolls 88 twice; what have you.
On the reverse side of the scale they will near always get the roll which wins the group the fight in a single round. They get that amazing roll and are able to sneak attack the Boss and follow it up with a crit for more pain.I call this one Dr. Strangeluck.

8BitNinja
2016-05-09, 01:37 PM
That One Guy: This is the guy who always goes to far, and manages to horrify, offend, or disgust everyone present

Vknight
2016-05-09, 02:42 PM
The key difference between the Minecrafter and the Multitasker is that the Multitasker plays better with a little distraction.

I call this one Dr. Strangeluck.

This is true and multitaskers are great because you know they can do something minor like solitaire and still be fully engaged.

I have one in my current group it amazing. He crit-failed a check where he needed to roll an 85 or below, and then crit-failed the re-roll

8BitNinja
2016-05-09, 05:14 PM
The Socializer: Not to be confused with the roleplayer. This guy does nothing but have off topic conversations

Madbox
2016-05-09, 07:11 PM
The Glory Hound: This is the murderhobo who complains about people stealing his kills. Would rather let a teammate die than lose a round of combat to lay on hands, cure wounds, or pass them a potion.

The Meme-ster: If they aren't spouting off existing memes from the web, then they won't quit repeating the only halfway funny joke someone made three sessions ago.

Joe the Rat
2016-05-09, 07:32 PM
That One Guy: This is the guy who always goes to far, and manages to horrify, offend, or disgust everyone present

That's me! Well, not always. Not always intentionally either. But I do know how to stun a table.

Efrate
2016-05-09, 08:46 PM
I have seen. played with, Dmed for, and been way too many of these at times.

Let see my Thursday group has a gloryhound lootmaster; a goes off by himself, can't do the maths, constantly out of game and gets antsy if not his turn (hes 17 I cut him more slack than normal); a shy wallflower who doesn't seem to grasp the system, use any options but attack, and is easily distracted by other things; and a consumate roleplayer who can and will unintentionally usurp nearly an entire session acting out a conversation with Bill the Bartender who told him go talk to the old smith she knows the truth.

My friday group has:

The sex kitten, hedonistic character who goes off on her own looking for drugs and treats most in game stuff as inconsequential, like mentioning that the paladin had secretly fell and was plotting something as an afterthrought when asked something totally unrelated.

Meme-master/beats jokes to death/does a bit of sillyness/is all about the crunch and bad at it.

The useless in general also beats jokes to death but plays an archtypically niave character who doesn't have to or need to make decisions, just follows the lead. Pulls it off well usually but can be a drain on resources. Likes playing stuff like bow weilding rangers with no pet, distracting attack, and only hunter's mercy ever seem to be cast with a basic bow.

The mechanically sound, rp sound, but why am I doing this with any of you my character would not help or assist you in any way unless someone has dirt on him. In character he rarely forms relationships but has good depth.

Spotlight hogging RPer who always plays something outlandish and obscure, often with evil/insane tendencies and as close to functionally immortal as possible so he can be old and wise, and who is at least semi-optimized and highly specialized even when power level is a lot lower.

An ADHD player who plays his character well but never in character, repeats relayed information in bursts like "I tell them what I learned", but if not focused on does something with his phone. Can RP and mechanically play well, but often takes way too long planning turns.

Also the Non-Playing Spouse Usually the significant other of a player, often of the host, who sits at the table with their Sig other and while not massively disruptive will sometimes ask for clarification on why xyz is happening, often with actual curiosity. Frustrating for immersion though.

8BitNinja
2016-05-09, 10:20 PM
The Glory Hound: This is the murderhobo who complains about people stealing his kills. Would rather let a teammate die than lose a round of combat to lay on hands, cure wounds, or pass them a potion.

The Meme-ster: If they aren't spouting off existing memes from the web, then they won't quit repeating the only halfway funny joke someone made three sessions ago.

I know these guys all too well

goto124
2016-05-10, 02:06 AM
Also the Non-Playing Spouse Usually the significant other of a player, often of the host, who sits at the table with their Sig other and while not massively disruptive will sometimes ask for clarification on why xyz is happening, often with actual curiosity. Frustrating for immersion though.

Start playing a really nonsensical game!

"Why are you smothering the orcs with cream pies?"
"Because it's fun!"

quinron
2016-05-10, 03:05 AM
The Captain: No matter what group they're in, no matter what character they're playing - be it a heroic knight or an anonymous sneak-thief - this player always ends up being the leader of the party. The Captain can be a bully of sorts, taking control by always interpolating themselves into conversations and forcibly directing the story, or they may just passively gain command by genuinely being the best leader in the party.

The Counter Monkey: This player spends all their free time hanging around their RPG-playing friends and "regaling" them with tales of their most recent travails; once they've gone through those, they ramble on with an endless sequence of "Have I ever told you about the time..."

The Baron Munchausen: A subset of the Counter Monkey, the Munchausen also enjoys telling elaborate stories of their RPG exploits; the difference, though, is that this player didn't actually do any of the cool things they talk about; maybe they were part of the same party but weren't involved in the action, maybe they just heard this story from someone else, or maybe they made the whole thing up.

I've got both types of Captain in the game I'm running right now, with the passive expert seeming to be the group-preferred leader, and one of my best friends is the Munchausen.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-10, 04:47 AM
The Captain: No matter what group they're in, no matter what character they're playing - be it a heroic knight or an anonymous sneak-thief - this player always ends up being the leader of the party. The Captain can be a bully of sorts, taking control by always interpolating themselves into conversations and forcibly directing the story, or they may just passively gain command by genuinely being the best leader in the party.

Ah, I had the latter variety in the group I just finished a game with. She was the GM's wife (no extra pie for her though), who everyone just naturally differed to because she's more intelligent than us.

Mutazoia
2016-05-10, 05:16 AM
Are we re-hashing this? (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm)

2D8HP
2016-05-10, 08:46 AM
The 'I've been Roleplaying for 30 years!' (AKA, giving Old School a bad name): You quickly learn why this purported veteran of role-playing describes their supposed roleplaying prowess in terms of years they've tried to do it: Because they're really bad at it so they don't have a better metric.
Moi?:smallfrown:

The useless in general also beats jokes to death but plays an archtypically niave character who doesn't have to or need to make decisions, just follows the lead. Pulls it off well usually but can be a drain on resources. Likes playing stuff like bow weilding rangers with no pet, distracting attack, and only hunter's mercy ever seem to be cast with a basic bow.

Me to a tee.:smallsmile:

Are we re-hashing this? (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm)Hilarious! I guess I'm really just a middle-aged "Munchkin", I am definitely not a "Real role-player"!
Tried and didn't like the other RPG's I've played as much as DnD, hate careful deliberation, just want to "waste" scaly types with longbows and swords (no spells for me!), and I have a giant stack of RIP 1st level PC's!:smallbiggrin:

Belac93
2016-05-10, 09:00 AM
Are we re-hashing this? (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm)

I think I'm probably a real roleplayer, but it depends on how I feel that day. I can also sometimes be a Loonie or Munchkin. But, its only my characters who are Real Men.

rooster707
2016-05-10, 09:39 AM
The Socializer: Not to be confused with the roleplayer. This guy does nothing but have off topic conversations

This is my entire group 99% of the time.

2D8HP
2016-05-10, 09:40 AM
I think I'm probably a real roleplayer, but it depends on how I feel that day. I can also sometimes be a Loonie or Munchkin. But, its only my characters who are Real Men.
As far as I can tell, unless you have an unusually indulgent DM, any PC you play that fits the description of.a "Real Man" (real stupid?) becomes real dead, real soon! Of the four only the "Real role-player" might survive long enough to level up (but where's the sport in that?).

Winter_Wolf
2016-05-10, 11:13 AM
The key difference between the Minecrafter and the Multitasker is that the Multitasker plays better with a little distraction.

Amusingly (to myself and almost none of my professors) this is literally the only reason I graduated from university. If I look like I'm really intent on your every word, you've already lost me completely. I truly cannot parse any of the words coming out of your mouth because I'm wrapped up in my own, more entertaining, fantasy in my head. I copped to it in one class, too. I was left to my own devices after and managed a solid "B". I knew the professor and had a previous class with them, and several after, so I had already a little credibility and goodwill built up. Come to think of it, he went on to become my thesis advisor. Good person, very knowledgable; way over my head 90% of the time. I did care, I just couldn't keep up with the sheer volume of information.

The non-playing spouse should be humored if they're actually curious, I think; they might become a playing spouse. 'Course, that might bring its own baggage, but better than The Angry Non-playing Spouse.

Quertus
2016-05-10, 01:01 PM
Amusingly (to myself and almost none of my professors) this is literally the only reason I graduated from university. If I look like I'm really intent on your every word, you've already lost me completely. I truly cannot parse any of the words coming out of your mouth because I'm wrapped up in my own, more entertaining, fantasy in my head. I copped to it in one class, too. I was left to my own devices after and managed a solid "B". I knew the professor and had a previous class with them, and several after, so I had already a little credibility and goodwill built up. Come to think of it, he went on to become my thesis advisor. Good person, very knowledgable; way over my head 90% of the time. I did care, I just couldn't keep up with the sheer volume of information.

The non-playing spouse should be humored if they're actually curious, I think; they might become a playing spouse. 'Course, that might bring its own baggage, but better than The Angry Non-playing Spouse.

In college, one of my professors saw me sitting in the back, by the door (the total slacker's spot). He noted the open books (novel and gaming books), dice, and snacks. And I noticed him take note of these things as he walked in the door, first day of class. When I never more than glanced up at him during his lecture, he made a point to call on me - quite literally half the time he asked a question about his lecture, he specifically addressed that question to me.

When, without fail, I would give a complete and well-reasoned answer, without ever looking up from my gaming books, after two weeks he came to understand that was just how I am.

Teachers have to teach to the slowest member of the class. If you want me to stay engaged, my mind has to be occupied - and teaching to the slowest member of the class just won't cut it.

One of my fellow students (in another class) brought a coloring book to class every day. It wasn't just me.

Actually, this same professor came to appreciate how much I paid attention, and how well I understood what was going on.

One day, well into the semester, my professor was trying to explain token ring LAN topography.

For those of you that don't know, originally, computers just communicated on their network whenever they wanted to. Well, whenever anyone else wasn't already talking, that is. In order to deal with the problem when two computers started talking at the same time, they simultaneously listened to what they were saying - if what they heard want the same as what they were saying, they would just scream random gibberish for a bit, to make sure that the other computer(s) knew that 2+ computers had been talking at the same time. Then (to keep them from starting back up at the same time), whenever anyone heard gibberish, everyone would go silent for a random amount of time before talking again.

This worked well for a few, usually quiet computers. But the more computers you added, and the more frequent the traffic, the less efficient this technique became.

So someone invented token ring. The network has a "token". Only the computer with the token is allowed to talk. It is only allowed to talk for so long before it has to pass the token to the next computer. A computer with the token does not need to keep the token for the full duration - it may pass the token as soon as it is done talking.

Yes, there is some inefficiency in passing the token around, but for large, active networks, this is much more efficient than the time lost due to multiple computers speaking at once.

The class didn't get it.

Nobody seemed to get it. Everybody was asking questions about how you knew who had the token, complaining about the complicated time-sharing algorithms that would have to be dynamically updated whenever you added a new computer to the network, etc.

It was a total train wreck. And none of my professor's perfectly reasonable responses seemed to sink in. They just didn't get it.

Then I raised my hand. This never happened. You could just see my professor's heart sink. Having boldly tried, to no avail, to fend off every question and misconception from my classmates, he seemed to lose hope at the idea that I, too, was lost. He hesitantly called my name.

It's just like smoking a joint. You take the joint, you take your toke, you pass it on. If you don't want a toke, you just take the joint, and pass it on. If someone joins the group, all you gotta know is who's passing to them - there is no complicated time sharing algorithm.

The class was silent. After a few moments, the professor asked if anyone still didn't understand token ring. The class was silent.

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-10, 01:09 PM
That's hilarious on multiple levels...


If you don't get it: token vs tokin'...

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-10, 01:10 PM
Unfortunately, the problem is when a Minecrafter insists they are a Multitasker, but just plain aren't and refuse to give up any sort of distraction.

8BitNinja
2016-05-10, 01:24 PM
As far as I can tell, unless you have an unusually indulgent DM, any PC you play that fits the description of.a "Real Man" (real stupid?) becomes real dead, real soon! Of the four only the "Real role-player" might survive long enough to level up (but where's the sport in that?).

I'm don't think that masculinity = stupidity. I think what he means is that a man stands there and takes the problem head on. It's not stupidity, it's honor

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-10, 01:44 PM
I'm don't think that masculinity = stupidity. I think what he means is that a man stands there and takes the problem head on. It's not stupidity, it's honor

Also, I've met people who are 'real men' and yet will play a wizard. This leads to two things:
1) taking the most damaging spells with the greatest area of effect.
2) complaining when the dex-based fighter wins initiative and charges into the middle of the enemies to lock them down.

In this case I was the fighter and was specifically only mid-op (a lockdown fighter with a specifically bad weapon for it). I heard a lot of complaints from the wizard about how he couldn't blast anything.

For the record, I'd suggested that he go with something like a Transmuter or Illusionist when we were making characters. He essentially said 'why would I play a wizard if I can't throw fireballs?'
An illusionist who had banned evocation.
An Unknown Armies Authentic Thaumaturgist, so I had no blasting, only a few curses (...of hiccups).
An ex-warlock in a homebrew system, limited to commanding and banishing demons and ghosts (I could summon, but that would have dammed me stupidly quickly).

Sometimes they just stupidly limit themselves and then complain about it. I have nothing against real men, it's just that they generally seem to get annoyed at my strategies.

2D8HP
2016-05-10, 02:50 PM
I'm don't think that masculinity = stupidity. I think what he means is that a man stands there and takes the problem head on. It's not stupidity, it's honorWell yeah...IRL, but what's that got to do with anything? :smallsmile: I've got a giant pile of deceased PC character sheets to show what happens when your PC has honor.:smallfrown:
And yeah, I actually do fit the "real man" profile in the link:

Are we re-hashing this? (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm)even closer than the "Munchkin" but it seemed funnier to take on the Munchkin label. Also from what the link described (including preferring Ale and Led Zepplin etc.) the "Real man" profile described fits too many women I've known, making it somewhat awkward to use as a description. But "acts with a code of honor and remembers the 1970's" while fitting better, just seems too long so I'll stick with "middle-aged Munchkin" for now.:smallbiggrin:

8BitNinja
2016-05-10, 05:04 PM
Well yeah...IRL, but what's that got to do with anything? :smallsmile: I've got a giant pile of deceased PC character sheets to show what happens when your PC has honor.:smallfrown:

When my PCs have honor, they live

*looks at most recent character sheet*

oh, that's because they have a reaaaally high AC

Quertus
2016-05-10, 05:10 PM
That's hilarious on multiple levels...


If you don't get it: token vs tokin'...


Yeah. I've never researched it, but I've often wondered if that wasn't secretly the origin of the term. :smallwink:

Madbox
2016-05-10, 07:57 PM
Yeah. I've never researched it, but I've often wondered if that wasn't secretly the origin of the term. :smallwink:

I always assumed that it was based off of the "talking stick" idea, where there is some sort of symbol of authority, and only the person holding it may speak. Anyone else who wants to talk raises their hand, and then the talking stick gets passed to them. Of course, I'm a naive stick-in-the-mud irl, so of course I'd fail to make the toke/token connection :smallredface:

Anyways, while we're on about real men-roleplayers-loonies-munchkins, I'm probably a loonie/munchkin hybrid. I like goofy character ideas, and like creative, off the wall plans, but I like being effective at killing baddies.

Belac93
2016-05-10, 08:16 PM
As far as I can tell, unless you have an unusually indulgent DM, any PC you play that fits the description of.a "Real Man" (real stupid?) becomes real dead, real soon! Of the four only the "Real role-player" might survive long enough to level up (but where's the sport in that?).

I would not call it stupid, just brave. That doesn't (usually) mean suicidal, but probably more like ambitious, with slightly less regard for personal safety.

8BitNinja
2016-05-10, 10:21 PM
I would not call it stupid, just brave. That doesn't (usually) mean suicidal, but probably more like ambitious, with slightly less regard for personal safety.

But there is a difference between courage and bravery, and courage is better

I think John-117 once said "Bravery is not being afraid of doing something, Courage is doing it"

but I'm heavily paraphrasing

goto124
2016-05-11, 12:56 AM
I think John-117 once said "Bravery is not being afraid of doing something, Courage is doing it"

I've heard that courage is not the lack of fear, but overcoming that fear to do something anyway.

The term 'real man', especially with the quotes, personally makes me think of a man who does all sorts of stupid, suicidal, and unhelpful things in the name of 'manliness', which is actually closer to toxic masculinity.

nedz
2016-05-11, 06:26 AM
I've heard that courage is not the lack of fear, but overcoming that fear to do something anyway.

The term 'real man', especially with the quotes, personally makes me think of a man who does all sorts of stupid, suicidal, and unhelpful things in the name of 'manliness', which is actually closer to toxic masculinity.

Machismo is the word you are looking for - and it is quite annoying.

"I do X, because that's what a man would do" - rather than having any rational reason or even thinking of the consequences. Also: Fighting, because.

8BitNinja
2016-05-11, 01:24 PM
Just saying guys, we are getting really off topic, can we try to get back to the original topic?

Arbane
2016-05-12, 01:31 AM
The Odd Man Out: That one player who make characters that not only don't fit in your game, their presence actively derails the intended theme. If you told the players this was a low-magic game, they make an archmage. Tell them it's a game about 1920's gangsters, they want to play a time-traveller. Tell them it's a villain game, they make a Paladin. Tell them it's about courtly intrigue, and they bring a drunken illiterate barbarian. Tell them it's about bloodthirsty Viking raiders, they'll make a pacifist Irish monk.

Possible solution: Play Over the Edge. When everyone is playing talking dogs, telephone psychics (who actually read can minds via telephone), or intelligent baseball-card collections, they'll feel compelled to make an accountant from Cleveland named Fred.

8BitNinja
2016-05-12, 01:15 PM
Tell them it's a villain game, they make a Paladin.

*Slowly inches out of the room*

Raimun
2016-05-12, 05:52 PM
Real Man (the roleplaying archetype) means someone who enjoys the combat encounters. All people who are like this, like to keep their weapons close by but when the time for the battle draws near, their methods vary.

Some of them instantly yell and charge at the middle of the room full of monsters. There they will be outflanked and mauled to death, unless they have amazing defenses or the monsters roll really bad. These Real Men fight for honor.

(This type has most likely watched a superhero movie, fighting anime or the umphteenth Conan-movie marathon recently. While fun to watch, they are not known for their sound tactical advice.)

Some of them take a good look at the field of battle first and try to come up with the best course of action under the circumstances. These plans include varying rations of fighting the battle on your own terms and calculated risks. These Real Men fight for victory.

(This type has probably a wargaming background. You might be even using their miniatures for an RPG combat encounter).

So, as you can see, there are many ways to enjoy a combat.

8BitNinja
2016-05-12, 05:57 PM
Real Man (the roleplaying archetype) means someone who enjoys the combat encounters. All people who are like this, like to keep their weapons close by but when the time for the battle draws near, their methods vary.

Some of them instantly yell and charge at the middle of the room full of monsters. There they will be outflanked and mauled to death, unless they have amazing defenses or the monsters roll really bad. These Real Men fight for honor.

(This type has most likely watched a superhero movie or fighting anime recently. Those can be fun, even if they don't usually offer sound tactical advice.)

Some of them take a good look at the field of battle first and try to come up with the best course of action under the circumstances. These plans include varying rations of fighting the battle on your own terms and calculated risks. These Real Men fight for victory.

(This type has probably a wargaming background. You might be even using their miniatures for an RPG combat encounter).

So, as you can see, there are many ways to enjoy a combat.

That means I am a real man

:smallcool:

2D8HP
2016-05-12, 07:21 PM
The Odd Man Out: That one player who make characters that not only don't fit in your game, their presence actively derails the intended theme. If you told the players this was a low-magic game, they make an archmage. Tell them it's a game about 1920's gangsters, they want to play a time-traveller. Tell them it's a villain game, they make a Paladin. Tell them it's about courtly intrigue, and they bring a drunken illiterate barbarian.
-snip-
That's not completely true!
I have also played a drunken illiterate barbarian when it was appropriate as well!

EDIT:

My bad!
I've just been reminded by my better half that I once tried to play a scholar in a game of "Call of Cthullu" (not as fun as DnD).
I am again "reminded" that the problem is that I'm a (often) drunken illiterate barbarian IRL who fails in attempts to play anything else, and insteads "really gets into the character". Oops!
-Sorry

8BitNinja
2016-05-12, 11:05 PM
That's not completely true!
I have also played a drunken illiterate barbarian when it was appropriate as well!

Isn't a drunken illiterate barbarian just a normal barbarian?

Please call me out if I offend any barbarians out there

goto124
2016-05-13, 03:51 AM
Tell them it's a villain game, they make a Paladin.

What's wrong with that? Sounds like the perfect fit!

Lacco
2016-05-13, 04:07 AM
Has "I want to play [insert exotic race] but without the [drawback & roleplaying stuff]" been covered already?

2D8HP
2016-05-13, 08:23 AM
Isn't a drunken illiterate barbarian just a normal barbarian?
When you do it right! :smallbiggrin:
(OK if I remember previous editions correctly, only the illiterate part is RAW, but c'mon, where's the sport in that?).

Raimun
2016-05-13, 11:07 AM
That means I am a real man

:smallcool:

High five! :smallcool:

Âmesang
2016-05-13, 11:17 AM
What's wrong with that? Sounds like the perfect fit!
After all, who kills more fun than paladins? :smalltongue: Totally villainous!
https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/backup/pictures/avatars/first%20rule.png

8BitNinja
2016-05-13, 11:53 AM
Has "I want to play [insert exotic race] but without the [drawback & roleplaying stuff]" been covered already?

No it hasn't, but thanks for mentioning it.

I don't like these guys, but on a scale of 1 to 10 on annoying, they are about a 2.6834 (rounding) for me

IronLionShark
2016-05-13, 10:08 PM
Well I read this and noticed a few missing I may or may not have been in the past...
PCs:
The Politician: This is sort of a blend. The politician will try to lead the party while trying to seem like the politician is not. The politician will plan for many possible outcomes. The politician will try to soak in as much information as possible. (Hint:check for actively writing into a notebook.) The politician usually does not choose up close and personal combat classes (i.e: fighters,barbarians, and paladins) . The politician may be strangely absent from combat encounter for various reasons. Politicians often rules lawyer to varying degrees. They often try to hide under a veil of mystery. They can be amazingly wonderful or incredibly annoying.
DMs:
The skinner box: The skinner box uses treasure to reinforce good behavior such as not murdering each other for no reason.
The magic item man: This DM avoids giving out money and instead gives out way too many magic items and artifacts.
The DM that has to much free time to pick monsters: This DM knows a variety of monsters, creates homebrew ones. If you have seen an ooze inside a living armor suit drinking tea with a werewolf you may have spotted one.
The (good) improv DM: This DM has a basic guideline of what to do and knows how to improv well. This DM has learned to be adaptable and is more accepting of things such as randomly jumping on a boat and sailing to a new land in the middle of something else. (That doesn't mean the DM won't hold a grudge for ruining his ideas.)

8BitNinja
2016-05-13, 10:57 PM
The dramatic reader: The DM who reads straight out of a module. End of story

JAL_1138
2016-05-14, 07:14 AM
The Hydrophobe: Often but not necessarily an Old-School Player as well, this player will go to absurd lengths to avoid bodies of water. They'll do anything in their power to avoid getting on any kind of boat, raft, barge, etc., and will probably not go swimming even if their very life depends on it. Expect them to take an extra six weeks of land travel to go around a lake they could cross in half a day in a rowboat. Completely unrelated to the player's RL opinion of water--they might be an Olympic swimmer or professional diver outside the game, but their character won't be happy if they can even see a body of water.

Khedrac
2016-05-14, 09:16 AM
The Hydrophobe: Often but not necessarily an Old-School Player as well, this player will go to absurd lengths to avoid bodies of water. They'll do anything in their power to avoid getting on any kind of boat, raft, barge, etc., and will probably not go swimming even if their very life depends on it. Expect them to take an extra six weeks of land travel to go around a lake they could cross in half a day in a rowboat. Completely unrelated to the player's RL opinion of water--they might be an Olympic swimmer or professional diver outside the game, but their character won't be happy if they can even see a body of water.
Oh yes - this one brings back memories. When I was at Uni there was a sort-of shared Glorantha for a lot of the RuneQuest campaigns going on (6 or 8 campaigns at least?)

I think we set the record - we had the first voyage that actually ended up at its planned destination for the entire shared world. (Those that ended up on the same plane as they started were rare enough.)

I think pretty much every player counted as a Hydrophobe to one degree or another...

IronLionShark
2016-05-14, 10:45 AM
The Hydrophobe: Often but not necessarily an Old-School Player as well, this player will go to absurd lengths to avoid bodies of water. They'll do anything in their power to avoid getting on any kind of boat, raft, barge, etc., and will probably not go swimming even if their very life depends on it. Expect them to take an extra six weeks of land travel to go around a lake they could cross in half a day in a rowboat. Completely unrelated to the player's RL opinion of water--they might be an Olympic swimmer or professional diver outside the game, but their character won't be happy if they can even see a body of water.

I have two similar ones:
Chestophobe: Same thing, except replace water with containers.
Fiendophobe: Same thing just replace water with fiends.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-14, 11:47 AM
Chestophobe: Same thing, except replace water with containers.

I originally thought you meant the other kind of chest. Although given what I've heard about how some GMs use women in their games, that wouldn't surprise me.

IronLionShark
2016-05-14, 01:28 PM
I originally thought you meant the other kind of chest. Although given what I've heard about how some GMs use women in their games, that wouldn't surprise me.

Speaking of that:
Oralphobe: Will do anything to avoid mouths and the sphere of annihilation that may reside inside of them.

Âmesang
2016-05-14, 01:36 PM
Has "I want to play but without the [drawback & roleplaying stuff]" been covered already?
Had a player like that who's drow, after compromises, ended up as little more than an "elf in black face," so to speak. :smalltongue: For him it seemed that playing a "drow" was more important than having their abilities, and after finding various fixes (half-drow, lesser drow, Save Progression's drow racial levels), it should be easier to handle in future events.

He roleplayed it well, I suppose… in that he played a chaotic evil drow who shot everything in the face because "lulz, chaotic evil." Lost some potential secrets-spilling prisoners that way. :smallconfused:

[I]"But the cleric NPC can just cast speak with dead!"

2D8HP
2016-05-14, 01:52 PM
I have two similar ones:
Chestophobe: Same thing, except replace water with containers.
Fiendophobe: Same thing just replace water with fiends.The "outside-of-tavern-ophobe", unwilling to leave the Tavern and actually start the quest. That might actually be IRL though.
Carry on.

8BitNinja
2016-05-14, 01:56 PM
The Hydrophobe: Often but not necessarily an Old-School Player as well, this player will go to absurd lengths to avoid bodies of water. They'll do anything in their power to avoid getting on any kind of boat, raft, barge, etc., and will probably not go swimming even if their very life depends on it. Expect them to take an extra six weeks of land travel to go around a lake they could cross in half a day in a rowboat. Completely unrelated to the player's RL opinion of water--they might be an Olympic swimmer or professional diver outside the game, but their character won't be happy if they can even see a body of water.

Two words

Aquatic monsters

Roughishguy86
2016-05-14, 02:46 PM
The I always have a back-up character guy: This guy spends his free time not gaming writing up literally dozens of characters just in case his group needs something new or his character dies. He creates each of these characters to be unique and writes their backstory ahead of time.

I am this guy I currently have 28 5e characters wrote up of various levels classes and races just in case someone invites me to a session.

JAL_1138
2016-05-14, 04:49 PM
Two words

Aquatic monsters

Not to mention drowning, the fact that only certain weapons worked underwater, the difficulties with spellcasting underwater, the possibility of sinking due to armor, spellbooks getting ruined...combine that with the fact that there's nearly always a monster in it, and nothing good can come of it.

Water = bad. Always.

The only safe water is water that you, when playing a Cleric, have personally created with magic for drinking purposes and then cast a spell to remove poison from.

Roughishguy86
2016-05-14, 05:03 PM
I love every thread that I see Jal post in and how often his fear of in game water comes up.

My uncle's a lot like this He's very much an old school gamer and he's almost impossible to trick, trap and/or force into any sort of a bad situation as he always has some simple yet genius way around it.

JAL_1138
2016-05-14, 05:38 PM
I love every thread that I see Jal post in and how often his fear of in game water comes up.

My uncle's a lot like this He's very much an old school gamer and he's almost impossible to trick, trap and/or force into any sort of a bad situation as he always has some simple yet genius way around it.

Probably my favorite water-related death any of my characters had was the time I drank from a fountain that turned out to have a Water Weird in it...which burst out of me Alien-style and killed me. I know they normally can't do that, but considering I had just drank it, it made sense and was too funny for the DM not to do.

My second-favorite water death is probably the time I drowned in shallow, still water that I could've easily just stood up in to save myself...if the Lock Lurker in the chest I was looting hadn't stung me and paralyzed me.

My favorite aquatic monster has to be the Death Minnow. Yes, that actually existed. It's ordinarily the size of a normal minnow (and thus difficult to even spot, much less hit), but as an attack, it can suddenly grow large enough to swallow an adult human whole...and then shrink back down to minnow-sized, with the character still in its gullet (some dimensional weirdness meant the character shrank too, so the minnow didn't die from trying to shrink itself around a 6ft Fighter in platemail).

CactusWitch
2016-05-14, 05:41 PM
The Butterfly:
The one who someway, somehow causes a chain of events that escalates to massive proportions.
Often combines with luck or derailing.
I have managed this twice, one essentially turning my fighter into the god of magic, the other ruining a starting bandit city.

Sweet Jesus, I am having the most massive flashback right now.

IronLionShark
2016-05-14, 06:05 PM
Probably my favorite water-related death any of my characters had was the time I drank from a fountain that turned out to have a Water Weird in it...which burst out of me Alien-style and killed me. I know they normally can't do that, but considering I had just drank it, it made sense and was too funny for the DM not to do.

My second-favorite water death is probably the time I drowned in shallow, still water that I could've easily just stood up in to save myself...if the Lock Lurker in the chest I was looting hadn't stung me and paralyzed me.

My favorite aquatic monster has to be the Death Minnow. Yes, that actually existed. It's ordinarily the size of a normal minnow (and thus difficult to even spot, much less hit), but as an attack, it can suddenly grow large enough to swallow an adult human whole...and then shrink back down to minnow-sized, with the character still in its gullet (some dimensional weirdness meant the character shrank too, so the minnow didn't die from trying to shrink itself around a 6ft Fighter in platemail).

On the subject of liquids...
I once had a rogue in a Beowulf themed adventure in DND Next. I was helping Beowulf kill the dragon. My DM messed up the monster stats and an instant TPK on everyone but me. I was on a cliffside burning through HP potions like wildfire. Then, I was introduced suddenly to the DM's rule change introducing the diminishing returns on HP potions. Long story short, he died.
Mountainphobe: Will always avoid mountains.
Rulechangeshenanigansaphobe: Will always want to avoid or stop rule changes.

Roughishguy86
2016-05-14, 06:17 PM
The every encounter should be lethal DM: What you guys couldn't even kill 15 wyverns at night, when its cloudy, and they focused down your sentry before he could scream so they got 2 full rounds of surprise?........

IronLionShark
2016-05-14, 06:25 PM
The every encounter should be lethal DM: What you guys couldn't even kill 15 wyverns at night, when its cloudy, and they focused down your sentry before he could scream so they got 2 full rounds of surprise?........

On the other side of the coin:
The DON"T KILL THE PCs DM: This DM will always avoid killing PCs. If an encounter proves more lethal than expected this DM may add in NPCs to save the PCs, weaken the enemies without notice, or use another method to save the PCs.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-14, 08:14 PM
The DON"T KILL THE PCs DM: This DM will always avoid killing PCs. If an encounter proves more lethal than expected this DM may add in NPCs to save the PCs, weaken the enemies without notice, or use another method to save the PCs.

I'm having trouble working out if one of my favourite GMs is this. On the one hand, we've never lost a PC in his games, on the other one of the survivals was partially due to a critical success and another time a player tried to argue that his character would not stand down when we were obviously outnumbered four to one. There's also one point in the first game I played with him where he might have cheated slightly to make a TPK less certain, but if so there were still three rounds of just us and the cable snakes after the 'help' began (which might have legitimately just happened when he planned). Another time he certainly was willing to kill us if we didn't try to bribe our way out (which made sense based on the culture (we were trapped by Skaven), and then again if the dwarf hadn't agreed to leave the door behind.

IronLionShark
2016-05-14, 08:16 PM
I'm having trouble working out if one of my favourite GMs is this. On the one hand, we've never lost a PC in his games, on the other one of the survivals was partially due to a critical success and another time a player tried to argue that his character would not stand down when we were obviously outnumbered four to one. There's also one point in the first game I played with him where he might have cheated slightly to make a TPK less certain, but if so there were still three rounds of just us and the cable snakes after the 'help' began (which might have legitimately just happened when he planned). Another time he certainly was willing to kill us if we didn't try to bribe our way out (which made sense based on the culture (we were trapped by Skaven), and then again if the dwarf hadn't agreed to leave the door behind.

I try not to be a DON"T KILL THE PCs DM, but I have trouble. I do give them curses every now and again if they aren't careful.

rooster707
2016-05-14, 08:41 PM
On the other side of the coin:
The DON"T KILL THE PCs DM: This DM will always avoid killing PCs. If an encounter proves more lethal than expected this DM may add in NPCs to save the PCs, weaken the enemies without notice, or use another method to save the PCs.

This is me, sort of. I mean, I'm not going to let the PCs die in the very first session of the players' first game of any RPG, ever...

IronLionShark
2016-05-14, 08:45 PM
I tend to be this when I DM as well. Unless the players get the wrong pizza toppings (somethings are just too sacred):smallwink:

If the player of a PC does that.
My little friend :wink: (The Tarrasque) gives them a visit.

TeChameleon
2016-05-14, 08:47 PM
I'm having trouble working out if one of my favourite GMs is this. On the one hand, we've never lost a PC in his games, on the other one of the survivals was partially due to a critical success and another time a player tried to argue that his character would not stand down when we were obviously outnumbered four to one. There's also one point in the first game I played with him where he might have cheated slightly to make a TPK less certain, but if so there were still three rounds of just us and the cable snakes after the 'help' began (which might have legitimately just happened when he planned). Another time he certainly was willing to kill us if we didn't try to bribe our way out (which made sense based on the culture (we were trapped by Skaven), and then again if the dwarf hadn't agreed to leave the door behind.

... what, what?

*sudden mental image of a dorf in platemail carting around an adamantine door as a shield*

I guess I'm probably a bit of a cross between the Butterfly and the Loonie... I tend to like doing rather odd things to attempt to achieve my goals, and occasionally that will spiral out of control in rather interesting fashions.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-14, 08:57 PM
... what, what?

*sudden mental image of a dorf in platemail carting around an adamantine door as a shield*

I guess I'm probably a bit of a cross between the Butterfly and the Loonie... I tend to like doing rather odd things to attempt to achieve my goals, and occasionally that will spiral out of control in rather interesting fashions.

Some details you're missing:
-It was a dwarf engineer who wasn't even wearing armour.
-She'd just taken it away from the wall behind it and used it as a shield (because, in her words, 'you just hit the door with explosives on it').
-Her player occasionally spaces out and the like, this didn't even scratch unusual behaviour.
-It was a wooden door. She had to leave it there because the Skaven didn't want to explain why both the idiot investigators and door had gone missing.

She also sort of got adopted by one of the mechanics in the aircraft hanger.

8BitNinja
2016-05-14, 09:00 PM
Not to mention drowning, the fact that only certain weapons worked underwater, the difficulties with spellcasting underwater, the possibility of sinking due to armor, spellbooks getting ruined...combine that with the fact that there's nearly always a monster in it, and nothing good can come of it.

Water = bad. Always.

The only safe water is water that you, when playing a Cleric, have personally created with magic for drinking purposes and then cast a spell to remove poison from.

And even then you can choke on it

IronLionShark
2016-05-14, 09:03 PM
And even then you can choke on it

Or if your using old edition poison breath rules (It's chlorine). You can get hydrochloric acid. AKA: THE PAIN IN MY MOUTH AND THROUGHT, THE PAIN, THE PAIN

jitzul
2016-05-14, 09:29 PM
Not sure if had been posted yet but
The worst possible decision maker: A player always seems to have the worst idea possible for any situation. Whether our not the reason for there bad decisions are because of the player's actual ideas or trying to stay in character are unknown.

2D8HP
2016-05-14, 09:35 PM
I accidentally deleted the post. Thanks for saving it IronLionShark!:smallsmile:
I try not to be a DON"T KILL THE PCs DM, but I have trouble. I do give them curses every now and again if they aren't careful.

I tend to be this when I DM as well. Unless the players get the wrong pizza toppings (somethings are just too sacred).:smallwink:

If the player of a PC does that.
My little friend :wink: (The Tarrasque) gives them a visit.Whoops!
I may have missed it, but I don't see anyone mentioning the classic Archetype of "Ye olden times":
THE HACK n SLASH GREEDHEAD.
Chiefly hoards gold "just because", and lots of destructive shenanigans i.e. burning down the tavern.
The game has definitely changed. For example, now my PC's leave the tavern intact, and spend the gold in it!:smallwink:

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-14, 10:12 PM
The worst possible decision maker: A player always seems to have the worst idea possible for any situation. Whether our not the reason for there bad decisions are because of the player's actual ideas or trying to stay in character are unknown.

I once hit a door the alchemist had just covered in explosive paste. In fact, my plans tend to have the party either hiding or screaming no within femtoseconds of me explaining them.

RyumaruMG
2016-05-15, 02:32 AM
As a player, I'm a self-admitted Multitasker. Having some ADHD symptoms miiiiight be related. That being said, have a Multitasker who's good at it can be a real boon to the table sometimes, especially with less-experienced players sharing said table. I tend to use my extra brain-space to help newbies figure out what to do and how their numbers work.

I share a game with a Gaming Parent - that one person who has a small child, in the three-to-eight range, and due to circumstances the kid has to be around. This is another situation in which multitasking helps, since I'm able to keep said kid entertained without disrupting the game. Plus letting him roll the dice with me helps him with his numbers!

As a DM, I am without a doubt the AD-DM or Attention Deficit Dungeon Master because I keep finding new systems to mess with and oh my god I have to run all of these.

I don't have a problem, you have a problem!

Winter_Wolf
2016-05-15, 08:56 AM
"But the cleric NPC can just cast speak with dead!"

Seems legit.

Why yes, I enjoy murder-sniper-assassin-hobo characters. Like an evil archery ranger, but more egalitarian. Yes. Everything deserves the equal opportunity to be murderhoboed to death. :tongue: (Actually I don't really like it that often.)

How about the "let's play a sea faring campaign!" player? No? Just me? The guy or gal obsessed with playing a campaign based on sea faring and all that goes with it. Including inevitable watery death. In many ways the inverse of the hydrophobe, and canny enough to invest in things like water breathing magicks and rings, amulets, or bracers to increase defense. Also either completely forgets about or wants to kill kraken, sahaguin, aboleths, and any of the aquatic prehistoric beasties lurking under the waves. I totally bought _Of Ships and the Sea_ and would have bought _Stormwrack_ if I had ever been able to find a copy.

"The Librarian." Has a ton of books, brings them all to the game. May or may not actually let other players touch his very good condition copies, and probably will go ballistic if you're getting anything on the pages. Hates PDF or OEF materials and loves everything about paper books. Hey, I have my reasons.

IronLionShark
2016-05-15, 09:07 AM
As a player, I'm a self-admitted Multitasker. Having some ADHD symptoms miiiiight be related. That being said, have a Multitasker who's good at it can be a real boon to the table sometimes, especially with less-experienced players sharing said table. I tend to use my extra brain-space to help newbies figure out what to do and how their numbers work.

I share a game with a Gaming Parent - that one person who has a small child, in the three-to-eight range, and due to circumstances the kid has to be around. This is another situation in which multitasking helps, since I'm able to keep said kid entertained without disrupting the game. Plus letting him roll the dice with me helps him with his numbers!

As a DM, I am without a doubt the AD-DM or Attention Deficit Dungeon Master because I keep finding new systems to mess with and oh my god I have to run all of these.

I don't have a problem, you have a problem!

You think AD-DM is bad...
Imagine that instead you make them in your head without trying to.
The heAD-DM...

goto124
2016-05-15, 09:14 AM
I originally thought you meant the other kind of chest. Although given what I've heard about how some GMs use women in their games, that wouldn't surprise me.

Or about how players use women in their games ... GitP-regular GMs have said they ban crossplaying for this reason. Can't imagine how bad it got :smalleek:

Belac93
2016-05-15, 10:19 AM
The Frustrated Backup Gamer. They always have a new character concept they want to try out, but their characters never die.

This happens to me so much. I have so many very interesting concepts I want to try out, but not enough time, or not the right DM or Players to try it out.

goto124
2016-05-15, 10:23 AM
The Frustrated Backup Gamer. They always have a new character concept they want to try out, but their characters never die.

I know a player who encountered this so much, he stopped giving justifications and went on to swap out this characters anyway :smallbiggrin:

Likely because this was in a freeform PbP, where 1) there's little reason for characters to die, and 2) PbP is slow, so waiting for the moment to swap out could take weeks or months.

Also, 3) the new characters he wanted to use are less "new character" and more "new and improved versions of already existing characters because my existing ones suck". Which adds on the urgency of swapping out ASAP.

He created a lot of characters, all fleshed out, and they're not backup characters.

2D8HP
2016-05-15, 10:39 AM
Or about how players use women in their games ... GitP-regular GMs have said they ban crossplaying for this reason. Can't imagine how bad it got :smalleek:Um....Actually way back in the day..
Nah it was pretty innocent, I mean you didn't want your PC to get cooties or anything!:smallwink:
EDIT:
I had already played the game for at least a WHOLE YEAR, when I did encounter some real live women who played 1970's DnD, one my dad's girlfriend and her friend, who were real old ladies who could vote and stuff! (and taught me more about levels etc), so they did exist. But they were grown-ups! And as I discovered at my first DunDraCon (about 1980) playing DnD with grown-ups was BORING!!!, (all that pre-planing, searching for traps etc. yawn-city, also Magic-Users/Wizards are jerks!).
In later years, (after I became an old, old man who could vote (and drink!) I've found that most women who play RPG's have more um... vivid imaginations than the guys.:smallsmile:

8BitNinja
2016-05-15, 02:13 PM
Or about how players use women in their games ... GitP-regular GMs have said they ban crossplaying for this reason. Can't imagine how bad it got :smalleek:

I'm am the,

Appropriate Gender Player: This person always plays his own gender

is it weird that I'm this? I don't know why, but I just never played a female character. It's not that I think that there is anything morally wrong with it, or that my character sheet will be infected with cooties, but have just only played male characters.

In fact, my party is usually filled to the brim and sometimes even overflowing with testosterone.



I originally thought you meant the other kind of chest. Although given what I've heard about how some GMs use women in their games, that wouldn't surprise me.

Spoony made a video called Beware the Woman, for They Come From Hell, check this out.

In D&D, sometimes this is the literal case. There is a reason why I Detect Evil on all princesses I save.

rooster707
2016-05-15, 03:22 PM
Appropriate Gender Player: This person always plays his own gender

is it weird that I'm this? I don't know why, but I just never played a female character. It's not that I think that there is anything morally wrong with it, or that my character sheet will be infected with cooties, but have just only played male characters.

I wouldn't say it's weird. I have yet to play any female characters myself; mostly because I just don't think I could do it very well.

IronLionShark
2016-05-15, 04:14 PM
I'm am the,

Appropriate Gender Player: This person always plays his own gender

is it weird that I'm this? I don't know why, but I just never played a female character. It's not that I think that there is anything morally wrong with it, or that my character sheet will be infected with cooties, but have just only played male characters.

In fact, my party is usually filled to the brim and sometimes even overflowing with testosterone.




Spoony made a video called Beware the Woman, for They Come From Hell, check this out.

In D&D, sometimes this is the literal case. There is a reason why I Detect Evil on all princesses I save.

You are not weird. Many people do that. I always play male. I'm not weird. Not one bit. Nope. STOP LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-15, 05:31 PM
I've found that most women who play RPG's have more um... vivid imaginations than the guys.:smallsmile:

Eh, most women are also more comfortable to discuss that sort of thing. Seriously, if any of my friends are talking about it, either:
1) they are a woman.
2) one of my female friends started the conversation.
3) I started the conversation.


I'm am the,

Appropriate Gender Player: This person always plays his own gender

is it weird that I'm this? I don't know why, but I just never played a female character. It's not that I think that there is anything morally wrong with it, or that my character sheet will be infected with cooties, but have just only played male characters.

In fact, my party is usually filled to the brim and sometimes even overflowing with testosterone.

Eh, this is normal, although to keep the theme of a party I'm joining going my next cha will be a drow necromancer with an everyday robe and a formal robe. The former, which she normally wears, are essentially standard wizard robes, if a bit more form fitting. The latter look like standard female fantasy clothes.

8BitNinja
2016-05-15, 07:53 PM
Eh, this is normal, although to keep the theme of a party I'm joining going my next cha will be a drow necromancer with an everyday robe and a formal robe. The former, which she normally wears, are essentially standard wizard robes, if a bit more form fitting. The latter look like standard female fantasy clothes.

There is no AC bonus for chainmail bikinis, just an increased arcane failure chance. If it were me I wouldn't wear it.

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-15, 08:54 PM
There is no AC bonus for chainmail bikinis, just an increased arcane failure chance. If it were me I wouldn't wear it.


http://fashionablygeek.com/womens-apparel/this-comic-reveals-why-female-superheroes-wear-skimpy-armor/
http://www.geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=1878 (http://fashionablygeek.com/womens-apparel/this-comic-reveals-why-female-superheroes-wear-skimpy-armor/)

2D8HP
2016-05-15, 09:05 PM
http://fashionablygeek.com/womens-apparel/this-comic-reveals-why-female-superheroes-wear-skimpy-armor/
Um...oh my. I believe this may require further research!

8BitNinja
2016-05-15, 10:46 PM
http://fashionablygeek.com/womens-apparel/this-comic-reveals-why-female-superheroes-wear-skimpy-armor/
http://www.geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=1878 (http://fashionablygeek.com/womens-apparel/this-comic-reveals-why-female-superheroes-wear-skimpy-armor/)



So the clerics of Aleister really do know something useful...

goto124
2016-05-16, 12:00 AM
http://fashionablygeek.com/womens-apparel/this-comic-reveals-why-female-superheroes-wear-skimpy-armor/
http://www.geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=1878 (http://fashionablygeek.com/womens-apparel/this-comic-reveals-why-female-superheroes-wear-skimpy-armor/)



I would've linked (http://nebezial.deviantart.com/art/now-you-know-410571226) directly to the artist's (http://nebezial.deviantart.com/art/droppin-some-science-on-ya-418821212) deviantart page!

See all his other works of art, he's really good at drawing non-cheesy female physiques.


Eh, this is normal, although to keep the theme of a party I'm joining going my next cha will be a drow necromancer with an everyday robe and a formal robe. The former, which she normally wears, are essentially standard wizard robes, if a bit more form fitting. The latter look like standard female fantasy clothes.

Sometimes I wonder why formal female fashion is 'be sexy and show off your skin and body', while formal male fashion is 'hide your body with coat and shirt and pants'.

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-16, 02:41 AM
Sometimes I wonder why formal female fashion is 'be sexy and show off your skin and body', while formal male fashion is 'hide your body with coat and shirt and pants'.

Oh, I hear you, the 'formal robe' is a parody of how drow normally dress. The goal is to get through the entire campaign without wearing it once.

For what it's worth, I'd rather see both genders have similar logic with their formal clothing. Let's see women wearing dinner jackets, it'll be interesting.

Lacco
2016-05-16, 02:55 AM
Or about how players use women in their games ... GitP-regular GMs have said they ban crossplaying for this reason. Can't imagine how bad it got :smalleek:

To be honest: when I first discovered PbP and this forum (it was few years ago), I decided to try a PbP Shadowrun game - as a player. I wanted to see how these worked, so searched the forum.

I found 3 or 4 games, in which there were the same 2 players who made me disregard the idea of playing. Both played well-formed elven ladies and the descriptions they had of their characters & the permanent flirting with everything around them made me abandon my decision. Poor, poor GMs. I completely understood why the games crashed so badly in few posts.

Also, had two players like this at my table. Both of them understood when I talked to them about me being uneasy when they tried to seduce all female NPCs I presented in game (it went so far that I almost stopped using female NPCs). I don't mind inter-PC/NPC romances, can handle any sexual orientations in game, and have been known to try to play female NPCs as truthfully as possible - but this was too much. They also tried to pick up any lady players that were at the table.... and the worst part? They were pretty bad at the flirting stuff :smallbiggrin:.

TeChameleon
2016-05-16, 02:59 AM
Oh, I hear you, the 'formal robe' is a parody of how drow normally dress. The goal is to get through the entire campaign without wearing it once.

For what it's worth, I'd rather see both genders have similar logic with their formal clothing. Let's see women wearing dinner jackets, it'll be interesting.

Try doing an image search for 'women in tuxedoes'. They only need some slight changes in cut, and can actually look quite good.

... y'know, it occurs to me that Drow clothing makes very little sense, given their predeliction for poisoned blades...

quinron
2016-05-16, 03:01 AM
Sometimes I wonder why formal female fashion is 'be sexy and show off your skin and body', while formal male fashion is 'hide your body with coat and shirt and pants'.

At the risk of derailing, one of the most interesting questions in discussions/analysis of sex appeal and fan service is why female exposure is perceived as an attempt at titillation, while male exposure is perceived as a display of machismo. Many people have done far better analyses of this than I can present.

To counter the potential derailment:

The Equal Opportunist: This player is willing - even eager - to try playing characters that have qualities that they don't particularly understand, but are intrigued by. Be it a change in demographic, gender, orientation, attitude, or philosophy, they're willing to experiment and try to get some new perspective through the game.
The Minstrel: The ugly version of the Equal Opportunist - this player enjoys running characters whose qualities they don't share, but where the Equal Opportunist does it just to try something new, the Minstrel does it to indulge in relentless offensive stereotyping. Whether they're being malicious or simply ignorant, the Minstrel quickly becomes... uncomfortable to have at the table.

I've seen mild Minstrels once or twice in my city - mostly people trying to be an Equal Opportunist and going a bit too stereotypical - but this Counter Monkey video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSVjfYaMGk#t=25m50s) (persistent strong language, be warned) is the worst example I've heard of.

Professor Gnoll
2016-05-16, 03:03 AM
Try doing an image search for 'women in tuxedoes'. They only need some slight changes in cut, and can actually look quite good.

... y'know, it occurs to me that Drow clothing makes very little sense, given their predeliction for poisoned blades...
You're not trying to tell me that drow designs make no sense?

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-16, 07:16 AM
Try doing an image search for 'women in tuxedoes'. They only need some slight changes in cut, and can actually look quite good.

I had no reason to suspect they wouldn't look good in them, I meant the reactions would be interesting.


... y'know, it occurs to me that Drow clothing makes very little sense, given their predeliction for poisoned blades...

Even without the poison most drow wouldn't dress like that. Most low ranking drow will wear a leather (or equivalent) breastplate, covering the front and back, to protect from stray knives. Higher ranking drow will wear better armour, although still rather light, and not wearing armour would be seen as stupid. Very high ranking drow wear heavily enchanted cloth, and possibly declare that they don't need to wear armour.

Drow wizards probably rely on protective magic, but Imrae (my character) still wears practical clothing. It gets could in the lab.


You're not trying to tell me that drow designs make no sense?

Of course not, anything living underground would probably have pale skin :smalltongue:

Winter_Wolf
2016-05-16, 08:12 AM
Without light the whole concept of clothes underground makes sense only in terms of controlling body temperature and protection against abrasions. But drow and svirfnibli running around in the buff is probably a bit much for most sensibilities. But four square inches of cloth and some floss makes everything okay. Not to mention having to imagine illithid without robes.

I'm sure there's an archetype like "the naturist" where all characters who can reasonably be described as having valid reasons for strutting around in their birthday suits do so, and even those without valid reason. Stuff like clerics of Kord wearing standard issue fur loincloths and constantly anointing themselves in oil. Druids who go au naturale because "clothes interfere with wild shape (even though it doesn't)" or "going from the freedom of animal form to clothing restricted human(oid) feels icky on (character's) skin".

goto124
2016-05-16, 08:18 AM
Without light the whole concept of clothes underground makes sense only in terms of controlling body temperature and protection against abrasions. But drow and svirfnibli running around in the buff is probably a bit much for most sensibilities. But four square inches of cloth and some floss makes everything okay. Not to mention having to imagine illithid without robes.

Removing robes? Try to get setting books published like that :smalltongue:


Of course not, anything living underground would probably have pale skin :smalltongue:

I figured it was related to darkvision seeing things in black and white, and having dark skin letting them blend in with the dark surroundings of the underground.


For what it's worth, I'd rather see both genders have similar logic with their formal clothing. Let's see women wearing dinner jackets, it'll be interesting.

I have a lady who wears a dinner jacket as formal outfit.

Just the dinner jacket, no pants.

He's also a gentleman, depending on how you look at hir.


Is "Plays non-gender-conforming characters" an archetype?

Max_Killjoy
2016-05-16, 08:38 AM
I would've linked (http://nebezial.deviantart.com/art/now-you-know-410571226) directly to the artist's (http://nebezial.deviantart.com/art/droppin-some-science-on-ya-418821212) deviantart page!

See all his other works of art, he's really good at drawing non-cheesy female physiques.



Sometimes I wonder why formal female fashion is 'be sexy and show off your skin and body', while formal male fashion is 'hide your body with coat and shirt and pants'.

I didn't find their link to DA until later last night. :smallbiggrin:

On the later, it was kinda funny, I was at summer wedding (90/90 weather) a few years ago, and at the reception a woman friend of mine in a lightweight sleeveless dress said "guys have it so bad at these things, you have to pile on the layers to get dress up".




At the risk of derailing, one of the most interesting questions in discussions/analysis of sex appeal and fan service is why female exposure is perceived as an attempt at titillation, while male exposure is perceived as a display of machismo. Many people have done far better analyses of this than I can present.


Objectification vs aggrandizement -- is the character being displayed as an object to be desired, or is the character projecting their power and "perfection"?

8BitNinja
2016-05-16, 10:09 AM
To counter the potential derailment:

The Equal Opportunist: This player is willing - even eager - to try playing characters that have qualities that they don't particularly understand, but are intrigued by. Be it a change in demographic, gender, orientation, attitude, or philosophy, they're willing to experiment and try to get some new perspective through the game.

My group is the opposite of this. We are moralist, we only allow members of similar alignment

Roughishguy86
2016-05-16, 05:40 PM
Removing robes? Try to get setting books published like that :smalltongue:



I figured it was related to darkvision seeing things in black and white, and having dark skin letting them blend in with the dark surroundings of the underground.



I have a lady who wears a dinner jacket as formal outfit.

Just the dinner jacket, no pants.

He's also a gentleman, depending on how you look at hir.


Is "Plays non-gender-conforming characters" an archetype?

The Jenner?

Anonymouswizard
2016-05-16, 05:56 PM
I figured it was related to darkvision seeing things in black and white, and having dark skin letting them blend in with the dark surroundings of the underground.

Nope, they still had dark skin back when it was Infravision. It's such a shame, I like darker skinned elves (heck, in my setting they are ethnically Chinese), but generally the only ones who fit that bill live underground.

Of course, if drow had dark skin when they lived on the surface, there's little reason I can see to lose it. It'll probably be a few shades lighter due to not tanning (let's face it, drow are rarely drawn that dark grey), but lighter skin gives so little benefit that it won't be breed into the population.

Roughishguy86
2016-05-16, 06:08 PM
The drow were cursed with their black skin and driven underground for their evil deeds it literally explains that in their history as a race.......... The skin color has nothing to do with the sun and everything to do with the blackness of their souls....

rooster707
2016-05-16, 06:18 PM
The Jenner?

Erm... let's not.

2D8HP
2016-05-16, 06:19 PM
Nope, they still had dark skin back when it was Infravision. It's such a shame, I like darker skinned elves (heck, in my setting they are ethnically Chinese), but generally the only ones who fit that bill live underground.
Of course, if drow had dark skin when they lived on the surface, there's little reason I can see to lose it. It'll probably be a few shades lighter due to not tanning (let's face it, drow are rarely drawn that dark grey), but lighter skin gives so little benefit that it won't be breed into the population.

The drow were cursed with their black skin and driven underground for their evil deeds it literally explains that in their history as a race.......... The skin color has nothing to do with the sun and everything to do with the blackness of their souls....Foul surface dweller slanders. The so called "Elves" of the surface were exiled there for being insufficiently badass, where the day star bleached them!
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475794-Drow-the-original-Elves

Roughishguy86
2016-05-16, 06:48 PM
Foul surface dweller slanders. The so called "Elves" of the surface were exiled there for being insufficiently badass, where the day star bleached them!
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475794-Drow-the-original-Elves

And now after reading this thread i question everything i've ever known:smalleek:.... Thanks lol:smallbiggrin:

RyumaruMG
2016-05-16, 07:21 PM
Oh yeah, I've got a couple of guys in my group who are Accidental Game-Breakers. Those guys who absolutely don't intend to break the game in half, but still somehow, somehow manage to find a combination of skills and equipment that completely snaps any semblance of game balance. They just picked what was cool!

Both were in my Exalted game, and one went hardcore on the Crafting accelerators while the other ended up one-shotting my third-session boss.

8BitNinja
2016-05-16, 11:14 PM
The Crazy Guy: This guy rolls the most crazy thing possible.

My brother is this, which is why he has a Chaotic Good Gnome Barbarian/Bard with Werewolf powers

2D8HP
2016-05-17, 06:37 AM
The old school player. They tend to believe that, if you're rolling the dice, you've already lost. Usually identifiable by the items like 10' pole, 50' of rope, and bag of marbles that show up on every character sheet.

Bag of flour, too, in case of invisible enemies, or to check for wind direction and speed (or air currents to find secret doors), or to mark pressure plates and pit traps, or to check for tripwires. (Or to cook with, I suppose.)

Hammer and pitons, too. Got to have those. Not only do they help when climbing, you can tie a piton to some twine and throw it for trapfinding purposes as well.

And a small metal mirror, to check under doors and around corners.

And don't forget to bring bags or sacks, those are handy.
Alot has been said about how in "Ye olden times" the DM's were
Let the dice fall where they may instead of,
Don't kill the PC's (mostly true) that this lead to the rise of
The paranoid prepared planing players who I mostly encountered at conventions (where Magic Users were jerks!). But that was not the only style, as:
There's a big emphasis in early D&D on "play the hand you're dealt". A lot of player skill in that version is about making the most of what you get (stats/items/etc.) rather than building the perfect combo.

It also works better in early D&D since stats aren't generally *as* important, and if you're playing Open Table, you've probably got a bunch of characters anyway. Getting *a* character with crappy stats is more tolerable if it's not the only character you're ever going to play in that campaign.There were also:
Impulsive Impatient Ignoramuses (usually was also Back up character guy), such as well, I.

The Impulsive One This is the guy when the party is trying to plan some course of action takes matters into his own hand and does something, just anything to get the action started again. Often this takes choice away from his fellow players.
To illustrate how this played out, the scene:
A dank almost crypt like basement/garage during the waning years of the Carter Administration, two pre-teens and three teenagers surround a ping pong table, that has books, papers, dice, pizza and sodas on it
Teen DM (my best friends older brother): You turn the corner, and 20' away you see the door shown on the map.
Teen player (who thinks he's all that because he's been playing longer than me with the LBB's, but does he have the new PHB and DMG? No! So who's really the "Advanced" one huh!): With the lantern still tied to the ten foot pole, I slowly proceed forward observing if they are any drafts from unexpected places. You (looks at me) check the floor with the other pole.
Me (pre-teen): Oh man it's late, are we every getting into the treasure room today!
Teen player: You've got to check for traps!
Me: I run up and force the door open!
DM: Blarg the fighter falls through the floor onto the spikes below.
*rolls dice*
Your character is dead.
Teen player: Dude you got smoked!
Me: Look at my next character. I rolled a 15 for Strength.
DM: Really?
Me: Yeah, Derek totally witnessed me rolling it up!
DM: Did he?
Derek (my best friend, another pre-teen who invited me to the game): Are you gonna eat that slice of pizza?
Me: No.
Derek: Yeah I totally saw it.
*munch*
DM: *groan*:smallwink:

Old school quote
There are Old Characters and there are Bold characters, but there are very few Old and Bold characters.


If the player had fun throwing away a PC's life, then it wasn't done cheaply.
In memory of my best friend, Derek Lindstrom Whaley, who in 6th grade saw me reading the blue book and invited me to play D&D at his house - R.I.P.

Belac93
2016-05-17, 08:46 AM
The Crazy Guy: This guy rolls the most crazy thing possible.

My brother is this, which is why he has a Chaotic Good Gnome Barbarian/Bard with Werewolf powers

I've done this. My best so far was a lightfoot halfling wild magic sorcerer barbarian with 4 wisdom (rolled godlike stats, and then a single 4).

8BitNinja
2016-05-17, 05:15 PM
I've done this. My best so far was a lightfoot halfling wild magic sorcerer barbarian with 4 wisdom (rolled godlike stats, and then a single 4).

Did you take the sage past?

That would be great

IronLionShark
2016-05-17, 05:26 PM
The Paladin: Always makes lawful characters. It does not matter if that character is of the paladin class or not. If a character is "not lawful" it actually is. May or may not try to stop all fun. Beware the paladin.

Belac93
2016-05-17, 07:17 PM
Did you take the sage past?

That would be great

Sadly no. It was sailor, because the DM said we would be doing a lot of seafaring, and I wanted to fit in. :smallbiggrin:

Quertus
2016-05-17, 08:23 PM
Sadly no. It was sailor, because the DM said we would be doing a lot of seafaring, and I wanted to fit in. :smallbiggrin:

The wild mage / barbarian... wanted to fit in? :smallamused:

Fayd
2016-05-17, 09:08 PM
In what has turned out to be a very odd set of coincidences, I realized my type is Werewolf-casters. And it's usually one or the other but TWICE now... IN A ROW... it's been both.

And I didn't notice it until really recently. It was surprising.

JAL_1138
2016-05-17, 10:09 PM
While we often used stat rolls as arrays assignable in any order even in the 2e days (when I typically played humans or half-elves after I got banned from playing gnomes due to my tendency for shenanigans if allowed to play one), we still did a fair amount of the old "roll stats in order and see what you qualify for" thing. That could produce some odd results, but fewer than you'd think due to racial class restrictions, racial minimum stats, class minimum stats, and multiclass-combination restrictions. You simply couldn't pair up a lot of things that were really "out there" unless you got lucky (or wacky) rolls and found a loophole in the class restrictions. There were also racial level-caps to consider--most of the time they wouldn't come up unless the campaign started after low levels or was meant to be a long-runner, though. You could play some weird species with the Complete Book of Humanoids and some setting supplements, but they tended to be pigeonholed into certain classes.

8BitNinja
2016-05-17, 11:10 PM
The Paladin: Always makes lawful characters. It does not matter if that character is of the paladin class or not. If a character is "not lawful" it actually is. May or may not try to stop all fun. Beware the paladin.

You've got nothing to fear

Unless you're evil, that is. Then I'll let you have first strike, but I will get the last.


The wild mage / barbarian... wanted to fit in? :smallamused:

That's like someone with a fear of heights wanting to be an air force pilot
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossdressing Character: Not what you think it is. This is a player who will play the opposite gender AND oversexualize the character. May or may not have humanly impossible attractiveness, but that doesn't matter, because he is hitting on a PC, and it's creepy. After all, you are sitting right next to the guy, and it's kind of weird. This is when the paladin is extremely serious about is vow of chastity.