Common Aggravating Table Behaviors

[Segev]

…and here I am the kind of %&#$ who'd be making Babylon 5 references. :smalltongue:

I'll always love Garibaldi for living in the 23rd Century yet having a Daffy Duck poster above his bed.

"MISTER Garibaldi! My good and dear friend!"

*Garibaldi turns on his heel and flees*

[cobaltstarfire]

I actually don't really like the whole "you don't know [thing]? What's wrong with you!?" response in general, whether for shows, books, people, or movies. It's really just rude.

I wish I could find that XKCD about teaching someone about a thing you are interested in that they don't know of, rather than being a scornful asshat towards them for not being aware of it. I mean wouldn't it be more fun for everyone involved to introduce someone to something you enjoy rather than shaming them for having not been exposed to it for whatever reason?


Though a lot of references (like KHAN!) are not ones that younger generations shouldn't get, since you know, that movie practically got remade a few years ago. Most of the time when people deploy a reference, they manage to do it in a way that still makes some sort of sense in context, so needing to be aware of the source isn't always necessary for there to still be a common language.

[JAL_1138]

Watching Star Trek is a mandatory requirement of all nerds and geeks. Please return all your roleplaying books to the store and hand in your dice. There are plenty of bars to choose from to drink beer and watch football. Have fun!

When I got back from D&D last Saturday, having bought Volo's Guide to Monsters at the FLGS where we play, I cracked open a bottle of Kölsch and turned on the college football game my alma mater was playing, and started flipping through Volo's during timeouts. The next night I took out the Planescape box set to read through during college basketball timeouts. The local AL coordinator schedules games around college sports, too, because otherwise too few players and DMs (himself included) would show up.

Sports is amazingly geeky when you get into it. There's so much to get into about player stats, tactical positioning, strategy, and it's all about who gets the high score.

And athletes themselves are becoming geeks. The Green Bay Packers players are avid fans of Settlers of Catan, for example. The Geek-Jock Divide is eroding.

[2D8HP]

I actually don't really like the whole "you don't know [thing]? What's wrong with you!?" response in general, whether for shows, books, people, or movies. It's really just rudeYes it is. In my case it's usually "what's wrong with the World" (that it's changing so fast), seldom a "you".
But there is one major exception, that is when someone who knows more than a little bit about Dungeons & Dragons (deliberately?) gets the history of D&D wrong (people for whom it's new for them get a pass):


The complet AD&D 1e players handbook was publushed in 1994

:eek:

That just really chaffs me (I got my AD&D PHB in 1979 dagnabbit)!

:furious:

Wikipedia people, sheesh!

For some reason I'm bothered when folks dont know the history of Dungeons & Dragons, and I feel compelled to share the edition history of D&D.

Probably the first hobbyist wargame in english was:
Little Wars by H.G. Well in 1913
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Littlewars.jpg

Which led to many others including:
Chainmail by Gygax & Perren in 1971
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Chainmail-1st-thumb.jpg

Dave Arneson used the Man to Man combat rules of Chainmail, created a role-playing game out of it and brought the idea to E. Gary Gygax who wrote:
Dungeons & Dragons by Arneson & Gygax in 1974
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/D%26d_Box1st.jpg/175px-D%26d_Box1st.jpg

The Greyhawk supplement by Gygax & Kuntz in 1975
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Greyhawk_Supplement_1975.jpg
made it the playable game we recognize today, which led to the plain English translation of D&D (AKA "Basic") by Holmes in 1977, the sublime 48 pages of the "Basic" rules:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/D%26d_original.jpg/200px-D%26d_original.jpg

The '77 "Basic" rules only went to level 3, you were invited to use the older rules and supplements or the upcoming Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules:

1977 Brought the first of the "1e" AD&D book The Monster Manual
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ac/MonsterManual-1stEdAD%26D-Cover.jpg/220px-MonsterManual-1stEdAD%26D-Cover.jpg

The first Advanced - Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook was in 1978.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg/200px-PlayersHandbook8Cover.jpg

1979 the Dungeon Masters Guide
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/DungeonMasterGuide4Cover.jpg/200px-DungeonMasterGuide4Cover.jpg

1981 brought a new "Basic" rules:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/32/D%26D_Basic_Rules_1981.jpg/220px-D%26D_Basic_Rules_1981.jpg
which along with the "Expert" etc. rules cemented the seperation of "D&D" from "AD&D".

1983 saw another revision of "Basic" D&D:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0d/D%26D_1983_Basic_Rules_cover.jpg/220px-D%26D_1983_Basic_Rules_cover.jpg

1989 saw saw the revision of AD&D into "2e AD&D without the input of Gygax, who had been exiled from TSR.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b7/Advanced_Dungeons_and_Dragons_2nd_Edition_Player%2 7s_Handbook.jpg/200px-Advanced_Dungeons_and_Dragons_2nd_Edition_Player%2 7s_Handbook.jpg


1991 saw the last seperate "Basic" rules, the easy to learn "black box":
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/TSR1070_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Game.jpg/250px-TSR1070_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Game.jpg
(there was a 1994 version called "Classic" that was identical to the '91 version except for the cover and title page).

1991 also brought the "Rules Cyclopedia":
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Rules_Cyclopedia_cover.jpg
which went from levels 1 to 36.
BTW the '91 rules were once know as the "fifth edition" see here. (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/17171/DD-Rules-Cyclopedia-Basic?it=1&filters=0_0_44699_0_0_45345_0_0)

2000 brought the first WotC version of D&D, which they decided to call "Third Edition"?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c2/Dungeons_and_Dragons_3rd_Edition_Player%27s_Handbo ok.jpg/200px-Dungeons_and_Dragons_3rd_Edition_Player%27s_Handbo ok.jpg
which was soon followed in

2003 with 3.5
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61ThzmxZhpL._SY400_.jpg

2008 brought 4e:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Dungeons_and_Dragons_4th_Edition_Player%27s_Handbo ok.jpg

2014 brought the mightily fun "5e".
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/Dungeons_and_Dragons_5th_Edition_Player%27s_Handbo ok.png/200px-Dungeons_and_Dragons_5th_Edition_Player%27s_Handbo ok.png


@cobaltstarfire,
This picture is cool! Thanks for the link.http://pre09.deviantart.net/2e97/th/pre/i/2016/225/2/7/ivysaur_for_ivy__commission__by_lorenith-dadredg.png

[GungHo]

Wizards (in retrospect maybe the most '70's film ever, a certain Mark Hamill played Sean, he would later turn up in a little film called.....)
I remembered my parents getting this on VHS thinking that it was a cartoon and therefore it was appropriate for children. They didn't learn their lesson and did the same thing with Heavy Metal.

[Lord Torath]

I wish I could find that XKCD about teaching someone about a thing you are interested in that they don't know of, rather than being a scornful asshat towards them for not being aware of it. I mean wouldn't it be more fun for everyone involved to introduce someone to something you enjoy rather than shaming them for having not been exposed to it for whatever reason?Lucky Ten Thousand (https://xkcd.com/1053/). That's one of my favorite XKCD strips!

[2D8HP]

I remembered my parents getting this on VHS thinking that it was a cartoon and therefore it was appropriate for children. They didn't learn their lesson and did the same thing with Heavy Metal.I feel your pain.
I saw both "Wizards" (when I was nine), and "Heavy Metal" (when I was 13) with parents in the theater.
But what's worse was seeing "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", and "Tommy" with them (at seven).
I hoped that we would raise are kids better, but my wife puts on "Game of Thrones" while our son is in the room, "Oh, he doesn't watch, he's busy with his computer games".
*shudder*

[Jama7301]

Branching off the tech issues, I had a friend who would try to watch Youtube or Netflix during a game. Once, even when the TV was in an adjacent room to one we were playing in. He would get up and wander to the other room when it wasn't his turn, and wandered back.

[arclance]

…and here I am the kind of %&#$ who'd be making Babylon 5 references. :smalltongue:

I'll always love Garibaldi for living in the 23rd Century yet having a Daffy Duck poster above his bed.I would do that but I am one of the only two people here under ~35 who watched it so it would go over the head of most people.
If we ever organize another FFG Star Wars game I want to do a social build based on Londo Molari that causes stamina damage by yelling at people.

[2D8HP]

I would do that but I am one of the only two people here under ~35 who watched it so it would go over the head of most people.
If we ever organize another FFG Star Wars game I want to do a social build based on Londo Molari that causes stamina damage by yelling at people.Mostly forgotten genre media is a goldmine!
Everyone remembered "Conan the Barbarian", so I couldn't steal use as inspiration anything from that, but "Conan the Destroyer" I could use scot-free!

:biggrin:

[Stealth Marmot]

I hoped that we would raise are kids better, but my wife puts on "Game of Thrones" while our son is in the room, "Oh, he doesn't watch, he's busy with his computer games".
*shudder*



"What is he playing anyway?"

"Oh some religious game I think, 'Saint's Row 4?'"

"OH GEEZ-!" *darts off to check on kid*

[cobaltstarfire]

I would do that but I am one of the only two people here under ~35 who watched it so it would go over the head of most people.


I'm sure there's more than two of us! It ran concurrently with DS9, and the tail end of TNG.

[Quertus]

I actually don't really like the whole "you don't know [thing]? What's wrong with you!?" response in general, whether for shows, books, people, or movies. It's really just rude.

I wish I could find that XKCD about teaching someone about a thing you are interested in that they don't know of, rather than being a scornful asshat towards them for not being aware of it. I mean wouldn't it be more fun for everyone involved to introduce someone to something you enjoy rather than shaming them for having not been exposed to it for whatever reason?

Though a lot of references (like KHAN!) are not ones that younger generations shouldn't get, since you know, that movie practically got remade a few years ago. Most of the time when people deploy a reference, they manage to do it in a way that still makes some sort of sense in context, so needing to be aware of the source isn't always necessary for there to still be a common language.

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra".

[Âmesang]

"The movie's called 'Child's Play'! He'll be fine!" :smalleek:

[2D8HP]

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"."Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel"
"The movie's called 'Child's Play'! He'll be fine!" :smalleek:I'm the plumber at the San Francisco Hall of Justice, and a lot of my work is repairing "custody" fixtures.
To keep the inmates on the 7th floor pacified the deputies play DVD's and the feed from cable television. One of the "gems" they viewed was a "Chucky" movie.

:eek:

[cobaltstarfire]

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra".


I don't think the language barrier that exists between people that are generations apart is quite as bad as what we saw in that episode. :smalltongue:

[2D8HP]

I don't think the language barrier that exists between people that are generations apart is quite as bad as what we saw in that episode. :smalltongue:After last night I can't be sure.
To the young folks on this Forum:
Sorry, you deserve better.

:sigh:

[arclance]

I'm sure there's more than two of us! It ran concurrently with DS9, and the tail end of TNG.By here I meant my local gaming group.
That really was not clear in retrospect.
I am sure there are at least 10 people on the forum who remember Babylon 5 well enough to get references to it.

[2D8HP]

By here I meant my local gaming group.
That really was not clear in retrospect.
I am sure there are at least 10 people on the forum who remember Babylon 5 well enough to get references to it.
Mostly I remember that Lennier restored a ZX-11 (I worked at a Kawasaki motorcycle shop when that episode was broadcast).

:redface:

[CantigThimble]

…and here I am the kind of %&#$ who'd be making Babylon 5 references. :smalltongue:

I'll always love Garibaldi for living in the 23rd Century yet having a Daffy Duck poster above his bed.

Put your face. In the Book.

(I know the grammar is wrong but I'm just trying to communicate the inflection)

[2D8HP]

Put your face. In the Book.Well in for a dime, in for a dollar, so lets go!

By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!

Wherever you go, there you are.

But this goes to eleven.

What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?

:biggrin:

[Traab]

Well in for a dime, in for a dollar, so lets go!

By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!

Wherever you go, there you are.

But this goes to eleven.

What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?

:biggrin:



Well at least now I know where this (http://grrlpowercomic.com/archives/416) comes from.

[kyoryu]

What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?

He has a wife, you know.

[Erit]

By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!

I'm not sure if I should be proud to get this reference, or if I should just start feeling old. I already have grey hair and creaky knees, man.

Also, I believe this current trend of conversation is exemplary of one such behavior this thread sought to catalog.

[Traab]

He has a wife, you know.

Wife? Thats a woody word isnt it? Wife, wiiiiifuh, wieeefuh. Yes, very woody. Right up there with caribooooo! Erogenous ZOOOOOONE!

[Quertus]

Well in for a dime, in for a dollar, so lets go!

By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!

Wherever you go, there you are.

But this goes to eleven.

What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?

:biggrin:



Huh, I thought it was "this one goes to eleven".

[Stealth Marmot]

Huh, I thought it was "this one goes to eleven".

I think both are said during the scene.

[kyoryu]

Wife? Thats a woody word isnt it? Wife, wiiiiifuh, wieeefuh. Yes, very woody. Right up there with caribooooo! Erogenous ZOOOOOONE!

Her name is Incontinentia. Incontinentia Buttocks.


I think both are said during the scene.

I thought so, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMSV4OteqBE

[Beleriphon]

Yeah, I'm a little like this too, I like to think I'm decent at picking my targets-- punching up, not punching down if you get me.

I'm fond of the Air Farce humour additude: Send up don't put down.

[HidesHisEyes]

The pants thing is something that bothers me a bit on a rule setting. I dont care how deft you are at sleight of hand, if I am standing, there is no way you can remove my pants entirely without me noticing. MAYBE you could pants me (yank em down) without me noticing till I go to take a step and fall over, but get them off over my feet? Not happening. Thats right up there with, "I rolled a natural 20 on my bluff check and convinced the king I was the rightful ruler of his kingdom" type of stupid. I mean, I get it in a silly scenario to be willing to play along but I just think most skills should have a cap on what they are capable of doing.

Like, lets say you want to bluff the prison guard into letting you go. A 20 means he lets you go cheerfully, anything less means he coshes you with a blackjack. If you roll a 35 after including all your bonuses, your bluff doesnt magnify from letting you go into, "He lets me go and even offers me a replacement uniform and gear since I so obviously lost my own that I had to wear prison garb. Oh, and he gives me his sisters address because he thinks I would be good for her." Your high skill level just means its highly unlikely to fail, not that it will let you pull off utterly absurd acts with it.

I've never understood why some people insist that a high number on the die means logic goes out the window. The point of the diceroll is to see if you succeed at something you might or might not succeed at. If it's something you couldn't possibly do then there should be no diceroll, you either don't try or you try and auto-fail. For those players who say "but the game's no fun without random absurd stuff happening", it's a question of tone, as Angry GM points out here: http://theangrygm.com/tone-policing-sir-bearington/

One more thing: players who agreed, after a comprehensive explanation of the type of game I'd be running, to play in a self-contained one-shot adventure with a specific goal, then spend the whole session rolling their eyes and saying things like "I guess we'd better do what this NPC says even though it doesn't make sense". Now that's actually a caricature based on stuff that just occasionally mildly crops up with my players, who are actually generally great - but it does annoy me.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've never understood why some people insist that a high number on the die means logic goes out the window. The point of the diceroll is to see if you succeed at something you might or might not succeed at. If it's something you couldn't possibly do then there should be no diceroll, you either don't try or you try and auto-fail.

Absolutely agreed.

[Talakeal]

I've never understood why some people insist that a high number on the die means logic goes out the window. The point of the diceroll is to see if you succeed at something you might or might not succeed at. If it's something you couldn't possibly do then there should be no diceroll, you either don't try or you try and auto-fail. For those players who say "but the game's no fun without random absurd stuff happening", it's a question of tone, as Angry GM points out here: http://theangrygm.com/tone-policing-sir-bearington/

One more thing: players who agreed, after a comprehensive explanation of the type of game I'd be running, to play in a self-contained one-shot adventure with a specific goal, then spend the whole session rolling their eyes and saying things like "I guess we'd better do what this NPC says even though it doesn't make sense". Now that's actually a caricature based on stuff that just occasionally mildly crops up with my players, who are actually generally great - but it does annoy me.

Its a preference thing.

I personally hate it, but there are a lot of people I have gamed with over the years who are only there for the "wacky hijinks" and "shenanigans".

[JAL_1138]

Why stretch plausibility by having absurd nonsensical things happen on a high die-roll when you can have so many wacky hijinks and shenanigans with things like physics, tactics, or clever but entirely plausible uses of mundane equipment?

[Lord Raziere]

Why stretch plausibility by having absurd nonsensical things happen on a high die-roll when you can have so many wacky hijinks and shenanigans with things like physics, tactics, or clever but entirely plausible uses of mundane equipment?

Why bother putting so much effort and thought into something so complex for the sake of laughs, when you can get the same benefit with less effort, forethought and more spontaneity so you can enjoy it in the moment and just roll with the opportunity as it comes by?

[Stealth Marmot]

I've never understood why some people insist that a high number on the die means logic goes out the window.

I have the view that a high die roll means a positive outcome. Basically, the dice, to me, represent nothing more than circumstance. Natural 1 means the worst circumstance, Natural 20 being the best circumstance.

Reading that Angry GM rant, I can think of how a roll can determine a somewhat creative circumstance.

"I (man) roll a seduction check on the woman." *Rolls a 1* "She says she's not interested, but is wondering if your lady barbarian friend is single."

Logic should not go out the window necessarily, but unlikely circumstances that allow for a glorious success or a hilarious failure can add some real flavor to a game.

*rolls a stealth check*

Natural 1: You fail to notice a small cat that was sleeping nearby, and you step on its tail and it lets out a horrific screech. The guard turns around saying "MR. MUFFINS?" before noticing you, glaring.

Natural 20: You slip by the standing guard and notice that there appears to a quiet snoring sound coming from him...even though he's standing up. You are both disgusted with his lack of work ethic and impressed with his ability to sleep standing up.

What irritates me is when a DM decides that both logic goes out the window, AND a high roll is a liability somehow.

"I make a jump check to hop up and grab the ledge of the house to climb up"

*Rolls natural 20 on jump check*

"You jump so high you leap all the way over the house and land on the other side! Roll 2d6 fall damage and the guards get a spot check to see you!"

This sort of thing makes me mad. A high check means that you succeed, and getting way past the necessary DC just means you do it particularly well.

[Kurald Galain]

What irritates me is when a DM decides that both logic goes out the window, AND a high roll is a liability somehow.

Thankfully I haven't met GMs like that.

Conversely, what irritates me is when a player explains something ridiculous that he's trying to do (or alternatively, states "I'll use <skill> to do <something unrelated to that skill>", AND then rolls a skill check without being asked, AND declares that his ridiculous action worked because he rolled very high.

Key word being "ridiculous". I'm fine with e.g. a PC trying to jump over a pit, rolling without being asked, and declaring that he made it; after all, DCs for common tasks are well-known.

[Cluedrew]

Its a preference thing.

I personally hate it, but there are a lot of people I have gamed with over the years who are only there for the "wacky hijinks" and "shenanigans".I know a GM who homebrew's his own systems, but will write things like "do whatever is most awesome" as the success. He is very much in it for the shenanigans.

Mind you I don't think it is so much "a high role makes logic go out the window" as "logic? {laughter}".

[Solaris]

I know a GM who homebrew's his own systems, but will write things like "do whatever is most awesome" as the success. He is very much in it for the shenanigans.

Mind you I don't think it is so much "a high role makes logic go out the window" as "logic? {laughter}".

Yeah, but it's one thing when it's a basic assumption of the system.

It's another thing when it's so far from being a basic assumption of the system that we're talking about the games that spawned linear fighter-quadratic wizard.

[ross]

no one cares

lol, old people

[NickChaisson]

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/MTG-ThreadNecromancer_3198.jpg