PDA

View Full Version : Is it just me, or is there always that one annoying player?



StaleGoat
2017-01-13, 08:19 AM
You know,
The one who think there character is the best and makes them over the top ridiculous
The one who never shuts up
The one who doesn't understand sometime they need to let other characters do things alone
The one who's probably a **** in some way - like greedy, rude
The one who ruins things just to be 'funny'

There's a player in my group who is ALWAYS greedy, ALWAYS an ******* and ALWAYS has to be in EVERYTHING.

I got fed up today. My character had died and I already had another one made up so I used him, and both of them were linked as super close friends from their pasts. So when my character died, so did the annoying persons, but the only other player survived and she had to carry the message to my character. I had it all planned out, I was going to say how he was glad she got out when she was so shy, and how he was glad she had a friend in the end, and how she would have been glad the player's survivor got out.
But then, just as I begin to speak, out of NOWHERE the annoying character appears and asks in a ridiculously goofy voice 'DiD you BuUuuUUuuuuUUUUury THeM?"
Then proceeded to take over what we were doing, bypassing the whole talk and moving us on to whatever plan his character had.

Does anyone else have that kind of player?
Are YOU that kind of player?
Got any annoying stories or rants for me?

Stealth Marmot
2017-01-13, 08:23 AM
Of course there is THAT player at the table.

If you can't figure out who it is, it's you.

Ursus the Grim
2017-01-13, 08:37 AM
I'm of the opinion that people always need to hate someone. Its in our nature. In High School, there were cliques. In politics, there's 'the Other.' In D&D, its the one player who doesn't fit in as seamlessly as the others.

There are some players who deserve scorn, sure. But I think even a player who isn't normally that offensive to our playstyle or sense of taste might get magnified by our innate need to dislike someone.

At some tables, its the munchkin. At others, its the idiot who scuttles the team's otherwise solid coordination. There's always that one annoying player because on some level, we're always looking for him.

StaleGoat
2017-01-13, 08:51 AM
I'm of the opinion that people always need to hate someone. Its in our nature. In High School, there were cliques. In politics, there's 'the Other.' In D&D, its the one player who doesn't fit in as seamlessly as the others.


I kind of agree with you here, I'm not sure how it is in other schools but in my school there was literally a mixture of people in every 'clique'. Everyone was incredibly open, and that's how its kind of been everywhere, but that might just be an Australian thing?

BUT I feel like its some part of human nature to hate on someone at least, just to have someone to put blame on or something, though I think there are some cases, like the one I'm experiencing right now in my party, where it's beyond that. There are just some characters that you hate because of how annoying that actually are as a person.

Cluedrew
2017-01-13, 09:19 AM
To Ursus the Grim: Your option on human nature matches your name. In the end it probably works out like most things, your not completely wrong but at the same time it is more complex than that.

As for that one annoying player, no there doesn't have to be that one annoying player. I don't agree with the explanation Stealth Marmot forwarded, sure you can be that player without realizing it, but that doesn't mean you are. And I think the belief that there has to be an annoying player is harmful because it allows those that do exist to continue. And I don't mean they should just be kicked, but did you consider saying "No, this is serious time, let me play out this scene."? If you never tell them that this is more than a joke how are they supposed to know?

Give them a chance to improve, and if they don't take it (and if you have and they didn't) then start looking at removing the player from the group.

StaleGoat
2017-01-13, 09:32 AM
To Ursus the Grim: And I don't mean they should just be kicked, but did you consider saying "No, this is serious time, let me play out this scene."? If you never tell them that this is more than a joke how are they supposed to know?

Give them a chance to improve, and if they don't take it (and if you have and they didn't) then start looking at removing the player from the group.

The problem is with asking them to let you play it out, is that it's already over and that person is forcing our group (in particular, this might not apply to everyone, obviously) to move on. And I don't think its fair that the other players have to tell him that scenes like a character telling another character their childhood friend was viciously attacked and eaten is a 'serious scene'.

SilverLeaf167
2017-01-13, 09:34 AM
Well, I'm the DM in our group, and I quite like all my players (though it helps that they're all close friends of mine). So either the answer is "No", or the definition should be expanded to include DMs. :smallwink:

Arbane
2017-01-13, 10:02 AM
By definition, someone at the table has to be the most annoying player.

Geddy2112
2017-01-13, 10:32 AM
Of course there is THAT player at the table.
If you can't figure out who it is, it's you.

By definition, someone at the table has to be the most annoying player.
This.

That said, just because there is that player, does not mean they have to be THAT player. There will always be one, but sometimes there is one so horrifically toxic they should not be at the table or part of the group.

At times, I have been that player, we all have. However, several people in our group have come and gone because they were THAT player.

JAL_1138
2017-01-13, 10:56 AM
That said, just because there is that player, does not mean they have to be THAT player. There will always be one, but sometimes there is one so horrifically toxic they should not be at the table or part of the group.


Aye.

Either there is a most annoying person, or there are multiple people who are exactly the same degree of annoying, or no one at the table is annoying in the slightest. Practically speaking, there is virtually always going to be someone who is the most annoying.

That doesn't mean the most annoying person at the table is necessarily particularly or objectionably annoying. They might just be technically more annoying than the rest of the table, but not so annoying it actually bothers anybody or causes problems.

There's not necessarily a player at every table who grates on someone's nerves like nails on a chalkboard, or a player who's otherwise horrible and/or un-fun to game with. This would be a pretty miserable hobby if every group were guaranteed to include someone who's that aggravating to be around.

ImNotTrevor
2017-01-13, 12:04 PM
I don't have any annoying players in my usual group. >.>

And I reject the notion that it is unfair that you need to distinguish to people when something serious is happening. If the campaign has been lighthearted thusfar and now we're changing pace, and someone doesn't pick up on that, it's just common sense to bring them in on that tonal shift. If they're not willing, then now you have a specific problem. If they're just not quite socially aware enough to catch the shift, then NOT pointing it out doesn't solve the problem any more than having a kid in your house who constantly tries to touch the stove, and just claiming its unfair that you need to teach the kid not to touch the stove while doing nothing and complaining on a forum.

By letting them know when they've misread the tone of a situation, you do one of 3 good things:
1. Reveal that this person is intentionally trying to ruin it.
2. Help them not make this mistake in the future.
3. Reveal that this person is uncomfortable with serious scenes in their RP, which can be worked around.

There are no downsides other than "but I don't wanna." If complaining is the most productive thing you want to do about it, it's now your own problem that this continues. You've made your bed. Lay in it.

Squiddish
2017-01-13, 03:35 PM
In my group, there isn't one particular player. Everyone in my group is mostly civil and respectful (except for talking over each other). However, everyone has one annoying trait. For example, one player can't commit to a character concept, another can't remember his abilities, another can't stop making horrible puns, and the current DM is an optimizer and a rules lawyer but not a munchkin. My particular flaw is that I tend to throw a fit when one of my characters dies.

Ruslan
2017-01-13, 03:56 PM
In any group, there will always be one player who is the most annoying player in the group. It's a fact of life.

Cluedrew
2017-01-13, 04:07 PM
On Minimum Annoyance: Personally I think there is a very significant difference between a problem player and the least awesome player in your group. Because although the problem player in your group is necessary the least awesome player in your group (unless you have multiple problem players) the least awesome person in your group is not necessarily a problem player. Yes everyone has faults, but that doesn't seem to be the what is meant by "that one annoying player".


The problem is with asking them to let you play it out, is that it's already over and that person is forcing our group (in particular, this might not apply to everyone, obviously) to move on.Unless you have some hard core improve rules of no rejections going on, just say "No, don't do that." And honestly how are they forcing the group? They are one person at the table, not even the GM, why can't you just ask for some serious time? Either ignore there actions or... actually yeah, I was going to say something about in character actions but don't do that. Out of character problems should be addressed out of character.


And I don't think its fair that the other players have to tell him that scenes like a character telling another character their childhood friend was viciously attacked and eaten is a 'serious scene'.There are lots of media (especially in games were we have unexpected character deaths) where character death is treated much lighter than it would be in real life. Why should this be any different? That was a rhetorical question, I know the answer and you seem to as well, but does your annoying player?

CharonsHelper
2017-01-13, 04:20 PM
another can't stop making horrible puns,

There is no such thing as a horrible pun. All puns are special - some are just unloved. (Exceptions only for intentionally misunderstanding the specific words of what someone else said to get the pun to work. But that's not the pun's fault - it's just being misused.)

AshfireMage
2017-01-13, 04:20 PM
In my group, there isn't one particular player. Everyone in my group is mostly civil and respectful (except for talking over each other). However, everyone has one annoying trait. For example, one player can't commit to a character concept, another can't remember his abilities, another can't stop making horrible puns, and the current DM is an optimizer and a rules lawyer but not a munchkin. My particular flaw is that I tend to throw a fit when one of my characters dies.

This has been the case with my games, too- getting super into their character and starting long personal quests (sometimes even a good thing when the other players get involved somehow), going on long tangents about unrelated things, getting frustrated when the dice don't go their way, not paying attention when it's not their turn, forgetting what they're supposed to do (we cut that person a lot of slack because they were new and mostly there because their SO was), getting way to into their world and npcs at the expense of giving their players too much expository narration... Mine as a player is probably talking too loudly and telling unfunny jokes and as a dm it's probably being too much of a pushover.

But none of it has ever been game-ruining, so we just deal with it and occasionally remind someone to stop being annoying.

Jamgretter
2017-01-13, 08:32 PM
In my group, there isn't one particular player. Everyone in my group is mostly civil and respectful (except for talking over each other). However, everyone has one annoying trait. For example, one player can't commit to a character concept, another can't remember his abilities, another can't stop making horrible puns, and the current DM is an optimizer and a rules lawyer but not a munchkin. My particular flaw is that I tend to throw a fit when one of my characters dies.

One day I'll get you guys to prepare for your turn, one day...

Kelb_Panthera
2017-01-13, 09:38 PM
This may be appropriate. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6m42ZQHTfs)

Language warning.

RazorChain
2017-01-13, 09:51 PM
The problem is with asking them to let you play it out, is that it's already over and that person is forcing our group (in particular, this might not apply to everyone, obviously) to move on. And I don't think its fair that the other players have to tell him that scenes like a character telling another character their childhood friend was viciously attacked and eaten is a 'serious scene'.

First of all your GM is supposed to control the scene and it's usually the GM and the players in the scene that decide together when it ends. In my game butting your head into a scene that you don't belong to just to make silly jokes would earn you an icy cold stare and a complete silence so you could try to stammer yourself through an apology while trying to hide under the gaming table. So this only tends to happen once...maybe twice.

It is always great to have table rules so this doesn't happen. I'm going to name a few in my game.

1) No multimedia devices unless it pertains the game
2) While we game only refer to each other with character names
3) Don't butt your head into scenes you don't belong and don't interrupt scenes
4) Open play, no note passing.

Mordaedil
2017-01-17, 07:46 AM
Our table is pretty free of this, albeit we had one guy who was cursing a lot, but he didn't show up for most of the sessions, so we just dropped him eventually.

I mean, I might have been that guy, except I decided to do all my things in writing as to not disturb the others (we play online over Roll20), and the other guys are pretty good overall.

So not every table is cursed to have *that guy*.

GungHo
2017-01-17, 10:31 AM
We're old. We don't really suffer fools. I'm probably the most irritating of us all, but it's usually due to sarcasm and impatience rather than needing attention because my daddy didn't hug me enough.

No-Kill Cleric
2017-01-19, 11:17 PM
We had a poor soul who was painfully Genre UnSavvy. She brought a show-fighting kobold to the Dwarf Fortress oneshot levels of unsavvy. We spent two hours, real time, to try to get her character to wear a beard since we all knew that dwarf protection is based on beards. She thought it was stupid and went into the trap. She was really angry that no one warned her about her character nearly dying instantly.

She also spent an entire campaign complaining that her character didn't fit into the story, but when we told her she should've tried to make one to fit in, she complained that she didn't want to because she didn't vote for the setting (airships) since they're "boring" and so wasn't interested in making a character to match.


We don't play with her anymore.

She found an online group that's been much better for her, so wins all around.

Yes, there just seems to be That One Player.

oxybe
2017-01-20, 12:06 AM
No, because we excise them as they try to creep in. We have better things to do then play bad D&D (or whatever RPG we're playing).

Vitruviansquid
2017-01-20, 12:31 AM
No, because we excise them as they try to creep in. We have better things to do then play bad D&D (or whatever RPG we're playing).

I agree.

As soon as this player is identified, he/she should be ruthlessly excluded for the health of the game and the sanity of all the players.

Potato_Priest
2017-01-20, 12:42 AM
You know,
The one who think there character is the best and makes them over the top ridiculous
The one who never shuts up
The one who doesn't understand sometime they need to let other characters do things alone
The one who's probably a **** in some way - like greedy, rude
The one who ruins things just to be 'funny'

Does anyone else have that kind of player?
Are YOU that kind of player?
Got any annoying stories or rants for me?

I play at a high school D&D club, so we see all sorts of problem players, for all sorts of reasons. In general, we try to look past each other's vastly different alignments and goals, and just try to play the game together. A lot of us would love to interrupt a dramatic scene with something funny (sometimes including myself, I am ashamed to say), and compared to a separate group that I run with only people that I want in it, it's not that great. However, it has been great training for interpersonal relationships. I have had to learn to accept that not all of us want to play the same kind of game with the same kind of story. The DM does a good job of railroading us together, and while that may generally be seen as a bad thing, it really does help. When you're suddenly cast into abyss, you are most certainly going to be willing to work with a bunch of jerks to get out, even if you aren't one yourself. Although many times I am frustrated by the actions of my other players in this campaign, it has been fun to been play a game with them nonetheless, and I am not sorry that I attend.

So, while on some level, yes, you should not play with people whom you don't want to play with, I think that tolerance of different playstyles is also important, and you might be able to learn to live with this guy if you try.

Narmoth
2017-01-20, 06:56 AM
The problem is with asking them to let you play it out, is that it's already over and that person is forcing our group (in particular, this might not apply to everyone, obviously) to move on. And I don't think its fair that the other players have to tell him that scenes like a character telling another character their childhood friend was viciously attacked and eaten is a 'serious scene'.

What is the GM doing about this?

Darth Ultron
2017-01-20, 07:19 AM
Does anyone else have that kind of player?
Are YOU that kind of player?
Got any annoying stories or rants for me?

I do. And I get rid of that player quick and send them running from my house never to return. I don't put up with any annoying players for every long, but maybe on a good day I will give them one chance. Not often though, mostly as soon as they show the slightest bit of being annoying they get the boot.

Cluedrew
2017-01-20, 08:06 AM
As soon as this player is identified, he/she should be ruthlessly excluded for the health of the game and the sanity of all the players.Sometimes they can be helped, although they have to be willing to be helped first. Which is not a trait that is as common as it should be, but if you find it you might just have a keeper.

oxybe
2017-01-20, 08:46 AM
To be "that player" at my table means going through session 0 successfully, then ignoring all that and acting like a [expletive] duing session 1.

We have session 0 to help make sure everyone understands what kind of game we're playing, the tone/genre/theme ect... To have gotten past session 0 means you've understood all that and brainstorm a character and ideas on their place in the group/gameworld alongside the rest of the group and asked questions to the GM. To act like "that guy" past that point means strait up disrespecting the group by ignoring the pregame.

I feel no need to try to help someone who's made a blatant show of not wanting to show the minimum of respect to the group by not playing the game we all agreed to play.

Unless it's help show them the door. That I'm more then willing to help with.

Cluedrew
2017-01-20, 09:01 AM
To oxybe: In that case yes, it is probably not worth trying. But on the other hand one of my worst role-playing experiances ended with the catalyst player (I cannot say it was entirely their fault, everyone messed up a little there) realizing what they had done and apologizing for it. I would be willing to give them another chance, and as long as they showed some improvement after that, probably third or forth while they found their feet.

So no, I'm not saying it applies in all cases, but there are cases where it applies.

StaleGoat
2017-01-20, 12:18 PM
What is the GM doing about this?

Nothing, which is kinda of what's annoying. The annoying player is a DM for him in another campaign and he doesn't want to piss him off, because if he does the annoying player becomes a **** in their campaign.

Our DM is also pretty new to this, and he's still learning a lot, and he doesn't like to stifle people's fun, which I'm totally accepting of.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-20, 12:55 PM
I don't really think it's the GM's job to make the group play nice with each other. Well, it's their job insofar as it's everyone's job. If something bugs you then speak up about it.

StaleGoat
2017-01-20, 01:15 PM
I don't really think it's the GM's job to make the group play nice with each other. Well, it's their job insofar as it's everyone's job. If something bugs you then speak up about it.

I think it is, in part, the DM's job. I'm not saying its entirely theirs, or the players, just that they both have to do something. A DM shouldn't let an annoying player continue to be a **** when its obvious that no one likes whats happening, in the same way a player should speak up when something is bothering them about another player.

Quertus
2017-01-20, 01:32 PM
I'm of the opinion that people always need to hate someone. Its in our nature. In High School, there were cliques. In politics, there's 'the Other.' In D&D, its the one player who doesn't fit in as seamlessly as the others.

There are some players who deserve scorn, sure. But I think even a player who isn't normally that offensive to our playstyle or sense of taste might get magnified by our innate need to dislike someone.

At some tables, its the munchkin. At others, its the idiot who scuttles the team's otherwise solid coordination. There's always that one annoying player because on some level, we're always looking for him.

Humans are, sadly, taught and encouraged to hate, with sports teams, school rivalries, D&D racism, all the way up to "slap a jap" war rhetoric.


I kind of agree with you here, I'm not sure how it is in other schools but in my school there was literally a mixture of people in every 'clique'. Everyone was incredibly open, and that's how its kind of been everywhere, but that might just be an Australian thing?

BUT I feel like its some part of human nature to hate on someone at least, just to have someone to put blame on or something, though I think there are some cases, like the one I'm experiencing right now in my party, where it's beyond that. There are just some characters that you hate because of how annoying that actually are as a person.

So, in metaphor, your school had standard D&D parties, rather than a fighters' clique, a wizards' clique, etc? Cool.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-20, 03:33 PM
You know,
The one who think there character is the best and makes them over the top ridiculous
The one who never shuts up
The one who doesn't understand sometime they need to let other characters do things alone
The one who's probably a **** in some way - like greedy, rude
The one who ruins things just to be 'funny'

There's a player in my group who is ALWAYS greedy, ALWAYS an ******* and ALWAYS has to be in EVERYTHING.

I got fed up today. My character had died and I already had another one made up so I used him, and both of them were linked as super close friends from their pasts. So when my character died, so did the annoying persons, but the only other player survived and she had to carry the message to my character. I had it all planned out, I was going to say how he was glad she got out when she was so shy, and how he was glad she had a friend in the end, and how she would have been glad the player's survivor got out.
But then, just as I begin to speak, out of NOWHERE the annoying character appears and asks in a ridiculously goofy voice 'DiD you BuUuuUUuuuuUUUUury THeM?"
Then proceeded to take over what we were doing, bypassing the whole talk and moving us on to whatever plan his character had.

Does anyone else have that kind of player?
Are YOU that kind of player?
Got any annoying stories or rants for me?


Your GM needs to tell them to stuff a sock in it when they don't have a living character present. If the annoying character was dead, then that character's player has no in-world voice for his nonsense, and needs to shut the hell up.

I have no patience for those characters or those players.

Dr paradox
2017-01-20, 06:05 PM
Yeah... I get what you mean. My regular group no longer has that problem, but for a long time we had someone in our group that had... problems. They were just on a different wavelength from the rest of us. He was oddly competetive and defensive for a group that was generally very chill. If someone had a bonus to a skill of less than +5, he'd say that they "sucked" at it, similarly for any ability score of thirteen or lower. It wasn't malicious or anything, I just don't think he got how people could get defensive, even if they were okay with their characters having somewhat weaker spots.

It was a very narrative focused campaign, and he was a very mechanical kinda guy. At one point the players were caught and put in a dungeon, and the jailer came in to take them to a meeting with the local lord to offer them a deal, and most of the group was cool with hearing him out. Then the guy's character refused to come out of her cell, and the jailer rolled his eyes and grabbed a staff to force her out, at which point she hit him with a cone of cold and turned him into a popsicle. The rest of the group was horrified, because the guy had just been doing his job, but at this point they didn't have a choice but to break out.

That was a point of contention for the next year and a half before the campaign fizzled out. Any time they would try to move in such a way as to prevent his character from doing anything impulsively murderous, he'd ask why, they'd bring up that jailer, and he'd explode in frustration. Good guy, but kind of a headache to run for sometimes.

Frozen_Feet
2017-01-20, 06:45 PM
Human endeavors tend to follow Pareto Law at suffient scales. That is: 20% of people do 80% of stuff.

So in a group of five, one person usually is the group leader who does most stuff to keep the group running. (In tabletop games, hopefully the GM.)

And just as well, there's one player who causes most of the problems. (Hopefully not also the GM.)

Note: there's no guarantee that the problem player is worse as a person, just that they do not fit the group dynamics. It's possible the problem player is, say, only smart person in a room full of idiots.

StaleGoat
2017-01-20, 09:06 PM
Your GM needs to tell them to stuff a sock in it when they don't have a living character present. If the annoying character was dead, then that character's player has no in-world voice for his nonsense, and needs to shut the hell up.

I have no patience for those characters or those players.

Ah, my mistake. He did make a new character, but his character WAS literally on the other side of the room singing and stuff where he couldn't hear.

StaleGoat
2017-01-20, 09:13 PM
It was a very narrative focused campaign, and he was a very mechanical kinda guy. At one point the players were caught and put in a dungeon, and the jailer came in to take them to a meeting with the local lord to offer them a deal, and most of the group was cool with hearing him out. Then the guy's character refused to come out of her cell, and the jailer rolled his eyes and grabbed a staff to force her out, at which point she hit him with a cone of cold and turned him into a popsicle. The rest of the group was horrified, because the guy had just been doing his job, but at this point they didn't have a choice but to break out.


I think its characters that contest the party like this that annoy me the most, or ones that just can't do simple things like getting out of that cell.

My annoying player is a little similar. Our DM loves doing just little dungeons everywhere and following a planned storyline but the player purposely contests this and our wants. He hates dungeons and won't spend more than an hour in-game (Which is hard to do since most of them have two mini bosses and a main boss and lots of places to explore) and won't let us short rest. He even makes up his own storyline to follow.

I think when someone goes off an does their own thing that's just annoying for the rest of the party, that's when they become that player.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-20, 09:24 PM
I think its characters that contest the party like this that annoy me the most, or ones that just can't do simple things like getting out of that cell.

My annoying player is a little similar. Our DM loves doing just little dungeons everywhere and following a planned storyline but the player purposely contests this and our wants. He hates dungeons and won't spend more than an hour in-game (Which is hard to do since most of them have two mini bosses and a main boss and lots of places to explore) and won't let us short rest. He even makes up his own storyline to follow.

I think when someone goes off an does their own thing that's just annoying for the rest of the party, that's when they become that player.


That's a difference in "goal" for the game, and a player who is unwilling to admit that what they want isn't what they're going to get from a group that's doing dungeon crawls.

Darth Ultron
2017-01-20, 10:56 PM
I don't really think it's the GM's job to make the group play nice with each other. Well, it's their job insofar as it's everyone's job. If something bugs you then speak up about it.

I think this is a big job of the DM. Outside the ''game'' role, the DM makes sure everyone plays nice.

I you have ever met people, you know not all people are nice. And worse, very often a group of people won't speak up or do anything about that one not nice person. That one person can ruin everything, and the group will just sit there. That is why you need a ''leader'' to step in, and that is the DM.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-21, 12:32 PM
I think this is a big job of the DM. Outside the ''game'' role, the DM makes sure everyone plays nice.

I could not disagree more. The players sign up to play the PCs, the GM signs up to play the world. Why people are translating this into some sort of OOC power is beyond me. Frankly, I find it kind of unhealthy.

Quertus
2017-01-21, 12:44 PM
I could not disagree more. The players sign up to play the PCs, the GM signs up to play the world. Why people are translating this into some sort of OOC power is beyond me. Frankly, I find it kind of unhealthy.

It is... a common perception. Humans want to be able to "pass the buck", and so push that task and that authority off into the GM. They will even encourage a "don't get involved" mindset as somehow being the "correct" way of being.

I won't deny, sometimes, having a centralized authority figure is advantageous, but I completely reject the notion of it being the only, or even best, way to do things.

Personally, I find that having the person (or people) best suited to the job do the job works really well. If someone is good at organizing things, let them organize things. If someone is good at diffusing tension, let them diffuse tension. If someone is good with the rules, let them handle the rules. If the GM happens to be the only one in the room with any skill at any of those, fine, over-tax the GM; but, in general, find the division of labor that works best for your group.

Kelb_Panthera
2017-01-21, 12:59 PM
I could not disagree more. The players sign up to play the PCs, the GM signs up to play the world. Why people are translating this into some sort of OOC power is beyond me. Frankly, I find it kind of unhealthy.

While I disagree with darth ultron quite sharply in most aspects of DM'ing, I disagree with him much less on this one.

You put it, "The players sign up to play the PC's, the GM signs up to play the [rest of] the world." These things are not equal; not even close. The DM is signing up for the lion's share of the work and that must, necessarily, come with a bit more control over the activity as a whole; at least in a defacto sense, if not more explicitly. If the DM gets fed up with the player(s) not making an effort to comport themselves appropriately and/or failing to yield to his definite authority as the game-rules arbitrator then the game ends. Theoretically, one of the other players could step into the role but that doesn't change the nature of it, only who's wearing the hat.

Now that said, the group is (presumably) otherwise social equals. A -good- DM doesn't simply discard that dynamic when the group sits down to play. It's still a group activity reliant on voluntary associations and that requires compromise from -all- involved parties to work. It is not solely the DM's job to make everyone at the table get along but it -is- a duty in which he shares and he -does- have some small measure of greater authority over the given activity. If there's a simple action he can take that will solve the problem, he should.

Regardless of the above, -everyone- has a stake in making sure everyone is getting along at the table. If you have a problem, whether you're a player or the GM, speak up about it. You're not playing with mind-readers and the offending person doesn't necessarily know he's offending unless you tell him.

TL;DR: there's nothing inherently unhealthy about someone being in a social leadership position. It only becomes unhealthy when taken too far.

mr-mercer
2017-01-21, 01:23 PM
I've only been in a couple of campaigns so far, but neither of them have had any problem players as such: everyone has been respectful of the setting the DMs created and has made their quirkier characters in unintrusive and genuinely enjoyable ways. I do think the observation that each person has a different That Guy-ish trait to them is quite accurate, though: in my case, I have a tendency to mentally play out my character's story before I even know where the campaign goes (sometimes before I even start using them). That's less me trying to push my ideas onto the DM and more akin to guessing at the next plot twist of insert-TV-show-here, but I am a little worried that I end up inadvertantly putting a lot of pressure on the DM with that.

Vitruviansquid
2017-01-21, 01:39 PM
Sometimes they can be helped, although they have to be willing to be helped first. Which is not a trait that is as common as it should be, but if you find it you might just have a keeper.

I could rehabilitate them. True.

Or, we could not deal with their personality defects.

The thing is, an RPG game falls apart if people are not having fun over enough time. It doesn't matter whether they rationally understand they are not having fun because of one person or if it's something else. The more you allow a disruptive person to continually be disruptive, the more likely one of your good people are going to end up folding and quitting.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-21, 02:10 PM
TL;DR: there's nothing inherently unhealthy about someone being in a social leadership position. It only becomes unhealthy when taken too far.

There's nothing wrong with that, no. Specifically what I find unhealthy is the assumption that it's going to be the GM who is.

Segev
2017-01-21, 02:15 PM
Have you spoken to this player out of game about his behavior?

I would try two things: talking to him about his behavior and why it's unwelcome, and, in-game, overriding him. Tell him, flat-out, "Dude, stop. You're ruining this scene." Don't LET him insist you push forward. Tell him he's holding up the game by not letting you finish. If he insists that it's "his character," then tell him his options are to play his character differently, or having your character react in-character to his bad behavior, possibly much more violently than you would IC. And that yours certainly isn't going to party with his if his behaves this way.

Ninja-Radish
2017-01-21, 05:44 PM
I'm blessed with being in a group of great friends and excellent players. If there's an annoying player in the group, it's probably me. I don't like tropes so I always try to play a character who's different, even possibly a snowflake. Some people don't like that.

Also, I'm a big fan of dark, gritty fantasy authors like Joe Abercrombie for example, so my characters tend to use foul language, which the other players don't like for some reason. But I just don't see a hard boiled mercenary talking like a Disney Princess, so I use the language that an edgier character would use.

Cluedrew
2017-01-21, 10:44 PM
I could rehabilitate them. [...] The more you allow a disruptive person to continually be disruptive, the more likely one of your good people are going to end up folding and quitting.I'm not claiming that it is a solution to all problems. But I have seen bad player stories that consisted of a single misstep and swift judgement (or a series of missteps that no one complained about at the time). I can't say for any particular case but sometimes I can't help but wondering if some of these could have been fixed just by speaking up.

Although if you are allowing them to continue to be disruptive, you are not in any sense of the word "rehabilitating" them. ... Of course I'm not an expert and can really only thing of... 2 cases (1 success and 1 failure) where I got to try but... there is my take on it.

Segev
2017-01-21, 10:59 PM
Also, I'm a big fan of dark, gritty fantasy authors like Joe Abercrombie for example, so my characters tend to use foul language, which the other players don't like for some reason. But I just don't see a hard boiled mercenary talking like a Disney Princess, so I use the language that an edgier character would use.

There is an art to talking tough without swearing. But it is quite doable. And often more impactful.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-21, 11:51 PM
I'm blessed with being in a group of great friends and excellent players. If there's an annoying player in the group, it's probably me. I don't like tropes so I always try to play a character who's different, even possibly a snowflake. Some people don't like that.

Also, I'm a big fan of dark, gritty fantasy authors like Joe Abercrombie for example, so my characters tend to use foul language, which the other players don't like for some reason. But I just don't see a hard boiled mercenary talking like a Disney Princess, so I use the language that an edgier character would use.

Based on his fiction, Joe Abercrombie strikes me as the sort of player who would say "But if my character takes any of the 37 smart options instead of this 1 really stupid one, that would be bad roleplaying!" or "If my character actually learns and grows from their mistakes, that would be bad roleplaying!"

At least from what I've read of his work, it can only be taken as parody, or as someone who thinks that "more stupid = more real".

Ninja-Radish
2017-01-22, 12:14 AM
Based on his fiction, Joe Abercrombie strikes me as the sort of player who would say "But if my character takes any of the 37 smart options instead of this 1 really stupid one, that would be bad roleplaying!" or "If my character actually learns and grows from their mistakes, that would be bad roleplaying!"

At least from what I've read of his work, it can only be taken as parody, or as someone who thinks that "more stupid = more real".

Not to completely derail this thread, but I dunno if "stupid" is the right word. Alot of the characters in his books have things go badly for them because of circumstances they can't control, or the manipulations of Bayaz, who's basically Gandalf if Gandalf was a total ****.

daniel_ream
2017-01-22, 01:24 AM
At least from what I've read of his work, it can only be taken as parody, or as someone who thinks that "more stupid = more real".

My impression of his work is that, like Lev Grossman's The Magicians, it started out as "I really hate {specific work of fiction}, so I'm going to deconstruct the hell out of it" and wasn't really thought out much beyond that. It seemed very shallow.

As for "that one player", I'm going to go with RPGs Are Not Therapy. It's not the GM's job (or anyone else's at the table) to try and fix social problems. I agree with Brother Ook that imputing all kinds of social authority to the GM is a horrible idea; it's certainly been the root of a great deal of group dysfunction I've seen over the years.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-22, 01:42 AM
My impression of his work is that, like Lev Grossman's The Magicians, it started out as "I really hate {specific work of fiction}, so I'm going to deconstruct the hell out of it" and wasn't really thought out much beyond that. It seemed very shallow.


What work is that, in the case of Abercrombie?

It's not response to another work, or deconstruction of another work, that's the problem. It's when you end up with an entire series of books based on that deconstruction. Parody, satire, and deconstruction are best in small doses.




As for "that one player", I'm going to go with RPGs Are Not Therapy. It's not the GM's job (or anyone else's at the table) to try and fix social problems. I agree with Brother Ook that imputing all kinds of social authority to the GM is a horrible idea; it's certainly been the root of a great deal of group dysfunction I've seen over the years.


The GM is in a position of natural social authority as it is, and should not overuse or abuse it.

However, in the case from the OP... if none of the other players are going to say something, the GM needs to enforce some basic table etiquette.

Kelb_Panthera
2017-01-22, 04:08 AM
There's nothing wrong with that, no. Specifically what I find unhealthy is the assumption that it's going to be the GM who is.

... but the DM -is- in a leadership role within the group. How could he not be? He's volunteered to do drastically more work than the players, he's invested with authority over the game itself both because of this and the necessity of a rules arbiter, and he's expected to set the tone of the campaingn which, necessarily, sets the tone around the table as well.

The DM doesn't have sole responsibility to keep the peace amongst the group but there's no getting around the fact it's a leadership position.

Frozen_Feet
2017-01-22, 04:34 AM
There's nothing wrong with that, no. Specifically what I find unhealthy is the assumption that it's going to be the GM who is.

Who else is it going to be, then? Personally, I think your position is slightly backwards. The role of the Game Master was inherited from wargames, and in those games the GM was typically a neutral referee, who was tasked with supervising everyone follows the rules and table etiquette, and was meant to f.ex. boot out people in tournaments if they behaved badly, whether by breaking the rules or just being rude.

So it's the particular field of RPGs which "tacked on" the idea that the GM should also play the world. The GM being a supervisor of table conduct was always part of the job description.

This said, it's possible to decouple these two aspects of GMing and give them to different people. This said, someone has to manage the actual human relations at the table, as the alternative is inability to deal with dysfunctionality. That the power to do so can be abused is no counter-argument. Individuals and groups both can be horrible, so diffusion of responsibility is not an universal solution to anything. On the contrary, it usually works better in small groups to name a specific person who is responsible for some task, as then there is no confusion of who should do that.

Cluedrew
2017-01-22, 08:13 AM
For us (the groups I have played with) the out-of-game role of the GM seems to be taken up by however owns the space we are playing in. If it is the GM, it is the GM. But if we play at someone else's house it seems to switch to them. I say seems because I have never done a study on it, but just reflecting back on the previous times it has actually come up.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-22, 11:41 AM
Who else is it going to be, then?

Whoever the group wants to. Or even... no one at all, as is my preference. I prefer not playing with groups of people who need someone to hold their hands and walk them through disagreements between adults, but I understand that's not viable for some people.

If people want the GM to have an additional separate job in their game then so be it. All I object to is that it's seen as a default assumption. I object to the assumption that groups of people need someone to make them play nice with each other. I object to the assumption that if you sign up to play the world you're also signing up to do another totally unrelated job.


Personally, I think your position is slightly backwards. The role of the Game Master was inherited from wargames, and in those games the GM was typically a neutral referee, who was tasked with supervising everyone follows the rules and table etiquette, and was meant to f.ex. boot out people in tournaments if they behaved badly, whether by breaking the rules or just being rude.

So it's the particular field of RPGs which "tacked on" the idea that the GM should also play the world. The GM being a supervisor of table conduct was always part of the job description.

Okay. But this bears no resemblance to RPGs.

Knaight
2017-01-22, 12:12 PM
There is an art to talking tough without swearing. But it is quite doable. And often more impactful.

On the other hand, sometimes it doesn't feel true to character. In a case like this where it bothers the rest of the group taking up the non-swearing side of talking tough is probably a good idea, but the whole idea that the use of swearing somehow reduces everything it's in is all sorts of dubious - and I say this as someone who not infrequently runs games where all swearing is out of character because in character it wouldn't fit so well (usually because of the extent to which a lot of profanity feels modern and thus out of place in a setting a thousand years earlier or later).

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-22, 12:25 PM
On the other hand, sometimes it doesn't feel true to character. In a case like this where it bothers the rest of the group taking up the non-swearing side of talking tough is probably a good idea, but the whole idea that the use of swearing somehow reduces everything it's in is all sorts of dubious - and I say this as someone who not infrequently runs games where all swearing is out of character because in character it wouldn't fit so well (usually because of the extent to which a lot of profanity feels modern and thus out of place in a setting a thousand years earlier or later).

The Romans were probably as profane as f...

Ninja-Radish
2017-01-22, 01:31 PM
The Romans were probably as profane as f...

That's for sure, they were far more profane than we are currently. If it matters, I've decided not to play the "tough guy" type anymore. Not being able to use certain words feels very artificial for that type of character, so it's better to play a different type of character.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-22, 01:38 PM
That's for sure, they were far more profane than we are currently. If it matters, I've decided not to play the "tough guy" type anymore. Not being able to use certain words feels very artificial for that type of character, so it's better to play a different type of character.

See - I'm the opposite. I always feel that anyone dropping more than the occasional curse word (whether they are real or fictional) is just compensating for something - even if it's something as simple as a woefully thin vocabulary. They just remind me of the squeakers you occasionally get on online games - the 12 yr old with a high pitched voice who thinks that cursing every other word makes him appear mature. :smalltongue:

Someone cursing consistently doesn't seem tough to me - they seem to be putting up a thin facade.

daniel_ream
2017-01-22, 03:00 PM
For us (the groups I have played with) the out-of-game role of the GM seems to be taken up by however owns the space we are playing in.

There's a pretty strong social more the world over that guests shouldn't antagonize their host, so yeah.

The problem arises when you're playing in a neutral or public space, like a library or college. Even then, though, chucking responsibility onto whoever happens to be behind the DM screen that day is just a form of GSF#1.

GMs don't have "a natural leadership position" or "social authority". They're just another guy around the table.

Frozen_Feet
2017-01-22, 03:37 PM
I disagree. The position of a game master is one of social authority and natural leadership, it's right there in the god-damn name. Also, often codified in the rules of a given game.

But it does not mean that a person who is thrust into that position is at home using social authority, or has any natural leadership qualities to speak of.

Here's the thing: pretty much all other hobbies I've been part of select some figure as a spokesperson, precisely to manage interactions between hobbyists and to have a final say in conflict situations. RPG groups formed by cliques of friends rarely reach this level of organization, but I increasingly often find myself thinking that this is the reason why there's so little continuity for many of them. And this very much applies to adult hobbyists too, so don't give me that "but we're all mature adults" crap. Adults, especially when it comes to their hobbies, are frequently awful about how they cope with each other, and nominating some figure of authority often helps. (Sometimes it doesn't, but in those cases it also doesn't help to diffuse the responsibility.)

So trying to reduce any of this to a "geek social fallacy" is pretty questionable. Even if we somehow agreed it's a social fallacy, it is in no way unique to geeks.

Pex
2017-01-22, 04:08 PM
I disagree. The position of a game master is one of social authority and natural leadership, it's right there in the god-damn name. Also, often codified in the rules of a given game.

But it does not mean that a person who is thrust into that position is at home using social authority, or has any natural leadership qualities to speak of.

Here's the thing: pretty much all other hobbies I've been part of select some figure as a spokesperson, precisely to manage interactions between hobbyists and to have a final say in conflict situations. RPG groups formed by cliques of friends rarely reach this level of organization, but I increasingly often find myself thinking that this is the reason why there's so little continuity for many of them. And this very much applies to adult hobbyists too, so don't give me that "but we're all mature adults" crap. Adults, especially when it comes to their hobbies, are frequently awful about how they cope with each other, and nominating some figure of authority often helps. (Sometimes it doesn't, but in those cases it also doesn't help to diffuse the responsibility.)

So trying to reduce any of this to a "geek social fallacy" is pretty questionable. Even if we somehow agreed it's a social fallacy, it is in no way unique to geeks.

Not trying to provoke anything but rather a serious different take.

This could be a gender thing. Males tend to like hierarchies. In groups there is going to be an Alpha Male. Since it is stereotypical for RPG playing groups to be mostly male, the DM naturally becomes the Alpha Male. More so if you play at his house. If the role of DM regularly changes then it becomes more of a Group Dynamic. I won't say it's automatic, of course. If all the players of the group are tired of That Guy then who is the DM is irrelevant, and they all tell That Guy to stop it or get out. However it would probably mean That Guy is really being THAT GUY. In general though they would all tell the DM about the problem and have him handle it.

Vitruviansquid
2017-01-22, 04:42 PM
The game master does not have any social authority in most groups. True.

But he has a kind of authority of force. For most groups, any single player could drop out and the group can still recover, perhaps after finding a replacement. But if the GM doesn't play, the least bad thing to happen is that the campaign is gone. If none of the players have the time, skills, or will to become a GM, then the group is gone.

So being a GM is not exactly being elected leader of your social clique, but it is kind of like being the only one in the room with a gun.

daniel_ream
2017-01-22, 05:39 PM
I disagree. The position of a game master is one of social authority and natural leadership, it's right there in the god-damn name.

I can call myself Emperor Norton II; that doesn't make me Emperor of the United States, even if I can get other people to call me that, too.


And this very much applies to adult hobbyists too, so don't give me that "but we're all mature adults" crap.

Can I give you that "it doesn't happen with mature people" crap? Of course there are immature adults, but being able to deal with disruptive or offensive people without punting and hiding behind someone appointed more-or-less at random is a life skill that emotionally mature people possess. Geek hobbies really do have a lot of trouble with the GSFs, that's why they're such a useful rubric. If That One Guy really is annoying most of the players at the table to the point of distraction, the chorus of people shouting "Steve, stop being such a *******ed *****" ought to be enough to resolve the problem. Everyone whispering to the DM and expecting him to solve their social problems for them is pretty clearly dysfunctional.


But he has a kind of authority of force. For most groups, any single player could drop out and the group can still recover, perhaps after finding a replacement. But if the GM doesn't play, the least bad thing to happen is that the campaign is gone. If none of the players have the time, skills, or will to become a GM, then the group is gone

Well, you're talking about a form of the Heckler's Veto. And while it may seem that the GM has more practical power because he's running the game, allowing this to happen leads to GM's Girlfriend problems and the various "Grrr, Argh, my GM is an idiot" threads we see on every D&D board.

Here's the dirty little secret of this hobby: it's not actually all that hard to be a GM. Any halfways competent, mature player should be able to step behind the screen if the GM is That Guy. The GM has no power. None at all.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-22, 06:20 PM
The game master does not have any social authority in most groups. True.

But he has a kind of authority of force. For most groups, any single player could drop out and the group can still recover, perhaps after finding a replacement. But if the GM doesn't play, the least bad thing to happen is that the campaign is gone. If none of the players have the time, skills, or will to become a GM, then the group is gone.

So being a GM is not exactly being elected leader of your social clique, but it is kind of like being the only one in the room with a gun.

I think this is a much more honest way of viewing things, yeah. I don't agree that being the GM confers an expectation of social authority, but I do agree it comes with a degree of practical power. I would claim that this, while being true, is also obviously a bad thing.

I'd certainly immediately leave a game if a GM pulled out this metaphorical gun, or even referenced having one, but I think it's a fair analogy to make.

Knaight
2017-01-22, 09:18 PM
The Romans were probably as profane as f...

Probably. Was the culture necessarily similar enough to produce the same sort of references around the same sorts of taboos that tend to lead to the formation of modern swearing? Not so much.

Ninja-Radish
2017-01-22, 10:40 PM
See - I'm the opposite. I always feel that anyone dropping more than the occasional curse word (whether they are real or fictional) is just compensating for something - even if it's something as simple as a woefully thin vocabulary. They just remind me of the squeakers you occasionally get on online games - the 12 yr old with a high pitched voice who thinks that cursing every other word makes him appear mature. :smalltongue:

Someone cursing consistently doesn't seem tough to me - they seem to be putting up a thin facade.

I dunno, I have had a pretty long career as a first responder, and believe me when I say that cops, firefighters and paramedics have absolutely filthy mouths as a rule. It's a way to cope with job stress. My friends think I swear alot, but my mouth is squeaky clean compared to most of the guys I've worked with lol.

It seems artificial to me to keep a clean mouth because everyone I know who has a high stress, dangerous job (like adventurers would have), has a foul mouth to go along with it. I'm not saying that's universally true of course, just saying that's been my personal experience.

Cluedrew
2017-01-23, 08:17 AM
That's for sure, [the Romans] were far more profane than we are currently.Where did you get this? As far as my flaky knowledge of the subject goes swear words didn't even exist for most of the Roman times. Not in the same way.


I disagree. The position of a game master is one of social authority and natural leadership, it's right there in the god-damn name. Also, often codified in the rules of a given game.Personally, if you just need someone to be in that position then sure. But really I don't believe the GM's position caries out of game. Not in our group at least.

ImNotTrevor
2017-01-23, 08:41 AM
Where did you get this? As far as my flaky knowledge of the subject goes swear words didn't even exist for most of the Roman times. Not in the same way.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/276397/?client=ms-android-sprint-us

It existed in very much the same way. Humans don't really change much over time, despite our beliefs to the contrary. Thanks to Pompeii, we know that greek youth and adults were making graffiti. Mostly about their genitals and about who was really into said genitalia. (In a mocking way, of course.)


Was it the same WORDS? No. Did they swear? Oh yeah.

ExLibrisMortis
2017-01-23, 10:25 AM
Where did you get this? As far as my flaky knowledge of the subject goes swear words didn't even exist for most of the Roman times. Not in the same way.
Swearing and strong language is a really core part of human language use. I seriously doubt there is a culture out there without swearing in some form.

You might define a core mechanic for swearing/strong language, something like this*:

(1) We are both aware that some things are impolite, and are in agreement (mostly) on what those things are. Pretty standard procedure across cultures.
(2) The thing I am trying to communicate is different from the usual in a way that requires emphasis; in a sense, it's "more important than being polite". The giant stomping on my farm is not a regular giant (please help), it's a ******* big giant (SEND HELP NOW!!!).
(3) When I use impolite language to communicate, you conclude that (2) must be the case. The contrast between polite/impolite adds extra information.
(from which we get that excessive swearing erodes the power of swear words, whereas greater emphasis on the taboo nature of swearing enhances its effectiveness)


Of course there's the much simpler argument: I took Latin in high school, and yes, Romans did have swear words, if my teacher is to be believed :smallbiggrin:.


*I am not saying that this is correct, complete, or completely correct. It's just an example of how you can see swearing in the broad sense. Other mechanisms, such as stress relief as mentioned by Ninja-Radish, are in play.

Knaight
2017-01-23, 02:44 PM
Swearing and strong language is a really core part of human language use. I seriously doubt there is a culture out there without swearing in some form.

The "same way" bit is pretty key though. To use a medieval example, there was a lot of swearing that involved referencing a particular saint, then a body part perceived as unclean (e.g. blood). Someone swearing in English today referencing a saint is going to come across as really idiosyncratic.

Cluedrew
2017-01-23, 04:49 PM
Thank you both ImNotTrevor & ExLibrisMortis, although Knaight actually understood what I was speaking about the best. I understand curses have been around for a long time, but swear words are a particular kind of curse that may or may not share that wider history. The story that I got is that they don't, they showed up relatively recently in the time of the Romans. I probably could have explained that better.

Of course even that depends on the line between a general curse and a swear word. I think of a swear word as a word with a particular meaning but is often used otherwise as a curse and is generally considered rude in any context. A curse on the other hand is more general, a phrase to indicate displeasure or to add (usually negative) emphasis to a sentence. However a proper linguist might consider them as something completely different.

ExLibrisMortis
2017-01-24, 02:20 PM
Thank you both ImNotTrevor & ExLibrisMortis, although Knaight actually understood what I was speaking about the best. I understand curses have been around for a long time, but swear words are a particular kind of curse that may or may not share that wider history. The story that I got is that they don't, they showed up relatively recently in the time of the Romans. I probably could have explained that better.

Of course even that depends on the line between a general curse and a swear word. I think of a swear word as a word with a particular meaning but is often used otherwise as a curse and is generally considered rude in any context. A curse on the other hand is more general, a phrase to indicate displeasure or to add (usually negative) emphasis to a sentence. However a proper linguist might consider them as something completely different.
Do you mean that the particular concepts which are profane have changed, in such a way that Roman texts seem profane to modern English readers, even if they were not considered profane at the time? If so, then yes, absolutely.

And/or do you mean that the Romans did not have many swear words, as you think of them (which is close to 'taboo word' - 'forbidden' in a sense)? I don't know; maybe they had tons, maybe relatively few. I don't know where the (many cultural varieties that may be considered) Romans rank in terms of word taboo strength/prevalence.

Word taboos in general are not a recent phenomenon. I don't think that's so much a conclusion based on written evidence*, but word taboos exist in many places and cultures, and there's simply no reason to think they're a recent invention. Most likely, they came about around the first time a Homo Sapiens killed another for using the wrong name for his 'greatclub'.


Fun fact: In some cultures, it is taboo for a woman to use words that sound like her father-in-law's name. There are all sorts of strategies to deal with this; all women can of course talk about anything, but it is polite and expected to use different sounds.



*No archeological evidence for the existence of Pharao Ramesses I's List of Bad Words, as far as I know. It's quite thinkable that swear words are less attested, because they were written less often, less systematically, on less durable materials, and/or more often destroyed.

fatbaby
2017-01-24, 11:44 PM
Lots of extra discussion on the role of the GM and the use of swear words. I will post based on the actual question posed.

Yes, there is always that one annoying player. Sometimes that player changes from session to session. Sometimes I have been the annoying player. Usually because I had a drink or two too many, or because I am disagreeing with the DM (because he doesn't always play by the rules lol).

Sometimes it's the guy with the "Dumb Tank" character, because he didn't think out a more interesting PC concept, and can only "hit it with a sword".

Sometimes its the power gamer, because he can't just play the game, he has to obliterate it, and gets mad if he doesn't succeed at everything.

Sometimes its the quiet one, who is super excited about D&D, but won't talk at the table AT ALL.

Sometimes its the phone junkie, who doesn't know whats going on because they have been on their phone the whole game.

But to me as a DM, I think the one who always gets me is the "Superstar". They think their character is the center of the story and the game is only for them. They don't make a PC that fits with the game. I have had two.

One, a monk, who was basically any lead character from any anime. I explained in session 0 the game was "medieval" style, with no ties to eastern culture. Instead of building something to fit, he built a ninja, complete with bamboo hat and face scarf. When refused to communicate with the party, wishing to stand in the shadows as a "mysterious loner" type. When he finally opened up to the party, he spoke one long monologue and refused to say what he had to say until I played background music he specifically requested while he did so. When I killed him, he refused to die, instead trying to fabricate a story of him going back in time and changing his destiny, instead becoming a ruler of a country and the walking incarnate of Bahamut.

Second, a ranger, who wished to be a drow, but with none of the disadvantages. No sunlight sensitivity, no racism from the general public, etc. I allowed it by giving him wood elf stats and saying he could say his skin was dark. (Half elf/drow) He then gets mad because he can't duel wield katanas because he had them in older versions, and they do the most damage. We are playing 5e, so I told him no because it would imbalance the game. Then he was mad because he couldn't duel wield rapiers at level 3. Every time he makes a mistake he gets upset because there are consequences. Every time he takes damage he gets mad. Every time he rolls bad he gets mad. Long discussion/argument with me because I won't give him an enchanted weapon that he specifically requests. Then requests to get his rapier engraved with "Icingdeath". I told him no, If I wanted him to play Drizzt Do'Urden I would have premade his character. I mean, come on, be original, come up with an interesting character and background, make someone believable. Flaws are what make a character, flaws invite the opportunity to roleplay, flaws make a character.... real. You can't always win, you can't always be right, you can't always get what you want. Where's the fun in that? Sorry for the rant, but i think that is what this thread is for right?

The point is that these people are in the game for a reason. For the DM to kill them >:)

Ninja-Radish
2017-01-25, 12:48 AM
Lots of extra discussion on the role of the GM and the use of swear words. I will post based on the actual question posed.

I think I started the swearing discussion, my apologies. As for the rest of your post, I just have to say WOW, those players sound awful, my condolences for having to deal with them.

daniel_ream
2017-01-25, 02:15 AM
You can't always win, you can't always be right, you can't always get what you want. Where's the fun in that?

I once played in a game with a player who had hyper-optimized his character to the point that any combat, skill or DC check reduced to him mashing the "I win" button.

During one attempt to climb a wall, the local rules encyclopedia player pointed out that unambiguously by the rulebook, there was a +5 DC to do what he was doing, which meant he would be required to roll (albeit with only a 10% chance of failure).

Hyper-optimizer player then slammed his laptop down on the table and swore redfacedly at said player, including several direct epithets, stormed out of the room and came back a few moments later, still fuming.

That's when I quietly made my excuses and left.

Maglubiyet
2017-01-26, 12:08 AM
I don't mind the annoying player who's just a little off socially as much as I mind the guy who intentionally sets himself up to sabotage the game. Like it's his mission to be the fly in the ointment.

We've currently got a guy who's the SO of another player. He was never formally invited to anything, he's just been tagging along, so he slipped in under the radar. Every single time I've played with him he feels the need to be the center of attention and derail whatever the GM has planned.

It's finally gotten to the point that next session I'm going to have "the talk" with him or the GM if the guy isn't there.

Cluedrew
2017-01-26, 08:36 AM
Thank-you for the profane replies... sorry, replies on profanity, but I have nothing more to say on the matter.


Yes, there is always that one annoying player. [...] The point is that these people are in the game for a reason. For the DM to kill them >:)I think we may have effect and cause here. If you are keeping annoying players around to use them as vents... that might explain there constant presence.

Personally I think there is a significant difference between a someone who is just being annoying and "that one annoying player". But that might just be a matter of wording to some other people.

SirAlastor
2017-01-26, 06:54 PM
My DnD group has one in particular. She is the only female in our group and she always seems to pick the same "no nonsense, everyone is an idiot" character in every new session we have. Also, her characters are always uptight or untrusting towards everyone else's characters which makes having a normal conversation with her irritating.

For example, last session when our characters were meeting each other for the first time, this was how the conversation went.

Note: I am a tiefling paladin and she's a catfolk rogue.

Me: "My name is Sir Alastor, who are you by chance?"

Her: "Why do you want to know my name?" (suspicious tone)

Me: "Well it is common courtesy to give your name when meeting someone for the first time."

Her: "Well I don't want to tell you my name."

Me (slightly annoyed): "Well if you won't give me a name, I'll just call you Ears for now."

Her: "No! You can call me Ill." (learned later it was supposed to be short for Eliana)

Me: "Nah, that doesn't fit. I think it's best if we call you Ears... So, where are you from?"

Her: "Why should I tell you?"

(We spent the next five minutes going back and forth with me asking normal questions, like in a normal conversation, her questioning my motives for each and every single one, and me giving rationale explanation as to why I was asking said questions. It wasn't until our DM, whom she complained to by the way, told her that what she was doing was stupid because, as he put it, every single explanation I gave her in response to her questions were completely rationale and, unless she had an extremely low wisdom score, there was no reason for her to be so freaking defensive with answering my questions.)

I'm glad he did that, because I was on the verge of murdering her character out of sheer annoyance.

Ninja-Radish
2017-01-26, 07:11 PM
My DnD group has one in particular. She is the only female in our group and she always seems to pick the same "no nonsense, everyone is an idiot" character in every new session we have. Also, her characters are always uptight or untrusting towards everyone else's characters which makes having a normal conversation with her irritating.

For example, last session when our characters were meeting each other for the first time, this was how the conversation went.

Note: I am a tiefling paladin and she's a catfolk rogue.

Me: "My name is Sir Alastor, who are you by chance?"

Her: "Why do you want to know my name?" (suspicious tone)

Me: "Well it is common courtesy to give your name when meeting someone for the first time."

Her: "Well I don't want to tell you my name."

Me (slightly annoyed): "Well if you won't give me a name, I'll just call you Ears for now."

Her: "No! You can call me Ill." (learned later it was supposed to be short for Eliana)

Me: "Nah, that doesn't fit. I think it's best if we call you Ears... So, where are you from?"

Her: "Why should I tell you?"

(We spent the next five minutes going back and forth with me asking normal questions, like in a normal conversation, her questioning my motives for each and every single one, and me giving rationale explanation as to why I was asking said questions. It wasn't until our DM, whom she complained to by the way, told her that what she was doing was stupid because, as he put it, every single explanation I gave her in response to her questions were completely rationale and, unless she had an extremely low wisdom score, there was no reason for her to be so freaking defensive with answering my questions.)

I'm glad he did that, because I was on the verge of murdering her character out of sheer annoyance.

To be fair, the "suspicious loner" character isn't a female gamer issue, that's just an annoying player in general type of issue. People who play those types of characters don't realize how difficult it is to get them into the game.

SirAlastor
2017-01-26, 07:43 PM
To be fair, the "suspicious loner" character isn't a female gamer issue, that's just an annoying player in general type of issue. People who play those types of characters don't realize how difficult it is to get them into the game.

I agree, and she is aware of how "same" each of her characters can be with the previous ones and has asked our DM and the rest of us for advice on making a character more outside her comfort zone. Really it just comes down to how easy it is for a person to break from that comfort zone and make a character whose personality can be any number of things like noble hero, crazy pyromaniac, suave noble, simpleminded brute, etc. And recently she has gotten more creative with her characters, especially in the campaign I am DMing where our other two friends are playing very amusing and ridiculous characters; The first hour was literally spent with their three characters interacting. I had no input and just sat there watching and it was the most entertaining and amusing group dynamic I have seen in a while.

daniel_ream
2017-01-26, 10:10 PM
Me: "My name is Sir Alastor, who are you by chance?"

Her: "Why do you want to know my name?" (suspicious tone)

Me: "Well it is common courtesy to give your name when meeting someone for the first time."

Her: "Well I don't want to tell you my name."

Me (slightly annoyed): "Well if you won't give me a name, I'll just call you Ears for now."

This is almost exactly the "It's either Romana or Fred" conversation from the fourth Doctor's first appearance.

Which is generally the best way of dealing with uptight prigs, in character.

Pex
2017-01-26, 11:12 PM
My DnD group has one in particular. She is the only female in our group and she always seems to pick the same "no nonsense, everyone is an idiot" character in every new session we have. Also, her characters are always uptight or untrusting towards everyone else's characters which makes having a normal conversation with her irritating.

For example, last session when our characters were meeting each other for the first time, this was how the conversation went.

Note: I am a tiefling paladin and she's a catfolk rogue.

Me: "My name is Sir Alastor, who are you by chance?"

Her: "Why do you want to know my name?" (suspicious tone)

Me: "Well it is common courtesy to give your name when meeting someone for the first time."

Her: "Well I don't want to tell you my name."

Me (slightly annoyed): "Well if you won't give me a name, I'll just call you Ears for now."

Her: "No! You can call me Ill." (learned later it was supposed to be short for Eliana)

Me: "Nah, that doesn't fit. I think it's best if we call you Ears... So, where are you from?"

Her: "Why should I tell you?"

(We spent the next five minutes going back and forth with me asking normal questions, like in a normal conversation, her questioning my motives for each and every single one, and me giving rationale explanation as to why I was asking said questions. It wasn't until our DM, whom she complained to by the way, told her that what she was doing was stupid because, as he put it, every single explanation I gave her in response to her questions were completely rationale and, unless she had an extremely low wisdom score, there was no reason for her to be so freaking defensive with answering my questions.)

I'm glad he did that, because I was on the verge of murdering her character out of sheer annoyance.

Oh how I hate these type of players! An old group I was in had one join a week after I did. We had this same conversation. Knowing she was a Real Jerk type, I literally ignored her for the rest of the game. The DM thankfully took my side and through an NPC was able to convince her to apologize in character, if reluctantly. She quit the group a week later, and it was 12 years of gaming bliss.

Kelb_Panthera
2017-01-27, 10:52 AM
To be fair, the "suspicious loner" character isn't a female gamer issue,

Who said it was? Why would you presume anyone thought that?

Segev
2017-01-27, 11:12 AM
Who said it was? Why would you presume anyone thought that?

I think he's keying off of the off-hand mention that this particular player was also the only female in the group. It is an inference, though I think it infers too much from too little.

Jay R
2017-01-27, 12:29 PM
No, there is not always that one annoying player.

Sometimes there's two.

Segev
2017-01-27, 01:37 PM
No, there is not always that one annoying player.

Sometimes there's two.

That's why you don't let dvati into your game!

Kelb_Panthera
2017-01-27, 03:06 PM
That's why you don't let dvati into your game!

Well,one reason anyway.

Pex
2017-01-27, 06:39 PM
No, there is not always that one annoying player.

Sometimes there's two.

I had to quit my first 5E group when I realized it was almost everyone else and the DM.