What is your personal player pet peeve?

[the_brazenburn]

Hi DMs,
As I have a fairly annoying group of friends that I DM for, there are a fair number of things that get on my nerves. What have your players done that causes you to cringe?

[Toofey]

I'm coming from 2nd ed, and if I had the option I would switch back to a vancian caster because they have more options. Additionally there are simply not enough higher level spell slots.

edit: oh you meant with players not the system. Easily people who are never engaged who claim they're never the focus of the game. DMing I try to take pains to get an idea of all the character's backgrounds and to make sure they all get some time in the limelight. I've had 2 different players complain they weren't getting any focus and it was the two players who in improve terms wouldn't "take the ball" in part because they weren't paying attention. If you're shy or quiet I'll work with you, but you have to want to play, otherwise why are you there?

Second pet peeve, players who offer to host, then insist on putting on sports (mostly football) during the game. I'm even willing to schedule around this, but don't put on the game while I'm dming, beyond disrupting the game, it's insulting.

[NBooms06]

My group (and myself included) are very bad at reading the complete text of what an item, ability or feat does, which has wound up causing to either underperform or overperform, at various times. Hopefully, it all balances out in the end. What are some examples of your annoying friends? (Which, if they're really annoying, maybe you should find a different group?)

[the_brazenburn]

My friends... where to start? They make obnoxious comments, RP their characters terribly, make fun of my NPCs names, and homebrew their own magic items that COMPLETELY break the game (i.e. a magic knife that can instant-kill if a sneak attack is used... for a 5th level rogue!!:smallfurious:)

[Potato_Priest]

People being on their phones.

There are annoying behaviors like murderhoboing, interrupting the scene and moodkilling, and then there's being on your phone.

I've kicked out a good friend just for bringing someone else who was on his phone. (yes, it was kind of a we both stay or both go deal)

[Naanomi]

In my current group? Not being ready for your turn in combat; engineering excuses for your character to behave badly (i.e.: get drunk at the bar and blame all your rudeness to NPCs on the booze); squabbling over loot (especially when it clearly benefits one character over another)

[Cl0001]

Not reading a whole description and trying to use an ability, item, or spell in a situation where it literally can’t be done.
Interrupting me during a description of something.
Playing off a character as dangerously stupid even though the intelligence stat is an 8

[ZorroGames]

Have not DM'ed since AD&D/2nd but players who only focus on initiating combat to get out of social or exploration parts of the game.

[Zanthy1]

Excessive phone use. I don't mind if you browse your social media when its not your turn, especially if you can multitask. However, if it becomes clear that you have lost focus on the game then I get angry. Also, when they interrupt the game-play to show a picture or video, or just watch a video with sound during play.

[Joe the Rat]

Does being a DM count here?
Not being ready for your turn in combat;
...drives me nuts. Especially for Mr. Technical Difficulties and Mr. Small Armies.

When I play, I annoy other people with my dice fiddling.

[mephnick]

As a DM: asking for or stating rolls instead of telling me what they're doing and letting me request a roll. I've lost count of how many times I've had a player just say "ok I roll perception to find the thief" instead of "I subtley sidle up to the corner of the alley and peer into the dark attempting to locate the thief."

It seems nitpicky in session, but that second one gives everyone at the table an image of the fiction, tells me where the character actually is and lets me adjudicate the situation more naturally, with clearer description. Doing this 100% of the time makes the game flow so much better that I just want to throttle people when they won't.

[KorvinStarmast]

People not showing up on time, or at all with no courtesy of "not gonna make it" communication.

Not being ready on your turn.

Using phone at the table. If you need to take a call, excuse your self and come back. At the table, the focus is the game and each other. That's why we're here.

[Trampaige]

Using 'keeping notes for the campaign' as an excuse to be on their laptop on facebook the entire session.

Being on facebook on a laptop and not having any idea what they want to do in combat.

Having three people on their laptops at the game.

[Potatomade]

People who make sex jokes during dramatic moments. Also selfish players, who only care about their own enjoyment, and genuinely don't care about the other players at all. Usually exhibited by making sex jokes during dramatic moments.

[Mikemical]

People who can't read/follow the mood of the campaign.

We're playing a light-hearted campaign? They want to play Shadow the Hedhehog/D'rzzit Clone #N and demand they're taken seriously.

We're playing an intrigue and investigation focused campaign? They want to play a "smash first, then smash again" barbarian.

We're playing a horror-themed campaign? I allow a comic relief only so that killing them will reinforce the fact that they can die for acting the fool.

Inconsistent characters also annoy me. One session the LG Demon Hunter leaves a town of people to be corrupted and destroyed by an evil entity just because the village priest didn't believe his story and acted unfriendly towards him. The next session he still thinks he's a paragon of virtue. The next sessions he angst over failing those people. The next day he's gotten over it and is again acting selfishly.

[Malifice]

Players assessing situations in game as themselves, and not as their characters.
Meta-gaming. Similar to 1 above but slightly different.
Comedy character names like Hugh Gaars.
Two-dimensional characters.
Beyond psychopath Charles Manson evil (be nuanced).
Sooks and argumentative players.


I don't mind things like players attempting to hog the limelight or plays distracted on their phones. Neither of those things is the players fault it's always the Dungeon Master's fault. Engage your players, and share the limelight amongst them equally. If that doesn't work talk to them, and if that doesn't work boot them out.

[Dudewithknives]

As a player:

Playing with a captain ego type player who thinks they have to be the center of everything.
Ex. In my old group we had a player who was all about minmaxing and also about being the center of every situation. in the first 5th ed game he was the guy who popped up with a bear totem mountain dwarf barbarian who dumped charisma but still insisted on doing all the talking simply because he as a player was fairly good with words and did not care if his guy had an 8.

People completely ignoring how their character has been playing when it would be more helpful to them if they did something out of character.
Ex. Our group was hired to guard a high priest's tomb, but there was loot in the tombs of his honor guard so they stole them anyway and just bullied their way out, essentially going from heroes of the city to grave robbing villains over a few +1 weapons and armor.

When the DM plays obvious favorites with the players, like one player has 3 personal storylines going that the dm put on them but can't even tell you what else someone else is.
Ex. I write a 16 page backstory, and keep a running journal in character that I write up each game, and am the face of the group, but the DM's room mate punches the king of the dwarves in the face, in the throne room, and then tells Moradin himself to mind his own business when he shows up to intercede has 3 personal storylines going and the DM never once even knew what class I was playing.

When the DM does not even bother reading your backstory because you are just in a game on the rails and watching the show.
Ex. See last example.

If I ever hear the term: "Let's do this fight cinematically" in other words "I did not figure out a way for the NPC's to actually win so I will just say they do anyway."
Has not been an issue in 5e but happened a LOT in L5R when the dm could not figure out how to counter the plans of the PC's.

Dms with pet NPC's or class bias that will never let you beat certain people because they are so cool or certain classes because they are better than your class.
Ex. In my old group you can just give up on ever beating a Druid at anything, Drendari is going to be a major god and center of every story, and you will never, ever, make any NPC look bad.


As a DM:

Dice rolling programs.
People showing up late. (I am always early for everything, I hate when people are late.)
People who think that they should get special treatment just because they are PC's and they should not face repercussions if they do something stupid.
Ex. If you are playing a PC who goes to the local blacksmith and want a new sword made, and he tells you the waiting time, then you just knock him out and take his own sword because it is already finished. Be prepared to pay for it big time and no I don't care that "It is only a sword"


As either:

People who play a caster and spend 10 mins looking up their spells in the PHB every round because they do not know what they do.
People completely forgetting what their characters can do, or abilities they have.
Ex. In the last campaign we were in, never once did our vengeance paladin ever use their Channel Divinity because he never remembered he had it.
Games with more than 5 people.
People who show up to the game sit down and 40 mins later as soon as dice need to be rolled THEN they noticed they did not level up.

[Easy_Lee]

People being on their phones.

Mine is similar: people not engaging with the game. Distracted, indifferent players ruin the mood for everyone.

Anything is better than someone who doesn't care. I can work with a rules lawyer, a loot hoarder, a spotlight ho...as long as they engage, you can talk to them. But I can't handle indifference.

[lebefrei]

I'm both a DM and a supervisor, and I see a weird similarity between a certain type of player and employee. I understand the kind of employee that is literally just there for a paycheck and isn't invested at all in the job. I truly do not get players that come to a table with that same attitude. You aren't getting anything out of D&D except the experience; why are you here if you don't want to play??? This kind of player no matter what I do just isn't ever really engaged with the game, or with a group dynamic. They're just getting their hours in... why? This game isn't a job, you're supposed to be here for fun. On your phone, barely playing, not caring about tactics, not engaging other players or NPCs... These people have no place at my table and I make that clear.

[imanidiot]

Second pet peeve, players who offer to host, then insist on putting on sports (mostly football) during the game. I'm even willing to schedule around this, but don't put on the game while I'm dming, beyond disrupting the game, it's insulting.

There's really no reason for this. All of these games are scheduled at least several months in advance. College football games are scheduled YEARS in advance. Just say you want to watch the game and try to move it to another day.

Mine is players who try to include their weirdo sexual fetishes in their roleplaying. Especially those who get pissed off if you don't paly along and just ignore them. I cannot conceive of any situation where that would be an enjoyable experience for anyone.

[Potato_Priest]

I don't mind things like players attempting to hog the limelight or plays distracted on their phones. Neither of those things is the players fault it's always the Dungeon Master's fault.

The idea that I am always, 100% responsible for someone else's behavior is quite frankly ludicrous.

You cannot always please, engage, and cater to everyone. If you are able to, it is not purely a matter of personal skill (although there is some of that involved), and has a lot to do with the fact that you have a great group.

[Malifice]

Mine is similar: people not engaging with the game. Distracted, indifferent players ruin the mood for everyone.

I'll rry and repeatedly engage with the player first:

Me: Right Frank, what are you doing while the other players are doing X'

Me: 'Hey Frank can you roll a D20 for me and tell me what you got [note the result, ignoring it, pretend to look something up, and then shake my head nervously, widen my eyes and take a deep breath and write some jibberish down behind the screen... Frank then nervously watches me for the next 10 minutes wondering what the hell that was]'

Me: [Players are all talking to each other and not listening to me, turning to a shocked Frank who is fidgeting with his phone and hasn't been listening for five minutes, me speaking loudly] 'Okay you steal the 500 GP Ruby and leave them to fight the bugbears...' [Absolute silence at the table follows as they look at Frank] ...aaand now that I have your attention, what's the plan from here?

If neither of these nudges work, then comes:

Me: Guys please put your phones away. I put a lot of work into this adventure. The next person to come up with a good idea or something that makes me laugh in character gets inspiration.

Then finally:

Me: Next person to pick up or play with their mobile phone gets half XP for the session (unless it's an emergency).

I absolutely hate the last option and only use it as an absolute last resort. If despite my best efforts my players aren't engaging with the adventure, than it's probably my fault in that I don't something wrong with the adventure. Punishing them with an XP penalty really only makes the problem worse.

You're usually just better off calling the session and going to get a bite to eat or watch a movie.

[Pex]

Player vs player of any form - stealing from party members, hoarding treasure from party members, refusal to tell other party members important information learned, does not help party members, help party members but be pompous about needing to help them again.

[Malifice]

Player vs player of any form - stealing from party members, hoarding treasure from party members, refusal to tell other party members important information learned, does not help party members, help party members but be pompous about needing to help them again.

That's the best stuff for me.

As long as there is a buy in from every player and you all mature enough to handle it.

[mephnick]

That's the best stuff for me.

As long as there is a buy in from every player and you all mature enough to handle it.

But..why are they a party at all? At some point it just becomes stupid.

[Easy_Lee]

But..why are they a party at all? At some point it just becomes stupid.

Agreed. When people are hostile, backstabbing, or untrustworthy in real life, no one wants to be around them. This is doubly true for dangerous professions. Do you suppose any group of mercenaries would tolerate a known thief in their midst? Not likely.

[Malifice]

But..why are they a party at all? At some point it just becomes stupid.

Imagine the cast of the walking dead as an adventuring party.

Backstabbing, forming factions, working together against different factions, betraying each other, casting each other out, dying off (then coming back as a new character a few episodes later).

My all time favourite campaign was a five year long evil Rolemaster campaign in the late 80s and early 90s that was basically that. My weekends from the age of 14 to 20 were played in this campaign.

Went through about 20 characters, around half of which were killed by other PCs.

It was quite literally the most fun I've ever had in a role-playing game ever.

[Easy_Lee]

Imagine the cast of the walking dead as an adventuring party.

Backstabbing, forming factions, working together against different factions, betraying each other, casting each other out, dying off (then coming back as a new character a few episodes later).

My all time favourite campaign was a five year long evil Rolemaster campaign in the late 80s and early 90s that was basically that. My weekends from the age of 14 to 20 were played in this campaign.

Went through about 20 characters, around half of which were killed by other PCs.

It was quite literally the most fun I've ever had in a role-playing game ever.

The walking dead are not an adventuring party.

I get what you're saying. It's fine if everyone buys in. But that's seldom the reality based on my experiences. Every "pvp" player I've ever seen was the only player (or one of two, in one case) in the group acting that way.

When everyone else is fighting a dragon, and your character decides to go steal from another player's pack, the other players don't just get angry at your character; they get angry at you. And they should, because you chose the character.

[Sariel Vailo]

People being on their phones.

I use the apps that have been released on phones and tablets would you hate me. Example spell book apps and character creator

[Sariel Vailo]

My dm peves and plater peves are the same so heeeeeeeere we go. unattentive or the i dont want to roleplay players. The munchkins especially when they seem to be on parade. the forum lurking player who begs people online for god killer builds.and finaaly the derpy fantasy the face man who changes a serious dungeon romp into a seinfield comedy. Pc"whats the deal with this dungeon all ive got is a iraq"chuckle and snicker both on and out of character at their **** joke

[Malifice]

Do you suppose any group of mercenaries would tolerate a known thief in their midst? Not likely.

We didn't tolerate them. They would be executed or a bare minimum have a hand cut off.

We wound up with a fairly detailed party charter. The penalty for theft was missing a hand. The second time was execution. Betraying or attacking anyone in the party [unless it was a sanctioned one on one duel] was punishable by death, as was insubordination against the party leader. You could at any time challenge the party leader for leadership of the party. This generally resulted in a one on one duel, supervised by the other party members for 'fairness'.

A rule that was later introduced was that the person challenged gets to choose is the weapons used in the duel. This was doubly hilarious when the monk became a party leader because he would always choose 'fists'.

There were a whole heap of other rather obscure and draconian rules as well. But you get the gist.

The end result was several factions would form within the party at any one time. The high level PCs and the lower-level PCs who would band together and scheme to overthrow the high-level ones.

While this was going on, the three high-level PCs [anti paladin, High warrior monk and a mage] often worked against each another, and two had a long-running feud. The Paladin got humiliated by in ancient Fire Drake [a critical hit destroyed his million GP armour, hilariously leaving him totally naked in the middle of the battle, before the Drake geased him to leave and never return], the Mage trolled him about it, and the wizards tower got disintegrated in revenge. The Mage also blew the Monk to smithereens with several triads of plasma [After the monk called him out for a duel at the pub - after that awesome display, and with the monk a puddle of goo on the floor, the party nervously agreed that a duel where one could use 'only fists' included Spell casting using hands].

Again I could go on but you get the gist.

Not for everyone and requires a very specific type of group to pull off.

[mephnick]

I use the apps that have been released on phones and tablets would you hate me. Example spell book apps and character creator

This is why it's so hard to enforce. There are some great spellbook apps etc.

But c'mon dude at my table, I can see you switch to Clash of Clans after you take your turn in combat.

[Demonslayer666]

Hi DMs,
As I have a fairly annoying group of friends that I DM for, there are a fair number of things that get on my nerves. What have your players done that causes you to cringe?

The first thing that comes to mind is players being lazy about tracking their resources, particularly their spells slots and current conditions.

[Illven]

Player vs player of any form - stealing from party members, hoarding treasure from party members, refusal to tell other party members important information learned, does not help party members, help party members but be pompous about needing to help them again.

I have an issue with PVP, but not necessarily the last two. Especially if warned that they won't help, if the PC does X.

[Erit]

Believe it or not, when players religiously abhor metagaming. To the extent that they don't care about group synergy or cohesion and write up their characters so iron-clad and rigid that they can't justify taking up adventure hooks because doing so would be metagaming. Don't get me wrong; players looking through the MM and acting like their characters have access to it is a ****show, but so are people who refuse to work with the narrative simply because they chose to make a character who wouldn't actually want to help a Dwarven craftsman's guild because they're competitors with the family business.

People not paying attention during encounters and thus taking six times longer than necessary to take their turns is a good'un. And on the other side of the stick, DMs who bloat the initiative order with ten goblins when just having all of them go on the same count would make things faster and increase player retention.

[Demonslayer666]

Believe it or not, when players religiously abhor metagaming. To the extent that they don't care about group synergy or cohesion and write up their characters so iron-clad and rigid that they can't justify taking up adventure hooks because doing so would be metagaming. Don't get me wrong; players looking through the MM and acting like their characters have access to it is a ****show, but so are people who refuse to work with the narrative simply because they chose to make a character who wouldn't actually want to help a Dwarven craftsman's guild because they're competitors with the family business.

People not paying attention during encounters and thus taking six times longer than necessary to take their turns is a good'un. And on the other side of the stick, DMs who bloat the initiative order with ten goblins when just having all of them go on the same count would make things faster and increase player retention.

Oh wow, that's bad. Glad my players aren't like that!

"Why are we in this dungeon again?" tap, tap, tap on their phone.

[Malifice]

Oh wow, that's bad. Glad my players aren't like that!

"Why are we in this dungeon again?" tap, tap, tap on their phone.

'You have three seconds. The next person I see on a phone gets no XP for the rest of this session [Start counting]'

[Jamesps]

In line with the not being engaged thing, as a GM I hate it when a player says they'll be there then just doesn't show up with either no warning or a quick text right before game starts.

As a player this doesn't bother me as much as I like to play the game at a higher difficulty than most GMs run it, so I'd say the phone thing is my biggest pet peeve too.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'd personally put my phone on silent, but keep it in reach if I need to check a spell effect real quick. And I somehow don't have cards for them printed and ready.

Then again, I am the type that likes to be ready for just about anything I can reasonably be ready for..

[Hrugner]

Inviting themselves along to the game despite having no interest in gaming, and attempting to derail every session with some real world bull**** like politics or heavy drinking. Now that I'm older I'm much more comfortable telling people to leave when they haven't been invited, but it was a plague on me even through my 20s.

[Laurefindel]

Players acting like jerks and excusing it on "role play".

Bah, scratch that last part, I'll leave it at players acting like jerks...

[90sMusic]

I don't really run into troublesome players anymore because i've filtered out the bad players a long time ago and stick with the good ones. I only accept new players who are recommended to me now and vouched for, but I almost never have openings so it's a fairly competitive thing to get in. I still see a lot of this stuff in other players when i'm trying to be a player though...

All kinds of player crap annoys me such as:

When they forgot about the game so they didn't show up or showed up late

When they play with their phones or want to watch TV or something while it isn't their turn

^ When they do the above, then say "Ok so what has happened" when it does finally become their turn because they missed it all

When they want to start conversations in the middle of the game about random crap unrelated to the game, such as the latest thing that happened on whatever TV show they're on about at the time

When they don't plan out ANYTHING they're going to do until it is actually their turn in combat, so they sit and think forever about it before doing anything instead of knowing what they will be doing while other players are acting.

People who tell other players spells they should use or actions they should take, especially if they do this often

Players who openly and deliberately metagame and make decisions in game based on information they know out of game such as the properties of magical items, associated curses of said items, and so on. Even worse then they declare properties to the entire group so then everyone knows.

Anything related to anime. Seriously. I cringe harder than you can possibly imagine, to the point I want to convulse, whenever someone says something like "blood shoots out of my nose when i look at her". Or "i get the little anime teardrop" and when they say they do something "like a chibi". Nothing drives me away faster than incorporating that kind of crap into your vernacular.

One other thing that kind of creeps me out a little bit for some reason are players who change their voice when speaking out of character. Of course you expect and appreciate when people speak in an accent or change dialects or genders or whatever when they're roleplaying a character, but I always get a little unnerved for some reason when they are speaking as a player to other players (or the DM), completely out of character, but using another voice. Especially if it is the opposite gender. I played with this guy one time who tried to sound like a girl when he talked to other players, even before the game started and we're just talking about what we just ate for dinner before getting there. He didn't do it 100% of the time, but he did it maybe 50% of the time, it was like randomly it would be on or off and it really freaked me out for some reason. Maybe that is why he kept doing it. Especially when he laughed at things, he'd do this big, deep belly laugh you'd sort of expect from a guy like him, then immediately quiet himself down and try to sound like a girl giggling. It was so creepy.

[lebefrei]

people who refuse to work with the narrative simply because they chose to make a character who wouldn't actually want to help

Emphasis mine. This has nothing to do with people not wanting to metagame. This has to do with people being selfish jerks taking out their misanthropy in game. I do not, for the life of me, understand people that join cooperative games to make a character that doesn't want to cooperate. Guess what, player X? Your character never would have joined a party of people doing heroic deeds, your "great concept character" that never wants to help makes no sense, he is fired, and oh no he just fell off a cliff! Please try again (or leave my table)

[Ergdorf the Fly]

Bossy players :smallfurious:
Got one in my current campaign. No matter what choices I want to make, he get's all pissy and tells me to do whatever he wants me to. And he's not even with my character right now, it's OOC and really meta. Let me make my own bad decisions.

[Hrugner]

Emphasis mine. This has nothing to do with people not wanting to metagame. This has to do with people being selfish jerks taking out their misanthropy in game. I do not, for the life of me, understand people that join cooperative games to make a character that doesn't want to cooperate. Guess what, player X? Your character never would have joined a party of people doing heroic deeds, your "great concept character" that never wants to help makes no sense, he is fired, and oh no he just fell off a cliff! Please try again (or leave my table)

I'd say about 30% of my learning to DM better has been figuring out how to deal with this ****.

[lunaticfringe]

Mr or Ms Superior. Flavors include: I have Lawful Good written on my sheet so all my decisions are 'right'. My character has the highest Int so I'm smarter than everybody. I'm a Roleplayer not a Rollplayer. I rolled a Super Serious character I'm not listening to my fellow players because they make the occasional joke. I played a lot of X ttrpg, WoTC/D&D/This Edition sucks we should play X. **** your Smug **** bird!

My Character is good at X so that's how every problem gets solved.

Read Your Spells!

Players who roll poorly & are convinced I'm somehow picking on them.

I'm not a huge fan of railroading and try to avoid it but sometimes the story points the Party at a tough fight. I get irked by players who get cold feet and suggest the party "powers up" doing something else. Wtf this ain't DBZ or a video game. That tribe of marauders you Pissed off isn't going to wait around for you to level up before attacking your hometown.

OMG Combat Encounter! Let's talk for 45mins on how to handle it.

3 minute speeches on your turn in combat.

Starting a fight that could've been avoided, feeling guilty afterward, then blaming everyone else.

Caster Players who talk about how boring & repetitive mundane character are and cast the same ****ING Spell every combat.

[Danielqueue1]

people Interrupting the DM.

People interrupting other players on their turn in combat.

People calling for help while their character is unconscious repeatedly even though everyone knows their character is down and the healer is already on the way.

People who have been playing a level 5+ caster for months and still don't know how fireball works even after having it explained to them multiple times. It's not that complicated of a spell!

People who have half an hour between turns and then after their turn starts decide they need to look up how a spell/Ability works

people who expect exceptions to be made for them with no justification.
"Wait what do you mean my character died?"
"you stuck your head into a sphere of annihilation.you knew it was a sphere of annihilation. The wizard passed his arcana check to Identify it and told you both in and out of character what it did."
"but...[several minutes of pleading]

people who complain about when their hostile actions result in negative consequences.
What do you mean trying to intimidate a guard within one round's walking distance of the Imperial Barracks might result in getting my [posterior] handed to me by a squad the elite soldiers of the Imperial legion the DM has been talking about the last 3 sessions?

people who choose to take spiteful, stupid, and practically suicidal actions because they are bored and want a combat encounter.
Yes of course Interrupting the judge who was about to reduce your party members jail sentence to a fine and pushing past the armed guards is a great way to help⸮

people who choose to think they are justified in killing the party's only pack animal because they fell off the cart during a chase scene and get mad at other players for reacting even in the most forgiving way possible under the circumstances.

people who interrupt an important dialogue between a character and a plot important NPC when their character isn't even there.

people who quote numbers from the monster manual when they are not the DM. "No it says that it's AC is 15 which means I should have hit."

some people don't get invited to my next campaign.

[Herabec]

When the party gets themselves into a situation that you have hinted at, pointed toward and all but outright told them will kill them all, and I can't for the life of me keep them from running headlong into it like a small pack of lemurs.

It's like they want me to murder them all terribly.

No. Poking the sleeping dragon is not a good idea. Please don't do it. It will kill you. Aaaaaand now I have to murder you all....

[Dylnuge]

A lot of these horror stories make me really love my players. Sure, they do some crazy things, but I actually don't think I've once seen someone pull out a phone at the table.

Some of these sound like the kinds of compatibility issues that a "Session 0" or similar needs to solve. There's lots of ways to play and none are really "right" or "wrong" but everyone needs to agree before starting that you're playing the same game.


When everyone else is fighting a dragon, and your character decides to go steal from another player's pack, the other players don't just get angry at your character; they get angry at you. And they should, because you chose the character.

YES! My biggest pet peeve is people saying "that's just my character." It's a lot of fun to play a character different from how you'd normally behave, but you're still responsible for the decisions you made about that character. If you want to play an angry brooding necromancer who doesn't get along with or care about anyone else, you either need to agree that character development and coming to care about the party is a huge part of your arc or you need to be playing in a game where everyone is OK with characters being at odds with each other. A lot of people forget that they're at the table with other people who are all also there to have fun and play a game (including the DM!). Just because stealing everything not locked down is how you played Skyrim doesn't mean the party is cool with it.

If this kind of behavior is persistent, a DM has the right to tell a player who had their character killed/exiled/whatever by the party that they're out of the game (or force them to make a character that is compatible with the party if everyone is willing to try again).


I get irked by players who get cold feet and suggest the party "powers up" doing something else. Wtf this ain't DBZ or a video game. That tribe of marauders you Pissed off isn't going to wait around for you to level up before attacking your hometown.

As DM, you can always make this clear in-game. The group decides to go grind and you kill off some NPCs they've become attached to or destroy the shop where they'd normally sell their stuff. You also don't have to award XP for players doing clearly grindy actions (I generally houserule that CR0 things that are non-hostile are worth 0 XP, e.g. commoners in town; not that 10 XP is much anyways, but it drives home that "just killing things" is not a way to gain experience), but if they're facing real challenges while grinding, this might just make them hate you.

[Capt Spanner]

- Many DMs I've played with give surprise rounds for any attack where combat has not been declared, even if everyone is aware of each other. (The players can work this to their advantage, but only by shooting first and becoming more muderhobo-y, which is even more undesirable.)
- Pettiness, from both players and DMs.

I saw both of these recently. BBEG just went and teleported the party to his lair.

BBEG: "Who wants to be first to die?"

[DM:] "Alright, is anyone going to step forward."

[THE PARTY, AS A GROUP, PARAPHRASED:] "Of course not. It's clearly not going to go well for whoever does. He'll attack us with crazy powerful magic."

ROGUE [MY CHARACTER, DEX OUT OF THE WAZOO, FIGURING I CAN LIKELY DODGE]: "I'll do it. I step forward. Do your worst."

[DM:] "Okay, you're attacked, and flat footed, so you can't use your dex bonus." (This was a 3.5 game, sorry, wrong forum. That said, I play 5th ed with the "flat-footed" rules, because I like them.)

[ME:] "Shouldn't we roll initiative first?"

[DM:] "This is the surprise round."

[ME:] "What? Surely we're not surprised. We all knew whoever stood forward was going to be attacked."

[DM:] "You take 5 damage for arguing with the DM."

[ME:] "What the reproductive act?!" (Paraphrased)

[DM:] "Does *rolls* 19 hit your touch AC?"

[ME:] "Only because I'm flat footed."

[DM:] "*Rolls* Take 32 damage."

[ME:] "Well, I'm dead."

[DM:] "Yeah. Tough one. Right, everyone else roll initiative..."

[Mikemical]

https://youtu.be/jEI3N9kIyP4?t=7

When players start a pissing contest over who should be the leader. Or rather, one player takes the responsibility of leading the party because nobody wants to step up to the plate, and all the others immediately start working against them or play the dumbass barbarian that goes "GROK STRONGEST, GROK SHOULD LEAD, GROK CHALLENGES ONLY REASONABLE PERSON IN PARTY TO A FIGHT TO THE DEATH!"

[Dudewithknives]

Dms who will never, under any circumstances, let you outplay them.

Ex.

I am playing a medium armored rogue, fighting the BBEG right hand guy.

DM ok, the half orc barbarian charges you and rolls attack with advantage, crits and does 4x damage with his great axe.

Me: I am 50 feet away, he can't get to me.

Dm: He charged you.

Me: There is no such thing as charge in 5e.

DM: The he dashed.

Me: that costs his action, he can't attack.

Dm: He has 2 levels of rogue, so add 4d6 sneak too.

Me: I can't be crit, adamantine breastplate.

DM: He has an adamantine great axe.

Me: That doesn't matter, it does not ignore the armor.

DM: (pissed at this point) He hit you for 55.

Me: How, he is a barbarian with a great axe that is like 1D12 +7 or 8 max, maybe +18 if he has GWM.

DM: he has levels in antipaladin and used harm touch.

Me: So he is a level 6 barbarian, level 2 rogue and now has levels in oathbreaker paladin? Also, there is no such thing as harm touch.

Dm: Damnit fine take 24 then.

Me: Ok I use uncanny dodge to ignore half of that.

Dm: You can't, he is a barbarian of higher level than you.

Me: That is not a rule either.

Dm: Fine....

Me: I back stab him with my rapier since I have advantage.

Dm: You don't have advantage, he is right in front of you.

Me: You used reckless attack, that gives me advantage. I sneak attack him.

Dm: He also has an adamantine breastplate, no sneak attack damage.

Me: Adamantine ignores critical damage not sneak attacks.

DM: His does.

Me: Nothing in the game ignores sneak attack.

DM: Well he is also technically undead.

Me: Does not matter. Sneak attack for 24 damage.

Dm: He also uses Uncanny dodge.

Me: So he is at least level 5 rogue, level 3 paladin, level 6 barbarian?

DM: He is whatever it takes to make sure you lose.


At that point I packed up my dice and left.

[DracoKnight]

At that point I packed up my dice and left.

Good move. If that was in any way a true story, you were dealing with an @$$#0!3 DM.

[Dudewithknives]

Good move. If that was in any way a true story, you were dealing with an @$$#0!3 DM.

It was mostly true.

Our old dm just essentially rand a 3.5 game but made the players us 5e rules and builds, but was too lazy to actually read the rules himself.

It was 2 years ago, but that is essentially what happened.

He kept adding abilities to a character to try to counter what I did and what was supposed to be a guy with 8 levels ended up being 16 levels with no sneak attack gear.

[DracoKnight]

It was mostly true.

Our old dm just essentially rand a 3.5 game but made the players us 5e rules and builds, but was too lazy to actually read the rules himself.

It was 2 years ago, but that is essentially what happened.

He kept adding abilities to a character to try to counter what I did and what was supposed to be a guy with 8 levels ended up being 16 levels with no sneak attack gear.

Yeah, that's absolute BS.

[samcifer]

For me, it's players who intentionally play their characters in a reckless and disruptive manner. My group has two of them. One is playing a human great weapon fighter who is brash, arrogant, and NEVER wants to do things that are obvious and sensible. The other player is also playing a human, who is Rick of Rick and Morty with amnesia and is an artificer. His character is always shooting his mouth off and being really reckless as well as if he WANTS us to be fighting all the time and is trying to pick fights.

Fortunately, the rest of us as pcs are rational and play our characters the same way, but strategy is hard to come up with and stick to when we have two characters always acting so impulsively as well as thoughtlessly. It's even lead to a death in the party (and the dm says it was the first time anyone ever died in any of his campaigns).

[Mikemical]

Dms who will never, under any circumstances, let you outplay them.

...

DM: He is whatever it takes to make sure you lose.

This mentality is so cancerous. DMs who go "I CAN'T LET THIS PLAYER DO THIS ONE COOL THING HE DOES! HOW DARE HE HAVE FUN IN MY MAKE-BELIEVE FANTASY WORLD?!"

Happened to me IRL. We all roll up our characters, I play a dex-focused TWF fighter who uses Combat Expertise to be nigh untouchable. He's not hitting a lot either with all the penalties from TWF and CE, but 37 AC is nothing to sneer at at level 6. DM got angry that all of his ogre barbarians weren't hitting this goofy guy who kept poking them with butter knives while the rest of the party picked them off one by one. Next sessions, it's all monsters with +20 to grapple, or casters who just so happen to only know hold person. Suffice to say, the campaign went sour after that when it stopped being "let's go on epic adventures" and turned into "how is the DM gonna counter every character build in the party since they can't go back and change their specs now?".

[Dudewithknives]

This mentality is so cancerous. DMs who go "I CAN'T LET THIS PLAYER DO THIS ONE COOL THING HE DOES! HOW DARE HE HAVE FUN IN MY MAKE-BELIEVE FANTASY WORLD?!"

Happened to me IRL. We all roll up our characters, I play a dex-focused TWF fighter who uses Combat Expertise to be nigh untouchable. He's not hitting a lot either with all the penalties from TWF and CE, but 37 AC is nothing to sneer at at level 6. DM got angry that all of his ogre barbarians weren't hitting this goofy guy who kept poking them with butter knives while the rest of the party picked them off one by one. Next sessions, it's all monsters with +20 to grapple, or casters who just so happen to only know hold person. Suffice to say, the campaign went sour after that when it stopped being "let's go on epic adventures" and turned into "how is the DM gonna counter every character build in the party since they can't go back and change their specs now?".

We used to have the issue but the DM would not change tactics, he was determined that he would beat you with his original plan.

Another Example:

In Pathfinder I was playing a Swashbuckeler, he was built to be king parry. This was before the errata for crane wing and others that made it almost unplayable.

Essentially the build was untouchable in melee almost:
Had high AC in the first place, then if you hit me, the first time you hit I auto-parry with crane wing, if you happen to hit again I use the Swashbuckler parry, and I think I had one more way to parry but it has been a long time.

The DM tried to kill in a fight we had against some orc chieftain.
From behind a DM screen
He power attacked for everything and rolled a 20.
I used crane wing, so it auto parry.
DM points out that 20's auto hit.
I pointed out that it auto hits but it can still be deflected.
I stabbed the chief for not really impressive damage.
He is pissed and rolls his second attack, and rolls a 20 again.
This time I use the Swashbucker parry.
He points out I used my AOO, to which I point out I have Combat Reflexes and a 24 Dex.
My to hit is way better than the barbarian power attacking so I easily win the parry roll.
I stab the chief again.

It went on like this until the chief was dead and never landed a hit on me.

Next game the chief's caster son tries to kill me and is an anti-paladin of some kind.
Long story short, he tried to smite me, but I was LN and blew a fuse then he tried to touch of corruption me and I parried but he said because I touched the paladin with me weapon to parry it, the touch of corruption went off and paralyzed me.
I brought up the official ruling where it says that does not work. (Had it saved in my browser already because I know someone would try it eventually with a touch spell)
He just said, "Oh we are not using those rulings"
I just used charmed life and made the save anyway.

[Avonar]

For me, definitely the uncooperative character shtick. One guy I no longer play with would play characters who would never help. Always go off and do something else. It got to the point where when anyone asked about the character he would say "She's a level 8 sorceror, but that really doesn't matter." And it didn't because he was never with the party.

Case and point: They find out the quest goal is on a nearby island. It's late evening so they agree to rest for the night. Everyone goes to rest...but he decides his character will go to the island early. So he does, we spend as little time as can manage on him (still more than I wanted), he arrives at the island and does nothing. Proceeds to have no part in the game for the next hour because he isn't there, he's apparently just sitting around waiting. The party arrives, he never joins the party, just hides outside the cave they go to.

You can make a "doesn't play well with others" character who is still involved. Just give them a reason to participate. I have an immensely arrogant noble, doesn't like to do anything for himself, but he helps because he thinks he's better and they'll all get killed without him. No one likes him, but he takes part.

[Kane0]

Half arsed players. They drive me up the wall.
The kind of player that shows but doesn't commit. The kind that lacks enthusiasm and creativity, that gets distracted and that just can't get on with it.

I seriously don't care who you play and what you do as long as you are engaging at the table. You can be the special snowflake, the horrid rules-lawyer, the irreverant assclown, hell you could be more antagonistic than the BBEG and I still would care less than if you acted like you didn't want to be there.

[Tanarii]

Keeping your character sheet on a cell phone app. To me, it just looks like you're not paying attention to the game and fiddling with your phone.

I've gone back and forth on a no phones rule for years. I prefer no phones, but trying to separate people from the smart phone is apparently like asking to amputate a limb from the reaction I get. And now these apps give a (pretty valid) excuse to keep them handy. /sigh

[mephnick]

And now these apps give a (pretty valid) excuse to keep them handy. /sigh

I've considered going pure paper/book at the table, but those spell casting apps are...really useful.

Maybe I'll line my game room in lead and turn off the wifi..you get phones but no internet!

[Grim Portent]

Players who need to ask how to roll initiative every damn session and occasionally multiple times per session even after a dozen sessions.

[Tanarii]

I've considered going pure paper/book at the table, but those spell casting apps are...really useful.Spell cards. They're pretty cheap. Not like cheap cheap, but cheaper than going out and buying a PHB.

Although I am DEFINITELY in favor of a player using a phone app over looking up spells in the PHB!

[samcifer]

Spell cards. They're pretty cheap. Not like cheap cheap, but cheaper than going out and buying a PHB.

Although I am DEFINITELY in favor of a player using a phone app over looking up spells in the PHB!

I use cards AND the book. I like the cards and they are (mostly) easier to go through than flipping back and forth through a book most of the time.

[Tanarii]

I use cards AND the book. I like the cards and they are (mostly) easier to go through than flipping back and forth through a book most of the time.
That's what I mean. Looking up spells in the PHB is terrible during game play. Players need the decriptions of the spells known/prepared handy, and that's it. If you don't have spell cards, hand-write them out in word and print that, for all I care. PHB flipping is a last resort! ;)

I've ruled nothing but (hardcopy) characters sheets, dice, blank paper and pencils/pens at the table for some games in the past. Other times I don't make a fuss. It really depends if I'm doing pick-up groups or for friends. In the former, I have to give a little leeway because everyone does their tracking & preparedness differently. With friends, I can ride their ass to get organized, get rid of unnecessary clutter, and focus completely on the game.

Edit: Except for this phone app thing. Now the phone counts as being organized AND a distraction. Plus, either way, it looks to me like you're distracted. That's why it's a pet peeve. ;)

[TrinculoLives]

Players who talk in character too much, specifically when this means that the other players don't get a word in edgewise.

[samcifer]

Players who talk in character too much, specifically when this means that the other players don't get a word in edgewise.

The "Rick" character's player is like that. It's hard to get a word in edgewise with my character at times. :(

[Mortis_Elrod]

OH man where to start.

Character sheet always on laptop and often times Chargen program is messed up, Only rolling on said laptop.
Playing annoyingly cute character for the sake of cuteness in a serious campaign.
Not being ready on turn of combat, and taking 15 minutes to decide to do the same thing you did last turn
Leaving the table during something that isn't directly involving character then NOT asking what happened until a situation occurs that forces the party into a bad encounter.

I'm sure there's alot more but I'm just too excited to play that I don't let it bother me until im brooding after the session at 5 am because it took forever and i still have to drive home.

[Potato_Priest]

Players who talk in character too much, specifically when this means that the other players don't get a word in edgewise.

A guy who matches this description perfectly just joined our group last session. It is driving me up the wall, so I need to talk to him about it.

[Pex]

That's what I mean. Looking up spells in the PHB is terrible during game play. Players need the decriptions of the spells known/prepared handy, and that's it. If you don't have spell cards, hand-write them out in word and print that, for all I care. PHB flipping is a last resort! ;)

I've ruled nothing but (hardcopy) characters sheets, dice, blank paper and pencils/pens at the table for some games in the past. Other times I don't make a fuss. It really depends if I'm doing pick-up groups or for friends. In the former, I have to give a little leeway because everyone does their tracking & preparedness differently. With friends, I can ride their ass to get organized, get rid of unnecessary clutter, and focus completely on the game.

Edit: Except for this phone app thing. Now the phone counts as being organized AND a distraction. Plus, either way, it looks to me like you're distracted. That's why it's a pet peeve. ;)

Looking up rules is precisely why I bring my book with me. Knowing how the game works is easy. Memorizing every single detail is not. Spells used a lot will eventually be memorized. Spells used only a few times or just once won't be. The key is to look up the spell on someone else's turn to verify how it works or even note it won't do what I need done so I do something else.

[Tanarii]

Looking up rules is precisely why I bring my book with me. Knowing how the game works is easy. Memorizing every single detail is not. Spells used a lot will eventually be memorized. Spells used only a few times or just once won't be. The key is to look up the spell on someone else's turn to verify how it works or even note it won't do what I need done so I do something else.Yeah ... no one ever looks up spells on someone else's turn. They always do it on their turn. Because they didn't even think of whatever it was they didn't realize they didn't know the right answer until I ask them "I thought it took an action to move Moonbeam, not a bonus action" or "doesn't the damage of Flaming Sphere occur when you end your turn next to it, which means enemies can walk right past it"?

Part of the reason for this is fast combat and rapidly changing tactical battles mean casters are often thinking of several spells they might want to fast at once. Or just holding their judgement. So the specific decision isn't made until their turn comes up.

I don't object to rules looking up. I don't even object to looking it up on your turn if a question comes up. I get annoyed by players having to page through the encyclopedia of all spells in order to find it. Spell cards just for the ones you have known / prepared are significantly faster. So is having all your key spells (and other class features) cut into a single document and printed out. So are (sigh) phone apps that have all that info.

This isn't some insignificant timesaver thing like "roll all your dice at once" which doesn't actually make a noticible change in game turn time.

I mean, don't get me wrong. If a player is like you and always had their PHB open to the spell they're going to cast before their turn began, I'd be in heaven. A player like you would get invited to come be the mainstay of my game. And I'd have to pout when you turned me down for being a Tyrannical DM(TM). :smallamused:

Edit: btw "no books on the table" rules are usually the result, for both me and other DMs I know that do it, from a stack of splats being the issue. Not a single PHB.

[Pex]

I mean, don't get me wrong. If a player is like you and always had their PHB open to the spell they're going to cast before their turn began, I'd be in heaven. A player like you would get invited to come be the mainstay of my game. And I'd have to pout when you turned me down for being a Tyrannical DM(TM). :smallamused:



:smallyuk:

You'd be surprised how much I'd tolerate if the game is fun. The DM of my Paladin game isn't a tyrant, but he is a very stingy in treasure and XP railroad engineer I'd never join a campaign advertised as such. Long story how I got in, but the campaign is fun enough I get over my gripes. I'm always looking forward to the next session.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

Hi DMs,
As I have a fairly annoying group of friends that I DM for, there are a fair number of things that get on my nerves. What have your players done that causes you to cringe?

Thats me always trying to do the unexpected and odd. Annoying the DM. (it is not only me because I DM like 50% of the time and they annoy me to.)

It has been the source of some funny moments though.


Also try to put the group on a time limit as much as possible or other tactics to make it so the have to concentrate to stay alive.

[Jama7301]

Looking back, I was a BAD stereotypical "Steal/manipulate/harm the party" rogue in my first ever actual D&D game. Feel awful about it now. I think it rubbed off on my friend who I now DM for, as he has carried similar traits to some characters he's played through the years.

[Throne12]

Challaging me on every fooken rule. Then say well in critical role they do this. People breaking out into song every 2 mins ( I get I enjoy a little sing here and there but not after every little thing said). Large groups there is just to much cross table talk. Complaining about how unbalance the encounter is when they do stupidly dume things and are low or out of hp or Resources. Trying to copy a op video game, anime, manga, comic, book character. Then try to convince if they can have this ability with on this class. Power gaming then get upset when there build is not usefully most of the time.

[Throne12]

Excessive phone use. I don't mind if you browse your social media when its not your turn, especially if you can multitask. However, if it becomes clear that you have lost focus on the game then I get angry. Also, when they interrupt the game-play to show a picture or video, or just watch a video with sound during play.

Oh i for got the pictures and video sharing at the table. It doesn't happen when I DM but in one game i play in there a few people that do that. It doesnt fly in my games.

[Honest Tiefling]

Players who crap all over the setting. I really like building settings. It's probably the only way you're getting me to DM.

So it's annoying when the players don't care at all about the setting, and try to shoe horn in large segments into the setting...During play. Smack dab in the middle of a session. Don't do that! It's messing up my history and trade routes! That was supposed to be an ocean! Consult me beforehand you moron! You want a Rain of Colorless Fire? Because that's how you're getting one, ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGH.

It's probably only a minor nitpick, but what really annoys me is when a player tries to make their own god that's a near mirror copy of a god already in the setting, but refuse to play the one ALREADY THERE, because it's not their god or because of some minor trait like gender. Your god is now on fire. All of the fire.

And yeah, I realize I'm a pretty controlling DM, and I'm working on it. But please don't do this type of thing mid-session, else fire.

[Jama7301]

One that just jumped out to me, reading about the phone use. I've had players start up music during the game, usually while I'm explaining something to them. Just loud metal starts blaring as I'm explaining how a spell or ability works.

This then usually derails the rest as they all join in and start sharing music.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Two, and the propensity for both to happen at the same time is really, really sad-

1.) Cheating. I don't overlook all of your sheets and rolls at all times, but when you mysteriously always have initiative/checks/saves of 20+ and score critical hits more than once per combat? I notice.

2. Taking for-****ing-ever to take your turn during combat. It's not all of my players, but a certain subset that I've been weeding out of my gaming circles cause any and all combat situations to grind to a screeching halt while they sit there and read their character sheet, the PHB, check Google search results on some insane gambit rather than asking me, the DM, if it's kosher, and have a debate over the merits of their different tactics with the other players.

The players that do this also have a bad tendency to try and interrupt other players' turns to debate what they are going to do, ask fruitless questions that I've answered multiple times that very day and really shouldn't have been asked more than once ever(basic mechanics questions from 'veteran' players), and never, ever seem to understand their own abilities. Some of these players could take as long as 15 minutes per turn. Did I mention that many of them were absolutely cheating as well, as per point 1? Let that sink in.

Beyond DMing them, I've had to play beside some of them, too, and there was nothing more infuriating. 30 seconds is too long for most turns, people! Swing your weapon and be done with it! AARRRRGGGGHH!

[mephnick]

If I ever start a new group of experienced players, the hourglass is coming out on day 1. Players going through every option, having a conference for 5-10 mins about what is the optimal move EVERY TURN makes me want to quit gaming.

[Gryndle]

I'm lucky, my current group are all grown ups and mostly act like it, so I don't have to put up with the shenanigans that a lot of DMs do. If I have a gripe at all with this group is that one is always late, and always comes up with the most bizarre characters. His current character is a human barbarian with great-weapon focus. Easy enough. And then he adds in-he believes he is a real world lawyer and that he is either dead or dreaming and the game-world and characters are part of his delusion.

Now in past I have had to deal with players that have no idea how their abilities work and then get in a huff when things don't work how they think it should. And I have had a few that ALWAYS wanted to be the center and star of every storyline.

I've been gaming for around 35 years now, and my current group is the only group I have ever been in that has been all guys. In fact, my groups in the past have leaned more towards a female majority.
And this is in no way a knock towards women at all. But my most disruptive player behavior I have ever had to deal with has been with real life relationships between players causing drama at the table, including my own. This was worse when I and my group-mates were younger, but even my own divorce several years ago resulted in the death of two campaigns and the loss of players and friends.

SO I guess in a nutshell my biggest gripe with players is bringing real life drama into the game.

edit: typing isn't a class skill for me

[mephnick]

His current character is a human barbarian with great-weapon focus. Easy enough. And then he adds in-he believes he is a real world lawyer and that he is either dead or dreaming and the game-world and characters are part of his delusion. .



https://memecrunch.com/meme/B0ITM/yeah-that-s-gonna-be-a-no-for-me-dog/image.jpg?w=400&c=1

[Honest Tiefling]

On the phone use thing (that I forgot to mention) I sometimes whip out my phone if I have my spells stored on it, but I only use whatever app gives me the information...and make sure it's functional BEFORE THE GAME.

I think the only other time it is appropriate to use the phone is when the DM is handling something of another group and for whatever reason, my character isn't there. Then I'm purposefully tuning out to avoid accidental meta-gaming.

[Gryndle]

https://memecrunch.com/meme/B0ITM/yeah-that-s-gonna-be-a-no-for-me-dog/image.jpg?w=400&c=1

if there is an upside its that the player recognizes it as the character's delusion and doesn't expect the game world to bend to it at all. While it can occasionally be jarring it is mostly just amusing. Most recurring NPCs just treat him as the party's pet or avoid him.

[GlenSmash!]

As a DM: asking for or stating rolls instead of telling me what they're doing and letting me request a roll. I've lost count of how many times I've had a player just say "ok I roll perception to find the thief" instead of "I subtley sidle up to the corner of the alley and peer into the dark attempting to locate the thief."

It seems nitpicky in session, but that second one gives everyone at the table an image of the fiction, tells me where the character actually is and lets me adjudicate the situation more naturally, with clearer description. Doing this 100% of the time makes the game flow so much better that I just want to throttle people when they won't.

This. It bothers me even when I see others do it, like when watching Critical Role. I know DMs have their own style, but I feel like my game has gotten so much better when I adopted this approach.

[Kane0]

I have the reverse problem where we have to explicitly tell our DM what skill we're trying to use or we get non-answers. Sometimes we don't even get the full information on a puzzle until we roll the right checks, without knowing which ones we should be rolling and in some cases for things that we really should be able to spot or know without checks at all. Pretty infuriating.

But I still stand by my first response.

[Sariel Vailo]

The "Rick" character's player is like that. It's hard to get a word in edgewise with my character at times. :(

I just let.them holy paladin my bass never let me warn u of my aoe and suddenly im an *******.

[Easy_Lee]

I have the reverse problem where we have to explicitly tell our DM what skill we're trying to use or we get non-answers. Sometimes we don't even get the full information on a puzzle until we roll the right checks, without knowing which ones we should be rolling and in some cases for things that we really should be able to spot or know without checks at all. Pretty infuriating.

But I still stand by my first response.

This is a good point about players stating actions rather than skill checks. Here's what people have to remember about rolling skills: from the player's perspective, that's exactly what he wants his character to do.

We aren't in the game, or even attached to a simulation. The game runs in people's minds, and it's the DM's mind, not the players', that has final say. That means that what a player is trying to do may not be what the DM thinks he's trying to do, unless the player states the mechanic he wants to use.

Example 1:
Player says, "I suggest to the guard that he'd be wise not to search us."
DM: "roll persuasion."
Player: "Actually, I was trying to intimidate him."

That kind of thing delays the game. Instead, the player might say, "I attempt to intimidate the guard by saying 'It's not wise to search us.'"
DM: "Roll intimidation" or "Your character sees other armed guards nearby. Are you sure you want to do that?"

In some cases, things can get even worse.

Example 2:
Player: "I slink into the room and look around."
DM: "You see blah blah."
Player: "Okay, I use my action to..."
DM: "You had to dash to get far enough into the room to see everything I described. Oh, and this creature just beat your stealth check and is close enough to attack you now that you dashed into the center of the room. Does an 18 beat your AC?"
Player: "I didn't want to move that far into the room. I just wanted to step five feet in and look, then decide what to do."

I've seen that exact thing happen. It wasn't the DM being a jerk, it was him misunderstanding what the player wanted to do. As a result, the player nearly suffered a faultless death.

Point being: the mechanics are the players' connection to the game world, and the most precise way to communicate with the DM. Don't get all offended when players communicate in mechanics rather than general actions, especially with less experienced DMs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a good point about players stating actions rather than skill checks. Here's what people have to remember about rolling skills: from the player's perspective, that's exactly what he wants his character to do.

We aren't in the game, or even attached to a simulation. The game runs in people's minds, and it's the DM's mind, not the players', that has final say. That means that what a player is trying to do may not be what the DM thinks he's trying to do, unless the player states the mechanic he wants to use.

Example 1:
Player says, "I suggest to the guard that he'd be wise not to search us."
DM: "roll persuasion."
Player: "Actually, I was trying to intimidate him."

That kind of thing delays the game. Instead, the player might say, "I attempt to intimidate the guard by saying 'It's not wise to search us.'"
DM: "Roll intimidation" or "Your character sees other armed guards nearby. Are you sure you want to do that?"

In some cases, things can get even worse.

Example 2:
Player: "I slink into the room and look around."
DM: "You see blah blah."
Player: "Okay, I use my action to..."
DM: "You had to dash to get far enough into the room to see everything I described. Oh, and this creature just beat your stealth check and is close enough to attack you now that you dashed into the center of the room. Does an 18 beat your AC?"
Player: "I didn't want to move that far into the room. I just wanted to step five feet in and look, then decide what to do."

I've seen that exact thing happen. It wasn't the DM being a jerk, it was him misunderstanding what the player wanted to do. As a result, the player nearly suffered a faultless death.

Point being: the mechanics are the players' connection to the game world, and the most precise way to communicate with the DM. Don't get all offended when players communicate in mechanics rather than general actions, especially with less experienced DMs.

I agree, but would prefer if they tell me what they're doing and how without saying "Can I roll a X check?" For example: "Can I roll Intimidation on the guard?" What are you trying to get him to do, and with what kind of approach? He's more resistant to some things than others, and I need more information.

Tell me what your character is trying to do, I'll tell you what to roll. If there's a mismatch, let me know and we'll find the best resolution mechanic before anything happens. I play with lots of "So you're trying to do X, via method Y. You'll need to make a difficulty D check of type C. Is this what you want to do?" for things that are even slightly complex.

[mephnick]

Point being: the mechanics are the players' connection to the game world, and the most precise way to communicate with the DM. Don't get all offended when players communicate in mechanics rather than general actions, especially with less experienced DMs.

Oh yeah, I have no problem with a player asking "can I use intimidate instead?" (that would actually be refreshing, since most of my players try to make threats and then roll Persuasion for some reason..)

Or giving me mechanics AND in-character actions.

I get annoyed by experienced players still saying "I intimidate the guard." and offering no in-character rational to roll an Intimidation check.

[mephnick]

I agree, but would prefer if they tell me what they're doing and how without saying "Can I roll a X check?" For example: "Can I roll Intimidation on the guard?" What are you trying to get him to do, and with what kind of approach? He's more resistant to some things than others, and I need more information.

Pretty much. A character just saying "It would be wise not to search us." won't be met with a check at all, but a "Wat? Why not? It's my job idiot." from the guard.

You need to give reasons so that I know what the guard is actually reacting to.

[Hrugner]

Looking back, I was a BAD stereotypical "Steal/manipulate/harm the party" rogue in my first ever actual D&D game. Feel awful about it now. I think it rubbed off on my friend who I now DM for, as he has carried similar traits to some characters he's played through the years.

I also played this type. Once. Over twenty years ago now. One of our DMs is still certain I'm secretly plotting to embezzle from the party fund, get other party members killed, and cause anarchy wherever I go; Regardless of my character's demeanor, actions, or associates, it's always the same.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I also played this type. Once. Over twenty years ago now. One of our DMs is still certain I'm secretly plotting to embezzle from the party fund, get other party members killed, and cause anarchy wherever I go; Regardless of my character's demeanor, actions, or associates, it's always the same.
You can tell when one of us DM's have had a player like that.

There's guards posted everywhere.

Townsfolk are immediately suspicious of you.

No one ever carries much money, and never treasure.

All the peasants are dirt poor.

All the merchants have bodyguards with great eyesight.

Every noble has a security system that could stop a dragon assault.

Evil alignments are expressly forbidden.

Chaotic random is expressly forbidden.

70% or more of the attacks seem to go to the rogue.

You're getting the stink eye.

[Erit]

You can tell when one of us DM's have had a player like that. [...] Evil alignments are expressly forbidden. [...]

And this always saddens me, because I play the Fel-brand of Evil rather than the stupid kind of Evil, but once a DM's been turned on this road it's very hard to make them see the darkness.

[Jama7301]

You can tell when one of us DM's have had a player like that.

There's guards posted everywhere.

Townsfolk are immediately suspicious of you.

No one ever carries much money, and never treasure.

All the peasants are dirt poor.

All the merchants have bodyguards with great eyesight.

Every noble has a security system that could stop a dragon assault.

Evil alignments are expressly forbidden.

Chaotic random is expressly forbidden.

70% or more of the attacks seem to go to the rogue.

You're getting the stink eye.

We were young dumb teens at the time.

But it COULD explain why I always end up DMing. :smalltongue:

[smcmike]

Dms who will never, under any circumstances, let you outplay them.

Ex.

I am playing a medium armored rogue, fighting the BBEG right hand guy.

DM ok, the half orc barbarian charges you and rolls attack with advantage, crits and does 4x damage with his great axe.

Me: I am 50 feet away, he can't get to me.

(and so-on).

This is super irritating, and by “this,” I mean your response. Don’t rules-lawyer the DM.

An appropriate response might be “I’m 50’ away, can he get to me and attack?”

To which a DM might respond “oh, you are right, no, he can’t get there, he does this instead.” The DM might also respond “seems like he can. What’s your AC again?”

Because, why do you know the stats of the enemy, exactly? This is 5E. It isn’t designed to be symmetrical.

I get what you’re saying, and it is a pain. The DM should not adjust enemies on the fly to counter everything you do, and it sounds like this DM simply did not know the system as well as he should have. But you should not assume that you know what the enemy can do.



Another Example:


Essentially the build was untouchable in melee almost:
Had high AC in the first place, then if you hit me, the first time you hit I auto-parry with crane wing, if you happen to hit again I use the Swashbuckler parry, and I think I had one more way to parry but it has been a long time.
.....
It went on like this until the chief was dead and never landed a hit on me.

This example is a good demonstration of what I like about 5e. “oh man, I figured out a neat trick to totally counter anything the DM throws at me” is not a fun interaction, and I’m glad this level of optimization isn’t available in 5e.


Keeping your character sheet on a cell phone app. To me, it just looks like you're not paying attention to the game and fiddling with your phone.


Yup. Particularly when you don’t know what you’re doing, and are relying on the app to do the work for you. “That’s just what my app says” is something I hate hearing.

[Easy_Lee]

This is super irritating, and by “this,” I mean your response. Don’t rules-lawyer the DM.

An appropriate response might be “I’m 50’ away, can he get to me and attack?”

To which a DM might respond “oh, you are right, no, he can’t get there, he does this instead.” The DM might also respond “seems like he can. What’s your AC again?”

Because, why do you know the stats of the enemy, exactly? This is 5E. It isn’t designed to be symmetrical.

I get what you’re saying, and it is a pain. The DM should not adjust enemies on the fly to counter everything you do, and it sounds like this DM simply did not know the system as well as he should have. But you should not assume that you know what the enemy can do.


Correcting the DM and being a rules lawyer are not the same. They're not especially similar, either. You correct the DM when he forgets the rules, or doesn't know the rules. Rules lawyers twist rules to gain the upper hand.

You don't seem to appreciate the power difference between players and DMs. Players can't change things on the fly or produce rulings - the closest players can come to that is by trying to talk the DM into rulings that benefit said player. And we call that kind of player a rules lawyer. Have you ever thought about it, that one of the worst terms we have for players, rules lawyer, refers to players who try to persuade the DM to rule unfairly? Even that type of player has no power on his own. That's how extreme the power void is between players and DMs.

Let me give you a similar situation, but from the other angle. At a game recently, an archer climbed a tree. The player passed her athletics check and everything. Then she started shooting at opponents. Some large size NPC walks near the tree. Surrounded by allies, he takes a swing at her. At this point, the players ask why that didn't provoke an opportunity attack when he climbed the tree. The DM says he didn't climb, then explains she was only ten feet up the tree. When she said she'd wanted to climb higher, he said the tree was only fifteen feet tall. The DM withheld that information (read: made it up on the spot) until he was able to use it to the player's disadvantage. Had the player been shot out of the tree, you can bet it would have been fifty feet tall.

Point being this: DMs who don't understand the rules or change things on the fly are a much bigger problem than rules lawyers ever can be. A good DM is unaffected by a rules lawyer. But there's no player action that can make up for bad DM practices.

[Theoboldi]

Players who join a game despite not liking that game's premise. What the heck is the point of that even?

Seriously, I cannot count how often I've seen players join a game, only to immediately turn around and tell the GM that they find the premise stupid and go out of their way to avoid it. Not to mention all the times I've seen players submit characters that seem tailor-built to bypass the fundamental premise of a campaign.

As a GM myself, I had to listen to a player who wanted a familiar so they could rp with themselves and not interact with others in what I had advertised as a RP-heavy game. I had to listen to a player immediately confess that he thought my setting was stupid the moment I started his game.

Okay, I get that some people are desperate for games, but...why? Why join a game you won't want to play? Why pretend that you can get behind a premise you hate? The GM is not going to start running a separate, different campaign just for you. They'll run the game that they themselves and the other players actually wanted to play in the first place. Its just downright disrespectful and entitled to act like they have to accomodate you when you are not even upfront about what you want out of a game as a player.

[Sariel Vailo]

Players who join a game despite not liking that game's premise. What the heck is the point of that even?

Seriously, I cannot count how often I've seen players join a game, only to immediately turn around and tell the GM that they find the premise stupid and go out of their way to avoid it. Not to mention all the times I've seen players submit characters that seem tailor-built to bypass the fundamental premise of a campaign.

As a GM myself, I had to listen to a player who wanted a familiar so they could rp with themselves and not interact with others in what I had advertised as a RP-heavy game. I had to listen to a player immediately confess that he thought my setting was stupid the moment I started his game.

Okay, I get that some people are desperate for games, but...why? Why join a game you won't want to play? Why pretend that you can get behind a premise you hate? The GM is not going to start running a separate, different campaign just for you. They'll run the game that they themselves and the other players actually wanted to play in the first place. Its just downright disrespectful and entitled to act like they have to accomodate you when you are not even upfront about what you want out of a game as a player.

Ill do any game period no dmding for me hopefully.

[smcmike]

Correcting the DM and being a rules lawyer are not the same. They're not especially similar, either. You correct the DM when he forgets the rules, or doesn't know the rules. Rules lawyers twist rules to gain the upper hand.

Your definition of “twist” may vary.

I guarantee you that every person who you would categorize as a rules lawyer would claim that they are simply correcting the DM when he forgets the rules or doesn’t know the rules.



You don't seem to appreciate the power difference between players and DMs. Players can't change things on the fly or produce rulings - the closest players can come to that is by trying to talk the DM into rulings that benefit said player. And we call that kind of player a rules lawyer. Have you ever thought about it, that one of the worst terms we have for players, rules lawyer, refers to players who try to persuade the DM to rule unfairly? Even that type of player has no power on his own. That's how extreme the power void is between players and DMs.

I am aware of the power differential between the player and the DM. I support that power differential. That was the point of my post.



Let me give you a similar situation, but from the other angle. At a game recently, an archer climbed a tree. The player passed her athletics check and everything. Then she started shooting at opponents. Some large size NPC walks near the tree. Surrounded by allies, he takes a swing at her. At this point, the players ask why that didn't provoke an opportunity attack when he climbed the tree. The DM says he didn't climb, then explains she was only ten feet up the tree. When she said she'd wanted to climb higher, he said the tree was only fifteen feet tall. The DM withheld that information (read: made it up on the spot) until he was able to use it to the player's disadvantage. Had the player been shot out of the tree, you can bet it would have been fifty feet tall.

I agree, this is bad DMing. Even assuming that the tree was always 15 ft tall, not sharing that information with the player was bad communication. I also agree that much of what the DM did in the example I was discussing is similarly bad. That doesn’t mean that the correct response is “no, the tree is 50 feet high, look, here’s a ruling I found online that trees are 50 feet high.”

[Easy_Lee]

Your definition of “twist” may vary.

I guarantee you that every person who you would categorize as a rules lawyer would claim that they are simply correcting the DM when he forgets the rules or doesn’t know the rules.



I am aware of the power differential between the player and the DM. I support that power differential. That was the point of my post.



I agree, this is bad DMing. Even assuming that the tree was always 15 ft tall, not sharing that information with the player was bad communication. I also agree that much of what the DM did in the example I was discussing is similarly bad. That doesn’t mean that the correct response is “no, the tree is 50 feet high, look, here’s a ruling I found online that trees are 50 feet high.”

I think we overall agree on things. But I don't think correcting the DM, in good faith, should be placed in the same boat as rules lawyering. Even if the player is rude about it, attempting to correct the DM is not the same as trying to manipulate the DM - or the other players, for that matter.

And in case you're wondering, the player was knocked out of the tree without complaint, healed the next turn by an ally, and the game went on as usual. It's my experience that, generally, people just move on.

[The Shadowdove]

Players who always want a new character, usually because their current character dissatisfies them due to not being Chuck Norris godly enough for them.

Players who always play mages because they believe they, as a person, are so intelligent that nothing else suits them; despite the fact that they still don't know what spell they are using after we've waited on them to decide for multiple minutes.

Immature players who believe they are funny when they are really just inappropriate, tasteless, tactless, and generally unimpressive.

Players who create characters whom they believe should automatically be feared and catered to due to having created an overpowered fanboy backstory.

Japanophile players who try their hardest to make their character some obscure anime reference so they can live some pathetic fantasy based off of their pop culture limited fanboyism.

Players who constantly try to defend their interpretation of rules so that mechanics work for their gimmick build that is obviously using omitted text to defy both raw and Rai. Especially given that I don't rule lawyer and don't bother to bite when people try to drama queen up a rule Nazi debate.

Players who think rape is hilarious and that their character should be allowed to do explicit sexual acts without and repercussions when they delve into the obviously evil, illegal, and obscene. These tend to get a boot from the table asap.

Players who make a character who's one purpose is to be unproductive.

Players who play characters who intentionally undermine other players because they think it's funny.

Players who throw a fit when other characters don't put up with their crud and kill, ditch, or imprison them.

Players who throw tantrums of any sort.

I could keep going.

Basically unimaginative and disruptive people who think too highly of themselves and take a fun group game and make it about them.

[mephnick]

Players who make a character who's one purpose is to be unproductive.


I had a player in 3.5 who, in the first session, decided to skip out on the first mini-quest/encounter (that kind of set up the whole game) and go play his flute in the street to make money. He was a Bard...whatever.

Then he finally had a combat jumped on him while traveling and he spend a 7 round combat hiding behind a tree.

Like I say, he was in my group for one session.

[Sariel Vailo]

I had a player in 3.5 who, in the first session, decided to skip out on the first mini-quest/encounter (that kind of set up the whole game) and go play his flute in the street to make money. He was a Bard...whatever.

Then he finally had a combat jumped on him while traveling and he spend a 7 round combat hiding behind a tree.

Like I say, he was in my group for one session.

I do play my music alot i do it in 5e. And i pick entertainer background. I tey to persuade people uaing my music. If that fails out comes the flames

[rigolgm]

My pet peeves include:

- Players who play their INT8 WIS8 CHA8 fighter like they are are professional diplomat.

- Players who choose traits, bonds etc that aren't limiting or who ignore them whenever it suits them. Especially as it often means they demand the 'final say' on things because they see themselves as the voice of reason ... whereas in fact they've simply stopped playing their character properly!

- Players who play it like an abstract board game. "Ok, we're deep in the dungeon and we think the Liche who's holding our friend hostage is behind this final door. Let's take a rest and get some hits and spell slots back."

- Players and DMs whose adventures are more like malicious bloodbaths than 'proper' heroism (!).

- Players who monotonously Perception-check every wall of every room and even smash objects to look for things, as if they are in a computer game seeking health and ammo.

- Players and DMs whose adventures are nothing more than monotonous information-gathering exercises in order to locate the next combat. Such as going up to every PC and saying "Do you know anything about an oracle in the nearby woods? Have you heard of the name Briar Warwarrior? Do you know anything about trouble from orcs in the hills? Have you had any dealings on the river? Do you know anything about the missing magical artefacts?"

- Players who try to use flavour to remove their limitations. "My Cleric wears a hood and an all-encompassing cloak, and whispers, so no one can notice him doing Verbal and Somatic spell commands". Eh?

- Players who encourage others to play faster, after spending 10 minutes describing their own characters' motivations or after slowing combat to a standstill with their 14 summoned skeletons.

[rigolgm]

Agreed. When people are hostile, backstabbing, or untrustworthy in real life, no one wants to be around them. This is doubly true for dangerous professions. Do you suppose any group of mercenaries would tolerate a known thief in their midst? Not likely.

I don't really agree. Adventuring is a job for many players' characters, not solely what they do for fun. They need to work with their differences but can't ignore them.

My good/neutral gnome cleric/wizard was a member of the Harpers. He had a frosty relationship with our chaotic/neutral tiefling sorceror who was with the Zentarim and did things like chop feet of dead bodies etc.

I think I was roleplaying well (and in a fun way) by disagreeing with him and sometimes being an obstacle to him. I didn't want him disturbing coffins, assisting crooks etc.

We were in the same party because we had overarching objectives and needed each others' skills.

Likewise, it's perfectly reasonable if a druid PC uses force to stop another PC killing an animal etc (if he wants to). A bard PC may insist other PCs spend hard-earned gold buying new clothes if s/he's trying to impress people in the area - and be huffy enough to refuse to cooperate if they don't. Just roleplaying stuff.

[mephnick]

I don't really agree. Adventuring is a job for many players' characters, not solely what they do for fun. .

As someone in a relatively dangerous industry (3 people have died in just my 3 years at the new place) people that are untrustworthy or unsafe are immediately terminated..by their own union, not even the company.

A group going into life or death situations day by day are not putting up with someone they can't trust unless they're forced to, in like a cult or army campaign. In a voluntary group of adventurers? No freakin' way.

[Tanarii]

opposite peeves time:


- Players who play their INT8 WIS8 CHA8 fighter like they are are professional diplomat.-players who play their Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 like they are a drooling idiot. Or worse, have mental & social disorders.


- Players who play it like an abstract board game. "Ok, we're deep in the dungeon and we think the Liche who's holding our friend hostage is behind this final door. Let's take a rest and get some hits and spell slots back."Players that do stupid things because they can't handle that RPGs are games, so they play like tactical idiots to 'compensate'.

(Of course, your given example is tactically stupid. Taking unnecessary time while someone has been captured by a lick usually increases their chance of death. Unless the DM has a static world just waiting for you to encounter it.)


- Players who monotonously Perception-check every wall of every room and even smash objects to look for things, as if they are in a computer game seeking health and ammo.players and DMs that doesn't understand that in general, the game assumes characters will be searching everywhere, and has rules to make that super easy. Generally using their passive score, and on top of that there are automatic success rules if they take extra time. All they have to do is tell the DM "we always search every room quickly unless otherwise stated" one time, and then tell the DM when they are searching them more carefully and using up time in game. (Of course, if there's no consequence for time in game, they should instead tell the DM they always search every room carefully.)


- Players who encourage others to play faster, after spending 10 minutes describing their own characters' motivations or after slowing combat to a standstill with their 14 summoned skeletons.lol that one seems like it'd result in some serious slappage. :smallamused:

[Kejgar]

When I was DM recently, one guy would put his headphones on during the game and just be on his phone. I would ignore him since it was his choice, but then he would interrupt the game to show us a video. I just wanted to walk out whenever that happened.
Another guy in my group is too lazy to prepare anything so he makes up stuff on the spot. This would be fine but this guy is the least creative person in the group and only works to optimize his character instead of having fun. He always ends up playing the same selfish and rude character and is always asking "is there a magic shop?". One time he said "I use Phantasmal force to help me tame the wyvern" and I asked him what the image would be. He replied by saying "I don't know, that is your job."

[Asmotherion]

Nothing really. I play with a group of nice people, and we discuss if something goes wrong.

The only thing I dislike is spotlight stealing from the scene (though I take it as my own mistake as a DM, not the player's); An example would be, me describing something important, and each player describing his reaction to that with too much detail, which delays game play.

An other thing I do not allow on my table, but had to face too many times in the past (both as a player and as a DM) is Rules-Lawyering every move... It is counter-productive and game-time wasting.

[Tanarii]

An other thing I do not allow on my table, but had to face too many times in the past (both as a player and as a DM) is Rules-Lawyering every move... It is counter-productive and game-time wasting.
As a not-really-recovery rules lawyer: the most important thing I had to learn as a player is to focus on what I want my character to do in-game, listen to the DM's descriptions of what is going on, and only worry about mechanics or rules if there's a literal question from the DM directed at me about them. Usually that happens if I'm in a group that knows I like rules minutia. If I have a problem with a ruling about something involving my character specifically, make a note and bring it up later on after the game.

Basically I have to intentionally focus on the in-game world, not the mechanical level. I already know that part like the back of my hand, I don't need to worry about that part, it'll take care of itself.

This also ties back in to rigolgm's peeve of players playing the game rules instead of the character or the in-game situation. Both that and going full rules lawyer are a real danger for me as a player, if I let myself dwell on the mechanics too much. (And yeah, I think both are problematic, unless the entire group is like that.)

[Asmotherion]

As a not-really-recovery rules lawyer: the most important thing I had to learn as a player is to focus on what I want my character to do in-game, listen to the DM's descriptions of what is going on, and only worry about mechanics or rules if there's a literal question from the DM directed at me about them. Usually that happens if I'm in a group that knows I like rules minutia. If I have a problem with a ruling about something involving my character specifically, make a note and bring it up later on after the game.

Basically I have to intentionally focus on the in-game world, not the mechanical level. I already know that part like the back of my hand, I don't need to worry about that part, it'll take care of itself.

This also ties back in to rigolgm's peeve of players playing the game rules instead of the character or the in-game situation. Both that and going full rules lawyer are a real danger for me as a player, if I let myself dwell on the mechanics too much. (And yeah, I think both are problematic, unless the entire group is like that.)

That's also more or less our solution; if a player feels that ultimatelly his character was unfairly treated by the DM for any reason, they talk after session; if aplicable, he gets compensated in the next session by some inspiration dice. Violations of this (ignoring warnings, which almost never happens) get missfortune dice instead, wich are rolled whenever the DM seems fit and work against the PC. This is also the solution we have for almost any other table violations, and it tends to keep the table clean; Not knowing when the DM will have you roll a minus to a crusial die roll tends to be a suitable punishment, and we prefear not to link punishments with XP.

I'll bring this to an other thread actually, as it derives from the original theme of this thread.

[smcmike]

As someone in a relatively dangerous industry (3 people have died in just my 3 years at the new place) people that are untrustworthy or unsafe are immediately terminated..by their own union, not even the company.

A group going into life or death situations day by day are not putting up with someone they can't trust unless they're forced to, in like a cult or army campaign. In a voluntary group of adventurers? No freakin' way.

This assumes that the characters are professional adventurers with the freedom to choose their companions. That is often not the case, both in the real world and in games. When you hear stories about accidents, even in high-risk, high-regulation industries, there is very often a component of someone doing something dumb, or poor training or oversight. That’s in today’s world, where the tolerance for needless deaths is usually pretty low compared to some other times and places.

[rigolgm]

As someone in a relatively dangerous industry (3 people have died in just my 3 years at the new place) people that are untrustworthy or unsafe are immediately terminated..by their own union, not even the company.

A group going into life or death situations day by day are not putting up with someone they can't trust unless they're forced to, in like a cult or army campaign. In a voluntary group of adventurers? No freakin' way.

There are myriad examples in fantasy films, books and TV series of groups who are a team of adventurers but sometimes pull in different directions.

[Easy_Lee]

There are myriad examples in fantasy films, books and TV series of groups who are a team of adventurers but sometimes pull in different directions.

There's a big difference between pulling in different directions and actively endangering the group. An argument is one thing, but you don't backstab teammates and expect to remain on the team.

[rigolgm]

There's a big difference between pulling in different directions and actively endangering the group. An argument is one thing, but you don't backstab teammates and expect to remain on the team.

I'm not sure I meant 'actively' endangering the group. Only indirectly (potentially) through traits.

I was disagreeing with the example someone gave when they said: "Do you suppose any group of mercenaries would tolerate a known thief in their midst? Not likely" etc.

Which seems disproved by numerous fantasy stories. I was watching the Conan movie recently and he adventured with a selfish thief. As did the hero in Krull.

Then I was tuning into brilliant 80s TV series V and you've got awesome ongoing love-hate/help-hinder stuff between the two male leads (Marc Singer and Michael Ironside). Then I tuned into Empire Strikes Back and there was C3PO wandering off and getting shot to pieces. Continuing my 80s fix I watched Lethal Weapon (enough said). How about the recent Marvel movies - do the heroes never contradict or even accidentally endanger each other due to personal traits? But they're a team, right?

I'm not really understanding what's wrong with my point that good, fun roleplaying could sometimes result in disagreements and potential hazards within the adventuring party.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not sure I meant 'actively' endangering the group. Only indirectly (potentially) through traits.

I was disagreeing with the example someone gave when they said: "Do you suppose any group of mercenaries would tolerate a known thief in their midst? Not likely" etc.

Which seems disproved by numerous fantasy stories. I was watching the Conan movie recently and he adventured with a selfish thief. As did the hero in Krull.

Then I was tuning into brilliant 80s TV series V and you've got awesome ongoing love-hate/help-hinder stuff between the two male leads (Marc Singer and Michael Ironside). Then I tuned into Empire Strikes Back and there was C3PO wandering off and getting shot to pieces. Continuing my 80s fix I watched Lethal Weapon (enough said). How about the recent Marvel movies - do the heroes never contradict or even accidentally endanger each other due to personal traits? But they're a team, right?

I'm not really understanding what's wrong with my point that good, fun roleplaying could sometimes result in disagreements and potential hazards within the adventuring party.

When I say "known thief," I don't mean someone who steals. I mean someone who steals from the group. Regardless of how they treat the world, players ought be respectful toward one another.

[Pex]

I do rules lawyer, but it hasn't been a problem for the DM, any DM I've played with. They appreciate the correction because they want to be fair and don't claim omniscience. However, I rules lawyer even when it hurts the party - a character can't do something the player wants, the monster can do something the DM thought it couldn't, etc. The players may grumble the circumstance but not me speaking up. They appreciate the quid pro quo of corrections that help us and hurt us. I also stop short of arguing with the DM. I know my Pathfinder DM is incorrect with a particular rule regarding attack of opportunity because it essentially nerfs reach which helps the party more. I mentioned it the first time it came up, he insisted on his way being correct, I drop it and let it go. If a DM wants to discuss it after the game online, fine. If not then not. When I discover I was incorrect about a rule after all I fess up. I'm forgiven and able to rule lawyer the next time freely.

[mgshamster]

Snip.

None of that seems like rules lawyering to me. It seems more like "the proper way to make corrections in game." I'd love to have a player like you in my games - and that includes knowledge of all the times we've argued. :)

[Dimcair]

I do rules lawyer, but it hasn't been a problem for the DM, any DM I've played with. They appreciate the correction because they want to be fair and don't claim omniscience. However, I rules lawyer even when it hurts the party - a character can't do something the player wants, the monster can do something the DM thought it couldn't, etc. The players may grumble the circumstance but not me speaking up. They appreciate the quid pro quo of corrections that help us and hurt us. I also stop short of arguing with the DM. I know my Pathfinder DM is incorrect with a particular rule regarding attack of opportunity because it essentially nerfs reach which helps the party more. I mentioned it the first time it came up, he insisted on his way being correct, I drop it and let it go. If a DM wants to discuss it after the game online, fine. If not then not. When I discover I was incorrect about a rule after all I fess up. I'm forgiven and able to rule lawyer the next time freely.


So do I. And I hate the 'rules lawyer' terminology.

I am worse, because I don't avoid an argument at all costs.
Everytime a rule or mechanic is miss-used it ripps me out of my 'immersion' if you will. I expect certain things in a world (e.g. gravity), and when I expect a certain outcome of a certain action but **** just changes every session because neither the other players or the DM know their **** it makes me icky =(.

Due to the butterfly effect it doesn't make much sense to me to talk about incorrect rulings after a session... after all, somebodies character is already dead/an opportunity lost/etc.
What is the solution supposed to be? A whoops, last session I killed someone because I didn't follow the correct rules and now, bazinga, he is back to life! Sorry!

....

yaaay *immersion into your world intensifies*
This hurts your game more than a 2 min quick look-up on why the druid should get a saving throw before plummeting to his death.


The only way to 'redeem' yourself is to be hard and fair. Call out your own mistakes, mistakes of your party, mistakes of the DM, but not always to the advantage of yourself/the party.

Maybe a way to be nice about it
(taking the 'half-orc can't charge more than 30 feet' as an example)

is to ask:
'Can I notice anything special about his feet or something? Because typically a normal character couldn't be this fast without some sort of magical item or other magical means'

instead of: Yo, he can't move more than 30 feet AND attack me.

[Tanarii]

You don't discuss it after the game in the hope the ruling retroactively change what happened. You do it so the ruling will be made correctly in the future.

If it's literally life or death for your character that the ruling be made correctly, sure, contest it and look up the answer.

But if the problem is something more niche, like a DM rolling perception for surprise instead of using passive perception, or making a group stealth check of rolling one for each ambushing creature ... then let it roll and discuss it later. For the future.

Forum goers are very frequently rules experts. And it's my experience that very few of us seem to understand how much minor rules corrections being made constantly in play are absolutely loathed by the average player being constantly corrected, and doubly so by many DMs.

Edit: Obviously this is also a 'know your DM & fellow players' situation. I go though heavy official play phases, so I'm often dealing with people I don't know well, especially at first. So I take a fairly cautious stance now.

Whereas my players that have been to a few sessions know they can give me simple 'isn't that supposed to blah blah ...' reminders whenever they want. Especially since my most likely response is to tell them we'll do it whichever way is most favorable for them right now, and look it up after the game.

[sengmeng]

In my last campaign, it was one perpetually late dude (other two players lived with me) and people never knowing how to add up all their bonuses and quickly give me the result of their rolls. I was also very prepared to be extravagantly indulgent if they wanted to use homebrew and make up custom magic items or classes, but it ended up being very bland.

On the other hand, they weren't nearly as familiar with the rules as I was, so they never questioned my rulings and also stayed in character very well, and got actually upset when I killed off my DMPC (I was genuinely surprised; I'd heard DMPCs are universally hated and they'd kind of treated him like crap, but it turns out they loved him and were all role-playing a somewhat toxic friendship with him). I went to see the movie Logan with the same 3 people and the mood walking out of the theater was basically the same as when my DMPC died. All in all, I consider it my best campaign, pet peeves and all.

[samcifer]

Everyone on GitP: "No, you can't use that spell that way" :(

[DaveOfTheDead]

In my current group? Not being ready for your turn in combat; engineering excuses for your character to behave badly (i.e.: get drunk at the bar and blame all your rudeness to NPCs on the booze); squabbling over loot (especially when it clearly benefits one character over another)

My friend was having a bad night last time we played and blamed his character's rudeness on his character's Autism. Now he doesn't want to roll with it because the NPCs treating him badly because he was rude in the first place.

This friend's wife, when she was "playing", would say she wasn't in the moode/had a headache/was tired, etc. Shortly after we start she's in the same room but playing Skyrim.

Edit: My wife keeps all of her dice in the Chessex box until she needs them.
Me: "Roll an attack"
Her: *pops open the box, fumbles for the d20, rolls it, goes "uhhh" while she adds up the bonuses, then puts the d20 back when I tell her if it hits or not, repeats for the damage dice*

[Darth_Versity]

When the DM plays obvious favorites with the players, like one player has 3 personal storylines going that the dm put on them but can't even tell you what else someone else is.
Ex. I write a 16 page backstory, and keep a running journal in character that I write up each game, and am the face of the group, but the DM's room mate punches the king of the dwarves in the face, in the throne room, and then tells Moradin himself to mind his own business when he shows up to intercede has 3 personal storylines going and the DM never once even knew what class I was playing.

When the DM does not even bother reading your backstory because you are just in a game on the rails and watching the show.
Ex. See last example.

I can't believe no one has commented on this yet. I am the main DM for our group, and if someone came to me with a 16 page backstory I wouldn't even look at it either. They would be sent away to rewrite it in no more that 3 sensible sized paragraphs. Half a page is plenty of room to get the idea of your character across.

Also, your backstory has no where near the relevance compared to the events that actually happen in game. Those are things you all experienced and talk about for years to come. What someone wrote about their character before the game... not so much of a talking point.

[Estrillian]

It's been said a <insert hyperbolically large number> of times already, but phones at the table!

People buying things online during the game, playing Pokemon Go during the game, browsing their email during the game, chatting to their boyfriends during the game. It drives me insane. And these aren't culture-blind teens, but professionals in their 40s who should know better, and of course people who are my friends (or family) so I can't just drop-kick the whole thing.

Oh sure they say they are just checking them when it isn't their turn in combat, or it isn't their scene, which might be fine (actually no, it wouldn't be) if it was true, but try and get their attention and their eyes never leave the screens.

It didn't used to be this way, as they say.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

One of my pet peeves is I have a friend who has his own separate group who's DM has no idea how to home brew. I started SKT with him to find out that his 5th level character had a sword that does 2d8 and instant kills anything on a crit! So i guess my pet peeve is when a character makes op homebrew and tries to get away with it.

"Oh its only a weapon that can instant kill anything on a crit"
"NOT IN MY DUNGEON YOU DON"T"

[ko_sct]

A small pet peeve of mine is how long one of my players turn are, even when his only options are to power attack or not.

He will pick a d20. Wonder for a good 15 sec weither to power attack or not. Announce it loudly. Then change his mind once or twice. Then finally roll. Ask if it's a hit. Then he pickup every dmg dice separatly while annoncing where ther comme from. 2d6 from greatsword. 1d6 fire dmg because it's a magic greatsword. 1d6 from hunter's mark. Has he taken dmg yet ? Ok, the 1d8 from giant slayer.

Is he dead ? No ? Ok then I attack a second time with power attack.... wait does he look almost dead ? Hum... maybe i shouldn't power attack....

Uuughhhhh. By the time he's done with his action, usually the next 2 players are done with their turn.

[the_brazenburn]

One of my pet peeves is I have a friend who has his own separate group who's DM has no idea how to home brew. I started SKT with him to find out that his 5th level character had a sword that does 2d8 and instant kills anything on a crit! So i guess my pet peeve is when a character makes op homebrew and tries to get away with it.

"Oh its only a weapon that can instant kill anything on a crit"
"NOT IN MY DUNGEON YOU DON"T"

That isn't homebrew. Vorpal Sword, page 209 of the DMG.

[Tanarii]

One that's happened to me recently yet again. Some variation has happened in every single "home game" I've ever played in and run.

Eager Friend: "Hey can you run a home game for me and my friends? We really want to play"
DM: "Sure, no problem. I'll send you a pitch, we'll schedule a weekly game if that works"
Eager Friend & Friend-of-Friends:
- *inevitably pick Friday night*
- *cue a months of individual players skipping games*
- *cue a two months of group skipping every other week because they're all going camping, or hitting the club, or whatever*
- *cue game falling apart completely after three months because they're all into some new board game*

I've personally never seen a "home game" that wasn't an open table type campaign successfully go 6 months, even when the pitch explicitly included an end for the campaign. It used to really piss me off. Now I expect it, so I can kind of laugh about it. My problem is clearly letting friends bully me into allowing them to pick Fri night games, which is a slot I never run for my own open table campaign, because people are so flaky on Friday nights. And not just setting a pitch with, like, a level 5 cut-off.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

That isn't homebrew. Vorpal Sword, page 209 of the DMG.

Im aware but at 5th and with the damage bonus its like a fluffed modified vorpal sword.
Longsword (vorpal) giant slayer
2d8 sl

[SociopathFriend]

Players that steal from other players. I swear that people take being KILLED better than a Rogue reaching into their pocket and lifting a potion or something.

[Kane0]

Players that steal from other players. I swear that people take being KILLED better than a Rogue reaching into their pocket and lifting a potion or something.

There's a good quote floating around in someone's sig about that, seems to be a common phenomenon.
"Kill off a PC's parents, that's just the cost of doing business. But steal a PC's boots and now it's personal"

[Tanarii]

There's a good quote floating around in someone's sig about that, seems to be a common phenomenon.
"Kill off a PC's parents, that's just the cost of doing business. But steal a PC's boots and now it's personal"
That sounds like one directed more at something the DM is doing. (ie NPCs)

[Kane0]

IIRC indeed it was, but I suppose in every RPG there is at least a little inconsistency when it comes to the escalation of violence.

[strangebloke]

I think most of these hardly qualify as 'pet' peeves.

And man, you guys are hard asses about phones. All my players have laptops out. We use messaging apps for secret party banter, use automatic dicerollers on d20 to expedite play...

It's vastly simplified and sped things up. My fastest, most engaged player plays FTL and similar games during combat! If a player isn't engaged or is slow on their turn I'll rag on their bad behavior, but so long as they keep up I don't mind.

Heck, I play video games during long in character arguments...

On that note, I don't like long arguments. If your character is going to leave the party, leave the party. Don't sit around and waste everyone's time by arguing constantly.

Of course, the root cause of this is usually a lack of engagement with the setting/party, which is a serious problem with me. I really get annoyed with characters that were designed in isolation. Like, in my homebrewed setting I had three major kingdoms and nine lesser kingdoms, all across the board in terms of diversity...

7/10 characters needed to be from 'somewhere else,' and three of them requested that I work with them to design a new city state. I had one player who brought a lawful stupid paladin to the table who had apparently sworn an oath of 'progressive liberalism' and would do things like attack a player's father because the guy owned slaves (and treated them very well) in a society that tolerated slaves. At the same time, I had a wizard who killed innocents to raise zombies. (He was 'LN') They were offset by a misanthropic elf warlock who actually agreed with the villains about everything important, but still adventured with the party for reasons that were never explained....

Man, I do not miss those players.

Side bar: I also dislike players that gossip rather than bringing ooc concerns before the group. If you've a problem with my style, bring it to me or to the whole group, not to your buddy the rogue.

[Jama7301]

And man, you guys are hard asses about phones. All my players have laptops out. We use messaging apps for secret party banter, use automatic dicerollers on d20 to expedite play...

It's vastly simplified and sped things up. My fastest, most engaged player plays FTL and similar games during combat! If a player isn't engaged or is slow on their turn I'll rag on their bad behavior, but so long as they keep up I don't mind.

Heck, I play video games during long in character arguments...


Personally speaking, this is more of an exception than the norm. Laptops with access to games, music, and internet tend to distract and prompt the question "Whose turn is it? What happened?" more often than not.

[Potato_Priest]

7/10 characters needed to be from 'somewhere else,' and three of them requested that I work with them to design a new city state. I had one player who brought a lawful stupid paladin to the table who had apparently sworn an oath of 'progressive liberalism' and would do things like attack a player's father because the guy owned slaves (and treated them very well) in a society that tolerated slaves. At the same time, I had a wizard who killed innocents to raise zombies. (He was 'LN') They were offset by a misanthropic elf warlock who actually agreed with the villains about everything important, but still adventured with the party for reasons that were never explained....


Aye, that is a very common issue. To fix this, I have some hopes that community worldbuilding might be able to create worlds that people would be familiar with and interested in, provided they were among the people creating it.

[strangebloke]

Personally speaking, this is more of an exception than the norm. Laptops with access to games, music, and internet tend to distract and prompt the question "Whose turn is it? What happened?" more often than not.

My experience has been that problem players do that anyway. The phone is a symptom, not a cause. Honestly most rounds of combat are pretty boring, and I'm pretty sure all of my players in my last campaign had been diagnosed with ADHD.

And I'm the case of at least one player,I wanted him distracted, because when he focused on the game he was driving everyone else to distraction. (He was eventually asked to leave)

[Camman1984]

I've personally never seen a "home game" that wasn't an open table type campaign successfully go 6 months, even when the pitch explicitly included an end for the campaign. It used to really piss me off. Now I expect it, so I can kind of laugh about it. My problem is clearly letting friends bully me into allowing them to pick Fri night games, which is a slot I never run for my own open table campaign, because people are so flaky on Friday nights. And not just setting a pitch with, like, a level 5 cut-off.

That's a shame, we have done really well at my table, we meet at mine one Thursday and another dm's the opposite Thursday. have been meeting regularly for nearly 3 years. have just finished an 18 month long curse of strahd campaign

[Ratter]

This example is a good demonstration of what I like about 5e. “oh man, I figured out a neat trick to totally counter anything the DM throws at me” is not a fun interaction, and I’m glad this level of optimization isn’t available in 5e.

.

HAHAAHAHAHAHHAHXHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHHAHAHAH

Varient human fighter, take the mobile feat at level 1 and the mounted combatant feat at level 4, now you get advantage on almost every attack, get multiple attacks, and everyone you attack cant attack you. Melee untouchables are my favorite builds

[PopeLinus1]

“You arrive at the town of abyrwyvern, a strong waft of bread drifts through the streets as merchants hawk their wares and-“

“We go to the tavern!”

[strangebloke]

HAHAAHAHAHAHHAHXHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHHAHAHAH

Varient human fighter, take the mobile feat at level 1 and the mounted combatant feat at level 4, now you get advantage on almost every attack, get multiple attacks, and everyone you attack cant attack you. Melee untouchables are my favorite builds
Yeah no.

What if they kill your mount? What if they cast hold person on you? What if it's a narrow tunnel that your large horse can't maneuver in?

I'm not saying it's a weak build, just that it's not impossible to counter.

“You arrive at the town of abyrwyvern, a strong waft of bread drifts through the streets as merchants hawk their wares and-“

“We go to the tavern!”
See, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the players here. Any description longer than two or three sentences is probably unnecessary.

[DarkKnightJin]

“You arrive at the town of abyrwyvern, a strong waft of bread drifts through the streets as merchants hawk their wares and-“

“We go to the tavern!”

"Your friends have all gathered at the tavern, to stage an intervention for your horrible habit of day-drinking."

Deny them all combat that isn't with the alcohol demon, but those fights are RP'd out without dice rolls on their end.

If you want to be a hated DM, of course.

[Chalkarts]

I've grown to loathe the player that wants to bang all the wenches.

[Coffee_Dragon]

“You arrive at the town of abyrwyvern, a strong waft of bread drifts through the streets as merchants hawk their wares and-“

“We go to the tavern!”

Is there a DM who doesn't get this?

"After a little while the throng of nervous villagers parts to reveal a tall, dignified frog creature. He flourishes a feathered baton, clears his throat and -"

"Hi! My name's Bob, what's yours? We're friendly! Can you help us get into the tower over there? Do you have somewhere we can sleep? Or a tavern."

"Uh... he seems a little taken aback by your sudden barrage of questions, but composes himself and -"

"Right, we go to the tavern."

[Ratter]

Yeah no.



I'm not saying it's a weak build, just that it's not impossible to counter.



every build can be countered, you have mounted combatant to protect your horse btw, the broken build you were talking about can be countered by something like fireball/AOE spells, also, the real broken part of the build I mentioned is that he was only a level 4, you can easily broken builds in dnd 5e, like seriously, swash is so good for this kinda thing, also if you dont want the whole no manuevering in dungeons you can take halfling/any small race, and get swash instead of staying until level 4, this also gives you sneak attack, and if you stay for 2 more levels, evasion

[PhoenixPhyre]

every build can be countered, you have mounted combatant to protect your horse btw, the broken build you were talking about can be countered by something like fireball/AOE spells, also, the real broken part of the build I mentioned is that he was only a level 4, you can easily broken builds in dnd 5e, like seriously, swash is so good for this kinda thing, also if you dont want the whole no manuevering in dungeons you can take halfling/any small race, and get swash instead of staying until level 4, this also gives you sneak attack, and if you stay for 2 more levels, evasion

And all of those have serious opportunity costs. Early multi-classing tends to delay class progression, so you're slowing your growth. Bigger costs (from outfitting both you and the animal). Medium riding animals are even less beefy than large ones. The maximum "broken"ness is tiny in this edition, and highly situational at that.

[Tanarii]

That's a shame, we have done really well at my table, we meet at mine one Thursday and another dm's the opposite Thursday. have been meeting regularly for nearly 3 years. have just finished an 18 month long curse of strahd campaignI think it depends on location and who you're trying to play with. I live in a huge city, so distractions abound. Also few of my friends close enough to ask me to run a private game are married. So when friends ask me to run a game, I end up with groups that fall apart because people have lots of stuff to do, and want to treat it as something to entertain them when it's convenient for them, and not a social group meeting once a week.

In this last case, it was a bunch of 20-somethings, so I wasn't really surprised. They have an active social life, both individually and as a group. That's cool, and I'm happy for them. But it still irked me, obviously. :smallamused:

[GlenSmash!]

Varient human fighter, take the mobile feat at level 1 and the mounted combatant feat at level 4, now you get advantage on almost every attack, get multiple attacks, and everyone you attack cant attack you. Melee untouchables are my favorite builds

In LMoP we encountered a flaming Skull that through a fireball at us that would have destroyed that mount. Were were level 3. Except of course that we were underground, so that character wouldn't have had his mount anyway. That's literally the first adventure published for 5e and your build would have done squat for this and a number of other encounters.

Seriously how many combats do you have above ground and out of doors? In my games things, like Caves, Castles, Underground Cities, Floating Fortresses, Etc. account for at least 50% of combats. And for those that are above ground and outdoors, encountering a foe with AOEs is not uncommon even at 4th level.

[Mith]

I am lucky that my main gaming group more or less formed in junior high, and we work pretty hard to keep it on a schedule everyone is good with. We are all post uni now, so it's been going for nearly 10 years now.

[Rynjin]

Players that steal from other players. I swear that people take being KILLED better than a Rogue reaching into their pocket and lifting a potion or something.

This is one of the only surefire ways to piss me off during a game. Before I left my 5th edition game, one of the last sessions involved this...in a session I couldn't be present for, no less. I just get a text from my friend (the GM) at 10 in the morning, right before I need to drive 8 hours back home, saying the rogue player had decided to steal my Barbarian's hammer (later revealed that he had stolen it from a prominent NPC we needed to deal with later in the first place and given as a gift to me, then stolen back in the night to cover his own ass).

I was extra pissed off because this was the first magic hammer in the game so far, and I'd been hunting for one for a while.

He thought I was joking when he asked "How do you want to handle this" and I said "I rage and rip him apart with my damn bare claws". I was peeved when he was alive the next session, it having apparently been decided for me to just tie him up and take all his stuff, to be forgiven later.

[sengmeng]

I can't believe no one has commented on this yet. I am the main DM for our group, and if someone came to me with a 16 page backstory I wouldn't even look at it either. They would be sent away to rewrite it in no more that 3 sensible sized paragraphs. Half a page is plenty of room to get the idea of your character across.

Also, your backstory has no where near the relevance compared to the events that actually happen in game. Those are things you all experienced and talk about for years to come. What someone wrote about their character before the game... not so much of a talking point.

Seconded. I majored in creative writing and never turned in an assignment that long, which means I told complete stories with multiple fleshed-out characters that had resolutions in fewer pages than this dude needs to explain this character's outlook. Pass.

[Honest Tiefling]

I could see a longer backstory for PERSONAL use, with the idea that the person might be just jotting down dialog to get a feel for the character or making note of various things that might or might not influence gameplay, such as a details about a dwarven family friend that might influence their attitude or assumptions about dwarves. Maybe not 16 pages, but getting there.

I do feel that a TL;DR bullet section might be better for use for the DM, however...

[ross]

'You have three seconds. The next person I see on a phone gets no XP for the rest of this session [Start counting]'

This will do nothing, most of them are chronic phone users because they're depressed to the point that they can't care about anything; you could kill their character in the first minute of the session and it would make no difference. Honestly it's a miracle they're even able to make it to a game at all, since that requires effort.



- Players who try to use flavour to remove their limitations. "My Cleric wears a hood and an all-encompassing cloak, and whispers, so no one can notice him doing Verbal and Somatic spell commands". Eh?

What's wrong with that?


Players who talk in character too much, specifically when this means that the other players don't get a word in edgewise.

Done multiple sessions with two different groups where I just spectated the whole time because there was never a time when I wouldn't have been interrupting; but it's that or I don't play, so whatever

[prototype00]

DMs who claim to be a RAI purist mid-game when really all they want to do is shut down your rules legal combo.

[Ratter]

Seriously how many combats do you have above gourd and out of doors?

Well, this makes you large, so I mean... your not THAT big... also mounted combatant lets you A, protect your horse and B, they cant attack you if you attack them

[strangebloke]

Seconded. I majored in creative writing and never turned in an assignment that long, which means I told complete stories with multiple fleshed-out characters that had resolutions in fewer pages than this dude needs to explain this character's outlook. Pass.
Amen.

This is why I've become a strong believer in the party writing a backstory for the group. Make them work out relationships and history with each other.

[Tanarii]

DMs who claim to be a RAI purist mid-game when really all they want to do is shut down your rules legal combo.
Conversely: Players that come to the table with a combo based on either and edge-case or very narrow interpretation of RAW and insist it is a rules legal combo.

This was extremely common in 4e official play, and it irritated me both as a player and a DM. Actually, more as a player, because if the DM let the player get away with it, it often hugely overshadowed the rest of us.

That's what finally made me realize: nobody likes a forum-lurking abusive rules lawyer who insists on their narrow or edge-case interpretations of RAW during actual play. I was one of those in 3e, DM and player. I was young, mistakes were made.

(Not saying all rules legal combos are abusive. Your post just made me think of it, because IMX it was common in 4e official play.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Conversely: Players that come to the table with a combo based on either and edge-case or very narrow interpretation of RAW and insist it is a rules legal combo.

This was extremely common in 4e official play, and it irritated me both as a player and a DM. Actually, more as a player, because if the DM let the player get away with it, it often hugely overshadowed the rest of us.

That's what finally made me realize: nobody likes a forum-lurking abusive rules lawyer who insists on their narrow or edge-case interpretations of RAW during actual play. I was one of those in 3e, DM and player. I was young, mistakes were made.

(Not saying all rules legal combos are abusive. Your post just made me think of it, because IMX it was common in 4e official play.)

Amen. I see RAW used more as a weapon ("You have to let me do this, the rules say so") for causing distortions than as a tool for settling arguments. Sadly.

[GlenSmash!]

Well, this makes you large

No it does not. If a you are playing Medium creature, It makes you a medium creature sitting on a Large creature. That is not the same as becoming Large.


mounted combatant lets you A, protect your horse and B, they cant attack you if you attack them

Yes it does. When you are mounted and when not facing AOEs. Neither of which are givens, even at low levels.

[DarkKnightJin]

Amen. I see RAW used more as a weapon ("You have to let me do this, the rules say so") for causing distortions than as a tool for settling arguments. Sadly.

I tend to be the the type of walking PHB that uses his knowledge to help the DM. Some things might be 'edge cases' I might want to try, but I also focus on making an interesting character. Not a super optimized combat machine..

[Demonslayer666]

Hi DMs,
As I have a fairly annoying group of friends that I DM for, there are a fair number of things that get on my nerves. What have your players done that causes you to cringe?

Number one by far is not paying attention. "Why are we in this dungeon again?" "I go talk to what's-her-name" This really gets on my nerves, and makes me feel like I am wasting my time.

Not keeping track of resources.

Complaining or arguing.

[prototype00]

Conversely: Players that come to the table with a combo based on either and edge-case or very narrow interpretation of RAW and insist it is a rules legal combo.

This was extremely common in 4e official play, and it irritated me both as a player and a DM. Actually, more as a player, because if the DM let the player get away with it, it often hugely overshadowed the rest of us.

That's what finally made me realize: nobody likes a forum-lurking abusive rules lawyer who insists on their narrow or edge-case interpretations of RAW during actual play. I was one of those in 3e, DM and player. I was young, mistakes were made.

(Not saying all rules legal combos are abusive. Your post just made me think of it, because IMX it was common in 4e official play.)


Amen. I see RAW used more as a weapon ("You have to let me do this, the rules say so") for causing distortions than as a tool for settling arguments. Sadly.


I tend to be the the type of walking PHB that uses his knowledge to help the DM. Some things might be 'edge cases' I might want to try, but I also focus on making an interesting character. Not a super optimized combat machine..

Ah, the carefree nattering of people who have never had a DM declare that Shield Master doesn't allow you to avoid all damage from a dragon's breath attack on a successful save (as laid down in the feat description itself) just because you happen to be grappling said dragon. Then claiming that they run games by RAI. AL games, no less.

Must be nice.

prototype00

[ross]

Ah, the carefree nattering of people who have never had a DM declare that Shield Master doesn't allow you to avoid all damage from a dragon's breath attack on a successful save (as laid down in the feat description itself) just because you happen to be grappling said dragon. Then claiming that they run games by RAI and by feel. AL games, no less.

Must be nice.

prototype00

Wait why would you need that feat in this case? How is a dragon going to breathe fire on someone grappling it? You'd have to be attached directly to its face or something.

[prototype00]

Wait why would you need that feat in this case? How is a dragon going to breathe fire on someone grappling it? You'd have to be attached directly to its face or something.

Well, even when you are grappling something, position doesn't change (most people tend not to know this, they think it works like 3e). So you're still standing right in front of the dragon, who can very well direct his/her cone breath at you (grapple doesn't stop actions/attacks either).

If you are grappling something, you yourself are not grappled (yet another thing DMs tend to be ignorant about) and you are basically free to do what you want, as long as you have a hand free to maintain the grapple.

Shield Master lets you interpose a shield as a reaction to take no damage on a successful save, rather than half damage.

But apparently not, in this very specific circumstance, for this DM, even with no rules backing his ruling, in AL, because RAI.

I think it's more fair to say my pet peeve is DMs who think they know the rules better than any musty ol' PhB.

But also DMs who support RAI, when I hear that in AL, the hair on my arm stands up and I get ready to bug out.

prototype00

[ross]

Well, even when you are grappling something, position doesn't change (most people tend not to know this, they think it works like 3e). So you're still standing right in front of the dragon, who can very well direct his/her cone breath at you (grapple doesn't stop actions/attacks either).

If you are grappling something, you yourself are not grappled (yet another thing DMs tend to be ignorant about) and you are basically free to do what you want, as long as you have a hand free to maintain the grapple.

Shield Master lets you interpose a shield as a reaction to take no damage on a successful save, rather than half damage.

But apparently not, in this very specific circumstance, for this DM, even with no rules backing his ruling, in AL, because RAI.

prototype00

What, you're grappling a dragon with one arm from five feet away, and standing in front of it? What is your character actually doing when they grapple a dragon? Did the designers of this game even take wrestling in high school?

[prototype00]

What, you're grappling a dragon with one arm from five feet away, and standing in front of it? What is your character actually doing when they grapple a dragon? Did the designers of this game even take wrestling in high school?

I'm guessing head-lock, and you are more than welcome to point out the part of the rules that I quoted mistakenly (I'm all about the even-handedness of rule application. The DM's game runs on rules, and the PCs actions are governed by it)

[DarkKnightJin]

What, you're grappling a dragon with one arm from five feet away, and standing in front of it? What is your character actually doing when they grapple a dragon? Did the designers of this game even take wrestling in high school?

Maybe not, but anybody with any imagination can think about it for a moment and realize you getting caught in the same breath weapon while you're giving it a big ol' bearhug is weapons-grade horse manure.

[ross]

I'm guessing head-lock, and you are more than welcome to point out the part of the rules that I quoted mistakenly (I'm all about the even-handedness of rule application. The DM's game runs on rules, and the PCs actions are governed by it)

If you've got a dragon in a choke hold and assuming you're medium size, you're probably going to be behind its head, maybe on its back depending on sizes and orientation. Other options are basically tail pin and leg lock, but those probably make you too vulnerable if the party isn't specifically prepared to take advantage.

Trying to put that guy in a head lock while directly in front of him is going to result in the dragon getting a snack. Heck the first thing you do even against other people is sidestep / get behind and exploit an opening.

[Lord8Ball]

To list a few of my peeves.
1. Gods and world ending threats at early levels.
2. The world always being ruled by multiple level 20 characters which we always seem to get involved in at some point and are forced to work under for dangerous mission.
3. Mind control ring at early levels that can alter your alignment in an instant and make you suicide.
4. Railroading & lack or roleplay due to it

[Tanarii]

What, you're grappling a dragon with one arm from five feet away, and standing in front of it? What is your character actually doing when they grapple a dragon? Did the designers of this game even take wrestling in high school?
A 5e grapple is more like a grab. It doesn't do anything except prevent the opponent from moving, and allow you to drag them around. In the case of a dragon, it absolutely can turn its long ass neck to point it's head at the PC grappling it, and breath it's breath weapon on them.

And yeah, you'd still get the benefit of Sheild Master. Denying that is certainly not stopping abusive edge case or narrow interpretations of RAW combos, nor is it RAI. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a "RAW combo". It's a basic RAW application of a standard Feat, as well as clear RAI, to allow it to be used with a standard grapple.

[ross]

Can someone explain how you stop a dragon from moving by grabbing it with your hand without being a deity or a bronze collosus?

[Avonar]

Nonsense with choosing dice.

I blame this one mostly on Critical Role, people who have to use one particular dice for one particular action. Spell? Use the blue one. Melee attack? Green glittery one. It gets annoying when you have a huge pile of dice on the table and have to spend 10-20 seconds before rolling to find the one you want to use this time.

Also seen a lot: game starts and then feels the urge to roll every d20 to see which are better, further lengthening their turn.

[ross]

Nonsense with choosing dice.

I blame this one mostly on Critical Role, people who have to use one particular dice for one particular action. Spell? Use the blue one. Melee attack? Green glittery one. It gets annoying when you have a huge pile of dice on the table and have to spend 10-20 seconds before rolling to find the one you want to use this time.

Also seen a lot: game starts and then feels the urge to roll every d20 to see which are better, further lengthening their turn.

**** like this is why we started using a smart table with an integrated 3d dice roller

[Tanarii]

Can someone explain how you stop a dragon from moving by grabbing it with your hand without being a deity or a bronze collosus?
You don't unless it's small enough. Grappled creatures must be no more than one size larger than you.

[GlenSmash!]

Can someone explain how you stop a dragon from moving by grabbing it with your hand without being a deity or a bronze collosus?

Well by the rules a Medium size character can't grapple a Dragon that is Larger/Older that a Young Dragon (Size Large, same as a Horse, Tiger, or a Bear).

If I were trying to describe it in the narrative I would say the grappler would have grabbed a wing and twisted it to such an angle that it hurts the dragon to even try and move in any direction. Maintaining this takes a great deal of body positioning and good footing, hence why the grappler can only move half his movement speed.

Other DMs might describe it differently.

[Potato_Priest]

Can someone explain how you stop a dragon from moving by grabbing it with your hand without being a deity or a bronze collosus?

Many 5e PCs are stronger than chimpanzees (str 16) or even grizzly bears (str 19), which are way way way stronger than RL humans. PCs in D&D are kind of superhuman, even the martial ones.

[GlenSmash!]

Many 5e PCs are stronger than chimpanzees (str 16) or even grizzly bears (str 19), which are way way way stronger than RL humans. PCs in D&D are kind of superhuman, even the martial ones.

I think it would be more accurate to say many 5e PCs have a Higher strength score than a Grizzzly Bear.

With size effecting Number of Damage Dice and Carrying Capacity a one to one comparison based on number alone just doesn't tell the whole story. I could easily see the Grizzly Bear still being "Stronger" than a 20 strength PC that isn't enlarged, doesn't have Powerful Build, or six levels in Bear Totem Barbarian.

So yes there are still ways to become stronger than that Grizzly, but getting a 20 in strength doesn't necessarily do that on it's own.

[ross]

Many 5e PCs are stronger than chimpanzees (str 16) or even grizzly bears (str 19), which are way way way stronger than RL humans. PCs in D&D are kind of superhuman, even the martial ones.

even if you're infinitely strong, the dragon can just fly away with you hanging on to it, and if you don't let go, climb to an altitude where you can't breathe

[Jamesps]

even if you're infinitely strong, the dragon can just fly away with you hanging on to it, and if you don't let go, climb to an altitude where you can't breathe


Infinitely strong characters could punch the air out from under the dragon's wings.

Problem solved.

[ross]

Infinitely strong characters could punch the air out from under the dragon's wings.

Problem solved.


:lazerthonk:

[bc56]

My group (and myself included) are very bad at reading the complete text of what an item, ability or feat does, which has wound up causing to either underperform or overperform, at various times. Hopefully, it all balances out in the end. What are some examples of your annoying friends? (Which, if they're really annoying, maybe you should find a different group?)

Yup, verily. One of my players got a Luckstone, then, about 3 sessions later, started arguing with me that the stone did not grant a +1 bonus to saves. We looked it up in the book, and I was right all along.

[SociopathFriend]

This is one of the only surefire ways to piss me off during a game. Before I left my 5th edition game, one of the last sessions involved this...in a session I couldn't be present for, no less. I just get a text from my friend (the GM) at 10 in the morning, right before I need to drive 8 hours back home, saying the rogue player had decided to steal my Barbarian's hammer (later revealed that he had stolen it from a prominent NPC we needed to deal with later in the first place and given as a gift to me, then stolen back in the night to cover his own ass).

I was extra pissed off because this was the first magic hammer in the game so far, and I'd been hunting for one for a while.

He thought I was joking when he asked "How do you want to handle this" and I said "I rage and rip him apart with my damn bare claws". I was peeved when he was alive the next session, it having apparently been decided for me to just tie him up and take all his stuff, to be forgiven later.

The first example that comes to mind of this generally sucking for my party's is a Monk who had all of his darts stolen by a Rogue. He ended up in a ranged battle and reached for darts he didn't know he didn't have. He died in that fight and the player hasn't played D&D since.

The second example was averted but would've been a lot more annoying. I obtained an artifact called the Portrait of Sadness, the first time I'd ever had such a thing. The resident Rogue rolled a die and gave the DM a card explaining what he did- which was predictably to steal it the moment the DM told us what it did (which his character had no way of knowing). Luckily, I'm fond of ritually casting Alarm on my person whenever I get the chance. However, had I not, I would've lost the artifact right after getting it with basically no counter.

Probably the biggest reason it sucks is you basically can't counter it. The Rogue will almost certainly have a high Dex value and Expertise to make it nigh-impossible to make a check to realize the theft. Especially if they steal from you when you sleep or when you're not deliberately paying attention so you can roll to hopefully get higher than your passive perception.

[DarkKnightJin]

Nonsense with choosing dice.

I blame this one mostly on Critical Role, people who have to use one particular dice for one particular action. Spell? Use the blue one. Melee attack? Green glittery one. It gets annoying when you have a huge pile of dice on the table and have to spend 10-20 seconds before rolling to find the one you want to use this time.

Also seen a lot: game starts and then feels the urge to roll every d20 to see which are better, further lengthening their turn.

That's not so much Critical Role, as it is player superstition though..

[polymphus]

Wizards.

I know that's not cool of me as a DM. I know they are a fair and intentional part of the game -- it's just that nothing breaks encounters like they do. They're near-impossible to plan for, and they can turn a 3-hour encounter into a 1-turn farce unless you go out of your way to plan everything around them.

"I cast Maze on the lich. Portent: he rolls a 2 for his save. GG."

It's not fun, it's not interesting. I hate everything about it.

[Arkhios]

Biggest pet peeve I have is other players telling someone else what they should do on their turns when that someone else didn't ask for it. Sure, D&D is team play, but that's not cool, at all.

My character is my own, not yours! Play your own damn characters, ffs!

[Malifice]

My experience has been that problem players do that anyway. The phone is a symptom, not a cause. Honestly most rounds of combat are pretty boring, and I'm pretty sure all of my players in my last campaign had been diagnosed with ADHD.

And I'm the case of at least one player,I wanted him distracted, because when he focused on the game he was driving everyone else to distraction. (He was eventually asked to leave)

Give them 3 seconds to declare actions or they take the dodge action and their turn ends.

Also, refuse to provide information that's already been provided (like who attacked what monster last).

Trust me, they'll pay attention.

[Cybren]

Wizards.

I know that's not cool of me as a DM. I know they are a fair and intentional part of the game -- it's just that nothing breaks encounters like they do. They're near-impossible to plan for, and they can turn a 3-hour encounter into a 1-turn farce unless you go out of your way to plan everything around them.

"I cast Maze on the lich. Portent: he rolls a 2 for his save. GG."

It's not fun, it's not interesting. I hate everything about it.
Maybe no one likes a 3 hour encounter and theyre doing everyone a favor by farcing it up

[Laereth]

I've personally never seen a "home game" that wasn't an open table type campaign successfully go 6 months, even when the pitch explicitly included an end for the campaign. It used to really piss me off. Now I expect it, so I can kind of laugh about it. My problem is clearly letting friends bully me into allowing them to pick Fri night games, which is a slot I never run for my own open table campaign, because people are so flaky on Friday nights. And not just setting a pitch with, like, a level 5 cut-off.

Maybe its an edge case, but in my "home" playgroup we game on Friday nights and the game has been going on for a year. We had a hiatus during the summer as no game was possible to schedule, but we picked up where we left off. It was a bit rocky first two sessions back, but the players got right into it. It probably helps that we are friends outside of D&D and that we've been playing together since high school.

We also have a strick policy about running the game with players missing. I've got 5 players, if we're missing one we play anyways and his PC is controlled by the group in combat. If we're missing two we skip that week of play.

[Tanarii]

Maybe its an edge case, but in my "home" playgroup we game on Friday nights and the game has been going on for a year.Eh, it's entirely possible I'm the exception. It's still anecdotal, one person's experience, even if it's 30 years of anecdotal.

And I overstated my case: I ran the Night Below campaign for AD&D 2e in college and it lasted most of the college year, so that was like 7 months.

[Pex]

Biggest pet peeve I have is other players telling someone else what they should do on their turns when that someone else didn't ask for it. Sure, D&D is team play, but that's not cool, at all.

My character is my own, not yours! Play your own damn characters, ffs!

I can understand the temptation. I have to stop myself when a new player to the game is trying to figure out what to do talking out loud about it. I'm successful in stopping myself, but their indecision when I know the answer can be internally grating, made worse when they choose the suboptimal option. :smallyuk:

[Samwich]

My lesser pet peeve is when the players don't want to play the game. During a campaign I was running once, the party got up to high level and had accumulated a large amount of wealth. Because of the excess of gold, they decided that they wanted to build strongholds. I decided, why not, and let them do it. Except that then, they spent the next two sessions doing nothing but planning out what they wanted their fortresses to look like, setting salaries for their workers, and arguing over who had the best castle. I know that strongholds can be fun, but it was no fun for me to sit there and watch them do paperwork like that.

My larger pet peeve is when players get insecure about their characters and take it out on other players. One player in my regular group always brags about how powerful his character is. I have nothing wrong with a little boasting, but anytime anybody else mentions something their character can do, he calls them out on what they can't do while blatantly ignoring his own shortcomings. In fact, anytime that we made new characters or leveled up, the first thing that he would do is add up all of the damage he could do and see if he could one shot everybody. If he couldn't, he would just describe in painful detail exactly how he could beat them in multiple turns. If anybody else pointed out that he could be one shot as well, he would just argue that there was no way they would ever roll high enough on the dice. On top of that, he never let anybody else have a moment of glory, only ever saying that they didn't have to have done something because he could have done it better. So one time, another player saved the party from a near TPK by diverting a stamped of animals into the enemy ranks, killing them all. The second that combat was over, the player who brags shot him in the head with a bow, killing him. He then dragged him back to town to resurrect him, claiming that the other player had taken some damage in the fight and they needed to raise him to heal him fully. But in private later, he admitted to me that the only reason he had done it was to prove that he was still more powerful than the other party members.

As a player, my pet peeve with DM's is when they don't give justification for adventures. Our group swaps DMs every few weeks so anybody can try it, and we currently have a new DM who has no experience. He runs pretty good adventures, but the problem is that he gives no justification about why we have to go on the adventure. The only reason that our characters ever do anything is because I have the personality trait "I ask a lot of questions," and so my character leads the group along the main story line, even with no motivation to do so.

[Samwich]

Wow, that felt cathartic to let out.

[Mith]

My lesser pet peeve is when the players don't want to play the game. During a campaign I was running once, the party got up to high level and had accumulated a large amount of wealth. Because of the excess of gold, they decided that they wanted to build strongholds. I decided, why not, and let them do it. Except that then, they spent the next two sessions doing nothing but planning out what they wanted their fortresses to look like, setting salaries for their workers, and arguing over who had the best castle. I know that strongholds can be fun, but it was no fun for me to sit there and watch them do paperwork like that.
...
As a player, my pet peeve with DM's is when they don't give justification for adventures. Our group swaps DMs every few weeks so anybody can try it, and we currently have a new DM who has no experience. He runs pretty good adventures, but the problem is that he gives no justification about why we have to go on the adventure. The only reason that our characters ever do anything is because I have the personality trait "I ask a lot of questions," and so my character leads the group along the main story line, even with no motivation to do so.

As far as strongholds go, that can be pretty fun. If I as DMing a group that was doing a stronghold, I would give 1 session for productive planning, with anything else done on their own time being proofed by me. I would work with them to give them the cost of construction and maintenance, and set a monthly income stream that would likely be mostly absorbed by the maintenance costs. It might be a fairly slow session, but it gives more opportunities for plot hooks for the PCs, such as they start running out of money.

As far as disjointed adventures, perhaps see if your group is willing to set up a "Mercenary guild" concept of each new adventure being a paid gig, or being side tracked from a paid gig to give things a bit more coherency.

[Potato_Priest]

Wizards.

I know that's not cool of me as a DM. I know they are a fair and intentional part of the game -- it's just that nothing breaks encounters like they do. They're near-impossible to plan for, and they can turn a 3-hour encounter into a 1-turn farce unless you go out of your way to plan everything around them.

"I cast Maze on the lich. Portent: he rolls a 2 for his save. GG."

It's not fun, it's not interesting. I hate everything about it.

I completely agree. Even more than making combats uninteresting, they tend to just steamroll their way through any and all non-combat encounters with utility spells and rituals, which means that it feels like the only way to mechanically challenge the party is with fighting, which sucks.

[Celcey]

I obtained an artifact. The resident Rogue rolled a die and gave the DM a card explaining what he did- which was predictably to steal it the moment the DM told us what it did (which his character had no way of knowing). Luckily, I'm fond of ritually casting Alarm on my person whenever I get the chance. However, had I not, I would've lost the artifact right after getting it with basically no counter.

This is why I don't allow inter-player thievery unless both players are cool with it. I play with my friends, all of whom are sensible, reasonable people, so it's not much of a concern. But if I didn't or they weren't, this would be a hard no for me as a DM (and I am always the DM. My friend literally started a side game in part so that I could play for once.) . Absolutely not.


I have to stop myself when a new player to the game is trying to figure out what to do talking out loud about it. I'm successful in stopping myself, but their indecision when I know the answer can be internally grating, made worse when they choose the suboptimal option. :smallyuk:

I think a good middle ground here would be to say "hey, would you like my opinion, or would you rather decide on your own?" Explain why you think they should choose Option X, and end with "that's just my opinion though, and if you like Option Y better or feel it better suits your character, go for it."

---

In general, my personal pet peeves are not having your action ready in combat and stopping to have to look up rules or spells. It slows things down a ton. I'm not always perfect at this, especially since as a DM I usually do things pretty off the cuff, and improvising encounters does not leave tons of time to figure out how the monsters work. But I am working on it by tying to plan out at least a few adventures ahead of time.

[Beelzebubba]

Pet Peeves:

Being a bad sport. Games mean you win some, you lose some. Lose gracefully.

Being meta in order to get a 'winning' result instead of playing through the character you invented.

Constantly saying 'oh I was doing X the whole time' to try to negate a bad result.

Not chipping in for snacks.

[Caelic]

Oh, that's easy. Player B in the following example.

Player A: "Orcs? I charge the nearest one!"

Player B: "No, don't do that. I'm going to cast an AoE spell when my initiative comes up. What you should do is move fifteen feet to the left and fire your bow, then on your next turn, ready an action to attack the third orc from the left if and only if he makess his save against my spell..."

(Later)

Player C: "I fire my shortbow at the dragon."

Player B: "Your bow? Why would you fire your bow? The dragon's ten feet outside of short range, so you have disadvantage! Use your Eldritch Blast instead, since that doesn't have range penalties!"


Et cetera, ad nauseam. The guy who stops the flow of the combat to critique every player's choices if he thinks they're suboptimal, and (in more obnoxious cases) tries to say that the player does something else instead.

It's fine to offer someone constructive criticism and suggestions after the fight's over. It's obnoxious to do it during the fight, and downright metagamey to attempt to dictate detailed plans of battle to each player when their turn comes up.

[Tanarii]

It's fine to offer someone constructive criticism and suggestions after the fight's over. It's obnoxious to do it during the fight, and downright metagamey to attempt to dictate detailed plans of battle to each player when their turn comes up.Plus their character is doing nothing except talking and moving, since they keep using all their actions Readying to talk on other players turns.

[Cybren]

As far as strongholds go, that can be pretty fun. If I as DMing a group that was doing a stronghold, I would give 1 session for productive planning, with anything else done on their own time being proofed by me. I would work with them to give them the cost of construction and maintenance, and set a monthly income stream that would likely be mostly absorbed by the maintenance costs. It might be a fairly slow session, but it gives more opportunities for plot hooks for the PCs, such as they start running out of money.

As far as disjointed adventures, perhaps see if your group is willing to set up a "Mercenary guild" concept of each new adventure being a paid gig, or being side tracked from a paid gig to give things a bit more coherency.

Iunno this sounds like looking a gift horse in the mouth. The players have shown they have a goal, and invested game time and emotions into fulfilling it. Most DMs would probably sacrifice one of their players to the far realm if it meant the other ones would get that invested in the game.

[Mith]

Iunno this sounds like looking a gift horse in the mouth. The players have shown they have a goal, and invested game time and emotions into fulfilling it. Most DMs would probably sacrifice one of their players to the far realm if it meant the other ones would get that invested in the game.

My experience with stronghold building is that it was very much a side detail, so it was easier to work everything out outside the session. As something tied to the main story, I am OK with more sessions invested in stronghold building. If one is not quite so tied to hhis, then we change things up.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

Hi DMs,
As I have a fairly annoying group of friends that I DM for, there are a fair number of things that get on my nerves. What have your players done that causes you to cringe?

Hey! How am i just reading this!!!

[Ivor_The_Mad]

Does any one else have a party member who is a sorcerer or wizard who DOSENT USE THEIR SPELLS!!!! Its so annoying they end up meleeing not casting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does any one else have a party member who is a sorcerer or wizard who DOSENT USE THEIR SPELLS!!!! Its so annoying they end up meleeing not casting.

I had a wizard in one game who rarely cast anything, preferring to attack it with a pike. That he didn't have proficiency in. And didn't have tons of strength, either. Classical INT-heavy build...with a pike.

[Tanarii]

Iunno this sounds like looking a gift horse in the mouth. The players have shown they have a goal, and invested game time and emotions into fulfilling it. Most DMs would probably sacrifice one of their players to the far realm if it meant the other ones would get that invested in the game.


My experience with stronghold building is that it was very much a side detail, so it was easier to work everything out outside the session. As something tied to the main story, I am OK with more sessions invested in stronghold building. If one is not quite so tied to hhis, then we change things up.
I've always treated stronghold building details as either between session time, or if a large number of players are involved and they need my input, a special session with just those players present. Typically one where we sit around and watch a movie we've all seen so we don't have to really pay attention, and kibitz the details. (Edit: talking about older editions with complex stronghold building rules here.)

It definitely doesn't need full session time unless something happens in the process that sparks an adventure. Or you're running one of those tables that does everything day by day. I really like 5e's method of officially having out-of-session stuff as an officially designated thing: Downtime.

[Tiadoppler]

My lesser pet peeve is when the players don't want to play the game. During a campaign I was running once, the party got up to high level and had accumulated a large amount of wealth. Because of the excess of gold, they decided that they wanted to build strongholds. I decided, why not, and let them do it. Except that then, they spent the next two sessions doing nothing but planning out what they wanted their fortresses to look like, setting salaries for their workers, and arguing over who had the best castle. I know that strongholds can be fun, but it was no fun for me to sit there and watch them do paperwork like that.

I get where you're coming from, but... Wow, I'm the opposite. When my players do that, I'm all about:

Okay where's the land you're buying? Let's draw terrain and altitude maps! Let's sketch out the foundation and talk to NPC contractors. There are goblinoids attacking the quarry where you're getting the granite, you'd better go sort this out. Whee! Architecture is fun! How thick do you want the exterior wall of the inner keep to be? How deep are your food storage cellars, and do you have wells inside the walls? Want to mount defenses on the walls? Let's set up an economic model to describe how your stockpile of munitions affects pricing! Where are you hiring the guards from, and how does that change the efficiency of local farms who now have a work shortage. Does that change the expected wage model? Now. Draw a pretty picture of your new castle!

[Mith]

I get where you're coming from, but... Wow, I'm the opposite. When my players do that, I'm all about:

Okay where's the land you're buying? Let's draw terrain and altitude maps! Let's sketch out the foundation and talk to NPC contractors. There are goblinoids attacking the quarry where you're getting the granite, you'd better go sort this out. Whee! Architecture is fun! How thick do you want the exterior wall of the inner keep to be? How deep are your food storage cellars, and do you have wells inside the walls? Want to mount defenses on the walls? Let's set up an economic model to describe how your stockpile of munitions affects pricing! Where are you hiring the guards from, and how does that change the efficiency of local farms who now have a work shortage. Does that change the expected wage model? Now. Draw a pretty picture of your new castle!

As a player, the DM and I didn't get into quite that much detail. More just the infrastructure, and the interesting things one can do with hydraulic systems.

[ross]

Wizards.

I know that's not cool of me as a DM. I know they are a fair and intentional part of the game -- it's just that nothing breaks encounters like they do. They're near-impossible to plan for, and they can turn a 3-hour encounter into a 1-turn farce unless you go out of your way to plan everything around them.

"I cast Maze on the lich. Portent: he rolls a 2 for his save. GG."

It's not fun, it's not interesting. I hate everything about it.

Your character is imprisoned within a labyrinth. Next time, maybe check if the enemy has Spell Turning, first.

[Potato_Priest]

Your character is imprisoned within a labyrinth. Next time, maybe check if the enemy has Spell Turning, first.

Spell turning isn't a lich ability in 5e, and giving one spell turning without significant foreshadowing would be a form of adversarial DMing.

[ross]

Spell turning isn't a lich ability in 5e, and giving one spell turning without significant foreshadowing would be a form of adversarial DMing.


You don't need to foreshadow anything. Characters aren't omniscient, and liches that aren't idiots are going to seek out magic protection.

[ross]

I get where you're coming from, but... Wow, I'm the opposite. When my players do that, I'm all about:

Okay where's the land you're buying? Let's draw terrain and altitude maps! Let's sketch out the foundation and talk to NPC contractors. There are goblinoids attacking the quarry where you're getting the granite, you'd better go sort this out. Whee! Architecture is fun! How thick do you want the exterior wall of the inner keep to be? How deep are your food storage cellars, and do you have wells inside the walls? Want to mount defenses on the walls? Let's set up an economic model to describe how your stockpile of munitions affects pricing! Where are you hiring the guards from, and how does that change the efficiency of local farms who now have a work shortage. Does that change the expected wage model? Now. Draw a pretty picture of your new castle!


jesus that sounds awful

[Cybren]

Spell turning isn't a lich ability in 5e, and giving one spell turning without significant foreshadowing would be a form of adversarial DMing.

Well, it'd be adversarial DMing if the DM made that up on the spot. But if they made a stat block ahead of the time with spell turning on it no foul.

[Potato_Priest]

Well, it'd be adversarial DMing if the DM made that up on the spot. But if they made a stat block ahead of the time with spell turning on it no foul.

I think it's pretty adversarial if you plan to specifically shut down one player without warning, not to mention metagaming seeing as you have much more knowledge of the PCs' abilities and battle tactics than any NPC would. And if it's not adversarial, it's still poor DMing to give no warning about a feature or ability like that.

[Cybren]

I think it's pretty adversarial if you plan to specifically shut down one player without warning, not to mention metagaming seeing as you have much more knowledge of the PCs' abilities and battle tactics than any NPC would. And if it's not adversarial, it's still poor DMing to give no warning about a feature or ability like that.

It's not adversarial DMing to make a monster stronger, no. Sorry. Players aren't entitled to 100% information on the abilities of things they're trying to murder.

[LaserFace]

Iunno this sounds like looking a gift horse in the mouth. The players have shown they have a goal, and invested game time and emotions into fulfilling it. Most DMs would probably sacrifice one of their players to the far realm if it meant the other ones would get that invested in the game.

Sometimes I miss Timmy, but honestly, it was totally worth it.


I get where you're coming from, but... Wow, I'm the opposite. When my players do that, I'm all about:

Okay where's the land you're buying? Let's draw terrain and altitude maps! Let's sketch out the foundation and talk to NPC contractors. There are goblinoids attacking the quarry where you're getting the granite, you'd better go sort this out. Whee! Architecture is fun! How thick do you want the exterior wall of the inner keep to be? How deep are your food storage cellars, and do you have wells inside the walls? Want to mount defenses on the walls? Let's set up an economic model to describe how your stockpile of munitions affects pricing! Where are you hiring the guards from, and how does that change the efficiency of local farms who now have a work shortage. Does that change the expected wage model? Now. Draw a pretty picture of your new castle!

Before my group went on hiatus we spent a fair bit of time in-and-out of session building up their HQ. Depending on how it's done, though, some players may get a little bored, so I realized that any future sessions revolving around their keep needs a good tie-in with outside interests.

I think so long as you keep a pace that everyone is cool with, building a home base and getting detailed about it can be a great source for future session material. Enemies attacking, or managing problems with your land, how it interacts with neighboring territories etc can lead to some really cool adventures, and the stakes are something that players seem to really care about. Like, sometimes players think their characters will basically always be around, but if you start threatening their STUFF, and their ACHIEVEMENTS, well, then it gets serious. In a sense, their fortress can develop into something of a character itself, based on what you do in it, and how frequently you return.

[Potato_Priest]

It's not adversarial DMing to make a monster stronger, no. Sorry. Players aren't entitled to 100% information on the abilities of things they're trying to murder.

First off, my objection is not to making the monster stronger. It is to doing it with no warning or foreshadowing that this lich might have the ability.

100% information and a hint that something might be amiss are very different things. I don't think players should have the first, but the second is entirely reasonable.

Being screwed by something you had no way of knowing about is not fun for most players, and the DMs job is to make the game fun.

Giving the player a hint or suspicion that the lich had spell reflection would do what? Encourage the player to test it out and see if it was true? Encourage them to use creative and non-typical strategies to avoid getting hit by their own spells? Make the player think about how they could help other players rather than attacking the lich directly? All of these things could be fun and interesting, but being instantly removed from play without warning is not.

[Tiadoppler]

Before my group went on hiatus we spent a fair bit of time in-and-out of session building up their HQ. Depending on how it's done, though, some players may get a little bored, so I realized that any future sessions revolving around their keep needs a good tie-in with outside interests.

I think so long as you keep a pace that everyone is cool with, building a home base and getting detailed about it can be a great source for future session material. Enemies attacking, or managing problems with your land, how it interacts with neighboring territories etc can lead to some really cool adventures, and the stakes are something that players seem to really care about. Like, sometimes players think their characters will basically always be around, but if you start threatening their STUFF, and their ACHIEVEMENTS, well, then it gets serious. In a sense, their fortress can develop into something of a character itself, based on what you do in it, and how frequently you return.

Exactly! Yes! Let the players have ownership over a little corner of the campaign world, care for an NPC community, have a home and a place where they belong, then you take their carefully drawn grid map of the castle and break out the siege equipment!

Also, you get to spend time drawing pretty pictures of castles instead of flipping through the DMG looking for the rules on grappling while riding an aerial mount.

[Tanarii]

First off, my objection is not to making the monster stronger. It is to doing it with no warning or foreshadowing that this lich might have the ability.

100% information and a hint that something might be amiss are very different things. I don't think players should have the first, but the second is entirely reasonable.
Do you also feel that players of casters should get a hint that beholder has an AMF eye? Or is it specifically thay this is an ability the MM version lich doesnt have, being added to the creature?

[ross]

First off, my objection is not to making the monster stronger. It is to doing it with no warning or foreshadowing that this lich might have the ability.

100% information and a hint that something might be amiss are very different things. I don't think players should have the first, but the second is entirely reasonable.

Being screwed by something you had no way of knowing about is not fun for most players, and the DMs job is to make the game fun.

Giving the player a hint or suspicion that the lich had spell reflection would do what? Encourage the player to test it out and see if it was true? Encourage them to use creative and non-typical strategies to avoid getting hit by their own spells? Make the player think about how they could help other players rather than attacking the lich directly? All of these things could be fun and interesting, but being instantly removed from play without warning is not.

Why should the characters receive a hint?

Why should the lich care what's fun for the characters? Does it even know about them before they show up? If so, is the lich so stupid that it acts like a cartoon villain and decides to leave little clues about its capabilities for the characters to find? How could a creature powerful and intelligent enough to become a lich be that incompetent?

Do monsters receive clues about the characters when they obtain new abilities or equipment? If not, why not?

Your players are going to use and abuse every strategy, tactic, opportunity, and resource available to them, and will exploit every weakness of, and mistake made by, their opponents without fail. If your monsters do not at least behave like rational beings who care about their own survival, then every single one of your encounters will be trivialized - magic or not. And that isn't any more fun than a party wipe; at least in that case, the characters have a chance to die in entertaining ways.

[furby076]

1. Ignoring game, to play on your phone/tablet, and then asking for recap. If you cant multi-task, then don't. Its a waste of game time.
2. Complaining how 5e is different than your fav version of dnd. Yes, i know detect evil sucks compared to previous versions (and it really shouldnt be called detect evil anymore anyhow), but stop your moaning and just play the system or find another group. Heck, ask the dm if you can invent a new X or modify a rule
3. Not knowing your character or basic rules. I give a total pass for new players to dnd for 10 or so sessions for basic rules. Even give a pass to experienced players with new characters but at some point its the players apathy for not reading the basic rules. I tire of hearing "what do i roll to attack?", when the player has been playing some form of dnd for 20 years....
4. I am the rules lawyer for our group. I frequently say "i dunno". Cause if i dont know, i dont claim to know. The group has me do the research, or post a question online. I am ok with the dm saying "rule sucks, we are doing it my way". I dislike when players get annoyed with me for finding, and disclosing, a rule that hurts the party. I get more annoyed when i find i played a rule wrong, fess up and a player mocks me. Being the rules lawyer doesnt mean i am perfect. Get over yourself
5. We are sitting close to each other for 6 to 8 hours. Before you show up for game, take a bath, brush your teeth and wash your clothes. I dont need to feel like i am sitting in a 10 year old cab for the night
6. Contribute to the food pot. Either bring food or money. This is especially true if you are not the host .
7. Wash your hands before sticking your grubby paws in the chip bowl. No double dipping
8. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT come to game with the flu. I already have a baby who gets me sick. I dont need you to get me sick. If 1 per month dnd is your entire social life, thats sad, and i dont care. I dont need to be sick for your fun. Even worse if me getting sick gets my baby sick
9. Show up on time. And other players shouldnt tell me to "get over it". My time is valuable and scarce. I am not talking about people who had a mishap, traffic, issue, etc. Im referring to the habitual late players
10. Pvp. Nope, dont do it. Pvp is not just a fellow pc attacking another pc. This includes sabotaging them. If your caharacter does this, i will ask you out of character to stop. If you try to give me BS reason as to why its justified, then my character will react accordingly. He will kill your character. When you ask why, my answer is simple "you betrayed my character and caused him suffering. Now your character is dead. Thanks for your gear, and your xp value. For your next character, might i suggest a better team player"

[furby076]

I can't believe no one has commented on this yet. I am the main DM for our group, and if someone came to me with a 16 page backstory I wouldn't even look at it either. They would be sent away to rewrite it in no more that 3 sensible sized paragraphs. Half a page is plenty of room to get the idea of your character across.

Also, your backstory has no where near the relevance compared to the events that actually happen in game. Those are things you all experienced and talk about for years to come. What someone wrote about their character before the game... not so much of a talking point.

Thats so limited. Why is a players backstory any less important than your campaign? I see a few DMs, on here, say this but honestly, ive never had a dm refuse to read, and edit my stories. I think its conceited of DMs to think their writing is important and their players writing is nonsense. I also think its hypocritical, and a bit unrealistic, to ask a player to roleplay well, but not let them bring in an RP story

Nobody says you just accept the story as is, and you are encouraged to edit it. Also, the story may never come up, but its there for your use as you see fit. In our group we are all encouraged to write backstories (with dm approval) and include it on our wiki page.
Frankly, a good story is a good story. Its a short story that you can eventually interact with

[Cybren]

A 16 page backstory is something 1) no one wants to read and 2) not really relevant to the game. If you want it to be relevant... make it relevant by playing the game.

DMs shouldn't really be requiring the players read 16 pages of material either, to be fair. or assigning homework to players and expecting them to write back stories longer than a short blurb.

[furby076]

I think it depends on location and who you're trying to play with. I live in a huge city, so distractions abound. Also few of my friends close enough to ask me to run a private game are married. So when friends ask me to run a game, I end up with groups that fall apart because people have lots of stuff to do, and want to treat it as something to entertain them when it's convenient for them, and not a social group meeting once a week.

In this last case, it was a bunch of 20-somethings, so I wasn't really surprised. They have an active social life, both individually and as a group. That's cool, and I'm happy for them. But it still irked me, obviously. :smallamused:
What city do you play in?

[Tanarii]

Thats so limited. Why is a players backstory any less important than your campaign?He's not talking about a DM's writing for her campaign. Rather, stuff that happens to a character during gameplay, due to the players decisions for the character in the fantasy environment, is what's more important. Playing the game. Not the story written about a character's history before the game even began.

[furby076]

Biggest pet peeve I have is other players telling someone else what they should do on their turns when that someone else didn't ask for it. Sure, D&D is team play, but that's not cool, at all.

My character is my own, not yours! Play your own damn characters, ffs!
Wait, why is that bad? We do this in the real world. When your teammate is making a sub optimal choice, or just a bad one its your duty to help. You see this at work, sports, home, etc. "I cast fireball".... "dude, those are fire elementals, dont..."; "dont tell me how to,play my 16 INT wizard. Fireball the fire elementlals".

Yea, that happens

[Potato_Priest]

Why should the characters receive a hint?

Why should the lich care what's fun for the characters? Does it even know about them before they show up? If so, is the lich so stupid that it acts like a cartoon villain and decides to leave little clues about its capabilities for the characters to find? How could a creature powerful and intelligent enough to become a lich be that incompetent?

Do monsters receive clues about the characters when they obtain new abilities or equipment? If not, why not?


This is an interesting question. On the one hand, D&D is a game, and thus should be about having fun, and getting removed from a fight without warning is not fun. On the other hand, NPCs should make decisions that are smart and roleplay their capabilities because good NPCs make for a more engaging, immersive world.

However, it is worth noting that the purpose of an immersive world is ultimately to make playing the game more fun, and that thus you should not sacrifice fun or interesting play for immersion's sake.

Thus, this question is ultimately (as are many of them) one of player preference. I am resolute in my preference for players being given the knowledge required to be able to investigate and (at their discretion) react to threats, but if your group honestly prefers to be completely blindsided by unexpected traps and abilities, that is their prerogative.


Do you also feel that players of casters should get a hint that beholder has an AMF eye? Or is it specifically thay this is an ability the MM version lich doesnt have, being added to the creature?

With new or inexperienced players I think that some warning about an antimagic field might be a good idea, but my objection in this case also derives partially from the fact that it is adding a new ability to the MM version without warning, and the fact that the addition was proposed as a "solution" to problems with wizards, so it is obviously designed to target a particular player.

[Arkhios]

Wait, why is that bad? We do this in the real world. When your teammate is making a sub optimal choice, or just a bad one its your duty to help. You see this at work, sports, home, etc. "I cast fireball".... "dude, those are fire elementals, dont..."; "dont tell me how to,play my 16 INT wizard. Fireball the fire elementlals".

Yea, that happens

I'll try to make it simple:

I have created this character. Not you.
I play this character. Not you.
I make the choices of this character. Not you.

Most importantly:
My character doesn't know what I know.
My character doesn't know what you know.

Stop patronising others in your group. Everyone at the table - especially the players - are in equal position between themselves (not saying that the DM should patronise either. The DM's job is not to influence what players should do with their characters; it's part of the game). This is a collaborative game, not some small enterprise where you are the boss who gets to tell others what they should or shouldn't do. Ask them if they want your advice and suggestions. Don't just blurt it out and assume they'll do it. Definitely don't start an argument about it if they don't want your advice, just leave it there. Trust that they'll ask for guidance if they feel they need it.

Characters don't have a hivemind between themselves and between all players.

[Sariel Vailo]

Pvp munchkins. Min maxing players who have to be hitting something you the mindflayer doesnt matter because they think they are the best. Cue al character using some odd optomized storm cleric who thought he could tank a barbarian and paladin in one hit.

[Darth_Versity]

Thats so limited. Why is a players backstory any less important than your campaign? I see a few DMs, on here, say this but honestly, ive never had a dm refuse to read, and edit my stories. I think its conceited of DMs to think their writing is important and their players writing is nonsense. I also think its hypocritical, and a bit unrealistic, to ask a player to roleplay well, but not let them bring in an RP story

Nobody says you just accept the story as is, and you are encouraged to edit it. Also, the story may never come up, but its there for your use as you see fit. In our group we are all encouraged to write backstories (with dm approval) and include it on our wiki page.
Frankly, a good story is a good story. Its a short story that you can eventually interact with

I have no problem with players making a backstory and I love finding ways to fit it into the campaign, but there is absolutely no need for 16 pages worth. Hell, my campaign notes don't even reach half that amount.

Whenever I start a new game I give out a rundown sheet with all the main info about the world they're in. Its usually no more than 2 pages and a large part of that is a map of the area. I wouldn't dream of dumping a 16 page manuscript on them, because it's just unreasonable to expect people to take all that in, even for something they enjoy.

On top of that is the problem of having multiple players (8 in my group), all of which have backstories. Can you imagine that they each wrote that much? That's 128 pages of information that I'd have to remember, even though huge parts of it may remain completely irrelevant to the story that you all come up with during the game.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with half a page explaining where the character came from, why they became an adventurer and some names for NPC's you could use with them later.

[Arial Black]

AFB ATM, but aren’t liches spellcasters?

Their spells are not set magical abilities, but are spells just like anyone else’s. Their statblock includes spells, but those spells are just a representative selection, and each lich would have its own unique spell list.

And spell turning is a spell that might very well be on that list.

Right?

[Potato_Priest]

AFB ATM, but aren’t liches spellcasters?

Their spells are not set magical abilities, but are spells just like anyone else’s. Their statblock includes spells, but those spells are just a representative selection, and each lich would have its own unique spell list.

And spell turning is a spell that might very well be on that list.

Right?

Except that spell turning isn't a spell in 5e to the best of my knowledge.

[Tanarii]

AFB ATM, but aren’t liches spellcasters?

Their spells are not set magical abilities, but are spells just like anyone else’s. Their statblock includes spells, but those spells are just a representative selection, and each lich would have its own unique spell list.

And spell turning is a spell that might very well be on that list.

Right?
What Spell Turning spell?

They could wear a Ring of Spell Turning, which is a Legendary magical item.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Seems like a great thing if players can never be confident spells in the world are limited to what they know from the PHB, and monsters all conform to what they've read in the MM.

[polymphus]

There are ways to telegraph "your usual tactics aren't gonna work" that are in-character for the villains. One solution to the WIZARD PROBLEM was that I created an enemy type that couldn't attack, but had a constant Anti-Magic Field effect.

That enemy was a child, wrapped in a grotesque dress of chains, floating about five feet off the ground, surrounded by handlers. It was a sorta twisted Menoth Harbinger (https://static.shoplightspeed.com/shops/603323/files/000213352/privateer-press-warmachine-protectorate-harbinger.jpg). It was, by its nature, pretty hard to hide.

There was plot foreshadowing about the creation of these kids leading up to them appearing in fights. They were very difficult to deal with, but I like to think they were fair -- they were easy to see coming, and they encouraged new strategies and forced players to think on their feet and work together. Just going "lol your enemies all have Anti-Magic Field at will" does not strike me as good DMing. When I first wrote them, they were a bit squishy and too easy to take down, but I toughened them up and now they show up in a bunch of my campaigns.

[Arial Black]

Except that spell turning isn't a spell in 5e to the best of my knowledge.

Ah!

Serves me right for being AFB. 😇

[furby076]

I'll try to make it simple:

I have created this character. Not you.
I play this character. Not you.
I make the choices of this character. Not you.

Most importantly:
My character doesn't know what I know.
My character doesn't know what you know.

Stop patronising others in your group. Everyone at the table - especially the players - are in equal position between themselves (not saying that the DM should patronise either. The DM's job is not to influence what players should do with their characters; it's part of the game). This is a collaborative game, not some small enterprise where you are the boss who gets to tell others what they should or shouldn't do. Ask them if they want your advice and suggestions. Don't just blurt it out and assume they'll do it. Definitely don't start an argument about it if they don't want your advice, just leave it there. Trust that they'll ask for guidance if they feel they need it.

Characters don't have a hivemind between themselves and between all players.

I WILL make this simple for you.

1. This is a team game
2. Players can talk to each other
3. Characters can talk to each other
4. THIS IS A TEAM GAME

Talking to the other players, in and out of game is perfectly acceptable. Saying "hey bud, thats not the best path for US to win" is acceptable, helpful, and something you do in a TEAM game.

[strangebloke]

I WILL make this simple for you.

1. This is a team game
2. Players can talk to each other
3. Characters can talk to each other
4. THIS IS A TEAM GAME

Talking to the other players, in and out of game is perfectly acceptable. Saying "hey bud, thats not the best path for US to win" is acceptable, helpful, and something you do in a TEAM game.

It's fine until it isn't.

I had a girl playing in my game who on her turn would just turn to her boyfriend and say, 'what should I make my character do?' since she knew her boyfriend would criticize her tactics no matter what. It broke her engagement with the game, slowed things down, and made things less fun for everyone.

Reminding someone of the rules is fine.

I'm fine with in-character tactical advice as well, so long as it's realistic.

[mephnick]

It's fine until it isn't.

Either the people disagreeing with you haven't played with a dominating jerk or they are the dominating jerk.

I've had very nice, calm people turn into obsessive dictators as soon as the battle mat comes out. I've kicked more than one person for it.

[Tanarii]

3. Characters can talk to each other
But only in a limited way during combat. 6 seconds, on your characters turn. And expect anything your character does tell them in combat to be possibly overheard by enemies. If you want to discuss PC tactics with another player, best to do that before or after combat.

Even if your DM allows table talk in combat that goes beyond that, detailed unsolicited advice can rapidly approach trying to play the other person's character.

[Arkhios]

It saddens me to see that no matter how I express my concern of this toxic player behaviour, those who probably are guilty of it themselves (whether or not they are willing to admit it), are unable or blatantly refuse to see anything wrong in their actions.

I must admit, whenever I've been in a group with people who are "dominating jerks" as mephnick put it, I've been struggling with the urge to punch those people in the face for not understanding that I actually just might want to play my character MYSELF, no matter how stupid my choices might seem to them. Yes, D&D is a team game. But even team co-operation has its limits. Arguing over someone else's choices just because *you* think they're not the best possible choices is where the line is broken. Why can't you see that?

As it was said: Team members talking to each other, whether in-character or out-of-character, is fine, until it isn't. It's a thin line, but it's still there. Don't break it.

[strangebloke]

It saddens me to see that no matter how I express my concern of this toxic player behaviour, those who probably are guilty of it themselves (whether or not they are willing to admit it), are unable or blatantly refuse to see anything wrong in their actions.

I must admit, whenever I've been in a group with people who are "dominating jerks" as mephnick put it, I've been struggling with the urge to punch those people in the face for not understanding that I actually just might want to play my character MYSELF, no matter how stupid my choices might seem to them. Yes, D&D is a team game. But even team co-operation has its limits. Arguing over someone else's choices just because *you* think they're not the best possible choices is where the line is broken. Why can't you see that?

As it was said: Team members talking to each other, whether in-character or out-of-character, is fine, until it isn't. It's a thin line, but it's still there. Don't break it.

Out of character chatter and bullying has been so bad at my table that on one occasion I had to pass out a 'stick of talking' where you can't speak to other players OoC unless you were holding the stick.

The warlock was trying to intimidate a lackey, and the player whose paladin couldn't conscience being present for the interrogation felt the need to step in with "No no no, don't say that, say this." And proceeded to give a whole in-character speech. The warlock's player, who was a shrinking violet kind of person just sort of nods and says 'yeah, I say what he said.' And so was the warlock yet again prevented from actually playing the game. Infuriating.

[darkrose50]

Hi DMs,
As I have a fairly annoying group of friends that I DM for, there are a fair number of things that get on my nerves. What have your players done that causes you to cringe?

Using healing potions when we have time and healing spells.

Thinking that "always round down" applies towards using a D6 as a D3.

People who think it is okay to pretend and play a dwarf or elf, but not the opposite sex.

A nigh complete lack of economics in the D&D 5e rules.

People who think that "smartest" action is always the "fun" action . . . doing stupid things in a story can be fun.

Not having non-adventuring spells and/or magical items.

Material components (I am okay with them being training wheels needed in order to set the correct mental framework . . . and that would be cultural).

The feats not having point-costs associated to them. Assuming going from a 15 to a 17 was 6pts, then feats should cost 1-6 pts.

[Tanarii]

Out of character chatter and bullying has been so bad at my table that on one occasion I had to pass out a 'stick of talking' where you can't speak to other players OoC unless you were holding the stick.I solved it a long time ago by making all talk in character. Unless it's clearly communicating intent for what your charcater is doing to the DM.

I actually was already using a method angry wrote about when I read his article on it, it explains it better that I ever could.
http://theangrygm.com/through-a-glass-darkly-ic-ooc-and-the-myth-of-playercharacter-seperation/

It makes for incredibly funny stuff when a player mouths off during a important negotiation with monsters. Or refers to the henchmen as "redshirts" or "trapspringer" or "bait". :smallamused:

During combat you just shut anyone else down immediately and tell them they can say what their character wants to yell out when it's their turn.

(Obviously brand new to D&D players require a bit of special handling until they pick up the rules a little.)

[GlenSmash!]

Out of character chatter and bullying has been so bad at my table that on one occasion I had to pass out a 'stick of talking' where you can't speak to other players OoC unless you were holding the stick.

The warlock was trying to intimidate a lackey, and the player whose paladin couldn't conscience being present for the interrogation felt the need to step in with "No no no, don't say that, say this." And proceeded to give a whole in-character speech. The warlock's player, who was a shrinking violet kind of person just sort of nods and says 'yeah, I say what he said.' And so was the warlock yet again prevented from actually playing the game. Infuriating.

Oh I would have had strong words with that paladin's player after that session, and maybe again before the next session. :smallfurious:

[strangebloke]

Oh I would have had strong words with that paladin's player after that session, and maybe again before the next session. :smallfurious:
I kicked both of them out... Even though they're personal friends of mine. The strong words did nothing.

Previously on giantitp:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529361-How-to-ditch-a-player

[GlenSmash!]

I kicked both of them out... Even though they're personal friends of mine. The strong words did nothing.

Previously on giantitp:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529361-How-to-ditch-a-player

Bravo. Yeah even great friends aren't always great players.