DMs of The Playground: What player behavior annoys you the most?

[DRD1812]

My pet peeve is pictured right here (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/scryingdevice). How about the rest of you guys?

[FelineArchmage]

The inability to create different characters across different campaigns/sessions/editions. Yeah, the race/class might be different, but the same base personality is there. In the case I'm talking about, most of the characters of this one player are the same... impulsive and a jerk. Though I'm pretty sure it's because of not being able to differentiate your own personality from your characters.

ALSO: Disrespect and arguing with the DM!! In the middle of the session!! Especially when the DM has 10x the amount of experience than you and all the other players at the table are telling you that that's not how [THING] works!!

[opaopajr]

Adversarial playstyle. Essentially trying to win at RPGs at the expense of everyone else at the table. It's all imagination, the stakes couldn't possibly be lower.

About tied for worst is using an Adversarial Playstyle (or Mighty Morphin' Munchkin Powerz) to troll the rest of the table for the lulz. When your fun derives from consciously denying another their fun, you're a jerk. Thankfully they are easy to spot and boot off pretty easily. They know when they've been caught and don't fight to the death with petty vengeance like true believers, unlike the former.

[Theodoxus]

ALSO: Disrespect and arguing with the DM!! In the middle of the session!! Especially when the DM has 10x the amount of experience than you and all the other players at the table are telling you that that's not how [THING] works!!

Heh, I got reprimanded by the DM last session for this... although I had 10x his experience easily, and was right... but I guess I did it in an annoying manner? The situation was another player, who was a tiefling, got hit by a burning hands cast by a party member. She made the save, so the DM said she got burned for half. I said 'it should be 1/4, she has resistance to fire.' The DM gave me a death stare and said "don't do that". He then proceeded to say she took 1/2 damage. I again said "she has fire resistance, and she saved, right?" he recalculated in his head, and said "yeah, take a quarter damage, and please stop interrupting". It took the wind out of my fun for the evening, but at least the poor hunter didn't die due to DM error... A different player looked at me sympathetically and mouthed "at least you were right."

To the OP - my biggest pet player peeve are those who need to be secretive and disruptive to party cohesion because they're emo or have some deep rooted need to feel special. The ones that have some big reveal that they're just waiting to foist on the others at the table in the worst possible way.

[white lancer]

The worst I've experienced as a DM has been the murderhobo problem. I suppose I've been fortunate in that respect (or rather, chosen the people that I've DMed for carefully).

As a player, I've been in groups where half the party spends most of the session joking with each other and not paying attention to the DM or the game itself. Not only are they being loud and distracting to those who are actually trying to engage in the game, but it's also trickier to address than the cell phone issue ("stop having fun doing that so that we can try to have fun doing this" is often how the conversation might go).

I've seen minor forms of the adversarial RPing as well, but not to the extent of actual PVP. It did lead to me hating the Rogue class for a while, since the first few Rogue players I encountered seemed to take it as a rule that the Rogue must pickpocket even their own party members when given the chance.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Ball hogs. Easily. It's one thing for a character to just naturally shine in the spotlight, it's wholly another for a player to constantly make their personal drama the center of attention to the detriment of all other players. The three examples I can think of off the top of my head were the absolute most hated I have ever seen at the table, with two getting killed off by the rest of the group.

One in a no-PvP game. A dragon, lava, and a complete disregard for safety were involved.

[Zanthy1]

As a DM, the cellphones can be quite aggravating. However, I am also a realist, and know that my friends have difficulty not being connected to their device. I find a compromise that works well for my group. First, they must still be paying attention. Checking you phone and every now and then browsing Imgur is fine, but if you completely phase out then its a problem. You being on your phone is just that, you being on your phone. Do not start sending memes, watching youtube videos, or using your phone to interact with others at the table. Ultimately, if the phones become too much of a distraction by my judgement as DM, i'll just stop and we can try to pick up the session next week. In my group it only took one instance of this happening to make it work. It helps because no one else really want to DM, so they're more willing to listen.

I also dislike arguing with the DM, but I would like to point out that there is a huge difference between arguing and making a point. Making a point, like if the DM said something that wasn't correct or made some form of mistake is totally fine and I would want my players to point it out. If it is something that I am committing to and intended for it to be different than the standard rules, then I will simply tel them "normally you would be correct, but in this situation that is not how that works." HOWEVER it is important to point out that if you change a rule like this, you must keep it consistent in the future. If your Boss monster can do something special, theoretically the PCs should be able to as well.

An example of something that would bug me is when players roll their dice and assume it either hits or misses without telling me the result. Obviously I know that many of my players have read the monster manual, but they don't seem to grasp that I change things liek stats and hp, so when they start counting the stats and telling me that I am wrong in regards to how much hp a monster has, I usually remind them that I am the DM and I can make the monsters as tough as I want, and because they have started to assume that my monster is the exact same as every other rendition of said monster, that this one just healed a bunch of HP.

[Rogerdodger557]

Players not knowing what they can do. It's one thing if they are playing a spell caster for the first time, but if they still don't know what they can do by 3rd or 4th level, it just gets annoying. It gets especially annoying when they pick a simple subclass, like Fighter Champion.

[Sariel Vailo]

My biggest pet peave players who are divergent. Players who want complicated in a 5e game....so my brother.
I get that we all as players want to feel special,but the line must be drawn at dvati craftspeople who must build drones in barely renasiance world.

[Easy_Lee]

Not engaging with the game. Anything, munchkins included, is better than a player who doesn't care or won't try.

[Catullus64]

Player vs. player pissing contests. "I'm not listening to you, I dealt twice as much damage as you in that last fight!" "See, your idea didn't work, I told you it was stupid!" That sort of thing. Not only are comparisons like that useless in a cooperative, team-focused game, but they also result in wounded egos, which means that people feel the need for unnecessary nastiness, in and out of character, to try and reassert themselves. It also makes people act out of character because of some arbitrary perception that they aren't pulling their weight. My players don't fall into this too often, but nothing makes me reflexively reach for the random encounter table in anger like when they do.

[Sariel Vailo]

Not engaging with the game. Anything, munchkins included, is better than a player who doesn't care or won't try.

Also agreed

[Honest Tiefling]

The inability to create different characters across different campaigns/sessions/editions. Yeah, the race/class might be different, but the same base personality is there. In the case I'm talking about, most of the characters of this one player are the same... impulsive and a jerk. Though I'm pretty sure it's because of not being able to differentiate your own personality from your characters.

*cough* I'm quite bad for this, as my default character is a socially incompetent nerd. Play what you know, I guess.

My personal pet peeve is ignoring the setting. I make it quite clear to all of my players I enjoy making a setting. I probably enjoy it a little too much. But I really hate it when people don't care about the setting and try to change it mid-session. I'm very glad you wish to flex your creative side, but maybe introducing a new nation in my carefully laid out plans without warning wasn't the best way to go about it!

[Twigwit]

I've had problems with one player who constantly splits from the group and makes nonsensical decisions with the sole justification being "it's what my character would do." Between refusing to participate in some fights, including allies in the area of Fireball, to trying to open a hotel in Barovia, the one consistent character trait we could pin down was "jerkass contrarian." I have since refused to let this player inflict himself on the party anymore.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

I find characters who just ignore me and talk with the rest of the party VERY frustrating.

[the_brazenburn]

I find characters who just ignore me and talk with the rest of the party VERY frustrating.

What are you implying? Are you talking about me? I would like to make it clear that I do pay attention to you, and that I also hate that.

OP, my personal pet peeve is players who refuse to compromise on the smallest issues. I have no problem with those who will make a point of contention against a DM's rulings, but those who consistently do so against irrelevant activities get on my nerves.

[mephnick]

Loud players dominating other character's turns.

*The Barbarian decides to throw a javelin at a flying monster because he hasn't thrown one in a while and thinks it's fun*

Pro Player #1: "No no, run up and hit this other guy with GWM so we can focus fire and he'll be low enough that I can get my temp HP bonus for killing him. That's the smart thing to do."

Barbarian: "Oh..ok I do that I guess."

[Easy_Lee]

Loud players dominating other character's turns.

*The Barbarian decides to throw a javelin at a flying monster because he hasn't thrown one in a while and thinks it's fun*

Pro Player #1: "No no, run up and hit this other guy with GWM so we can focus fire and he'll be low enough that I can get my temp HP bonus for killing him. That's the smart thing to do."

Barbarian: "Oh..ok I do that I guess."

Sometimes the "loud" player has a point. Real-time advice like this is how I learned to play.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

What are you implying? Are you talking about me? I would like to make it clear that I do pay attention to you, and that I also hate that.

OP, my personal pet peeve is players who refuse to compromise on the smallest issues. I have no problem with those who will make a point of contention against a DM's rulings, but those who consistently do so against irrelevant activities get on my nerves.

No thats not what i'm implying. I am saying in general. Sometimes the party goes of on tangents and its annoying thats all i'm saying.

[mephnick]

Sometimes the "loud" player has a point. Real-time advice like this is how I learned to play.

Sure. The odd bit of advice is OK, it depends on the frequency and severity. I've had players virtually rip someone's character away from them every turn and demand they do what they think is optimal. To the point of one character wanting to do something thematic, like "I hate this guy so I'm going to attack him." and the dictator saying "No, who cares? Attack this guy instead, it's a better move." This is to people with years of experience, not newbies, but who dislike confrontation and fold just to be civil. That's more what I was getting at.

[Easy_Lee]

Sure. The odd bit of advice is OK, it depends on the frequency and severity. I've had players virtually rip someone's character away from them every turn and demand they do what they think is optimal. To the point of one character wanting to do something thematic, like "I hate this guy so I'm going to attack him." and the dictator saying "No, who cares? Attack this guy instead, it's a better move." This is to people with years of experience, not newbies, but who dislike confrontation and fold just to be civil. That's more what I was getting at.

Gotcha. I think anything can be taken to an unhelpful extreme. All the same, this is at least something that can be addressed. I've yet to find a way to fix indifference.

[Theodoxus]

Sure. The odd bit of advice is OK, it depends on the frequency and severity. I've had players virtually rip someone's character away from them every turn and demand they do what they think is optimal. To the point of one character wanting to do something thematic, like "I hate this guy so I'm going to attack him." and the dictator saying "No, who cares? Attack this guy instead, it's a better move." This is to people with years of experience, not newbies, but who dislike confrontation and fold just to be civil. That's more what I was getting at.

Yeah, that sucks. Although I think it's worse for newbies, who tend to just end up shutting down and not participating at all - the bully just plays two characters at that point.

As a player, I tend to suggest options to newer players, but always let them ultimately decide. I'll jump in to defend them from bullies - as Easy said - it's a good approach to learn to play. The best teacher is when you make your own mistakes...

[Dr. Cliché]

Off the top of my head:

- Sulking.

- Faffing around with mobiles or other stuff. I don't mind this if their character isn't involved in something, but it's really annoying when it gets to their turn in combat and they have to be roused from their phone and, of course, immediately ask what's going on.

- Players who won't stop arguing about some ruling or other.


As a DM, the cellphones can be quite aggravating. However, I am also a realist, and know that my friends have difficulty not being connected to their device.

You're apparently a lot more charitable than I am about that sort of thing.

Unless I'm somehow DMing for world leaders, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to not faff around with their phones for a few hours. If my session bores them that much, I'd rather they just went home.

[ChampionWiggles]

Heh, I got reprimanded by the DM last session for this... although I had 10x his experience easily, and was right... but I guess I did it in an annoying manner? The situation was another player, who was a tiefling, got hit by a burning hands cast by a party member. She made the save, so the DM said she got burned for half. I said 'it should be 1/4, she has resistance to fire.' The DM gave me a death stare and said "don't do that". He then proceeded to say she took 1/2 damage. I again said "she has fire resistance, and she saved, right?" he recalculated in his head, and said "yeah, take a quarter damage, and please stop interrupting". It took the wind out of my fun for the evening, but at least the poor hunter didn't die due to DM error... A different player looked at me sympathetically and mouthed "at least you were right."

To the OP - my biggest pet player peeve are those who need to be secretive and disruptive to party cohesion because they're emo or have some deep rooted need to feel special. The ones that have some big reveal that they're just waiting to foist on the others at the table in the worst possible way.

I, as a player, take great issue with the mindset of "Don't correct/question the DM". It reminds me of being told "It's disrespectful to correct your elders/authorities, so don't" while growing up and it's complete crap. Don't want to be corrected? Don't be wrong. The distribution of misinformation is worse than you feeling neutered because I told you, the authority figure, that you were wrong once. As DM, it's your job to know the rules more than any of the players and there are a lot of rules, so you're bound to remember some incorrectly or not remember them all. If you don't want to be corrected as a DM, then either memorize the rules perfectly or don't be DM. Now, there's a difference between correcting the GM because they got a mechanic wrong and arguing or being disrespectful. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest because I've been in some campaigns recently where the DM didn't know the rules all the way and I got chastised for being "Rules Lawyer" when pointing out certain things were being done wrong. That and the "Don't question or correct DM/authority" is just a stupid mind set to me.

As far as what annoys me as a DM (and as a player) is people making obnoxious characters and characters that are a detriment to the campaign. You know who I'm talking about. The person that makes the character that punches the guards because "Lol, isn't that funny and random!?" and then the group gets into trouble because of association or because they're trying to keep HIM out of trouble.

[DarthPenance]

Loud players dominating other character's turns.

*The Barbarian decides to throw a javelin at a flying monster because he hasn't thrown one in a while and thinks it's fun*

Pro Player #1: "No no, run up and hit this other guy with GWM so we can focus fire and he'll be low enough that I can get my temp HP bonus for killing him. That's the smart thing to do."

Barbarian: "Oh..ok I do that I guess."

I'm guilty of a bit of this, but only when the player actually don't know how to play correctly, especially if they're a spellcaster, I'm the resident rules master of the group and I like helping people understand the game, but I can see some people that would see it as aggravating.

#OP
My biggest pet peeve has got to be when people, talk, a lot, like I enjoy roleplaying and social encounters, but when it goes on, and on, for hours and sometimes multiple sessions it starts to irritate me, and I'm a patient person.
By talking a lot I mean taking preparations on over hours long time, even though the plans always fall apart etc.

[FelineArchmage]

Heh, I got reprimanded by the DM last session for this... although I had 10x his experience easily, and was right... but I guess I did it in an annoying manner? The situation was another player, who was a tiefling, got hit by a burning hands cast by a party member. She made the save, so the DM said she got burned for half. I said 'it should be 1/4, she has resistance to fire.' The DM gave me a death stare and said "don't do that". He then proceeded to say she took 1/2 damage. I again said "she has fire resistance, and she saved, right?" he recalculated in his head, and said "yeah, take a quarter damage, and please stop interrupting". It took the wind out of my fun for the evening, but at least the poor hunter didn't die due to DM error... A different player looked at me sympathetically and mouthed "at least you were right."

In cases like the one that you just described, I think this was disrespect on the DMs part. While he was wrong, he could have had a better tone about it and thought before he spoke.

In my case that I mentioned earlier, the situation is: The player in question - who hasn't done any reading of the handbook (3.5e) and hasn't learned his character/absorbed the info on how to play after at least 6 months of playing (and us re-teaching him constantly each week) - argued with the DM (who has ~15 years of experience) and all four of the other players that his way was correct.

That is the type of disrespect and arguing with the DM that infuriates/annoys me the most.

[Yagyujubei]

for me the worst players are def. those that choose to be ***** to the rest of the party and justify it with "but my character would do that" nonsense. If the campaign is specifically that kind of thing then so be it, go as evil as you want, but otherwise in a normal campaign I'll have none of that crap. if you wanna constantly steal from and backstab your party, horde and withold loot from them or anything like that, then a rock is gonna fall from the sky instantly killing your character and you can leave my table.

[Master O'Laughs]

I, as a player, take great issue with the mindset of "Don't correct/question the DM". It reminds me of being told "It's disrespectful to correct your elders/authorities, so don't" while growing up and it's complete crap. Don't want to be corrected? Don't be wrong. The distribution of misinformation is worse than you feeling neutered because I told you, the authority figure, that you were wrong once. As DM, it's your job to know the rules more than any of the players and there are a lot of rules, so you're bound to remember some incorrectly or not remember them all. If you don't want to be corrected as a DM, then either memorize the rules perfectly or don't be DM. Now, there's a difference between correcting the GM because they got a mechanic wrong and arguing or being disrespectful. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest because I've been in some campaigns recently where the DM didn't know the rules all the way and I got chastised for being "Rules Lawyer" when pointing out certain things were being done wrong. That and the "Don't question or correct DM/authority" is just a stupid mind set to me.

As far as what annoys me as a DM (and as a player) is people making obnoxious characters and characters that are a detriment to the campaign. You know who I'm talking about. The person that makes the character that punches the guards because "Lol, isn't that funny and random!?" and then the group gets into trouble because of association or because they're trying to keep HIM out of trouble.

I think one of the ways to work around this is for the DM to have the approach of *the players are responsible for their characters* and if something seems off, double check it after session and correct it at the beginning of next session.

This played out in 2 separate ways with my group, 1) I am playing a Hexblade warlock and had darkness up. The DM was unsure of the vision rules (even though I knew them) and ruled at the time characters still got attacks of opportunity but at disadvantage, when I first mentioned it he said just to send him a text and he would look it up later (I was a little miffed because I like to know and follow the rules, if he officially house rules it then let me know so I can live by them),

2) second instance was where our Paladin got an attack of opportunity and wanted to smite, DM said he was unsure if that was allowed and said he would look it up later, again I tried to state he could but DM just said send me a text.

I completely understand there is a lot to remember, so why try and remember all the class abilities of the PC's? Let them tell you how it works and if it sounds wrong, correct later.


As far as what bothers me at table is players not knowing their classes mechanics after playing for over a year.

[Throne12]

Rule's Lawyers that Interrup the game just to correct me. And players that play that way to creepy characters. I had a player build a character based off bloodborn and he wouldnt stop talking about using Period blood for potions.

[KorvinStarmast]

My pet peeve is pictured right here (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/scryingdevice). How about the rest of you guys?
1. Put the phones away, pay attention to the other players and the DM. :smallfurious:
2. Failure to engage in basic personal hygiene before coming to the table.
3. Extended rules discussion argument. A quick "hey, I thought it works this way" often is no problem. Get agreement or not, and play on. But if we are in the middle of a social role play, or combat, and someone wants to get out the book and bicker, I do not allow that any more. Used to, ages ago, but not any more.

The Play's The Thing.

4. Not paying attention to who is playing. In a mixed group, some language and references are not appropriate that would be in a different group. That's common courtesy/situational awareness, but some people make others uncomfortable by forgetting who is at the table. The thing that's a peeve is when it's brought up and yet it keeps happening. :smallfurious: That behavior can drive other players away because they don't want to put up with it, or in one case, their parents hear about it and don't let them play anymore.

[Pex]

There are the usual stuff of Jerk players who hoard party treasure for themselves, don't share information learned, and Lone Wolf their own private adventure to enrich themselves. Not often talked about that really bugs me is when interrogating a bad guy prisoner the player resorts to torture with sometimes the bad guys hasn't even refused to answer questions yet. I try to stop it as another player. As a DM it's where I falter. Forbidding a player to do something is a major metagame issue. I've defaulted to fiat it never works. The player can torture all he wants. The PC will not talk and accept death in resentment and to spite the PC. Eventually hopefully the player gets the hint, but the munchkins never do. Some captured bad guys will talk. Others won't. This is where Persuasion and Intimidation come into play. Even Deception could work. Actually carrying out the torture the prisoner is done. He'll never talk.

[strangebloke]

There are the usual stuff of Jerk players who hoard party treasure for themselves, don't share information learned, and Lone Wolf their own private adventure to enrich themselves. Not often talked about that really bugs me is when interrogating a bad guy prisoner the player resorts to torture with sometimes the bad guys hasn't even refused to answer questions yet. I try to stop it as another player. As a DM it's where I falter. Forbidding a player to do something is a major metagame issue. I've defaulted to fiat it never works. The player can torture all he wants. The PC will not talk and accept death in resentment and to spite the PC. Eventually hopefully the player gets the hint, but the munchkins never do. Some captured bad guys will talk. Others won't. This is where Persuasion and Intimidation come into play. Even Deception could work. Actually carrying out the torture the prisoner is done. He'll never talk.

Misanthropic players are annoying to me.

I just have the tortured prisoner immediately answer the question, whether he knows the answer or not. (major failing of torture IRL) If the party fails an insight check or doesn't roll one, they get to waste hours of in-game time. If they succeed, I simply tell them: "In his current state, he is a broken man. He doesn't know whether the answer he gave is true or not. He hopes it is." Sometimes, the prisoner is so afraid of his superiors that he won't answer no matter what they do to him, they need to offer him a carrot.

Other times, I do let the torture work.

But it shouldn't be a thing where: "I have no class features that make me good at interrogation, but I can do it anyway because I'm edgy, lol."

And I've had some very.... unscrupulous characters at my table. torturing guys to frame themselves, that sort of thing. Technically fighting on the side of the angels, but doing so with tactics a demon would adore.

[Yagyujubei]

yeah, the old "murder hobo" parties are really annoying to deal with. especially since those types of people who think they can just brute force and murder their way through everything in the campaign get the most upset when you show them the dire consequences of their actions.

there was one time where my friends were being douches and just killing people whenever they wanted so at the end of a session I had them arrested and sent to jail and the first half hour of the next session was just them in jail with me describing water dripping and guards walking by and stuff. I wouldn't do this with rando's but for them I think it was the right call.

[strangebloke]

yeah, the old "murder hobo" parties are really annoying to deal with. especially since those types of people who think they can just brute force and murder their way through everything in the campaign get the most upset when you show them the dire consequences of their actions.

there was one time where my friends were being douches and just killing people whenever they wanted so at the end of a session I had them arrested and sent to jail and the first half hour of the next session was just them in jail with me describing water dripping and guards walking by and stuff. I wouldn't do this with rando's but for them I think it was the right call.

'twas a recurring theme with my players that any time they returned to a city the watch would instantly raise the alarm and/or bar the gates. Kind of a subtle hint that they were... persona non gratia.

[Caelic]

Players who forget that they're not the DM and start telling another player why what they're attempting won't work.

Look: maybe what the person's trying WON'T work. That's fine; as a DM, I'm going to at least let them make the attempt, even if there's no way in heck it'll work. I'll try to make the outcome entertaining, whether it's success or failure. Sometimes, the failures can be more entertaining and memorable than the successes.

But when you've got a player who constantly says, "Don't do that, that won't work because X, do this instead," I sometimes want to strangle them. Dude, play your character, let the other players play their characters, and don't crap on everything they try to do.

SO annoying.

[Catullus64]

I, as a player, take great issue with the mindset of "Don't correct/question the DM". It reminds me of being told "It's disrespectful to correct your elders/authorities, so don't" while growing up and it's complete crap. Don't want to be corrected? Don't be wrong. The distribution of misinformation is worse than you feeling neutered because I told you, the authority figure, that you were wrong once. As DM, it's your job to know the rules more than any of the players and there are a lot of rules, so you're bound to remember some incorrectly or not remember them all. If you don't want to be corrected as a DM, then either memorize the rules perfectly or don't be DM.

To the first bolded section: It could be argued, as I argue, that the DM's overall smooth management of the game, and maintaining the continuity of events, is more important than adherence to the rules: in this case, insisting on correcting the DM's mistake could in fact be more harmful than misinformation, since it might require retroactively altering a large number of interlinked events. The DM's authority over space and time is crucial, and I could absolutely see how any DM could find such insistence to be harmful to the game and to the group.

To the second bolded section: That's...that's a bit demanding, wouldn't you say?

[Sol]

I've had problems with one player who constantly splits from the group and makes nonsensical decisions with the sole justification being "it's what my character would do." Between refusing to participate in some fights, including allies in the area of Fireball, to trying to open a hotel in Barovia, the one consistent character trait we could pin down was "jerkass contrarian." I have since refused to let this player inflict himself on the party anymore.

As a player, I played with one of those guys for 4 years in a skype+maptools game. There were literally sessions where I wanted to pull the plug on my modem I was so frustrated at him.

The worst one was one session where, in a 4e game where he was our only competent source of damage, the party got ambushed on the way from the marketplace to the docks in some city.

When his turn came around, he said, "Oh, I'm not there. I wandered off looking for a bakery," and proceeded to have a 5-10 minute roleplay session asking locals for directions to the nearest bakery that sold <insert some obscure sort of pastry> instead of a 15-30 second turn.

Round 2, he roleplayed finding said bakery and negotiating the price of his pastry and how delicious it was.

Round 3, he casually started walking from the bakery towards the docks, possibly because of how audible everyone else's hatred of him was.

Round 4, he decided that the pastry had caused him gastric distress, and roleplayed out trying to find the nearest public facility or vacant alleyway to relieve himself in.

Round 5, the wizard died.

[ErHo]

I work with most of my group, so its hard to stop the work war stories or gossip.

Then theres the guy with a new iPad and an obsession with Fallout Vault.

Thanks Orcpub for giving players a reason to look at a screen all night with a good excuse!

[Laserlight]

As a DM, the highest Annoyance is people who are used to a regular weekly session, but don't show, don't notify me, don't answer their phone when it's fifteen minutes after starting time.

For a high nova Annoyance score, the winner is the guy who had to be in the spotlight all session every session, and who hit on the female players (one married, one engaged) in the parking lot afterwards. However, he was quickly banned, so his total was relatively low.

[Toofey]

I've had the same phenomena in 2 different groups.(confirmed in one of them to totally be the player's fault by a different player in the group) Namely, players who do their best to avoid the role play aspects of the games, and who fail to give me any meaningful background for their characters, and who fail to 'take the ball' when I put the party in a position where their character can shine, who then complain that they're never to focus of the game.

[ProsecutorGodot]

One of my players rolled up a hexblade with a 20 starting cha, he was thrilled to be a high charisma character during creation, came up with an interesting background to the setting (haunted one, fiend possession in Curse of Strahd) Now that we're about 6 sessions in he's driven me up the wall with exactly how little he's playing to his characters strengths. Aside from being Sentinel+PAM he's a brick wall of interaction.

This wouldn't have been an issue if he hadn't discouraged the other players from taking those related skills since "he had them covered"

I'm also getting the feeling that he's losing interest in the game, despite my best efforts to keep him engaged he just never bites at the hooks.

I guess the TL:DR for mine would be "players who stop playing after character creation"

[Angelalex242]

What the character would do is a nasty one.

As a player, my Oath of the Ancients Paladin is letting a LOT of things slide because disrupting party cohesion isn't worth 'I should probably be stopping that.' It's adventure league too, and the lawful evil rogue is gleefully taking slaves, some of them as sex slaves.

...and I kinda have to let it slide cause that's how that player has fun. It'd be so easy to go Miko Miyazaki on his ass, though.

[Mordna]

Sometimes the "loud" player has a point. Real-time advice like this is how I learned to play.

Yes, but it's NOT THEIR TURN!

That's my greatest pet peave. Players telling other players what they should do, especially AFTER the player having it's turn declared what they are going to do. If possible, I rule that as invalid and go with what was originally said. Unfortunatly by that time the quieter, more unexperienced player tends to fold and say 'No no I want to do that other thing!'
Even if thier attack might not have been the highest damage output, it would have been thier fun and autonomy at work. I would not penalize for that.

[Angelalex242]

Yes, but it's NOT THEIR TURN!

That's my greatest pet peave. Players telling other players what they should do, especially AFTER the player having it's turn declared what they are going to do. If possible, I rule that as invalid and go with what was originally said. Unfortunatly by that time the quieter, more unexperienced player tends to fold and say 'No no I want to do that other thing!'
Even if thier attack might not have been the highest damage output, it would have been thier fun and autonomy at work. I would not penalize for that.

Perhaps, in this case, ask the inexperienced player if he or she wants the other players to act as a strategy guide before the game starts. If they appreciate advice, then great, that's their choice. If they don't, the other players need to zip it. Then it doesn't come up at the last second.

[Hyperversum]

Not engaging with the game. Anything, munchkins included, is better than a player who doesn't care or won't try.

This.
Seriously, if you are the table, be at the table. May it be phones or simply not even LISTENING to what the DM says is something that triggers the **** out of me. Then, why are you here? We hardly play once every two week, wtf.

But there is something even worse, something that GLADLY I never had to deal with at my table, and only once as a player. As a DM, dunno what I would do about it.
I can't recall a word to define it, so I will describe the guy. Yeah, that guy. The one playing the Half-Orc or Orc Barbarian. Yes, the one who wants to kill prisoners no matter what, the one that tries to satisfy every possible bloodlust and sexual perversions.
Seriously. Why is so ****ing full of these kind of players? They always play basically the same character over and over and over and over, all of them are the same, and generally speaking they don't even know much about the rules.

Anyway, 2 personal considerations
1) It's right to not ruin "other people fun", but sometimes it can go too much into the "I don't roleplay to let you have fun" and that's not right. Why the paladin player should limit his own fun in roleplaying his paladin because a dude decided to buy sex slaves?

2) You guys are too gentle with murderhobos. Being thrown in a cell and escaping from is probably too little of a lesson. A full party of hanged murder PCs was one of my best experiences in the first play testing of D&D 5e. I loved those faces like "Ok, ****, we learned it".

[Angelalex242]

This.
Seriously, if you are the table, be at the table. May it be phones or simply not even LISTENING to what the DM says is something that triggers the **** out of me. Then, why are you here? We hardly play once every two week, wtf.

But there is something even worse, something that GLADLY I never had to deal with at my table, and only once as a player. As a DM, dunno what I would do about it.
I can't recall a word to define it, so I will describe the guy. Yeah, that guy. The one playing the Half-Orc or Orc Barbarian. Yes, the one who wants to kill prisoners no matter what, the one that tries to satisfy every possible bloodlust and sexual perversions.
Seriously. Why is so ****ing full of these kind of players? They always play basically the same character over and over and over and over, all of them are the same, and generally speaking they don't even know much about the rules.

Anyway, 2 personal considerations
1) It's right to not ruin "other people fun", but sometimes it can go too much into the "I don't roleplay to let you have fun" and that's not right. Why the paladin player should limit his own fun in roleplaying his paladin because a dude decided to buy sex slaves?

2) You guys are too gentle with murderhobos. Being thrown in a cell and escaping from is probably too little of a lesson. A full party of hanged murder PCs was one of my best experiences in the first play testing of D&D 5e. I loved those faces like "Ok, ****, we learned it".

...And this is why older editions have that 'may not associate with evil' rule. It's so Paladins don't have to let sex slaves slide.

[Hyperversum]

...And this is why older editions have that 'may not associate with evil' rule. It's so Paladins don't have to let sex slaves slide.

Also that's true lmao.

I almost forgot how my current playing Paladin (3.5) at level 2 had to fight another member of the party because of an explicit evil deed in front of my eyes (he killed some innocent, tbh I can't recall, it was so much time ago) and refused to drop his weapon. I easily take him down (you know, I am the one take decent feats and not Toughness) and while I speak with the wizard about what to do the rogue (who worked for as a squire) cut his throat without any of us noticing it and faking to discover it.

It doesn't need to end like this but c'on, you are a paladin, teach him a lesson with a decent smite on his face.
Obviously everything depends on the party, but if he is the only one acting like that, the other players may feel like that.

Personally, I wouldn't even need a paladin code to do it. It's part of the roleplay, which isn't "do what you find funny" but "act as a fiction character that you created". If those actions lead to your character to be beaten and thrown into the ground by the big bulky man in a shining armour, maybe you should remember that in fantasy settings that's what knights do.

[ChampionWiggles]

To the first bolded section: It could be argued, as I argue, that the DM's overall smooth management of the game, and maintaining the continuity of events, is more important than adherence to the rules: in this case, insisting on correcting the DM's mistake could in fact be more harmful than misinformation, since it might require retroactively altering a large number of interlinked events. The DM's authority over space and time is crucial, and I could absolutely see how any DM could find such insistence to be harmful to the game and to the group.

To the second bolded section: That's...that's a bit demanding, wouldn't you say?

Is it a bit demanding to say that a DM shouldn't have such a small and fragile ego and become butt hurt and authoritarian when their players say "Hey, that's actually not how that works" so that the DM doesn't ACCIDENTALLY KILL a character or the party?

NOPE! Not. in. the. least.

Like in the case of Theodoxus and correcting his DM, it was the case between 1/2 and 1/4 damage, which can easily be the difference between the character living or dying. I had a DM that thought the extra attacks of monsters meant they could cast extra spells...just...no. Making corrections to the DM on every small detail that they may or may not get wrong, yea, sure, that's annoying and unnecessary. But it's not unreasonable for me to expect the DM to understand the rules of the game they're mediating, ESPECIALLY when having those rules wrong could change the success of the party to failure. That's more the point I was trying to make with my original post. The thought process of "ARGH! I AM DM! I AM GOD! DO NOT QUESTION! DO NOT CORRECT!" is toxic and on the trend of the inability to take criticism. Because...I guess...being wrong and pointed out that you were wrong means that are *gasp* human and therefore imperfect? I honestly have no issue with my players correcting me, especially since I'm relatively new to DMing, so I'm GOING to make mistakes and WANT to be corrected so that I can improve.

But back to the topic on hand. I had a party that got impatient and irritated at every puzzle I threw at them after having not solved it almost immediately and that's rather annoying. It was a sphinx chamber and essentially a series of puzzles for them to go through and solve to prove their worth. 3/5 were ones that had been done before and I just google searched. The last one was one that I made completely from scratch and put a lot of work into and they got frustrated with it very quickly and it's like "Gee, thanks." It'd be more reasonable for me if they had been at solving this puzzle for over 30 minutes to an hour, but it was like 10 minutes in and they just wanted to get through. Though I suppose it could have been because it simply was the last one. Still frustrating.

[captainstan]

My big 2 would be:
One person building a character to not roleplay and just be difficult. Had one that was a drunk fighter due to issues from his background which could have turned out great, but he just went against what the party wanted to do or would just wander off. His character had a brother that was essentially a cry baby that would run off any chance he could to hide by himself and cry. The fighter ended up dying because it just wasn't working out and I was tired of trying to get him involved (he also partially sacrificed himself since he admitted that after playing a few sessions he didn't realize that it would be difficult to role play. The other one just had extreme luck at times and so despite getting into situations that would one would be captured or killed, he would make it out.

The other one is kinda the opposite. At times was a great role player and he had a bunch of experience playing which was awesome. But anytime he went into combat he played like an idiot and then would complain about how the monsters were not affected by his spells or wouldn't take the damage he thought they should (he was more of a utility wizard rather than specializing in 3.5 so he could be good at a few things, but average at best in others). He also confronted me about part of the game that was meant to be frustrating and take a while. I created the area for this so I could get caught up on where they were as they took a couple of turns that was very unexpected and therefore I was not prepared for anything upcoming in terms of maps. He asked me something along the lines of "is there even a way out? What is the point of all of this because I am going to quit if this keeps going". Just let him know that I disclosed to them all before entering this that it was going to frustrate them likely at times and that it is part of the story and that it is to get me caught up on stuff. Shut him up for a bit, but he was basically checked out at that point.

[mephnick]

who fail to give me any meaningful background for their characters

Eh, I never write backgrounds for my characters, especially at low levels. What happened before the campaign has always been meaningless to me. Back in the day, level 1 characters were stupid farm boys who were probably going to die that week. The early levels were your backstory. You found out what kind of person you were as the game progressed. Now everyone's obsessed with "backgrounds" and "motivation" while I just roll my eyes and wait for the game to start.

[ChampionWiggles]

Eh, I never write backgrounds for my characters, especially at low levels. What happened before the campaign has always been meaningless to me. Back in the day, level 1 characters were stupid farm boys who were probably going to die that week. The early levels were your backstory. You found out what kind of person you were as the game progressed. Now everyone's obsessed with "backgrounds" and "motivation" while I just roll my eyes and wait for the game to start.

I have a buddy who insists on writing like...a 10 page backstory for all of his characters, about all the stuff they've done before and I'm sitting there like "So...why do they have trouble dealing with goblins?" He'll give me crap about a small backstory and I essentially take your approach. The important details for me are more the "What basic training have they had to become their class" (which is more relevant for some classes than others) and "What few things have happened to them for them to decide to be what they are?" (which is more "Why are they this alignment?" "Why/how did they become fighter/paladin/etc.")

[Arial Black]

The Wise say, "moderation in all things".

Is it okay to tell other players what to do on their turn, basically stopping them from playing? No.

Is it okay for characters to tell/suggest to other characters what to do in a situation? Y'know, just like people would in real life in a life-or-death situation? Sure.

"Quick! The ceiling is about to collapse! Run this way!"
"Don't tell me what to do!"
*Dies when ceiling collapses*

"Why didn't you tell me that I need a silver weapon to hurt the werewolf?"
"Hey, I'm not going to play your character for you."

Last night our little group had an encounter on the road. On the player side, I've got nearly 40 years of experience, play well made PCs but like to role-play, don't like the murderhobo paradigm, and I'm in a leadership position in real life where it's my job to coach my colleagues and tell them when they are wrong and if I don't then everything could go pear-shaped and the company could lose money and I could even lose my job. The other players are relatively new, and 'combat strategy'....how can I put this kindly?....passes them by?

The PCs, all 3rd level, are:-
A winged teifling Ftr3 Arcane Archer...who has never used her wings.
A wood elf Clr1/Pal2. Yes, he started with the cleric level!
A dragonborn Moon Druid 3. So, not an optimiser(!)
Me, a human Bar1/War2, whose combat role is melee with a magic greatsword and armour of agathys.

So, we are travelling along the forest road, escorting an 8-year old boy (who we rescued from gnolls) back to his father in another town, just because we are the good guys. I spot someone sneaking ahead of the party and hiding behind a tree in an ambush position. I use the opportunity to sneak up on the other side of the tree and surprise him. It works.

But I don't want to kill him, I want to find out what's going on. "Hello" says I, stepping out from around the tree with my sword still sheathed. He's a nervous looking teenager. He jumps, draws a dagger and says, "g..g..give me all your money!"

"No", I cheerfully reply.

He doesn't know what to do now. "...Er...if you don't...then I'll kill you!" He then shifts into the hybrid form of a werewolf.

I draw my huge sword, and Rage enough to show him that I'm part werewolf too (just the fluff for my Rage mechanic). "If you try, I'll use my magic sword as a six-foot, hell-forged, soul-sucking suppository! Or...we could find a more peaceful way. What do you think?"

I make a successful intimidate check, and the kid is about to calm down when the druid decides to heat metal on his dagger, damaging him and causing the werewolf to charge him.

So much for diplomacy! Combat ensues. We have no silver weapons or arrows (so the archer cannot hurt him). We have two magic weapons: my sword and the Clr/Pal's mace. So the archer takes the kid and climbs a tree with him to keep him safe. Good idea. Of course, she would have to make that risky Athletics check carrying a small boy if she had just, y'know, flown up there with her wings, but I say nothing.

Next, the druid turns into a bear but neither claws nor teeth can hurt the werewolf, but he wants to try anyway. He says that he has no damaging attack spells so that's the best he can do. I know that dragonborn have a breath weapon but it is largely useless, so I say nothing about that, but I do point out that the bear can try to grapple. Was I out of order suggesting this?

The grapple works. I move up and attack the grappled werewolf, but miss. The Clr/Pal draws his magic mace, and says that he'll stay there and watch for trouble.

"You what? There's trouble right here! Come up and smack this beast with your magic weapon right now!"

So, was I out of order, telling a player what to do on their turn? For me, my character (who is an army captain BTW!) was saying this in character, because he would, wouldn't he? Would the army captain, in combat with a creature unkillable without a magic weapon, say nothing in that life-or-death situation because he doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings?

When I got home after the session I remembered that the druid does indeed have a useful attack cantrip: the one from Xanathar's which lets his claws do acid damage. If I'd remembered that at the time I would definitely have said so, even out of character, because it is something that the druid would definitely know but that his player just forgot. Would I have been wrong to do that?

So, things are rarely so black-and-white re: telling players what to do, or correcting DMs when they make a mistake which could lead to PC death. Too much OR too little is bad. Balance is the key to happy gaming.

[Zanthy1]

I work with most of my group, so its hard to stop the work war stories or gossip.

Then theres the guy with a new iPad and an obsession with Fallout Vault.

Thanks Orcpub for giving players a reason to look at a screen all night with a good excuse!

So I am partially this player, mostly because I use DnD Beyond for most of my character sheets now, and its easiest to use it with my iPad for now. I hate to admit but there have been a few instances of me playing a game on it, but I have caught myself most times and gotten back to basic.

[white lancer]

The Wise say, "moderation in all things".

Is it okay to tell other players what to do on their turn, basically stopping them from playing? No.

Is it okay for characters to tell/suggest to other characters what to do in a situation? Y'know, just like people would in real life in a life-or-death situation? Sure.

Agreed. In our group, we try to limit our combat suggestions to in-character ones, so only whatever is reasonable to say in a combat situation (and avoiding information that our characters don't know). That seems to work fairly well, and as a player I'm usually quiet during others' turns unless there's something in particular that my character would suggest.

[BloodOgre]

Players that try to find a way to guarantee success on every turn. "Will this work? Will that work? What if I do that? Does my character know if this will work?" We spent over 30 minutes waiting for one guy to take his turn. Granted he's relatively new (only playing about a year). But a round is six seconds. Do something and see what happens. (after half an hour if bickering with the DM about what he could or could not do, he still got caught by the kobalds.) Same guy spent another 30 minutes with the DM trying to figure out how to word an augury spell to determine if an NPC was the target of his secret mission. (He finally settle on his wording and the answer is "Weal and Woe"... He says, "What's that mean?" duh) Add to that we're in the middle of battle and he wants to cast augury as a ritual to save a spell slot!

[Afrodactyl]

One of my players always make his characters as one dimensional clichés that have been done to death, and have no prospects for development. I don't mind it for one shots because that should be where you can be absurd or silly about it, but making them for same campaigns is so annoying.

He's also been guilty of going massively in depth for the background of a one shot character, and then having basically no backstory for a campaign character.

He's getting better (he's still relatively newish to the group and pen/paper RPGs in general), but it can be trying.


Also as previously in the thread, players that just zone out when someone else has the limelight, or they aren't doing something their character is good at.

[Ganymede]

I really don't like it when players let the game shut down due to a disagreement with how to progress. I've had large chunks of time eaten up because my players were fighting over whether to do A then B or B then A.

Just quickly decide on an outcome if there's an impasse (vote, or roll a die if there's a tie), then roleplay your dissatisfaction in game. PCs are allowed to be unhappy and express it, but it is not a license for the players themselves to hold up the game and be unhappy.

[Whit]

The mini max stay out of harm to do the most damage but refuses to play the low stat int wis cha.

Which is the range rogue fighter or pole arm

[Ganymede]

The inability to create different characters across different campaigns/sessions/editions. Yeah, the race/class might be different, but the same base personality is there.

I'll agree that that's minorly annoying, but it definitely isn't the worst thing out there. Christian Slater might play the exact same character in every movie role he's ever done, but he was still masterful doing so in Heathers.

[Theodoxus]

Like in the case of Theodoxus and correcting his DM...

I just remembered, the week before, a player playing a halfling rolled a 1 on his initiative. I offhandly mentioned that he could reroll it, as it was under the jurisdiction of Lucky. The DM (same as my previous example) said "Lucky affects attacks, saves and ability checks, and initiative isn't one of those." I said "actually, it's a dex check." The DM was miffed at being corrected then too... He let the halfling reroll - getting a 2, so it didn't affect initiative order anyway - and I looked up initiative to verify that it was a dex check. [I didn't slow down the combat, quickly looking it up when it wasn't my turn] I didn't push it, though, as the bard should have received a JOAT bonus to his init too...

So, as in my original post, I think I just come off bad to the DM in general. We'll see, as I'm playing again tonight... wonder how I could ingratiate myself to him - I hate having people not liking me...

[Vaz]

Voice 'Acting' and accents. You suck at it. If you didn't, you'd do it as a job or actual hobby. It sounds like I'm watching allo allo as a DM and my players try to put on accents.

[Kalashak]

It's difficult to pick what annoys me the most, and I find it changes from group to group but the most consistent three are:

1. Being on cell phones. It bothers me in most social situations when people can't stay off them, because I feel if you wanted to talk to other friends that badly you should have gone to hang out with them, but while we're playing DnD it drives me up the wall. Spell book apps have made this one a little more difficult to enforce so I've had to begrudgingly make peace with it. Here's a tip to people who use spell book apps as an excuse to just be on your phone, searching your spell book takes a lot less typing than texting does so at least try to hide it.

2. Not engaging with the game. Some players are more reserved than others, and might not ever really be very active in most parts of the game. I'm ok with that. But I had one player who made most of their character's decisions by rolling a die to see if it landed on an odd or even number, and another who made a character that refused to engage with the story at all. He ignored the plot hook, he ignored his hometown rioting, he even ignored when his land lord tried to shoot him.

3. Players who take over the game. I've had one player who was particularly bad about several things mentioned by other people, and they all stemmed from the same attitude of taking over the game to try and win. They routinely told other people what to do on their turns, they argued with me about rules, they argued with me about things not in the rules, if they found that a decision they made was the wrong one they'd scramble for an excuse to say "actually my character would have known x so he wouldn't have done y, he'd have done z", they would talk over the party face in social situations, they'd always try to find ways to use their abilities to deal with a challenge. They once argued with me about how according to the Monster Manual they should have leveled up more often.

[PaladinX]

Players who argue with you!

[LaserFace]

My players are pretty great. They're always friends, though, so I don't have to deal with anyone ... weird.

I guess my biggest gripe is when a player gets distracted by a meme video on their phone or something, and play is interrupted by Ugandan Knuckles.

[willdaBEAST]

Voice 'Acting' and accents. You suck at it. If you didn't, you'd do it as a job or actual hobby. It sounds like I'm watching allo allo as a DM and my players try to put on accents.

Everyone starts somewhere.

Personally I never gave acting in character or using a voice much thought until I watched Chris Perkins at work (he's not a voice actor or a voice hobbyist whatever that is). It can certainly be cringeworthy or overly indulgent (Critical Role imo), but it can also bring a character to life.

Doing voices as a DM and later as a player gave me the confidence and drive to learn how to get better at voice acting.

[Batou1976]

Everyone starts somewhere.

Personally I never gave acting in character or using a voice much thought until I watched Chris Perkins at work (he's not a voice actor or a voice hobbyist whatever that is). It can certainly be cringeworthy or overly indulgent (Critical Role imo), but it can also bring a character to life.

Doing voices as a DM and later as a player gave me the confidence and drive to learn how to get better at voice acting.

"Doing voices" can also help one get into character. So what if they're not Mel Blanc?

No, what happened to me once years ago that chapped my hide a bit was- my friend invited his neighbor's kid (a couple years younger than us, and we were HS juniors or even seniors [this was in the early 90s so I don't quite remember]) to game with us. Terrific, says I. Always happy to introduce a new player to RPing. Problem was, the kid decided to get in character by speaking (the way he thought) Medieval people talked (he was not very close to the mark, as it turned out). Because he was struggling to formulate every little thing his PC said, he took an agonizingly long time to say anything, and used about two to three times as many words as were necessary to say it, so his every utterance came out very... awkward-sounding. :smalleek:

I didn't want to turn him off of gaming or anything, of course, but I reaaaallly wanted the burning to stop. I ended up suggesting to him a few times that he really ought to just relax and not constantly worry so much about saying exactly the right thing, in exactly the correct manner, because his speaking in character would come more naturally over time as he got used to playing the game, yadda yadda. :smallsigh:

[Honest Tiefling]

"Doing voices" can also help one get into character. So what if they're not Mel Blanc?

It can get distracting if its bad. Sure, everyone has to start somewhere, but when the medieval paladin starts talking like a hillbilly who got drunk and wandered into a Medieval Times restuarant, sometimes it's a little distracting for the rest of the table. If you wish to practice, I'd ask permission from the table and warn them a little first.

As for the issue of not speaking exactly, I'm willing to overlook a few clumsy phrases and modern-sounding f-bombs if you can describe to me what the character is doing. Then again, I'm pretty dyslexic so I've come up with some pretty impressive word salad myself.

[Daithi]

Players that argue over the dumbest trivia to show how smart they are. This is especially infuriating when you have two players doing this constantly.

[Requilac]

You know it is kind of weird, I have been DMing for a while and a lot of the problems you all are outlining I do not even mind that much. I have had a couple of people who constantly play the same type of character over and over again, but in truth it is really not that big of a deal. Some people just are not that creative or like to play a certain way, I do not see anything wrong with that unless that type of character is causing problems at the table. I always thought that when one person OOC instructs another person on what they could do it was a good thing, and I never associated it with any sort of problem before. it seems like a fairly normal thing to do. As for people who play muderhobos or extremely nihilistic character, as much as I hate to admit it, that is a valid play-style and one that many people expect from D&D. From what I understand most people expect to go around killing things for arbitrary reasons to gain wealth in D&D and the exceptions are the ones heavily featured around RP. Now I always prefer RP heavy campaigns, so that fact is well telegraphed in session 0, but unless I explicitly tell them otherwise then I cannot blame them for having a misinterperation of what to expect. As a DM your job is to there is an agreement in what type of game you are playing and if a player wants their character to do something that highly disrupts it then you should nip that behavior at the bud. In short, if a player wants wants their character to keep sex slaves, than prevent them from doing it to begin with so other problems do not develop. As for those particular players who try to consume the game and show off themselves too much, that is a slight problem, but really not that big of a deal. Why should I get angry at someone for being too invested in the world I created after all? If they are beginning to dominate the other players then that is a signal for me to throw bones for the other players to begin to take their chance to RP in. If they do not take them and do not wish to, then so be it, they have chosen who they want to be the center of attention.

I am especially surprised to see that so many of you are upset by players arguing with you. If I make a mistake then I would like for someone to point it out so that the quality of the game is improved. May I ask why all of you seem to dislike it so much? Do you think it breaks immersion or slows things down too much? I never noticed such behavior drastically slowing down game play.

That being said I will have to echo the sentiment here about my dislike towards certain types of players, in order from least to greatest magnitude.

1) Some players just do not seemingly ever remember how their class works. It is a minor issue and the people that do it are not inherently rude for doing so, but it majorly slows down gameplay. If you are playing a wizard you should know the difference between known and prepared spells if you have been playing 5e for three years. I mean honestly, why did you pick to play a class you have no idea functions? Were you basing it solely off of theme or something and did not bother to read the stats?
2) Players who are adversarial and are trying to win against me and the other players. We are all trying to make a good story here, not trying to become better than all of those around us. Please get along with the other players and do not just try to see how many creatures you can kill single-handedly and how much gold you can recieve. This is not a competition. And please do not accuse me of favoritism if I go against RAW and form a ruling a minor rule. Bring it up politely yes, but do not complain that I am letting the other players get more powerful than you on a regular basis.

3) I have to say that it is definitely more frustrating than anything else to work with players who are either on their phones constantly or refuse to stay engaged in the game. I am honestly trying to make this game fun for you all, if I am boring you that much could you please just politely leave and not sit there just to refuse to acknowledge a word I said and only pay mild attention when rolling in combat. It makes me feel upset and uncomfortable if whenever I describe something not relating to combat you ignore me completely. Even murder hobo games have a little bit of exploration involved. And even when these players start fighting all they do is repeat the same action over and over again without even bothering to pay attention to the battle field and whenever I try to say that their action is not possible (typically because the enemy they want to target is already dead) I need to re-explain everything all over again. And then next turn they somehow forget. Honestly, why are you even here if you seemingly do not want to play D&D. It baffles me.

[Vaz]

Everyone starts somewhere.

Personally I never gave acting in character or using a voice much thought until I watched Chris Perkins at work (he's not a voice actor or a voice hobbyist whatever that is). It can certainly be cringeworthy or overly indulgent (Critical Role imo), but it can also bring a character to life.

Doing voices as a DM and later as a player gave me the confidence and drive to learn how to get better at voice acting.

There are plenty of outlets for practising voice acting: and while DnD may be one of them, having your players stretch from being able to talk nornally, to trying to whisper in a german accent, to be a guy trying to speak in a french accent is jarring, ham cisted and often naff. Half expecting 'Oooh renee' to be said at one moment, is rather awkward.

If someone wants to get into voice acting, point them to an amateur dramatic society, and to video game mod websites, such as things like the 'Skywind/Skyblivion' teams.

When some of your players are getting hurt feelings by putting on a really crap accent and trying to give a big speech and others are giggling at it, or the DM is actually trying to struggle to hear what they are saying, then putting on a voice hurts the game and is an annoyance I can deal without.

[strangebloke]

"I'd really rather be playing Diablo" guy.

One of my players and a long-time friend was this guy.
1. Only ever wants to dungeon crawl.
2. Always gets bag of holding as his first magic item (so he can store tons of loot)
3. Wants to switch characters every 40 hours of in-game time. (IE, every 2-3 long rests.)
4. Completely ignores other players' characters when deciding how his character will act, and then gets furious when other people's characters react poorly to him murdering innocents to fuel his zombie horde.
5. Complains about filling out any kind of backstory information for his character, even if its just to answer a four-question survey.
6. Gets really mad if his build doesn't quite work how he expected it to.

He might be fine at someone else's table, but at mine, he was not a good fit. And I really like the guy.

[Theodoxus]

My hillbiilies always come from the swamps, make elf-ear soup and tend to be pretty goofy, if combat effective. Mostly they're rogues who failed Bard College - and nearly always halflings. I am currently playing Cletus, the Celestial Warlock human. I didn't write up an elaborate background, as he came into the 3rd session of a TotYP dungeon crawl - but I'll get around to it.

My dwarves have been using a Russian accent for the last 5 years or so. I feel it's a better fit than the massively overused Scottish brogue Blizzard made ubiquitous.

My draconic - rarely spoken - has a high British twang, since it's common knowledge that EVERYTHING sounds more intelligent with a British accent.

While I cringe at 'thee's and thou's' - I also haven't heard anyone at a table use them in years. Mostly, I find that kind of language at LARPs spoken by people who were kicked out of the SCA.

But accents let me pull my characters together and I encourage it at my tables for exactly that reason. And I've found it helps shyer players come out of their shell; pretending to be brave with a new voice.

[Dudewithknives]

A few things:

1. Players who change their point of view RP wise depending on what would be the most beneficial at the time.

2. Players who think they get special protection just because they are PCs.

ex. If your dwarf is talking to the King of the Elven capitol and tells him, "But why should we listen to you, you are just some flower eater?" you are going to die.

3. Players who do not RP low stats. INT 8 and figures out the crime scene in about 20 seconds with no roles. CHA 8 and walks up to the prince and talks in eloquent and courtly manner.

[Fidlr]

A few things:

1. Players who change their point of view RP wise depending on what would be the most beneficial at the time.

2. Players who think they get special protection just because they are PCs.

ex. If your dwarf is talking to the King of the Elven capitol and tells him, "But why should we listen to you, you are just some flower eater?" you are going to die.

3. Players who do not RP low stats. INT 8 and figures out the crime scene in about 20 seconds with no roles. CHA 8 and walks up to the prince and talks in eloquent and courtly manner.

Though i agree that one should roleplay ones low stats to some point, a low charisma score should not automatically be that you are badly mannered. Maybe you are severely scarred and hard to look at. An 8 int should not make you a drooling idiot no more than an 8 Str should make you the physical embodiment of Stephen Hawking

[Randomthom]

3. Players who do not RP low stats. INT 8 and figures out the crime scene in about 20 seconds with no roles. CHA 8 and walks up to the prince and talks in eloquent and courtly manner.
The first (INT) of those is problematic and only really has an out-of-character fix of asking the player to tone down his character's intelligence (unless he actually has it wrong, in which case, indulge him).

The latter (CHA) example has any number of high-societal faux pas you can invent to throw him off his game. He thinks he is being charismatic but used the wrong sort of bow/curtsey, the wrong title or spoke at the wrong time, did not wait to be formally introduced by an aide of the prince etc.

High/Low wisdom can often be hard to roleplay, particularly when a high-wis character is played by an impatient or impulsive player who wants to move things forward while everyone else is being (wisely) cautious.

[Theodoxus]

And that's why I don't expect anyone to play to their attributes. The game already has mechanical representation (-1 to +5) depending on what their stat is. Proficiency reflects knowledge in the particular item (lore or rote memorization (or lack thereof) for Int; Courtly norms, etc. for Cha).

Even the replies basically enhance my point. An 8 Int can be a mental tick; short term memory loss; or a general low IQ - all of which play differently. An 8 cha can be social awkwardness, introversion or general ugliness - again, all of which play differently.

I'm fine with a player describing their dump stat any way they want to - but I don't demand it. I find that it doubles the mechanical detriment - and I've yet to see anyone try to boost the mechanical benefit of their outstanding stats in a similar manner. "My 18 Str represents my massive bulk, so I should get automatic proficiency in Athletics for wrestling checks."

[willdaBEAST]

There are plenty of outlets for practising voice acting: and while DnD may be one of them, having your players stretch from being able to talk nornally, to trying to whisper in a german accent, to be a guy trying to speak in a french accent is jarring, ham cisted and often naff. Half expecting 'Oooh renee' to be said at one moment, is rather awkward.

If someone wants to get into voice acting, point them to an amateur dramatic society, and to video game mod websites, such as things like the 'Skywind/Skyblivion' teams.

When some of your players are getting hurt feelings by putting on a really crap accent and trying to give a big speech and others are giggling at it, or the DM is actually trying to struggle to hear what they are saying, then putting on a voice hurts the game and is an annoyance I can deal without.

You're obviously entitled to run a game however you want, but what you're describing has not been anything that I've experienced. Maybe age is a factor (I'm 33 and started playing DnD at 32)? I can imagine younger gamers being more out of control in this regard. Tied to age is also the value of time: a lot of my peers would not have the time to do voice acting as a side hobby while also devoting weekly time to a DnD session, it would be either or.

I play AL at a game store and run a home game. The game store setting seems to actively discourage anyone who is not confident in using a voice, it's an extreme minority that will try one and maybe that cuts off some of the worst examples (not that I haven't heard some on occasion). For my home game, initially I was terrible at voicing NPCs as the DM, but I told my players this is something I wanted to improve and they were onboard. A year later I can comfortably voice about 12 distinct NPCs in the same session.

I've encouraged my players to speak in a voice and one proposed that he'll talk in Christian Bale's Batman voice, which I immediately shot down. Hearing more than a sentence of that would become unbearable, so there are clearly limits even to my indulgence. Only one player out of 5 has really made any attempt to use a voice and he's pretty bad at it (very stilted), but I encourage him to keep trying. There's also value in being able to immediately distinguish what is in character and what is out of character.

I guess where I stand is that a lot of people seem to struggle with role-playing and relaxing enough to try to inhabit their character and I've personally found voices can make that a lot more natural. It's important to choose a voice that doesn't grate, but I think even a player struggling with a voice that commits to their character and starts to realize their personality is better than players who just play themselves.

[Bobby Baratheon]

This is a pretty low-grade complaint, but it irritates me when there's one trigger happy player who escalates every situation to combat just because. People hiding in the woods? Must be bandits, not refugees. Attack before even talking to them! Angry orc walks into a bar and confronts someone? Attack him before finding out why he's angry. Again, this is low level annoying stuff but I do think that kind of behavior limits the roleplaying opportunities of other players.

EDIT: Higher grade complaint that occurred to me afterwards: it super annoys me when players boss each other around. I get giving guidance and advice to a new player, but it irks me when experienced players enthusiastically steamroll newer ones without realizing how they're essentially depriving them of the agency to decide how their character acts, which is the entire point of the game. Many new players are too out of their element to push back at all, and end up just being an extension of the other players.

[Ding]

Oh god, the cell phones... Even as a player, not a DM, that gets on my nerves. I know we're all human, so if your phone goes off, you're probably going to pick it up and see what has changed in your digital life, but people can get completely absorbed way too easily. If it's not your turn in combat or the party is just navigating some pretty unimportant RP stuff, then sure, go ahead and quietly shoot off a quick text or snapchat or whatever. But two guys in my group in particular inevitably start browsing youtube, memes, facebook, etc, and then decide that the rest of the group REALLY needs to see this six-minute video of random sports fails. They don't do it on purpose, and I know that they actually want to play the game, but they just seem to lack the awareness and self-control one would expect out of full-grown adults. I've brought it up before, after we played a four-hour session and only got through one minor encounter and about two in-game hours of low-key RP situations, but sure enough after twenty minutes they were back at it. I don't want to be that person who says "You're going to have fun how I say, when I say", but it can be pretty trying on my patience.

I guess it just comes down to what a lot of people have already said here: players not even making an effort to be involved in the session. The DM (whether myself or someone else) put a lot of work into making this as fun and interesting as possible, but it's still a team effort. Assuming your group gets along and has compatible personalities and playstyles, it's so much more fun to play RPGs when everyone commits and gets into the story.

Almost forgot: one of my good friends I play with has started bringing his girlfriend to sessions (she kind of half-plays a rogue the current DM threw together for her). I like them both very much, but when they're over there whispering to each other about their plans for next weekend and getting a bit handsy, they're not at all involved in the session. Plus, it's just kind of awkward.

[Vaz]

If you want to establish what is in character, and what is out of character, enlist in the mentality that everything spoken at the table is In Character. Either step away from the table if you want to speak out of character, with someone, whether it is as simple as 'check this meme dude', or having a discussion over what your character is going to do. The less out of character interaction at the table, the better.

In 15 years of playing, and ever more recently thanks to a certain show with Actual, paid up, recognised, experienced voice actors playing DnD gaining popularity, more people are trying it. A few may have a gift, but there are none who can even get anywhere near. You might think you're in character, but I think the game suffers by having stereotype real world accents and voices that sound nothing like the actual accent put on by speakers of another language. Having lived in Aus, and being British, listening to American mates try to put on Aussie twang is painful, and in a game when people are already in character, it is distrscting and unpleasant.

I don't want to spend my evening listening to crap, put-on accents is another reason. Lower the timbre of your voice, chsnge your speech pattern, but too many people feel VA is sinply being able to do an accent, and so try to do an Accent and end up spoiling my evening. 'VA' is banned, and of you're using a voice to get you into character, then perhaps you're not really sold on the character concept.

When you play DnD at tables I run, you are in character at all times: step away, or make it a point that you say 'DM Question', or 'Player to Player'. Stuff flows smoother, and you don't have occasions where 'oh, he's speaking with an awful french sccent now, he must be in character'.

Also, while I can't comment over each players time, Ive found plenty of time to play the odd video game, study, play DnD up to 3 times a week, work and commute, and manage 3 young kids (Triplets, 2 years old, yay). In addition to weekends of 'doing stuff', like snowboarding or going for a dive when money allows. There are lots of things that I could give up instead, in order to record some voice lines, send off to a website and get feedback while building a portfolio with an eye to posisble professional, if irregular work.

I don't want to imfringe on peoples fun, but if your fun is intrinsically related to putting on an awful voice, then my DnD table is not for you. Not do I think DnD is a good way of exercising or practising that skill.

[Theoboldi]

Higher grade complaint that occurred to me afterwards: it super annoys me when players boss each other around. I get giving guidance and advice to a new player, but it irks me when experienced players enthusiastically steamroll newer ones without realizing how they're essentially depriving them of the agency to decide how their character acts, which is the entire point of the game. Many new players are too out of their element to push back at all, and end up just being an extension of the other players.

This. This right here. Admittedly, I've seen more of it as a player than as a DM, but it is frickin' irritating. I've seen a whole party once essentially become reduced to the lackeys of one experienced player, to the point where if someone did want to do something differently, they were immediately and completely shut down because that one experienced player had become too used to being in charge. It utterly ruined that game. It's bad enough already when a player essentially takes over another in combat because he won't shut up about 'the most optimal strategy'. Taking it to out of combat decisions means the other players might as well not be there.

[Eldamar]

"I'm done playing if my character dies."

At that point, I'd rather they leave my table the moment that sentence is finished. Nothing saps the fun out of a game for me like that attitude. It's a game. Get over it and move on to another character. I won't have my game held hostage to your ****ty attitude.

Edgelords and anti-social characters are a pretty strong runner up. Of all the things I do as a DM to run this game, making sure your character has a reason to stick with the group isn't one. That quite squarely falls into the player's responsibility. That's fine if your brooding wanderer of a character doesn't have an good reason to be questing with the rest of the party. Roll a character who does.

[ChampionWiggles]

Edgelords and anti-social characters are a pretty strong runner up. Of all the things I do as a DM to run this game, making sure your character has a reason to stick with the group isn't one. That quite squarely falls into the player's responsibility. That's fine if your brooding wanderer of a character doesn't have an good reason to be questing with the rest of the party. Roll a character who does.

THIS. SO much this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My big beef is players that just won't shut up. Whether it's talking over other players in character (usually trying to be part of all social things), talking over players and telling them what to do, or, most commonly, just talking about random side conversations in loud voices. :smallfurious:

[BloodOgre]

My dwarves have been using a Russian accent for the last 5 years or so. I feel it's a better fit than the massively overused Scottish brogue Blizzard made ubiquitous. I'f you've seen Red Storm Rising, then you know that Scottish and Russian accents are the same:smallbiggrin:. I tend to use more of a German accent for Dwarves. Elves tend to be a little more Italian, except for High elves, which are French and snobby. But generally, it isn't an accent I'm going after (although my son thinks my accents are hysterical), but I am trying to change my voice in a way to suit the character, trying to sound like the Witch of the West when playing a hag, or doing a deep rough voice for a Goliath.


My draconic - rarely spoken - has a high British twang, since it's common knowledge that EVERYTHING sounds more intelligent with a British accent. Hadn't thought of that.


While I cringe at 'thee's and thou's' - I also haven't heard anyone at a table use them in years. Mostly, I find that kind of language at LARPs spoken by people who were kicked out of the SCA. I only used "thee"s and "thou"s and "m'lady"s when I was flirting:smallbiggrin:.


But accents let me pull my characters together and I encourage it at my tables for exactly that reason. And I've found it helps shyer players come out of their shell; pretending to be brave with a new voice. This more than anything. People are much more engaged when they can "be" something they are not. It gets people in character and I find people get more out of the roleplay. Yes, when I'm DMing the 13-year-olds, the accents can be kind of rough, but as long as they are understandable, I let it go. I also find that if I am doing multiple characters, using a different voice for each helps the players understand which character is talking without me having to say, "Then, the Paladin says..." It also makes it pretty clear that we are roleplaying, rather than just me narrating a scene and some action.

[strangebloke]

Everybody is so intense about phones! Man, what do you expect a player to do when he finished his turn and it's ten minutes before he has to pay attention again? Just sit there, intensely focused on each of the fighters ten attack rolls?

It annoys me when someone doesn't know what to do in their turn, but for me that's a separate problem.


My big beef is players that just won't shut up. Whether it's talking over other players in character (usually trying to be part of all social things), talking over players and telling them what to do, or, most commonly, just talking about random side conversations in loud voices. :smallfurious:

Had a really bad one of these in my last game. It's extremely grating, especially when the 'face' is a less forceful irl personality.

[xroads]

I have a player who despite having played in hundreds of D&D sessions, still never seems to get the rules. Or at least pretends to be ignorant of the rules, as another player sitting nearby has caught him "accidentally" cheating on several occasions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Everybody is so intense about phones! Man, what do you expect a player to do when he finished his turn and it's ten minutes before he has to pay attention again? Just sit there, intensely focused on each of the fighters ten attack rolls?

It annoys me when someone doesn't know what to do in their turn, but for me that's a separate problem.

Had a really bad one of these in my last game. It's extremely grating, especially when the 'face' is a less forceful irl personality.

You have rounds that take 10 minutes? Wow.

But yes, it's especially bad when the ostensible face isn't so IRL. I end up squelching the talker and running "initiative" (except more just basic turn taking). "Bob, what are you doing?" "The guard is talking to Jenny right now", etc.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Everybody is so intense about phones! Man, what do you expect a player to do when he finished his turn and it's ten minutes before he has to pay attention again? Just sit there, intensely focused on each of the fighters ten attack rolls?

It annoys me when someone doesn't know what to do in their turn, but for me that's a separate problem.

This is why I've become such a big fan of group initiative. Turns are a lot more engaging and team-oriented when you have to work together on them, and there's much less downtime where you aren't making decisions. It's especially nice if you've got some players that tend to take forever on their turns, since everyone else can plan, move, and act by the time that the slow player has figured out what they're going to do.

[Requilac]

Everybody is so intense about phones! Man, what do you expect a player to do when he finished his turn and it's ten minutes before he has to pay attention again? Just sit there, intensely focused on each of the fighters ten attack rolls?


My issue is not so much with phones and more about what they cause. What frequently happens is that when a player gets on their phone has a bad habit of staying on it and not listening at all to events that are not on their turn. They miss several crucial combat events and when the time actually comes their character can perform the action they wanted to do and has to spend 5 minutes learning everything that has happened and then another 5 minutes choosing their action. Now that does not make all phone use bad of course. Whenever I play I always keep all the notes on my phone, but when I am doing that I am never engaged on it for more than second to record my character’s list hit points or check off a use of a feature/spell slot. I also ensure that the phone is also blatantly sitting on the table for all to see so that they know I am not trying to hide anything. If everything worked like that then it would all be fine and dandy (for me at least), but to often I see the former case which dramatically slows everything down. Maybe your table is just better at multi-tasking then I have been though, so YMMG. In my experience, situations like this typically result in the car leaking out al its gasoline.

[Easy_Lee]

This is why I've become such a big fan of group initiative. Turns are a lot more engaging and team-oriented when you have to work together on them, and there's much less downtime where you aren't making decisions. It's especially nice if you've got some players that tend to take forever on their turns, since everyone else can plan, move, and act by the time that the slow player has figured out what they're going to do.

Just wanted to say I'm going to make a thread about team initiative.

[willdaBEAST]

If you want to establish what is in character, and what is out of character, enlist in the mentality that everything spoken at the table is In Character. Either step away from the table if you want to speak out of character, with someone, whether it is as simple as 'check this meme dude', or having a discussion over what your character is going to do. The less out of character interaction at the table, the better. I mean sure, but you can at least see the value of being able to instantly switch between something said aloud and a statement to the players or DM right? In character "I'm tired of waiting around", followed by out of character "I go to open the door on the left". More information is conveyed in a shorter amount of time. Saying "DM question" or "Player to player" would personally do more to break me out of immersion than hearing a bad accent.


In 15 years of playing, and ever more recently thanks to a certain show with Actual, paid up, recognised, experienced voice actors playing DnD gaining popularity, more people are trying it. A few may have a gift, but there are none who can even get anywhere near. You might think you're in character, but I think the game suffers by having stereotype real world accents and voices that sound nothing like the actual accent put on by speakers of another language. Having lived in Aus, and being British, listening to American mates try to put on Aussie twang is painful, and in a game when people are already in character, it is distrscting and unpleasant.

I don't want to spend my evening listening to crap, put-on accents is another reason. Lower the timbre of your voice, chsnge your speech pattern, but too many people feel VA is sinply being able to do an accent, and so try to do an Accent and end up spoiling my evening. 'VA' is banned, and of you're using a voice to get you into character, then perhaps you're not really sold on the character concept.
It's sounding less like voice acting is the problem and more that you dislike hearing people attempt accents that you're familiar with. That's fine, but I think you could address that specifically rather than categorizing any form of voice acting as ruining the experience for you. You even identified approaches that pretty much anyone could take to voice acting. Banning using a voice because certain people don't understand nuance or realize that they're being disruptive is a heavy handed approach.

I also think you're being disingenuous when you say "you're not a professional, don't even try". That's arbitrary gatekeeping. What happens when a player uses a horrible accent and you call them out for it, telling them they're not a voice acting professional and they show you a list of their high profile credits? Has that person earned the right to use a terrible accent? Not all voice actors are skilled in accents, or equally good at all their voices.


I don't want to imfringe on peoples fun, but if your fun is intrinsically related to putting on an awful voice, then my DnD table is not for you. Again, you're free to make whatever rules you want for your table and you listed quite a few. From my perspective, you're a very controlling DM, but I'm sure that works for a lot of players.

Not do I think DnD is a good way of exercising or practising that skill. This I can't agree with. Improvising, internalizing a character, interacting with other players and a DM's NPCs is a bad way of practicing voice acting? Can it be disruptive, of course, but it's crazy to say that it's not an effective way to get better at voice acting. If you take away the dice and character sheets, all you have left is an improv group.

[Vaz]

Might be sounding like whatever, but Voice Acting and trying to put on accents. People try to VA because they've seen a VA do an accent, rather than slightly modifying the voice. I just find it easier as a DM, and another player around a table to have a 'no VA' because it cuts down on any attempt. I really, really don't give a flying **** about someone wanting to play at being a VA.

There are many ways in life to become a VA. Don't use DnD as your excuse to put on funny voices when it annoys other people.

As an aside, this is about what annoys you as a DM. I don't think the minor benefits of VA over a long time are worth it. When watching CR, I don't particularly enojoy the accents. They're all particularly jarring, and the Russian, Texan, Irish, German is a lot worse currently than their last characters.

Accents are the worst thing. There may not be something like a Chessentan, Waterdhavian, Kara Turan, Khorvanian, or Toshi Ranbo accent that actually exists, but I sincerely doubt that putting on a vaguely racist accent of a real world estimation is anything to getting in character.

[willdaBEAST]

Don't use DnD as your excuse to put on funny voices when it annoys other people. I have no problem agreeing to this and mentioned it several times in my posts. In my own case, I used a voice in my AL game and then checked with the rest of the table, asking if I should stop because it was disruptive or annoying. I got an enthusiastic "DON'T STOP!" from the entire table.


As an aside, this is about what annoys you as a DM. Right, that's why making sweeping and inflammatory comments like:
Voice 'Acting' and accents. You suck at it. If you didn't, you'd do it as a job or actual hobby. It sounds like I'm watching allo allo as a DM and my players try to put on accents. are not productive.


I don't think the minor benefits of VA over a long time are worth it. When watching CR, I don't particularly enojoy the accents. They're all particularly jarring, and the Russian, Texan, Irish, German is a lot worse currently than their last characters. This is fine, it's clearly your opinion, rather than a sweeping claim. I personally find CR hard to watch because I work with actors and I can tell when they're being overly indulgent. Long monologues leave the other players idle and lot of actors seem to crave the spotlight. It might actually be more disruptive having the average voice actor participate in the game for that reason, whereas an amateur generally lacks the confidence to force themselves center stage.

You've been walking back your position to be primarily against accents. Which is fine and this discussion really doesn't need to continue, but it's hard to address what you're writing when you make a generality, qualify that generality and even present a form of voice acting you're fine with (change in timbre, using a different speech pattern), then focus solely on accents again.

[Vaz]

Chatting nonsense on a forum isn't productive either, but here we both are. It's not inflammatory, unless you're looking for a fight, in which it is you who has the problem. Do YOU have a problem with player behaviour? Why don't you talk about that, rather than attscking me, for my style of play? Don't you know this forum is doing infractions for it now.

My postion has been clear from the start and has never wavered from VA brings out the worst around a table. So i don't like it, find it annoying and stop it around a table. You want to feel like a Disney Princess, go ahead, live that fantasy. Go do it elsewhere, however.

Have a nice a day.

[willdaBEAST]

Chatting nonsense on a forum isn't productive either, but here we both are. It's not inflammatory, unless you're looking for a fight, in which it is you who has the problem. Do YOU have a problem with player behaviour? Why don't you talk about that, rather than attscking me, for my style of play? Don't you know this forum is doing infractions for it now.

My postion has been clear from the start and has never wavered from VA brings out the worst around a table. So i don't like it, find it annoying and stop it around a table. You want to feel like a Disney Princess, go ahead, live that fantasy. Go do it elsewhere, however.

Have a nice a day.

Please quote me where I attacked you at any point. I qualified any statement that was a personal opinion, full stop. I was trying to understand why you would make an inflammatory statement about voice acting and you have not provided any counterargument besides sweeping statements about accents. At no point did I say it was unfair of you to rule no voice acting at your table, I even brought up multiple examples of voice acting in DnD that I find disruptive.


Voice 'Acting' and accents. You suck at it. If you didn't, you'd do it as a job or actual hobby.
If you don't see how your initial statement is illogical and intended to provoke, I think you need to spend a lot less time trying to psychoanalyze other people's posts.

There's no reason to make threats or be so passive aggressive.

[strangebloke]

My postion has been clear from the start and has never wavered from VA brings out the worst around a table. So i don't like it, find it annoying and stop it around a table. You want to feel like a Disney Princess, go ahead, live that fantasy. Go do it elsewhere, however.

Have a nice a day.

It's an assertion based on your personal experience, and is, therefore, perfectly fine for this thread.

However, pretty much everyone I've played with, self included, loves a good attempt-at-an-accent.

[furby076]

I think one of the ways to work around this is for the DM to have the approach of *the players are responsible for their characters* and if something seems off, double check it after session and correct it at the beginning of next session.
.

its ok to do some light rules research at the table. people putz around all the time. go to bathroom, get food that was ordered, etc. There is plenty of time here where we can say, a 5 minute break to look up a rule is warranted. Especially if the ruling could be detrimental to the outcome of the game or the character. Now, ive been in situations where the rule wasnt easily findable, so i said that we should research later. thats fine too.

there is no absolute wrong or right way. its what works for the table at that moment.

[Vaz]

Please quote me where I attacked you at any point. I qualified any statement that was a personal opinion, full stop. I was trying to understand why you would make an inflammatory statement about voice acting and you have not provided any counterargument besides sweeping statements about accents. At no point did I say it was unfair of you to rule no voice acting at your table, I even brought up multiple examples of voice acting in DnD that I find disruptive.
Singling out an opinion and critiquing that is essentially an attack. Is this this the only opinion you see in the thread you disagree with? And if not, ehy are you not commenting in other peoples? And because you disagree with it, you say i'm wrong, because your opinion is different? Behave yourself.


If you don't see how your initial statement is illogical and intended to provoke, I think you need to spend a lot less time trying to psychoanalyze other people's posts.
o.O As the individual behind the post and sound in the knowledge of exactly what the intent way, I'm happy to confirm there is no intent to be any more inflammatory than any other post detailing what behaviour they dislike.


There's no reason to make threats or be so passive aggressive.
Threats, or passive aggressiveness? Are you feeling fragile? There has been none of that. Leave your preconceptions at the door, because they're so far off kilter.

@Strangebloke: apparently just calling out preferred playing styles is enough for an infraction, and experience in the matter is irrelevant.

[Kurald Galain]

I've seen minor forms of the adversarial RPing as well, but not to the extent of actual PVP. It did lead to me hating the Rogue class for a while, since the first few Rogue players I encountered seemed to take it as a rule that the Rogue must pickpocket even their own party members when given the chance.
Yup, that's common enough among rogue players that the rulebooks should warn against it.

What still takes the cake is the rogue player we had that would steal from other party members then claim they couldn't retaliate because "it's a non-PVP game so you can't attack me" :smallbiggrin: Pretty funny in retrospect, not so much on the evening itself.

Conversely, what also annoys me is players who will automatically assume that every rogue character will always want to rob the NPCs blind, just because his character sheet says "rogue".

[Tanarii]

Pet peeves:
- Trying to roll a skill check instead of telling me what you want your character to do.
- being dominating chatty player, or a very quiet and withdrawn player. (Because it makes me work harder to be fair to all players being involved. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with it.)

Will get you kicked from my tables:
- cheating with the dice
- very disruptive behavior (excessive: PvP, arguing with me or other players, telling other players what to do. Also includes in-world disruptive behavior by the PC just for player kicks.)

Things that make me roll my eyes and laugh at you on the inside:
- tragic or emo characters
- dark, edgy, power fantasy characters
- Orphans. Especially tragic or mysterious ones
- "how I got my abilities" checklist back stories
- backstories full of exciting adventures before play even begins
- speaking like its a ren-faire
- funny voices
- dice superstitions

I like a kind of Hero's Journey + Tabula Rasa characters, not important and only a few personality details before play begins. Which I'm sure causes much rolling of eyes among many of you. :smallwink:

Things I've grown to accept players will always do:
- never ever remembering NPC names. Giving NPCs descriptive nicknames. Often insulting ones.
- forget what the mission goal is* and following a wild hair
- mouth off when threatened or given a chance to surrender by overwhelming force
- screw up delicate negotiations the Face is engaged in by making peanut gallery comments

*less common when they set the mission and specially scheduled the session, but still happens regularly

[Pex]

Yup, that's common enough among rogue players that the rulebooks should warn against it.

What still takes the cake is the rogue player we had that would steal from other party members then claim they couldn't retaliate because "it's a non-PVP game so you can't attack me" :smallbiggrin: Pretty funny in retrospect, not so much on the evening itself.

Conversely, what also annoys me is players who will automatically assume that every rogue character will always want to rob the NPCs blind, just because his character sheet says "rogue".

I think some players play the rogue because that's precisely what they want to do. They want to be disruptive jerks and playing the rogue gives them permission. You don't need to be the Rogue class to be stealthy. Any character class can pick pockets and do it well if built that way in character creation, but it's only* the Rogue player who does it.

*Ironically enough in my 5E paladin game it was a druid PC who robbed from a store. The player is a That Guy but so far has limited his jerkitude against NPCs. I haven't reached intolerance level yet, but the DM knows if my paladin finds out he stole I'm casting him out of the party. I'm good buddies with the party rogue.

[Bobby Baratheon]

- screw up delicate negotiations the Face is engaged in by making peanut gallery comments

It's always funny to see the looks on their faces after this happens. Just last night my players were interrogating a prisoner and some of them were loudly talking about going back on the deal the Face was trying to cut with him, only to realize that he could hear them perfectly well and was disinclined to acquiesce to their requests.

[Tanarii]

It's always funny to see the looks on their faces after this happens. Just last night my players were interrogating a prisoner and some of them were loudly talking about going back on the deal the Face was trying to cut with him, only to realize that he could hear them perfectly well and was disinclined to acquiesce to their requests.Yup. No matter how many times you make it clear table chatter translates to in-world chatter by the PCs, no matter how often they get a negative reaction from NPCs because of it, someone still does it.

Usually it's hilarious. And of course appropriate. This (obviously) can 'really' happen, as in its a common thing for people to do. But IMO it also generally fits for adventurers to be irreverent, mouthy, opinionated, rude, and generally not take seriously things very seriously.

Or maybe it's just that I'm used to players being that way, so now I think adventures should be. Chicken and egg. :smallbiggrin:

[Jiece18]

This could be a long list, so I'll try to cut it short.

- Not knowing how to run your character despite being told many times how to. Spellcasters are usually the biggest offenders. Not keeping track of how the spells work, DC Saves, and the like.

-Encountering a monster and quickly flipping through the Monster Manuel to look up the weakness of said monster.

-Rolling dice out of sight of everyone.

-Making a sub-optimal build and complaining during the game how you want to kill your character and make a new one, but keep all the loot and experience from the old one.

-The one player who knows how to optimize the character and tends to be a jerk about it during the game.

Those are the ones I run into the most.

[willdaBEAST]

Singling out an opinion and critiquing that is essentially an attack. Is this this the only opinion you see in the thread you disagree with? And if not, ehy are you not commenting in other peoples? And because you disagree with it, you say i'm wrong, because your opinion is different? Behave yourself.
Again you're backtracking, now it's "essentially an attack". And you bring up a new claim, that I said you were wrong. Go ahead, quote where I did that. Are you going to redefine that too?

I responded to your initial post for the reason I already stated, it was written to provoke. You presented an emotional response to voice acting in DnD as something logical. You straw manned voice acting into being bad accents and made an appeal to authority by stating that only professional voice actors should use a voice while playing DnD.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and sought clarification: I disagreed with your post, explained my perspective, made concessions, gave examples where I agree that voice acting can be disruptive and clearly stated that you have the right to run your game however you want. That is not attacking you, that is not saying that you are wrong. I'm not singling you out to start a fight, I was attempting to see if there was any logical reasons behind what you posted. That's by definition the purpose of forums and threads, to encourage dialog and explore different perspectives. I don't understand why you feel threatened by that or feel singled out. I disagree with plenty of opinions and try to express that respectfully.


Threats, or passive aggressiveness? Are you feeling fragile? There has been none of that. Leave your preconceptions at the door, because they're so far off kilter.
I'm going to ignore how combative your statements about not being combative are.

This is a threat:
Why don't you talk about that, rather than attscking me, for my style of play? Don't you know this forum is doing infractions for it now. In other words, shut up or you'll be punished.

This is belittling:
I don't want to imfringe on peoples fun, but if your fun is intrinsically related to putting on an awful voice, then my DnD table is not for you.

Chatting nonsense on a forum isn't productive either, but here we both are.

Behave yourself.

So i don't like it (voice acting), find it annoying and stop it around a table. You want to feel like a Disney Princess, go ahead, live that fantasy.

This is passive aggressive:
Have a nice a day. If you don't want to have a discussion say that, don't veil "F off" with false courtesy.

[Vaz]

Have a nice day.

[DRD1812]

Pet peeves:
- Trying to roll a skill check instead of telling me what you want your character to do.


It was an Exalted 2e game, and we'd come to a sentient magi-tech door. It was locked. It was also bored and chatty.

Door: "I can't let you through. Not no way not no how. Do you know any good jokes though?"

That Guy: "I roll War at the door."

GM: "You... What? That's the skill for making coordinated attacks and commanding troops in mass combat."

That Guy: "Dude, just let me roll War."

Most maddening exchange I've ever seen at a table.

[white lancer]

I think some players play the rogue because that's precisely what they want to do. They want to be disruptive jerks and playing the rogue gives them permission. You don't need to be the Rogue class to be stealthy. Any character class can pick pockets and do it well if built that way in character creation, but it's only* the Rogue player who does it.

*Ironically enough in my 5E paladin game it was a druid PC who robbed from a store. The player is a That Guy but so far has limited his jerkitude against NPCs. I haven't reached intolerance level yet, but the DM knows if my paladin finds out he stole I'm casting him out of the party. I'm good buddies with the party rogue.

Yeah, it doesn't help that the name of the class implies something underhanded--most class names indicate a generic skillset, but the Rogue (and to a lesser extent, the Barbarian and the Paladin) also guides a player toward a certain type of behavior. I think that's a cause for confusion, even if there's no reason I couldn't play, say, an undercover cop or private investigator or something as law-abiding Rogues.

[Pex]

Yeah, it doesn't help that the name of the class implies something underhanded--most class names indicate a generic skillset, but the Rogue (and to a lesser extent, the Barbarian and the Paladin) also guides a player toward a certain type of behavior. I think that's a cause for confusion, even if there's no reason I couldn't play, say, an undercover cop or private investigator or something as law-abiding Rogues.

Think of Sherlock Holmes. I'm not going to argue whether he's Lawful Good or not, but here's a character on the side of Justice who can stealth, pick pockets, pick locks, and disguise himself like the best of them. He knows full well he'd make an excellent criminal but chooses not to.

[ThatDrowPlayer]

Chaotic-Stupid. My best friend played a lich-necromancer in a three-year campaign, and was as manipulative, villainous, and planning as the Mastermind-Rogue is. It was a brilliant character. Now, every single game since then he plays dumber and dumber characters, to the point they just run in and kill everything - good, bad, enemy, NPC, etc. His first few had arguable reasons, but now if he's bored, he just starts slaughtering anything that walks. We've lost a lot of valuable information because he's being idiotic.

Not only this, but he plays every class as if it were a Barbarian. He has been a Fighter, a Paladin, a Cleric, an (for 4e fans) and Avenger, but plays them like they're barbarians who have abysmal intelligences so he can justify being Chaotic Stupid. It has been ruining one DM's game, and doesn't make our others happy to start any upcoming games. It's a broken player-problem :smallannoyed:

[mephnick]

Chaotic-Stupid. My best friend played a lich-necromancer in a three-year campaign, and was as manipulative, villainous, and planning as the Mastermind-Rogue is. It was a brilliant character. Now, every single game since then he plays dumber and dumber characters, to the point they just run in and kill everything - good, bad, enemy, NPC, etc. His first few had arguable reasons, but now if he's bored, he just starts slaughtering anything that walks. We've lost a lot of valuable information because he's being idiotic.

Not only this, but he plays every class as if it were a Barbarian. He has been a Fighter, a Paladin, a Cleric, an (for 4e fans) and Avenger, but plays them like they're barbarians who have abysmal intelligences so he can justify being Chaotic Stupid. It has been ruining one DM's game, and doesn't make our others happy to start any upcoming games. It's a broken player-problem :smallannoyed:

Honestly, I used to make deep, manipulative characters when I was younger but now almost solely play things that hit other things hard.With young kids and a tiring job I just don't have the mental energy to give a **** about any of that mastermind stuff any more. I just want to show up, drink and kill stuff. Maybe your friend is there with me at this stage of his gaming. That said, if it's hurting the other players' fun it needs to be curtailed a bit.

[DRD1812]

Chaotic-Stupid.

In one of my 5e games, some aboleths killed an adorable little myconid NPC we'd been escorting home. He'd been with us since session 1, and we decided to take some mushroom chunks with us, hoping to either bury them at his home or get a myconid shaman to resurrect the guy.

Enter the Chaotic-Stupid sorcerer: "I volunteer to make breakfast for the party."

Dude cooks the remains and serves the party mushroom stew. DM rules that his sleight of hand is high enough that no one notices. We still have enough chunks left to pull off the resurrection, but "lol I made you guys eat your friend" was pretty obnoxious.

[nakajima]

I, as a player, take great issue with the mindset of "Don't correct/question the DM". -- As DM, it's your job to know the rules more than any of the players and there are a lot of rules, so you're bound to remember some incorrectly or not remember them all. If you don't want to be corrected as a DM, then either memorize the rules perfectly or don't be DM. Now, there's a difference between correcting the GM because they got a mechanic wrong and arguing or being disrespectful. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest because I've been in some campaigns recently where the DM didn't know the rules all the way and I got chastised for being "Rules Lawyer" when pointing out certain things were being done wrong. That and the "Don't question or correct DM/authority" is just a stupid mind set to me.


The DM doesn't need to know the rules any more than the players do, for the rules are essentially meaningless. A hyperbole, I know, but it helps drive the my point across. All of the rules for D&D, or for any role-playing game for that matter, are more just guidelines than actual rules. They aren't the law to which both player and dungeon master must blindly adhere. They're there to give structure to an otherwise very free-form game. Therefore, whatever the DM says goes, even if it contradicts the rules. The rules are there to serve the DM and the game he runs, not the other way around.

However, if you, the player, feel like your DM is making a ruling that goes against what is written in the book, you are of course free to question the ruling. If the DM doesn't say correct himself after hearing you out and instead sticks to his original ruling, it becomes reality, despite whatever is written in the rules. If you still feel like you DM is making a mistake, you are free to join another group or DM your own game.

Bare in mind, this is just my opinion and I am in means attacking you or your view on the subject. I do understand that some people prefer to go exactly by the rules and they are free to do so. :smallsmile:

[PhoenixPhyre]

The rules are there to serve the DM and the game he runs, not the other way around.


If I may, I'd change that (for me personally) to "The rules are there to serve the table and the game they play, not the other way around." The DM has lots of power (inherently), but shouldn't use it maliciously or arbitrarily--they should always be guided by the fun of the whole table (themselves included).

But otherwise, I mostly agree. TTRPGs are different than a lot of other games. The rules are there as a shared, common framework. I feel it's best to stick close to the text (so people know what to expect) but be willing to change.

As a DM, I don't mind being challenged, as long as the player is willing to let it drop once I make a ruling. I forget stuff all the time. Please remind me of something I've forgotten.

[nakajima]

If I may, I'd change that (for me personally) to "The rules are there to serve the table and the game they play, not the other way around." The DM has lots of power (inherently), but shouldn't use it maliciously or arbitrarily--they should always be guided by the fun of the whole table (themselves included).

But otherwise, I mostly agree. TTRPGs are different than a lot of other games. The rules are there as a shared, common framework. I feel it's best to stick close to the text (so people know what to expect) but be willing to change.

As a DM, I don't mind being challenged, as long as the player is willing to let it drop once I make a ruling. I forget stuff all the time. Please remind me of something I've forgotten.

I definitely agree with you. I might have phrased my original post somewhat wrongly. The DM should never ruin the fun of table by being a power-tripping tyrant. The collective fun comes first.


To actually participate in the thread, here's my biggest gripe relating to role-playing games: people who treat the game as just another social gathering.

Yes, I understand that role-playing games are inherently social in one way or another, unless you count single-player CRPGs or the odd tabletop ones. That being said, when I come to a game, I'm not there to chit-chat or laugh at whatever banal joke the person next to me said last. I'm there to pretend to be an elven wizard and to go on quests and slay monsters. In other words, I'm there to play the game. Social interaction regarding things not related to the game is, I think, secondary and should therefore be kept to a minimum.

There are a couple of people in my current group who seem to think like this. Most of the time I'm fine with it. I don't like it, but I can just ignore them and focus on my own the game and what the DM is saying. But sometimes they seem to think something inane, such as a joke about something that happened in a different game, in a different campaign, over six months ago, is more important than what the DM is trying to tell us. That is when I really start to get ticked off. :smallannoyed:

I get it. Some people take the game less seriously than others. That's fine by me. It's just that I have to play with these people, who I otherwise really like, or else I don't play at all. I makes me feel like I'm the only one actually invested in the game.

[BBQ Pork]

Rules Lawyers can be a little annoying if they go overboard.
Min/Maxers and Power-mongers can be a little annoying.
The cell phone use has been minimal at my table.



Drunk players are the worst. We had one fellow (My co-DM's older brother) that we couldn't really disinvite, but his brother had to have an after-table talk with him. Thankfully, this solved it.

[Akolyte01]

There are plenty of outlets for practising voice acting: and while DnD may be one of them, having your players stretch from being able to talk nornally, to trying to whisper in a german accent, to be a guy trying to speak in a french accent is jarring, ham cisted and often naff. Half expecting 'Oooh renee' to be said at one moment, is rather awkward.

If someone wants to get into voice acting, point them to an amateur dramatic society, and to video game mod websites, such as things like the 'Skywind/Skyblivion' teams.

When some of your players are getting hurt feelings by putting on a really crap accent and trying to give a big speech and others are giggling at it, or the DM is actually trying to struggle to hear what they are saying, then putting on a voice hurts the game and is an annoyance I can deal without.

sounds boring af

[Vaz]

sounds boring af
Correct, VA is boring af.

[Akolyte01]

Correct, VA is boring af.

nah your characters all expressing themselves like a modern american person sounds boring af

[Vaz]

nah your characters all expressing themselves like a modern american person sounds boring af

Have a nice day.