PDA

View Full Version : What makes you go -_- when people make suggestions to DM?



Akisa
2008-10-21, 09:27 PM
If someone wants to play rogue and then DM provides an undead sidequest. The first thing people say is give rogue traps, it just makes me go -_-. I tend to look forward to next sneak attack target or use bunch of UMD scrolls/wand. I never got into the whole increase the amount of traps (then again I sometimes reminded of a trap place in areas like barrack's latrine's door)

valadil
2008-10-21, 09:34 PM
I never saw the appeal of disarming traps either. Either the d20 likes you or it doesn't, end of story.

Regarding rogues in an undead quest, undead usually have a squishy necromancy with them. Maybe the rogue could target that guy?

JupiterPaladin
2008-10-21, 10:03 PM
PHBII - Alternate Class Features - Trade Trapsense for Penetrating Strike. You'll still manage half of your sneak attack damage against undead and constructs. I wouldn't play a Rogue without that option!

ocato
2008-10-21, 10:11 PM
Not necessarily to the DM (though I've seen DMs do it to their players), but anytime someone has a relatively simple character idea and people jump over each other to suggest a convoluted ToB build to do it, I tend to make a "-_-" face.

"So I had this idea for a paladin with some monk training. He'd use his greatsword but be very nimble and sprinkle in some melee attacks and stunning fists."

"Sure, sounds good. However it'd only be playable as a Crusader/Unarmed Swordsage/PrC1/PrC2/swordsage/crusader/swordsage/PrC3."

To each his own, I suppose.

sonofzeal
2008-10-21, 10:28 PM
Not necessarily to the DM (though I've seen DMs do it to their players), but anytime someone has a relatively simple character idea and people jump over each other to suggest a convoluted ToB build to do it, I tend to make a "-_-" face.

"So I had this idea for a paladin with some monk training. He'd use his greatsword but be very nimble and sprinkle in some melee attacks and stunning fists."

"Sure, sounds good. However it'd only be playable as a Crusader/Unarmed Swordsage/PrC1/PrC2/swordsage/crusader/swordsage/PrC3."

To each his own, I suppose.
Well, to be fair, Crusader and Unarmed Swordsage have pretty much rendered Paladin and Monk obsolete, respectively. Stronger, more flexible, and more fun to play (since you get way more combat options). I haven't seen much about crazy PrCs in ToB though; the three base classes are usually enough to represent most martial character concepts pretty well, and the PrCs are only really there for fine-tuning. That said, I'm a ToB fanboy so perhaps (perhaps...) I'm biased.

I think my #1 -.- phrase is "aw, they're just Kobolds, let's kill em all!"

Kris Strife
2008-10-21, 10:38 PM
a party of first levels fighting 31 dire rabbits (the KoL kind, not MPatHG) and the party sorcerer said 'I can animate rope!' (player was pretty stupid) this also lead to dice chucking.

AslanCross
2008-10-21, 11:37 PM
I make a "-_-" face whenever one of my students (a bit of a rules lawyer) says some of my ruling as a DM are invalid. And he's not even playing--he just watches the group. (The group he was part of got dissolved.)

TheCountAlucard
2008-10-22, 04:05 AM
I make a "-_-" face whenever one of my students (a bit of a rules lawyer) says some of my ruling as a DM are invalid. And he's not even playing--he just watches the group. (The group he was part of got dissolved.)

Y'know, I've got a player like this. Sometimes I just wanna shank him...

Saph
2008-10-22, 06:27 AM
Y'know, I've got a player like this. Sometimes I just wanna shank him...

I once had a session where two of the players (a couple, a girl and her boyfriend) argued with literally every ruling I made - at least, every one that didn't work to their advantage. As in, EVERY ruling. Every single one. For FIVE HOURS.

Everything from the guy insisting that he should be allowed to take back his magic missile against the sorcerer, because he'd heard the sorcerer cast shield earlier and "my character's smart enough to remember that", to the girl reacting with outrage to the idea that enemies should get a bonus to attack her in melee because she was helpless.

I think the climax was the point at which the guy refused to believe that a Manticore could throw three lots of spikes in a single combat and then actually pulled out the Monster Manual and started looking it up, while he was sitting at the table and while everyone else was in the middle of combat.

- Saph

only1doug
2008-10-22, 06:34 AM
I once had a session where two of the players (a couple, a girl and her boyfriend) argued with literally every ruling I made - at least, every one that didn't work to their advantage. As in, EVERY ruling. Every single one. For FIVE HOURS.

Everything from the guy insisting that he should be allowed to take back his magic missile against the sorcerer, because he'd heard the sorcerer cast shield earlier and "my character's smart enough to remember that", to the girl reacting with outrage to the idea that enemies should get a bonus to attack her in melee because she was helpless.

I think the climax was the point at which the guy refused to believe that a Manticore could throw three lots of spikes in a single combat and then actually pulled out the Monster Manual and started looking it up, while he was sitting at the table and while everyone else was in the middle of combat.

- Saph

Ouch, that would get them invited to leave my game.

"I'm sorry but i don't think you are suited to my style of play, perhaps you might consider GMing yourself?" *((what with knowing all the rules and everything))

*said under breath

SolkaTruesilver
2008-10-22, 06:37 AM
Ouch, that would get them invited to leave my game.

"I'm sorry but i don't think you are suited to my style of play, perhaps you might consider GMing yourself?" *((what with knowing all the rules and everything))

*said under breath

Wait, you propose to GM to the boyfriend, or the girlfriend?!?!?!

You *really* think it's a better idea?!

magellan
2008-10-22, 06:50 AM
A player having access to a monster manual? At the table ??? OMG What has become of the world... In my day Players didnt even know there was such a thing! When they saw a MM lying around somewhere they would prod it with a 10 feet pole wondering what it is. Oh my...

JBento
2008-10-22, 06:54 AM
And it was good that they did so, because it often ended up being a killer mimic :smallbiggrin:

only1doug
2008-10-22, 07:06 AM
Wait, you propose to GM to the boyfriend, or the girlfriend?!?!?!

You *really* think it's a better idea?!

I never said they could GM for MY group, just leave and GM for some random strangers who will have to suffer for my lack of patience with them.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-22, 07:26 AM
If someone wants to play rogue and then DM provides an undead sidequest. The first thing people say is give rogue traps, it just makes me go -_-. I tend to look forward to next sneak attack target or use bunch of UMD scrolls/wand. I never got into the whole increase the amount of traps (then again I sometimes reminded of a trap place in areas like barrack's latrine's door)

When my DM thought Duskblades are overpowered (he once played one).
I even offered to play one with straight 8 in all stats (I am a adventurer in classes; want to try each one out fior the exeperience).

Still thought it would be too broken.

Ecalsneerg
2008-10-22, 07:49 AM
A player having access to a monster manual? At the table ??? OMG What has become of the world... In my day Players didnt even know there was such a thing! When they saw a MM lying around somewhere they would prod it with a 10 feet pole wondering what it is. Oh my...

My druid and conjurer players take print-outs from the SRD and they have to like it.

Actually, due to less page-flipping it's more convenient.

Knaight
2008-10-22, 07:50 AM
When my players start saying I'm contradicting myself when an NPC says something that they know isn't true, and that I should seriously start taking notes on my setting. Newsflash, its called a lie, NPCs use them. Although only one of the players in my group uses bluffing as a tactic at all, so its somewhat understandable.

Project_Mayhem
2008-10-22, 07:59 AM
When my players start saying I'm contradicting myself when an NPC says something that they know isn't true, and that I should seriously start taking notes on my setting. Newsflash, its called a lie, NPCs use them. Although only one of the players in my group uses bluffing as a tactic at all, so its somewhat understandable.

Thats pretty funny actually

Saph
2008-10-22, 08:05 AM
Ouch, that would get them invited to leave my game.

"I'm sorry but i don't think you are suited to my style of play, perhaps you might consider GMing yourself?" *((what with knowing all the rules and everything))

*said under breath

Heh. Yeah.

It wasn't the having the Monster Manual that amazed me. It was the attitude of "I'm going to look up the MM and show that the creature can't do what the DM's just said it's done! What do you mean, 'nonstandard'?"

The real joke was that it WAS a completely standard Manticore. The player was just remembering the entry wrong.

- Saph

magellan
2008-10-22, 08:12 AM
Thats actually what i meant too saph. :) Taking out *any* rulebook to point out how wrong the DM is just has the following error for me: "Some other guys homerules, who i never ever met nor propably will ever play with are more relevant to me than the homerules of the guy at who's table i am sitting" Because thats what a Rulebook is: Some other guys Homerules...

Akisa
2008-10-22, 08:23 AM
A player having access to a monster manual? At the table ??? OMG What has become of the world... In my day Players didnt even know there was such a thing! When they saw a MM lying around somewhere they would prod it with a 10 feet pole wondering what it is. Oh my...

What? I have access to MM when I start summoning. I can't remember all the summons... I guess I could always just print them out but I already have the book...

Avilan the Grey
2008-10-22, 08:25 AM
The only time we ever had a hard debate about anything it wasn't even clear rule-lawering, it was an actual mistake by the GM:

We had, unfortunately, split up into two teams with 3 players in each due to infighting (in the game, not in real life) and we were at the end of a module homing in on the treasure chamber from two different directions. Our group opened the main door after killing off some guards and stuff and found the room cleaned out.

Short explanation: The GM had misread the map and placed a secret door where it (according to the module) shouldn't be, and physically basically couldn't be (it sorta worked from the outside in, but not from inside out). The other group found it and got all the loot by themselves.

After some pause with discussion over pizza the GM first realized and then admitted to the screwup and we were compensated later (it all worked out; the GM was disappointed too since he had tried to make it so that we would both (groups) meet eye to eye again in that room...)

...As for manuals: Depends on what game you are running, what setting you are running, and how you are running it as a DM/GM. When we played normal fantasy RPGs, we usually had all manuals stacked on the table because of summons and other issues that might concern everyone. Of course if you are running a horror game / setting, giving the players full info of the ghastly horrors from beyond is destroying the atmosphere.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-22, 08:31 AM
When I tell my players "no X" during character creation (X being anything, from evil characters to magic users to elves) and they give me a character sheet with a character who's clearly X. Or, even worse, when they ask me can they be X, and when I refuse they go all "aww c'mon, what do you have against X?" or "I'll be different than the way people normally play X!". I'm a very tolerant GM who lets his players do a lot, and don't arbitrarily ban anything - if I don't want my PCs to be something, I have a reason for that.

And on these forums, I make a -_- face each time people give edition-inappropriate advice, when the OP clearly states what game does he have in mind. Extra points if the game isn't even DND, and people give DND-related advice.

Burley
2008-10-22, 09:03 AM
I have some here-heres and some har-hars.
My group is very okay with "fact checking." If you don't understand a rule, or don't believe it, you can look it up. We don't mind, we don't retcon things, we just remember for next time. However, some of us game in multiple groups, and one of us has a bad habit of saying, "Well, that's not how OtherGM does it. He'd allow it." I feel my face becoming -.- as I say, "I'm Burley, not OtherGM."

And, I have a problem with players playing X when X is inappropriate. I once made a campaign were Druids and Barbarians were, in fact, druids and barbarians and spoke druidic as a base language instead of common. My game almost fell apart at character creation when I had a player wanting to play a druid and I told him that he had to take common as a bonus language if he wanted it. I ended up caving and scrapping the entire campaign, turning the entire (vibrant and colorful) setting into "Generic Campaign 44." I ended up just picking random encounters and having a "Job Board" in the pub. I ended up -.- at myself for allowing the player to complain that much.

I must say though, I just suggested one of players play a ToB character instead of a fighter. Gestalt Fighter//Monk becomes Unarmed Swordsage//Monk, because he wants to focus on the monk and use the bonus feats to boost his monk abilities. I poured over whatever I could find, and there just weren't enough fighter bonus feats that would work with monk abilities. I was afraid he was focusing on feats instead of the total character. So, I pointed out ToB. One of my other players is giving me the -.- about this a lot, because he doesn't think I (the DM) should push a player into a specific class. (He's playing a CompChamp Pounce Barbarian//Scout. A fighter//monk would just fall behind in this group...)

Roderick_BR
2008-10-22, 09:34 AM
Not necessarily to the DM (though I've seen DMs do it to their players), but anytime someone has a relatively simple character idea and people jump over each other to suggest a convoluted ToB build to do it, I tend to make a "-_-" face.

"So I had this idea for a paladin with some monk training. He'd use his greatsword but be very nimble and sprinkle in some melee attacks and stunning fists."

"Sure, sounds good. However it'd only be playable as a Crusader/Unarmed Swordsage/PrC1/PrC2/swordsage/crusader/swordsage/PrC3."

To each his own, I suppose.
Don't need to be only ToB, actually. In this example, they'd usually would suggest cleric/Fist of forest/duelist/something else.

What makes me go blank stare is when someone decides to break the story for... no reason.
Me - "Ok, the group decided to travel back to the city, and look for information about the raiders"
Player (checking the map) - "Instead of going with them, I want to go to these mountains" (pointing to a place in the map in the opposite direction.
Me - "... Why? There's nothing for you there. If you go, you'll miss on today's game. I'll have to write something later for you, maybe next week."
Not counting the time a wizard wanted to torture an ogre with a whip to make him talk... >_>

AKA_Bait
2008-10-22, 09:49 AM
My usual WTF moments tend to happen when my players do one of two things:

1) Blatantly make a metagame or outside game decision that utterly conflicts with their characters concept and personality. Example: CG sorceress being a jerk to, stealing from, etc. a character because her player isn't fond of the other charaters player.

2) Blatantly attempt to pull a fast one either for extra loot or xp. A character dies and the player wants their new character to have been the 'long lost cousin' of the old character and then argue they should be entitled to all their old characters stuff (on top of their own WBL stuff) in game.


"Some other guys homerules, who i never ever met nor propably will ever play with are more relevant to me than the homerules of the guy at who's table i am sitting" Because thats what a Rulebook is: Some other guys Homerules...

Wow, I'm not sure I can disagree with that statement more. The very definition of houserules is that they aren't the standard ones in the book. The published rules are the baseline game that players can expect to be playing. Deviation from them is fine, I encourage it, but to call the standard rules just 'some other guys homerules' misses the point of having a standard ruleset entirely. This really isn't the place for it though so I'm going to stop talking about it before I derail this thread more.

valadil
2008-10-22, 10:09 AM
When I tell my players "no X" during character creation (X being anything, from evil characters to magic users to elves) and they give me a character sheet with a character who's clearly X. Or, even worse, when they ask me can they be X, and when I refuse they go all "aww c'mon, what do you have against X?" or "I'll be different than the way people normally play X!". I'm a very tolerant GM who lets his players do a lot, and don't arbitrarily ban anything - if I don't want my PCs to be something, I have a reason for that.


If a player ever did that in one of my games I'd be like, "Dude, you know we're playing level 8, right? You only have 5 levels down. Go level up to 8."

And power gamer would be all like "No, I have 5 levels of fighter and 3 levels of ultra broken prestige class you said I couldn't have but I wrote down anyway."

And I'd be like, "Ultra broken prestige calss I said you couldn't have but you wrote down anyway doesn't exist in my game. Therefore your character is only level 5."

Depending on how much of a jerk I felt like being at the time I may or may not let them take the remaining 3 levels.

AslanCross
2008-10-22, 10:49 AM
Depending on how much of a jerk I felt like being at the time I may or may not let them take the remaining 3 levels.

"The deities of optimization find you annoying. A black bolt of negative energy smites you from the sky, giving you three negative levels."

TheCountAlucard
2008-10-22, 11:25 AM
I once had a session where two of the players (a couple, a girl and her boyfriend) argued with literally every ruling I made - at least, every one that didn't work to their advantage. As in, EVERY ruling. Every single one. For FIVE HOURS.

...

I think the climax was the point at which the guy refused to believe that a Manticore could throw three lots of spikes in a single combat and then actually pulled out the Monster Manual and started looking it up, while he was sitting at the table and while everyone else was in the middle of combat.

And, y'know, the player I'm talking about is just as bad. He frequently argues with me over details that don't even matter, stuff that's by and large inconsequential. One session, when a hobgoblin sundered his wand, he refused to accept that wands could be sundered, digging out his books and asking me where the rules for it would be.

That might sound bad, but like I said, he also does it for stuff that's not even relevant to what's happening, but happened to be mentioned, like whether the Cure and Inflict spells were in different schools or not, whether or not vampires had fire resistance, etc.

So, should I shank him, or what?

BRC
2008-10-22, 11:42 AM
And, y'know, the player I'm talking about is just as bad. He frequently argues with me over details that don't even matter, stuff that's by and large inconsequential. One session, when a hobgoblin sundered his wand, he refused to accept that wands could be sundered, digging out his books and asking me where the rules for it would be.

That might sound bad, but like I said, he also does it for stuff that's not even relevant to what's happening, but happened to be mentioned, like whether the Cure and Inflict spells were in different schools or not, whether or not vampires had fire resistance, etc.

So, should I shank him, or what?
No, don't shank, Outflank

Next session say: "In order to encourage roleplaying, all communication is assumed to be in-character unless you put your hand on your head like so *place hand on head*"

Now, all you have to do is wait for him to forget, especially likely if he's grabbing a book to look up the rule you just used and starts complaining. If his hand is off his head, Make him suffer the consequences of having his sorceror in the middle of combat say "You can sunder wands! Where in the book does it say you're allowed to sunder wands!".

Encourage the other players to Roleplay appropriate reactions, gradually thinking his character has gone insane, talking about "Rulebooks", as if all possible actions were outlined in some "book" somewhere. Claiming that a vampire who just laughed off a fireball is incorrect because some "Manual of Monsters" states that Vampires are not immune to fire, and believing this to be so despite the direct evidence in front of him in the form of a fire-immune vampire!

Fun can be had from this...

Vva70
2008-10-22, 11:48 AM
The advice that always makes me glare at my screen is when a DM is clearly asking for a book-wise solution to something. Maybe it's how to give an NPC a certain ability, or how to challenge a player who's using X combo, or any number of other things. The important thing is that he's trying to achieve something without resorting to "it works because I'm the DM and I say it does" rulings.

Inevitably someone advises "you don't need a rule, just say it works; you're the DM."

It's not that the advice they're giving is wrong, so much as that it's not what's being asked for. I realize that plenty of DMs out there see things differently than I do, but when I'm DM-ing I see resorting to "because I say so" as a sign of weakness. Yes, rule zero is available to DMs. But trying to preach its use to someone looking for a solution that doesn't rely on it is just useless. Really, that goes for any advice that ignores the premises in the request, but this one is the most frustrating for me to see.

TheCountAlucard
2008-10-22, 01:59 PM
Alignment.

I think Tome of Fiends said it best when they stated that Law and Chaos under 3.5 D&D rules mean absolutely zilch. After I read Tome of Fiends, I realized that what they were saying was very true; because of how unclear Law and Chaos are, nobody agrees on anything about them. I nonetheless try to set up a decision with my players about it, and I tell them that as far as I care, alignment is by and large inconsequential, and that they should just worry about playing their characters.

...and then Problem Player (same one as my previous posts here) says that because he's Lawful Evil, he has to act like a sarcastic jerk to everybody.

Can I shank him yet?

BRC
2008-10-22, 02:07 PM
Alignment.

I think Tome of Fiends said it best when they stated that Law and Chaos under 3.5 D&D rules mean absolutely zilch. After I read Tome of Fiends, I realized that what they were saying was very true; because of how unclear Law and Chaos are, nobody agrees on anything about them. I nonetheless try to set up a decision with my players about it, and I tell them that as far as I care, alignment is by and large inconsequential, and that they should just worry about playing their characters.

...and then Problem Player (same one as my previous posts here) says that because he's Lawful Evil, he has to act like a sarcastic jerk to everybody.

Can I shank him yet?
Nope. Simply use this maxim: In-character crimes should have in-character consequences.

So he's a Jerk, but his character is a Jerk (His character could be a sarcastic jerk no matter what alignment he is), so have NPC's, and encourage other players to react appropriately. Have the town guard he mouths off too fine him or bring him into the station. Have the NPC cleric he insults neglect to heal him during combat. Have the wizard turn him purple. Or just give him a penalty on bluff and diplomacy checks because he ticks off anybody he talks to.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-22, 02:11 PM
Nope. Simply use this maxim: In-character crimes should have in-character consequences.

So he's a Jerk, but his character is a Jerk (His character could be a sarcastic jerk no matter what alignment he is), so have NPC's, and encourage other players to react appropriately. Have the town guard he mouths off too fine him or bring him into the station. Have the NPC cleric he insults neglect to heal him during combat. Have the wizard turn him purple. Or just give him a penalty on bluff and diplomacy checks because he ticks off anybody he talks to.

Indeed. Being a sarcastic jerk to the King or other major nobility? Bad Idea. Que the arrests or attacks by thugs/hired killers.

BRC
2008-10-22, 02:13 PM
Indeed. Being a sarcastic jerk to the King or other major nobility? Bad Idea. Que the arrests or attacks by thugs/hired killers.
Or better yet, put the party into contact with some proud noble. When the SJ insults him, the noble slaps him in the face with his gloves and challenges him to a duel. If this guy is claiming his alignment as guiding his actions, then, as a lawful person, he would be obliged to agree.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-22, 02:14 PM
Make sure the duelling laws allow the use of 'champions', unless you want the noble himself to be super powerful.

I say just chuck him out if he's annoying. There's no sense in dealing with him.

Khosan
2008-10-22, 02:57 PM
I once had a session where two of the players (a couple, a girl and her boyfriend) argued with literally every ruling I made - at least, every one that didn't work to their advantage. As in, EVERY ruling. Every single one. For FIVE HOURS.

This reminds me of something.

Bit of backstory. I used to be one of the DMs for a persistent world type thing, with what I'd call a load of house rules and second edition D&D. I got promoted to GM after I graduated High School and I generally took care of keeping everyone's statistics up to date. I did, however, have to handle disciplinary cases quite often due to my activity level in comparison to the other GMs.

Here's a short list of events which I'll elaborate on later:
- A trio of jerks who never ever let one of the GM's rulings stand without arguing with us for hours on end.
- The above trio finally getting banned, and going on to plagiarize all our rules and then some.
- A player who...I'm not entirely certain how to describe it, but he managed to not acknowledge what everyone else did, not know any of the rules, claim to do things that weren't even part of the ruleset, harass people in private messages, blah blah blah.

There's some more interesting ones, but I'm a bit strapped for time.

Teron
2008-10-22, 03:07 PM
Alignment.

I think Tome of Fiends said it best when they stated that Law and Chaos under 3.5 D&D rules mean absolutely zilch. After I read Tome of Fiends, I realized that what they were saying was very true; because of how unclear Law and Chaos are, nobody agrees on anything about them. I nonetheless try to set up a decision with my players about it, and I tell them that as far as I care, alignment is by and large inconsequential, and that they should just worry about playing their characters.

...and then Problem Player (same one as my previous posts here) says that because he's Lawful Evil, he has to act like a sarcastic jerk to everybody.

Can I shank him yet?
That's not a remotely sensible interpretation of... well, any alignment. Even CE characters can usually tell when being an ******** isn't productive. Especially in light of your previous posts, I would venture to guess that that player is a jerk in addition to an idiot. Jus tell him to get lost - he can't possibly be a friend you want to keep or some such, can he?

late for dinner
2008-10-22, 03:49 PM
I was in a group(note that I said "WAS") that no matter what game we played, Starwars, Dnd 3.5, True 20....it always revolved around this formula: It will focus on only 2 players out of the 6 that were playing; The Dm will always win no matter what; Those 2 players will always magically have superior characters...like a level 12 Rodian Scout that is better in Melee than my level 13 Wookie Soldier with a vibroaxe....or an artificer that is a better fighter than a barbarian;an annoying guy that copies parts of everyone elses character because he has to be the go to guy in every situation; One or two people that build their characters to be gods; no map; hardly any fighting because almost everyone in the party was a coward and didnt want their guy to die; when there was fighting it was against something that we had to run away from or will always defeat us; not much dice rolling; a really confusing story that made no sense whatsoever and if you asked what our goal was no one, not even the Dm could tell you; me sitting on a chair being really really bored because everyone is talking about what we are going to do but nobody does anything. Yep that's my -_- face. Oh one time though, I had my Gnome Barbarian who really wanted to kill something and nothing exciting was happening because of all the above formulas, so I whiped out my sword in the middle of the town and just started swinging at everything that moved. I went from neutral good to evil really fast but it was totally worth the look on the partys face when I used up an hour of game time that didnt include them. They got mad at me I laughed and didnt care and never went to the game again...I have to say, I left on a high note. that was my : ) face

Jarawara
2008-10-22, 04:08 PM
- A player who...I'm not entirely certain how to describe it, but he managed to not acknowledge what everyone else did, not know any of the rules, claim to do things that weren't even part of the ruleset, harass people in private messages, blah blah blah.



Now that's a story I want to hear more of! Please, Khosan, elaborate! Entertain us! :smallbiggrin:

Saph
2008-10-22, 07:25 PM
- A trio of jerks who never ever let one of the GM's rulings stand without arguing with us for hours on end

I'm in a similar situation to this at the moment. How did this one work out, and how long did it take?

- Saph

Khosan
2008-10-22, 07:29 PM
Now that's a story I want to hear more of! Please, Khosan, elaborate! Entertain us! :smallbiggrin:

That's the one I have the hardest time elaborating on, mostly because I can't even imagine what this guy was thinking. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to create a thread about him in the GM's private forum, so I've got some examples.

(for the record, d100 was our d20)


Does not know the rules at all, and he refuses to obey them. Even when he's put in situations where he has to obey them. He actively ignores rolls against him, and leaves spontaneously.
DudeConfused rolls 1d100 for a random lightning spell to transorm the coinage into a arc of raw electricity and burn him alive... & gets 11.
DC rolls 1d100 for a random lightning spell to transorm the coinage into a arc of raw electricity and burn him alive... & gets 5.
DC rolls 1d100 for a random lightning spell to transorm the coinage into a arc of raw electricity and burn him alive... & gets 62.
DC rolls 1d100 for a random lightning spell to transorm the coinage into a arc of raw electricity and burn him alive... & gets 34.
DC: ((feh....whatever))
DC rolls 1d100 for a random lightning spell to transorm the coinage into a arc of raw electricity and burn him alive... & gets 47.
Me to DC in PMs: ((I'm sorry, but what are you trying to do there?))"
DC to Me in PMS: exaggerate the obvious and Challenge every RP post i make with Elitism

If anyone can figure that out, you're a better man than I. Plus, he signed up as a Barbarian, he doesn't even have magic.
He PMs people with generally nonsensical things, and I think they're supposed to represent the actions he wants to pull off IC.
DC to FriendOMine in PMs: scrambles outside and smashes the brawny man with a 180 pound granite sledgehammer before snatching the rare bottle of Draconic Rage and sneaking at a brisk pace back inside and behind the counter
FOM to DC in PMs: What are you talking about?
DC to FOM in PMs: it doesnt matter whos serving where at this point...****ing <Name removed>....
DC to FOM in PMs: i give up.......!!!!!
FOM to DC in PMs: ... I don't understand. Is english your primary language?

RandomGuy rolls to attack him...
DC to RG in PMs: No concent call Voided....slashes again and again the 15 pound sword whirling so fast it is unable to see

To explain a bit, 'Consent' was somewhat prevalent in freeform PWs. You had to ask for consent if you wanted to affect someone's character in a significant way.

He's generally very rude.
DC decides to consume a standard ale and throws 5 coins at FOM and waiting patiently for FOM to Acknowledge his presence within the bar as the others around him bicker away....one or two shouting their heads off...
DC to FOM in PMs: you sayin im supposed to serve myself or im not suppose to do anything
FOM to DC in PMs: It should be pretty obvious
DC to FOM in PMs: welp DC....5 posts and your avatar did jack ****in squat....ill move him for you...
FOM to DC in PMs: Excuse me?
DC to FOM in PMs: yeah....i heard myself alright...

Other crap I heard of him trying to pull: saying he just blew up the tavern because he'd loaded it with explosives the night before after getting attacked (without A. contacting any of the GMs about it, B. spending any money on it, C. actually doing anything the night before, and D. we don't even have rules for that sort of thing) and uh...That's all I remember, but it's quite possibly the stupidest thing I'd ever heard. I think it speaks for itself really.

We did link him to where he could read over the rules many, many, many times, but we eventually had to pull him aside and talk to him about his behavior (I have the logs for that stored, but I don't think I should post them here). He didn't show up much after that.

There's a bunch more stories. The Powergamer who went berserk one night and then threatened to quit when we took his favorite toy away as punishment. The jerkwads three get a starring role for plagiarism, stupid ideas, the worst relationship with the GMs ever (they once went as far to call a former GM a "stupid bitch" to her face), and some of the worst violations of 'IC-OOC barrier'.

DM Raven
2008-10-22, 07:37 PM
I once had a session where two of the players (a couple, a girl and her boyfriend) argued with literally every ruling I made - at least, every one that didn't work to their advantage. As in, EVERY ruling. Every single one. For FIVE HOURS.

Everything from the guy insisting that he should be allowed to take back his magic missile against the sorcerer, because he'd heard the sorcerer cast shield earlier and "my character's smart enough to remember that", to the girl reacting with outrage to the idea that enemies should get a bonus to attack her in melee because she was helpless.

I think the climax was the point at which the guy refused to believe that a Manticore could throw three lots of spikes in a single combat and then actually pulled out the Monster Manual and started looking it up, while he was sitting at the table and while everyone else was in the middle of combat.

- Saph

Yeah, I've had to boot players before over the rules lawyering thing. People don't realize that there are a lot more players than there are DMs and unless you're paying me...I don't have to put up with your ****.

Oh a specific instance? Probably when one of my wizards decided to cast a wall of force in front of a dragon while he and two of the other party members were being grappled by it mid-flight. In his defence, it did a ton of damage to the dragon but killed two of the three players the dragon was grappling... -_-

wadledo
2008-10-22, 07:40 PM
*stuff*

This entertains me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

seedjar
2008-10-22, 08:06 PM
Khosan: sounds like a drinker to me! DudeConfused is right. My condolences.
~Joe

Khosan
2008-10-22, 09:47 PM
I'm in a similar situation to this at the moment. How did this one work out, and how long did it take?

- Saph

This one ended up as a particularly long, long saga. So long, in fact, that I don't even have access to the first half of their shenanigans due to a forum switch and lockdown.

First of all, the three of them were related. Two were siblings and the third was their cousin.

Couple examples of their behavior, which I'll keep spoilered for neatness:

The infamous 'stupid bitch' incident.
I was not a GM when this went down but I'd heard of it. It is infamous after all. Anyway, one of our perks was that if someone joined the Artisan's Guild and then painted something or drew something or whatever other art related thing you could come up with and put it up on the forums, you could get XP for it. So one of these people decided to exploit that by cracking open MS Paint, picking up the paintbrush and spending thirty seconds illustrating 'spells' (think a little orange blob over a large black blob that was vaguely human-shaped being Burning Hands) and then submitting dozens at a time.

GMs of ye olden days didn't like that and didn't give him XP for it. Guy goes nuts and whines about how all the GMs are being mean and unfair to him and how we shouldn't get to decide whether or not something qualifies as 'art'. Eventually there's a confrontation in the OOC area between the guy and one of our more active GMs. GM basically tells him, "That's not art, it's rubbish" (though stated more artfully and politely) and then the guy starts going off on her like a drunken sailor who just got kicked in the nads.

So they banned him. Just him, since the other two weren't a problem. They did, however, disappear for a while of their own accord.

My first encounter with them:
So I get called into the private GM room at about 11 o'clock at night. There's already a GM in there with them, so I was going in for emotional support and to look authoritative. The banned one had been un-banned since it had been a long time, the GM he'd gone off on had left, and we figured, "What could go wrong?"

The trio had murdered the master blacksmith so they could steal a suit of fullplate one of them had bought. Master Blacksmith, however, had to leave mid-fight because he was underage and his parents controlled his computer usage, so they gave him an ultimatum; finish the fight or accept death (which led to a great in-joke for us, "DO YOU ACCEPT DEATH?!" It's great fun to shout at people). He left, I get XP submission forms from them and a resurrection form for the blacksmith a couple days after. I figure everything's good, until two weeks later when I got called in.

Turns out one of their characters got arrested for the murder and the other two for conspiracy (Commander was clever, he asked the first one if there was anyone who could vouch for her, at which point she told him the other two could, but since the Commander already knew she was guilty [specific set of plate armor missing, and money missing], he arrested the other two because they would have to have been involved). Which, for them, clearly means it's time to complain. So there's six people in the room: me, the other GM, the master blacksmith and the trio of whine.

Here's the basic rundown of their argument: because the MBS left early, they didn't have time to do their other nefarious deeds to his corpse which would have prevented his resurrection. They were going to strip his corpse to the bone (even though the Prestidigitation spell couldn't do that), dump it in an underground river in a nearby cave (even though it was under strict surveillance), under cover of invisibility (again trying to pin it on Prestidigitation, but ours still doesn't work that way), and then feed the fleshy remnants to frost imps (these were real though). Then they tried to argue that the MBS would have had no way to know it was them that killed him (even though full plate armor, specifically made for one person had disappeared and the MBS had no record of the sale) and that since a sales log has never been mentioned before it can't suddenly come into play when it would incriminate them (which is silly; who wouldn't record that sort of thing?). It went on for a while, the specifics after that are lost to me, even though the log is still somewhere.

So at about 2 AM we'd finally convinced that it wasn't our problem that they'd been 'unjustly arrested.'

And then I posted the log and went to bed.

Anyway, things did not end well for them. That's mostly because they were rude, pushy, total snobs and they were badmouthing the crap out of us to people who happened to wander by. We've banned the two major pains (the siblings) and then they went on to ape almost all of our stuff for their own PW.

They fill me with rage if you can't tell. Though it's good getting it off my chest. Still more stories with them. The whole "The mask means you can't tell who I am even though I'm talking" debacle, "What do you mean I can't spam a teleport spell when two obviously people intending to arrest us are standing nearby?" and an almost repeat of the 'stupid bitch' incident when they tried to get XP for writing descriptions of people (we try to keep some semblance of sense; paint something and you can kind of claim your character painted it too, but a description is just weird - "I'm going to tell you what you look like").

Raum
2008-10-22, 10:16 PM
Or better yet, put the party into contact with some proud noble. When the SJ insults him, the noble slaps him in the face with his gloves and challenges him to a duel. If this guy is claiming his alignment as guiding his actions, then, as a lawful person, he would be obliged to agree.You might simply have the noble turn her nose up in the air and call guards to remove the offender from her presence. Then continue the conversation with the other PCs as if nothing happened.

That punishes the player as well as the character - by taking attention (and screen time) away from their antics. A duel might simply fuel an attention hog...

DigoDragon
2008-10-23, 10:31 AM
What makes me go blank stare is when someone decides to break the story for... no reason.

I had a player do that once... he had broken away from the party who was going off to confront the BBEG in a final showdown. The player gotten himself killed trying to plan the "rescue" of a young girl from her father. By rescue I mean kidnapping and by father I mean military general of the city. Yeah, 'ol dad easily found out his plot. Wasn't hard, the player left several letters to the daughter at the house and dad usually was the one checking the mail. That was a Darwin Award winner. Did all the work himself for it.

What makes me go -_- as a DM is that I'm trying to start up a new D&D campaign and I have this one player who insists on adding his "Chaotic Good T-1000 Jedi Starfleet Admiral Diety" into my pantheon.
Seriously. :smallannoyed:

Tormsskull
2008-10-23, 10:55 AM
It's not that the advice they're giving is wrong, so much as that it's not what's being asked for. I realize that plenty of DMs out there see things differently than I do, but when I'm DM-ing I see resorting to "because I say so" as a sign of weakness. Yes, rule zero is available to DMs. But trying to preach its use to someone looking for a solution that doesn't rely on it is just useless. Really, that goes for any advice that ignores the premises in the request, but this one is the most frustrating for me to see.

I think some DMs have a hard time understanding why another DM would want to limit themselves to the rulebooks. The idea that you have to find a rule that allows you to do something is completely foreign to some (me included).

You also see this same issue when someone asks for a character build using their idea. They'll say something like "I want a monk that does blah and blah and uses blah and blah skills. What's good to take?" And the responses will be something like "NOOB! Monks are horrible. You must be retarded. Use Tomb of Battle."

I don't think its the issues themselves that are the problem, its the people.

Hzurr
2008-10-23, 11:50 AM
What makes me go -_- as a DM is that I'm trying to start up a new D&D campaign and I have this one player who insists on adding his "Chaotic Good T-1000 Jedi Starfleet Admiral Diety" into my pantheon.
Seriously. :smallannoyed:

While I understand why you can't allow it, and why this would cause frustration...I've got to admit, this is kindof awesome. I mean, I would make the same ruling as you (A big fat "No"), but that's still pretty awesome.


Also, I'm going to have to agree with Tormsskull. If I get one more person telling me that if I play a monk I'm an idiot, and any melee character that doesn't include Tome of Battle is the stupidest thing a person could ever do, I might have to punch someone in the eyeball. I've played monks before, and I had a blast. Don't tell me how to have fun.

kladams707
2008-10-23, 11:56 AM
A -_- happened two table top sessions ago when we were in the presence of our king. The DM was clearly talking as the king (he gave us pretense, said "and the king says..."etc"). Then our player, as a ranger, starts talking in what one would consider a disrespectful manner to the king. The DM of course reacts appropriately. And the player, through a lot of difficulty, finally says "I thought I was talking to X instead of K." And we're all just sitting there thinking "How coudl you think that."

I also get a -_- everytime someone tries to do something that nobody understands what they're trying to do, esp. when it sounds like something that would be absolutely rule-breaking.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-23, 12:13 PM
Any statement made in a game with a certain GM has me -_- if it gives him ideas. He loves playing fast and loose with his prepared notes, and is good at making it a blast, but if your first question upon falling in the ocean is "Do I see any sharks", he'll have you roll spot. And there will be some. And they will be homebrewed CR 12 if that's an appropriate encounter. And he'll do it in the time it takes everyone to prepare actions, which is awesome. But still makes me go -_- every time someone says anything to him and I'm at 3 HP.

kladams707
2008-10-23, 12:19 PM
Any statement made in a game with a certain GM has me -_- if it gives him ideas.


I'm a rather masochistic player. :smallbiggrin:

Of course keep in mind, it's the sharks you don't spot that you need to really worry about.

Behold_the_Void
2008-10-23, 12:50 PM
I think some DMs have a hard time understanding why another DM would want to limit themselves to the rulebooks. The idea that you have to find a rule that allows you to do something is completely foreign to some (me included).

You also see this same issue when someone asks for a character build using their idea. They'll say something like "I want a monk that does blah and blah and uses blah and blah skills. What's good to take?" And the responses will be something like "NOOB! Monks are horrible. You must be retarded. Use Tomb of Battle."

I don't think its the issues themselves that are the problem, its the people.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to suggest this. I had a play who wanted to run a Monk/Cleric going Enlightened Fist in a campaign that was currently level 4. Myself, being the DM and knowing that I had a bunch of players with classes and builds that were a bit more optimized, suggested a few other options (involving Swordsage and the like) but he ended up going with what he wanted to play, which I allowed.

By the end of the first session, he was a bit frustrated by his build being somewhat useless in comparison wanted to switch characters. Managed to get him set up with a psionic rogue which he liked much better.

I'm all for allowing a player to play what they want to play, but it's also nice to try to encourage people to run classes that are better suited to making the concept they want to play run. As the DM I want my players to have fun with their characters, so I try to help them make a reasonably optimal build with what they want to do so they can really shine.

Serenity
2008-10-23, 01:53 PM
My experience has been that most people are fairly respectful when they make class substitution suggestions. . They're just saying that if you want a character who can effectively do the things mentioned in the concept, the Tome of Battle classes (or whichever) are a very good way to do that.

Totally Guy
2008-10-23, 02:45 PM
Last time I was a player I got to be the cleric:smallbiggrin:. Because not even *I* could mess that up.

I'm bad at optimisation.