Little things that bug you

[Deepbluediver]

This is just a thread for anyone who wants to complain about little things in any tabletop RPG that get under your skin.

It's nothing game-breaking, like class imbalance which can be stated simply but is quite complex, these are just little things that annoy you which the rest of your group probably never even thinks about.

Things like....


0-level spells
Seriously. Why the frell couldn't we just have levels 1 through 10? But no, we have level 0, so whenever anyone wants to make a rule concerning spell levels there needs to be an extra line of text specifying how this effect interacts with the lowest level just so games don't grind to a halt with players debating how to divide zero, multiple zero, or (heaven forbid) divide BY zero. I can only imagine how many extra pages in books get devoured by having to explain why certain effects don't let you freeze whole lakes solid with an infinite number of Rays of Frost.
(ok, it's probably like, 1, total, across everything combined, but thats an ENTIRE PAGE OF TEXT!)

[Anarion]

The fact that negative levels don't actually change your level and temporary HP don't work at all like HP. Why couldn't you have chosen better names Wizards? Why?!

[Captain Six]

Both are relics of older editions. Negative levels did exactly what they said, took away a level forever, and Cantrip used to be a first level spell encompassing all of what is now 0th level magic. 3.x is/was plagued with relics that no longer made sense due to changes in rules and game philosophy.

[Tengu_temp]

Pre-3e DND had spells from levels 1-9 (1-7 for clerics and druids). They decided to call the new level of spells 0 instead of 1 and bumping everyone else up because it'd be confusing for everyone who played DND before (why is Magic Missile a level 2 spell? And why can wizards cast level 2 spells from the first level?), and because level 0 spells are supposed to be a low level crutch/minor utility more than anything anyway, to give casters more than 1-2 spells at level 1.

Similarily, negative levels simply took away your levels in AD&D, but that created a whole bunch of mechanical issues and was a pain in the arse to keep track of, so in 3e they simplified them while keeping the old name

Barf, ninjas.

[Deepbluediver]

Pre-3e DND had spells from levels 1-9 (1-7 for clerics and druids). They decided to call the new level of spells 0 instead of 1 and bumping everyone else up because it'd be confusing for everyone who played DND before (why is Magic Missile a level 2 spell? And why can wizards cast level 2 spells from the first level?), and because level 0 spells are supposed to be a low level crutch/minor utility more than anything anyway, to give casters more than 1-2 spells at level 1.

Similarily, negative levels simply took away your levels in AD&D, but that created a whole bunch of mechanical issues and was a pain in the arse to keep track of, so in 3e they simplified them while keeping the old name

Barf, ninjas.

Is that supposed to help?!? I thought we'd already established that these are things that irrationally upset us!

In fact, I think this makes it worse! They knew they had problems, but rather than actually fix them they simply stuck on the most half-assed bandaid they could come up with.

I can sort-of understand the spell level thing, about not wanting to confuse long time players. I don't agree with it, but at least I can understand it.

But negative levels? Here's how I picture this conversation taking place:
"OK guys, we're replacing this old, funky, never-quite-worked-right game effect with a brand new mechanic that isn't anything like it. We've got everything figured out but the name. Who's got some ideas?.....Anyone? ......Nothing? Really?.....alright, screw it, just stick with the old name. Cut, wrap, send to print, and lets all go get a beer".

They could have called it anything! For example, "Life Drain" because it sucks the energy and strength right out of your body. There, that only took me 3.7 seconds to come up with. You're basically telling me the entire R&D department at WotC couldn't do better. I guess I must be some kind of mega-genius, huh?



*yes, I'm ranting; it's meant to be taken lightly*

[bloodtide]

0-level spells
Seriously. Why the frell couldn't we just have levels 1 through 10? [/SIZE]

Ok...get this. In 1E you could actually start out at a level less then 1. In the good old days, you started out at -3 level. And -3 level wizards got one single cantrip, a 0 level spell as they did not get 1st level spells until first level. So you had to adventure and go up three levels to get just to first level and become a 'standard character'.

The idea was a wizard would throw out the 0 level spells once they got real 1st level spells, but they could keep them if they wanted too. There were plenty of useful ones so most wizards kept there 0 level spells.

[Tengu_temp]

Is that supposed to help?

No, just explain where did it come from.

[Captain Six]

Is that supposed to help? I thought we'd already established that these are things that irrationally upset us!

I am personally fascinated by where things come from when it comes to long runners like this, so I chipped in because I thought it was interesting. Things like that do bug me too. Oh, so my Monk cannot be magically aged? That would have been awesome if Haste still did that!. Of course further changes to haste made it worthless to monks anyway.

With all the relic pile-up WotC did eventually pull a complete overhaul and made 4e. I'm not gonna say it was a bad idea, I'm not gonna say it was a good idea, but I will say that it was a controversial idea. That alone should illustrate why they were as paranoid as they were about touching the existing system. "Diablo 2 Edition", as 3.x was called when it first came out, was already treading on eggshells with the old time fans.

Edit: Nice counter-ninja.

[Deepbluediver]

Thank you. I'm sure you are all friendly, wonderful, intelligent people. But I do not want your kind words and friendly smiles!

I am a man on a mission, and that mission is flabberblathering insane!

I demand sympathizers! Yes, bring me their heads!....wait, no, that's not right....

I'm looking for stories and anecdotes of the things that personally drive you completely nutty, but you never mention because they are so trivial that you believe no one else has ever shared you pain. Alternatively, tell me about that one thing where you spent at least 5 minutes explaining why, in great detail, it is absolutely the pits of hell and everyone around you grows increasingly concerned and awkwardly refuses to meet your eyes.

Y'know, hypothetically. Because I've never had anything even slightly like that happen to me.

[bloodtide]

This is just a thread for anyone who wants to complain about little things in any tabletop RPG that get under your skin.

I hate alternative magic systems in D&D. The tiny ones that take up like 3-4 pages in a book somewhere. Where someone thought it would be cool to make 'rune magic' or 'star magic' and they write up a bit of fluff, then ad in an ability or two and then add a couple spells. Of course with four whole pages, they don't get to fit much in, and mostly you get a bunch of wasted space. The dwarven rune master sounds good, but if they get 10 runes a day, and you can only pick from a list of 6, they get boring fast.

[Vitruviansquid]

Not sure how much this applies to other editions of DnD, but when I'm playing 4E, the wizard always tries to solve every damn problem with some form of prestidigitation. And while I find the cantrips to be too ill-defined and thus useful in general, what really grinds my gears is that no other class has equivalent rules for doing stuff their class stereotypically could do, but aren't important enough to be a power. The result:

The wizard player gets high-fives around the table for using a combination of Mage Hand, Prestidigitating a small flame, and Prestidigitating invisible a baby's skull to set an orc fortress ablaze.

The DM looks at me like I just grew a third arm when I ask whether my Druid can do anything like communicate with forest animals or accelerate the growth of a plant.

[Silus]

Struggling to locate the simple tables and charts in the 4E books. Takes me ~10 minutes to locate the table about what armor gives what bonuses and how much it costs. And this is from someone that started with 3.5.

Psionics. Just a bad experience ruined them for me. That and the DM that ruined them for me didn't have magic/psionic transparency (I think that's what it's called where some magic affects psionics and vise-versa).

The E6 gaming style. I WANT ALL MY LEVELS!

Killing of all three of the main motivations to play D&D (in my eyes): Advancement (E6), loot (Low wealth game) and/or phenomenal cosmic power (low magic game). Might as well be playing hobos in a D20 Modern game.

Those little instances where the DM is like "Oh, you were supposed to solve it like THIS" and it's something the players would never think of. Like to deactivate the trap and get through the magic boss door, you have to go one floor down, turn the third monkey statue from the left's head a full 360 clockwise, then flip switches 1, 6, 4, and 2 in that order. Of course! it's so obvious!

On that topic, inflexible DMs. The party is getting wiped out, I'm the only one running to the spelljammer dry docks and I need something with enough firepower to destroy the time portal and save the party. Why not let the first ship I get to be one I can, you know, pilot? But nope, you have to be able to use magic. In a low magic campaign. But oh yeah, that ship I COULD fly? It was about three rows over. I COULD have gotten to it, but by then the party would have been killed.

[Totally Guy]

Things that bug me:

When players roll dice without any of the talk to say what the roll means.

And when failure is ever met with "You should try again" or "I will try again".

[Geigan]

When I take my turn as a cleric having to not only keep track of a spellcaster, but also my 40+ individual skeleton minions, I take less time than the ranger and warlock in my party who at most have an animal companion or possibly a summoned swarm to keep track of besides themselves.

Losing my dice, especially the mountain of little d6s that I bought specifically so I wouldn't run out.

[Roderick_BR]

1) Players that take forever to make a character. I mean, losing a whole afternoon doing it. Dude, the tables are not too far appart in 3.x. They have an index for it. You are a fighter/rogue. pick some stats, feats, skills, armor, weapon and let's go. You don't need to re-read the whole skills section, I know you know it by heart by now.
2) Players that take forever to check information mid-game. Wizard, you picked that spell and don't even know how it works yet? And takes a long time locating the spell in the book and an hour to read two paragraphs? Rogue, Improved Initiative doesn't work that way. You ever read the basic rules of the book in these past 4 years? FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF...! And don't make rules outta nowhere!
3) How cheap magic is in 3.x. Before, it was a powerful force, that could change the tides of a battle when used right, and casters were squishy. Today, they yawn and casts 4-5 spells and completely destroys the encounter. And casting spells that can bend the fabric of reality is as easy to learn and use as swinging a sword.

[Poil]

Class skills in dnd and whatever other games that enforce them as harshly. Oh you are a fighter? You have no skill points and you're not allowed to have social skills, perception or knowledge. Oh, a wizard? No social skills for you either. Ah, a rogue, here have a trillion skill points and almost every skill there is. I dislike the whole you are class x your job is x and only x because we said so and arbitrarily decided what job each class has.

If you want your wizard to be able to influence people by talking you either have to multiclass or settle for a half skill. I mean, it's not like there ever was a wizard in fiction who could use his voice for anything other than grumpingly casting spells. (note: I'm fully aware that wizards doesn't need to be better but it's ****** because it prevents rp'ing, especially if your dm refuses to do away with class skills or multiclass penalty)

Even worse for any town watch, city guard or militia which would primarily be made up of fighters or warriors. The people relied upon for protection? Yeah, they don't have spot, listen or sense motive. Good luck with that. Don't give me that crap about how rogues could fill those rolls since it makes no sense that any place would employ a lot of rogues unless it's a bandit camp or thieves guild. Fluff is supposed to be important in a rpg, right?

[DigoDragon]

2) Players that take forever to check information mid-game. Wizard, you picked that spell and don't even know how it works yet?

I been there! I once had an encounter halted for an hour because the party Cleric and Fighter couldn't agree on the area encompassed by a Silence spell. Ugh! I had to build a transparency sheet that spelled out the area of effect so they could just lay it on the battlefield.

And of course since doing so the Cleric never used that spell again.


My biggest personal peeve though? Players that design characters specifically to cause conflict within the party. Conflict to the point that players stop having fun with the game. The DM is perfectly capable of handling conflict without our help, thank you very much.

[Tytalus]

The E6 gaming style. I WANT ALL MY LEVELS!

Killing of all three of the main motivations to play D&D (in my eyes): Advancement (E6), loot (Low wealth game) and/or phenomenal cosmic power (low magic game). Might as well be playing hobos in a D20 Modern game.

That's not a game issue, it's a playstyle issue.

Also, it seems that you haven't had much experience playing it. E6 can be plenty epic, even without high level spells being readily available (they are / can be available, though). Advancement is still there, but the exponential growth in spellcasters' power isn't. YMMV, but that's a good thing.

It has the advantage that it much better balanced than higher-level D&D. As a DM/player who has obviously had considerable problems with the game balance of items, class abilities etc. at mid levels (see your thread), it acutally seems like a sensible playstyle. Using E6 rules, you wouldn't have had any of the problems you mentioned. HIPS ranger? No. Owlbear shenanigans? No. Unbalanced Amber Amulet? No. Etc.

[Almaseti]

I bugs me when people think certain classes and alignments HAVE to be played a certain way. Rogues MUST be scoundrels/thieves, they can't just be regular people who prefer cleverness over brute force and are never lawful. Paladins MUST be holier-than-thou and irritating. Bards are spoony. Lawful= stuck up, chaotic = does stupid things at random even when it hurts you. The alignment system in general is kind of bad for roleplaying, imo. Something more nuanced would be a lot better.

[polity4life]

More on bad roleplayers:

This is about one person specifically but I'll break it out into two, general complaints.

1) Either being unable or unwilling to separate PLAYER knowledge from CHARACTER knowledge. I'm going to speak to him directly in this (I'm part of no games here but I'm not fixing all of the pronouns in this, so deal).
Your CHARACTER has been captured, rendered unconscious, and the party decided to loot your CHARACTER instead of bringing him along as he is a monster (more on this in point 2). Your CHARACTER wakes up angry that he is missing his gear but the PLAYER knows who did it. Your CHARACTER can in no way know who took his gear, unless he is told. In fact, instead of applying rational thought and coming to a more likely conclusion that your assailants stole from you or any other reason that makes more sense than the other PLAYERS deciding to have their CHARACTERS loot yours, you instead find the most meaningless reasons to begrudge other CHARACTERS in game to exact revenge for something your CHARACTER does not know about. News flash: every one of your barbarian, chaotic-herp derp characters cannot be hyper-competent, omniscient demigods at level 1. Lrn2play.

2) This player cannot make a coherent personality for his character. You have a nuts-and-bolts background, a race, an alignment that you incorrectly take as prescriptive instead of descriptive, and enough fluff in books to establish motive, sentiments, customs, norms, and quirks. Yet your character is all over the map in every ethical, moral, and rational sense. I understand characters can be schizophrenic and could add depth; perhaps it comes from a curse, a closed-head injury in some battle, or an odd race combination that genetically aren't that compatible. You have options but you eschew them to play an immersion-breaking douche bag who oscillates from hating to loving, grunting replies to waxing poetically about some random thing, and wanting to kill everything that says anything with which, as a player or character, may disagree. Lrn2play.

[Dr. Yes]

Honestly? The number one thing that bothers me about 3.5 and earlier D&D is Vancian casting. I never liked the fluff of having to a) rest for eight hours before you can "reset" your spells and b) spend an hour each day sitting quietly and doing nothing but that. If the magic comes from you, it should be spontaneous; if it's some arcane mechanism you set in place ahead of time, you shouldn't have to rest to recover it.

Also, players who can't be bothered to learn anything about the system. If you've been playing a fighter for four months and you can't remember to power attack, roll for iterative attacks, add in a flanking bonus, or roll the correct die for attacks and saves, what are you even doing at the table?

[Jay R]

Any character class that does not fit characters commonly found in traditional fantasy.

DMs who change the rules midstream without telling the players, and then blame the players for expecting the spell to work like it did last week.

Players who attack a monster which is clearly too powerful, and then complain that the DM set an encounter that was "above their level".

Psionics. Ever since it came out in Eldritch Wizardry in 1976.

Buying and selling magic items.

CR. WBL.

Roleplayers who think playing a role means they don't have to play the rules.

Mechanics experts who think playing the rules means they don't need to play a role.

Players who only know three alignments - Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic PvP.

Players who don't read the rules, and then complain that things didn't work the way they expected.

And most of all, people who complain too much.

[bloodtide]

Players that want to make their character some type of 'storytelling masterpiece' and don't just want to play the game.

[Sgt. Cookie]

By RAW, Improved evasion can be done in heavy armour.

[Manateee]

I hate systems that ask players to stop playing and do something else for a while instead. This is usually something that happens when a character dies. Because if a bunch of people are coming together in their free time to hang out and play an RPG, it sucks to have to either hang around without contributing or to have to go play videogames somewhere else.

In a similar vein, I can't stand games that require more than 10-15 minutes prep time. Both because my goal in playing the game is to tell a goofy story, talk in stupid voices and to flex my problem-solving skills in weird contexts (NOT to dig around a book figuring out what Advantage/Feat/Trait I want to tag onto my character) and because I hate having to wait for somebody else to spend an hour digging through books and filling in bubbles in a character sheet.

[Traveler]

1. Players who take take things done to their character personally, even though they were warned.
2. Buying (nearly) any magic item you like from your local vendor. What happened to actually working for magic items and having an OMG moment when you finally find the stuff you been waiting sessions to find?
3. People who play goblins like they have a learning disability.
4. Not knowing spells you use on a daily basis.
5. Finding myself being a hypocrite about 1 - 4.

[Knaight]

1. The assumption that all gaming is a particular kind of fantasy. This one is particularly egregious when it persists past terms like "space opera" or "sci fi game".

2. Players who won't track even minor details on their own. That means scratching off your own wound boxes, applying your own penalties, and similar.

3. Poor system organization. At the very least one needs to include an index if the game is more than 40 pages or so.

Also, on little things that bug me: Insects, particularly roaches.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think my biggest pet peeve in all RPGs, and all Games really, is people who need to Take. Their. Turn. Already. I keep swearing that next time I'm bringing out the chess clock, but I never have the heart to do it. The worst part is when this horrendous amount of inaction dissuades some gamers from playing crunchier/heavier games that I like because "combat takes too long."

[TheCountAlucard]

That they don't call "hit points" what they should have been called since first edition, "battle fatigue." The fact is, none of the first four attacks from that Fighter took your arm off, and only the last does any actual damage to you. Likewise, the various healing spells should represent that as well, though hopefully with a better name than "Cure Light Numerical Abstraction of Combat Fatigue."

It would also help solve issues with stuff like Damage Reduction, and the whole "Schrodinger's Poison" bit.

[Niek]

Players who dont know when to tone down the powergaming in order to coexist with lower-op players.

On a similar note, players hyperspecializing for combat in GURPS and disregarding guidelines for what different skill levels are supposed to represent. No, 14 is not "a barely trained amateur", it is supposed to represent the average person's primary breadwinning skill. You do not need 23 sniper rifle and a 40 DR ablative shield on a 150 point character.