What Are You Like As A Player? What Are Players Like?

[ChaoticDitz]

How invested do you tend to get in games? How much do you care about the DM's detailed setting descriptions and characteristic NPCs? Do you take notes on what's going on and stay in character, or do you make jokes about the new guy's character sheet picture and fall asleep unless dice are being rolled?

I ask this because until very recently I assumed most tabletop gamers who don't have substantial experience in the DM chair were generally lazy, ungrateful, metagaming jerks who don't take anything except combat and looting seriously. As an example, look up a web series known as "DM of the Rings"; my general assumption was that players are, 9 times out of 10, like the players in that group (except the Over-The-Top-Roleplayer... Never had the pleasure of meeting one of those). However, upon my implying this to be the case while posting on the boards, I was met with vehement opposition by almost everyone.

So I'm giving them benefit of the doubt that they weren't just being self-righteous and decided to see if, on the whole, players are truly like how I've experienced them, or if it's true that not just some but the majority of players are actually different and the area I live in just sucks. Of course, in order for this thread to have any meaning, I need total honesty from you guys.

So... Which is it? What are you like, and what do you perceive the majority of players being like? Thank you in advance for helping me figure this out.

[Airk]

There's no 'metric' for 'how invested I get in games'; It depends entirely upon the game and how it is presented by the GM. I've been in a 4E game that was basically a guy reading from a module, and let me tell you, I was not invested. I've also been in games in a bunch of other systems in which I was -very- invested.

That said, in my experience, most players are not metagaming jackasses. DM of the Rings is hyperbole. Of course, this board is a useless sample, because metagaming jackasses seldom seek out internet forums to discuss gaming.

Have you tried actually talking to your players like intelligent human beings and asking them why they're not invested in the game?

[Comet]

How invested do you tend to get in games?

Quite a bit, though admittedly more if I'm GM'ing.

How much do you care about the DM's detailed setting descriptions and characteristic NPCs?

Very much, especially if that information is actually useful for me when I'm making decisions within the fiction.

Do you take notes on what's going on and stay in character

Sometimes.

do you make jokes about the new guy's character sheet picture

Yes.

fall asleep unless dice are being rolled?

Never.

Thing is: most players aren't going to be a hundred percent serious all the time. That doesn't mean they don't appreciate the game or the fiction. Just try to make the setting and characters such that the players can actually interact with them and most players will gladly do so. People that have zero interest in the fiction don't tend to stick around long, I would think.

[mucat]

DM of the Rings is hilarious, but I would never actually game with those guys. I can't hazard a numerical guess to how many gamers are metagaming murderhobos, how many are perfectly nice people who enjoy RPGs primarily as tactical combat simulators, and how many are in it to explore interesting characters and build immersive stories together...but the groups I spend time with are the latter type. Both as a player and as a GM, it's just a better fit to my idea of fun.

EDIT: Though as Comet points out, that doesn't mean we don't break character to joke around. We do, a lot, because that's also fun. But we keep the Fourth Wall pretty strongly intact; the characters will take a situation seriously even when the players find it hilarious. Or, occasionally, vice-versa...

[FabulousFizban]

I'm kind of a toe stepping ****, but I'm trying to do better. I tend to get wrapped up in a scenario's possible outcomes and end up meta-gaming real hard. Like I said though, I'm trying to be better.

The only time I allow myself to do that now is with my archaeologist, who has a **** load of knowledge skills and for whom meta-gaming is in character. He isn't very powerful, but he is full of tricks and a damn good survivor.

I do get invested, I do care about the setting details, I sometimes take notes, I do make a lot of jokes, and I never fall asleep... but I am drunk.

To answer your question though, there are many different kinds of players: meta-gamers, RPers, wargame stategists; when you have problems is when you have too many of one type. All meta-gamers or all combat mongers is going to be a problem. You should generally try to find a balance of types, that way they can carry the party through each others weaknesses.

The meta-gamer may not be the strongest role player, but he'll help you survive. The role player may not have the strongest grasp of the rules, but he can role play you through otherwise unwinnable situations.

[Jay R]

I get extremely involved in some ways. I always write up a summary of each session, and send lots of emails asking for more details.

(The summary is for my own benefit, but the other players and DMs have asked to see them, so I send one out after each session.)

[Calen]

The people I play with tend to fall into the Darths and Droids type of players.

Everyone tells jokes and whatnot but we all stay awake and keep our characters in character.

[prufock]

I get pretty invested in my character, and involved in the story, but I'm not as concerned about a great amount of detail in the setting. I like originality in the campaign world, but don't need tons of history. My regular DM is somewhat politically and historically minded, and I tend to glaze over when he goes in depth about the realm's monarchy and such.

I take some notes on the plot, but mostly my character is pretty set in my mind; there's little chance of me forgetting his personality. It has happened on occasion that I'll get caught up in the moment and do something inconsistent with his character, but I pretty quickly get back inside his head and justify it.

You realize DM of the Rings is mean to be comedy, right? Sure there's plenty of joking and "table talk" going on, but the main focus is the game.

I've played with a few people who just want it to be an MMO, kicking monster butt and gaining loot and xp. And that is part of the fun of it. The majority of people I've gamed with aren't like that.

[Rhynn]

On the rare occasions I'm a player, I'm mostly interested in the game as a challenge or "puzzle" - I like to figure out the correct solutions and apply them and achieve goals (either given to me or set by me). Go figure why - probably the systems and settings. I've got dreams of getting to play a sort of Gilgamesh/Messiah-by-design character who goes through elaborate set-ups to make himself look like a hero or a god's Avatar or something, but that'd require a pretty specific kind of game to work... (Also I'd need to be a player a lot more than I do.)

My players vary widely, and it's all about the experience I enable for them. They're quite good at engaging the setting rather than the game (or both at once, anyway, without compromising the setting), but a lot of our campaigns are very straightforward "kill the things and take their stuff, there's some flimsy reason we're doing this but it's in the background" ... but that's not the players, that's how the campaign is presented and run. If achieving a goal requires an 8-hour dungeon crawl only tangentially related to the goal, the players are going to forget what the goal even was by the end of it.

When I run the game right, they get very involved in the world, even though none of them are acting, and speaking in character is the exception rather than the rule. (It does happen, usually when it's important.) Our first and longest-running D&D 3.X campaign saw them get very involved in a little town in the Dalelands (Daggerdale, I think?), where they all set up their homes, built personal relationships with others, etc.

When I ran Artesia: Adventures in the Known World the very first time, they got deep into it straight away, in part because of the way the mechanics tied to the setting and the story. They engaged NPCs actively and proactively, they set goals for themselves, they did all kinds of awesome stuff. Most of them even got to playing their characters as strongly religious (I honestly think it started because worship and sacrifices are measured mechanically, but it went way beyond that). It was awesome - they took over the campaign and made it about their characters doing things and the world reacting.

[ArmoredSandwich]

I'm always very invested because I nearly never get the opportunity to play. So when I do I try to make the best out of it, even if the DM kinda of sucks.

I especially love to role play. I can kick ass in every other game I play.

[ChaoticDitz]

For one thing, not actually a DM. I'm always a player. So I'm not being cynical about players not liking my campaigns. And while I used DM of the Rings as an EXAMPLE, I'm actually describing most of the gamers in my area, specifically the local shop. I have met exactly one group of people like the ones you guys describe. Out of like, over twenty groups who congregate there regularly.

But, okay. While a website is, as previously stated, not the best place to ask about something like this, at least the popularity of this part of the site can serve as some small proof that I really do just need to move.

[valadil]

How invested do you tend to get in games?

Depends on the game and GM. I like it when I can get super invested in a game, but not all games are worth the trouble. I've met enough GMs who ask for a backstory and never read it that I rarely go all out on my first campaign with a new GM.

OTOH, when the guy who introduced me to gaming 20 years ago starts up a new campaign I'm the guy writing a 15 page backstory.

How much do you care about the DM's detailed setting descriptions and characteristic NPCs?

I'm really into NPCs, less so into setting. What I like is to play in a setting from books everyone at the table has read. I don't need a description of Minas Tirith.

I'm big into NPCs but they have to mean something to my character. I won't just talk to them because they're there. But I'll treat the right NPC like a PC if it suits my character.

Do you take notes on what's going on and stay in character, or do you make jokes about the new guy's character sheet picture and fall asleep unless dice are being rolled?


I take notes in character. Not all of them take notes. I've usually got a pretty good memory for game events.

It's possible I've fallen asleep at game if my character hasn't been in the scene for a few hours. But no, I don't need dice and combat to play the game. My favorite sessions have been the ones where we get so into RP we never get around to the fighting.


So I'm giving them benefit of the doubt that they weren't just being self-righteous and decided to see if, on the whole, players are truly like how I've experienced them, or if it's true that not just some but the majority of players are actually different and the area I live in just sucks.

I think there's an amount of culture to gamers in different areas. You're surrounded by players who like dice and combat. These players attract other similar players and repel the theatrical players. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that other people your group runs into behave the same way.

My experience was pretty similar until I went to college. That was like a giant reset button. Every gamer I met was used to something different and there was no established status quo for the type of games people played. It was really easy to sample a lot of different style and figure out what I really liked. Oddly enough the GM I mentioned at the beginning had a similar experience at his college and we both came back better RPers for it.

[Airk]

I think there's an amount of culture to gamers in different areas. You're surrounded by players who like dice and combat. These players attract other similar players and repel the theatrical players. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that other people your group runs into behave the same way.

This is a super good point; The OP is probably not actually 'sampling' his 'local gamer community' he's sampling 'the people who show up for games at his local shop'.

Which means that since the 'metagaming combat monkey' mentality has achieved critical mass there, that, at the very least, anyone new who shows up is going to play that way, even if it's not their favorite, and people for whom that mode of play is really undesirable aren't going to stick around at all.

Before you contemplate moving, ChaoticDitz, maybe you should, I dunno, check in on the Story-games.com forums, or some other roleplaying forums (rather than, you know, a forum of people interested in a webcomic that happens to be about an RPG, kinda) and check for people closer to your desired mindset in your community. There probably are some, and they're not going to your local game shop to play with the combat monkeys.

[CombatOwl]

How invested do you tend to get in games?

Depends on the DM and the setting. I tend to put a lot of effort into developing characters for Dresden Files and Mage, but comparatively little for D&D or Rifts.

How much do you care about the DM's detailed setting descriptions and characteristic NPCs?

Depends on the game. I care a lot in narrative games, I don't care much at all in tactical games.

Do you take notes on what's going on and stay in character, or do you make jokes about the new guy's character sheet picture and fall asleep unless dice are being rolled?

The more investment the group makes, the more I'll make in turn. That's true as both a player and as a DM. If the game is the DM's story, about the DM's characters, with the PCs just there to kill stuff, I don't tend to give it much effort. If the game is about the players telling a story with the GM running bad guys, I tend to give it a whole lot of effort.

I ask this because until very recently I assumed most tabletop gamers who don't have substantial experience in the DM chair were generally lazy, ungrateful, metagaming jerks who don't take anything except combat and looting seriously. As an example, look up a web series known as "DM of the Rings"; my general assumption was that players are, 9 times out of 10, like the players in that group (except the Over-The-Top-Roleplayer... Never had the pleasure of meeting one of those). However, upon my implying this to be the case while posting on the boards, I was met with vehement opposition by almost everyone.

I play both ways, depending on the group and GM.

So... Which is it? What are you like, and what do you perceive the majority of players being like? Thank you in advance for helping me figure this out.

I've played a paladin who was roleplayed to the point where he'd spend wishes to revive recently dead NPCs in towns he just entered. I've also played wizards who were just there to kill stuff and loot the bodies. Basically I'll put as much effort into characterizations as the DM rewards with further story development.

[Angel Bob]

"Easily distracted, but hilarious and occasionally ingenious" is my answer to both of the titular questions.

[Mr Beer]

Silly question OP, no-one is going to post in order to let you know that they're an ungrateful, lazy, metagaming jerk.

Personally speaking it depends on the GM but unless I really dislike the whole experience (in which case I stop going) then at minimum I will try to push the adventure along.

For games I'm less invested in, I tend to pick a front-line fighter and will happily wade into danger. When I like the game more, I tend to be more of a mage-from-the-rear type and more concerned with survival.

You'll gather I tend to run and play in quite combat focussed games.

BTW if 90% of the players you encounter are game-derailing lazy dickwads, either you're super unlucky or possibly some of the problem might be you.

[ChaoticDitz]

BTW if 90% of the players you encounter are game-derailing lazy dickwads, either you're super unlucky or possibly some of the problem might be you.

Mind elaborating on this bit? I didn't think I was such a horrible player to play alongside. I might get offended a little too easily sometimes because I feel like I'm the only one trying to play the game, but I don't figure that would cause much of an issue, especially since most of my observations have been based on watching other groups play for a while rather than me getting involved anyway. But yeah, what might I be doing wrong?

And for the other points about me not really sampling the players in the area, I suppose that might be true... Though there's not really anywhere else that I know of in my town except the local AC&G where players ever go for their games. So that's really the only place I CAN sample, unless I somehow become part of every "circle of friends" group who meets up to play D&D.

[Mr Beer]

Mind elaborating on this bit?

One observation I've made in life is that when someone has a problem with a large section of people, then the problem often lies with that individual's perceptions and/or behaviour.

Of course, this is not always the case and may well not be in this instance.

[Rhynn]

One observation I've made in life is that when someone has a problem with a large section of people, then the problem often lies with that individual's perceptions and/or behaviour.

"What's the one thing in common between all of these problems you keep having?"

I think elaborating on how someone might cause these specific problems in/for people around them might be useful, though...

[Airk]

And for the other points about me not really sampling the players in the area, I suppose that might be true... Though there's not really anywhere else that I know of in my town except the local AC&G where players ever go for their games. So that's really the only place I CAN sample, unless I somehow become part of every "circle of friends" group who meets up to play D&D.

That's the thing; Most people don't go to public spaces to play these games. Or at least, that's not the experience of me or anyone I talk to. Maybe that's a sampling issue too. But I think most tabletop RPG games are played at someone's house.

You're not going to insinuate yourself into every circle of friends, but you could try, you know, asking on various communities for games in your area. If there are enough gamers in your area to have a bunch of people show up at a game store to play stuff, then there are TONS of gamers in your area.

What metro area ARE you anyway?

[Airk]

One observation I've made in life is that when someone has a problem with a large section of people, then the problem often lies with that individual's perceptions and/or behaviour.

I dunno; I think this works well when these are people someone is INTERACTING with, but if he's just observing them and drawing a conclusion, he's not really in a position to influence the situation.

[GPuzzle]

This is where my favourite DMG books come in handy.
D&D 4e's DMG and DMG II.
They have detailed explanations of common people you see in your RPG table, and they sometimes mix.

As a long campaign player (and now starting to dabble in with DM'ing in long campaigns - yay, Dark Sun) and one-shots/adventures DM on just about any system we haven't played yet, my group has different people.

One likes to explore the world. Visual clues and descriptions that give him the possibility to say "okay, can I try to discover anything about it?" keep him interested. When we were playing the first long-running campaign, he asked for something that I didn't expect anyone to ask and the thing ended up leading to a plot hook that was really interesting.

The other liked to experiment with situations. He started a rebellion, overthrow the local evil king and then managed to hold himself in a war by throwing logs on fire at the enemy. He sent himself, disguised as a messenger from the king, to the enemy's king and killed him. The battle that ensued was downright amazing.

My girlfriend likes character interaction. Interesting characters, with voices, mannerisms, unforgettable quirks and abilities, those drag her into the game.

And the list goes on. From my brother that is a bit of a munchkin to the main DM's overdrawn drama, all want something different. No one is equal.

I'm a CharOp junkie that likes to create interesting characters and at the same time come up with plans like stabbing your sword through a table and calling it a shield. And then setting the table on fire.

[Lorsa]

How invested do you tend to get in games?

It depends very much on the game. Some games make me more invested than others. There are many factors involved with making me invested in a game but it all comes down to a combination of my character and how good the GM is and the agency I'm allowed. More agency = more invested.

How much do you care about the DM's detailed setting descriptions and characteristic NPCs?

I care a lot. Without a world to interact with I can't really make any useful choices.

Do you take notes on what's going on and stay in character

Yes to both.

, or do you make jokes about the new guy's character sheet picture and fall asleep unless dice are being rolled?

No to both.

So... Which is it? What are you like, and what do you perceive the majority of players being like? Thank you in advance for helping me figure this out.

I haven't played with the majority of players so I can't answer for what they are like. The ones I play with are very varied in what they like and how they approach the game but naturally I tend to prefer the ones who are closer to my own agenda.

[DigoDragon]

I try to be invested in my character and the GM's world, staying in-character for large chunks of time and nudging other players to also be invested. One player usually volunteers to keep notes (sometimes two) and of course we all make derailing jokes as we go along, but being invested in the game means we get back on track quickly.

Fun is had by all. Usually.

[Red Fel]

Ooh, a questionnaire! Let me get my pencil!

How invested do you tend to get in games?

I try to be as invested as possible in the game. I like to really get into character. That's not to say my characters ham it up, but rather, I'm the sort that asks "What would Exile the Hexblade/Rashomon the Samurai/Fel the PsyWar do?" And then I act on that.

That said, it depends on a lot of other factors as well. If the game itself regularly breaks the fourth wall - with pop culture references and the like - it can be hard to remain in character. Similarly, if it's clear that the DM isn't putting much effort in, I can't bring myself to invest much either.

It's part of why I get a bit anxious about pre-made modules. I'm fortunate enough to have played with some very creative DMs, who usually do their own campaigns. Even if they were to do a module, they'd personalize it, customize it, expand on it to fit our playstyle. If they didn't, and they just ran it based on the book, I'd probably feel less invested.

How much do you care about the DM's detailed setting descriptions and characteristic NPCs?

It depends. When I'm in-character, my brain is compartmentalized - my character will react as he's meant to, but the player (me) will be mentally slamming my face into the desk when the outcome is obvious. For example, there's the "three adjective rule" - when a DM uses three adjectives to describe a person, place, or thing, it's Important To The Plot. When that number hits five, it's likely vital to the plot, a BBEG, or some quest-related or recurring item or person. The player-me can't help but notice these things, even though the PC doesn't.

A certain degree of description is helpful to immersion. Give me the sights, the sounds, the smells, and I'm there. But too much is, frankly, too much; very few people, short of a Sherlock Holmes or Shawn Spencer, can take in every single detail, from the ornate trim of the minister's robe to the individual sounds of birdsong in the grove to the smells of eleven different herbs and spices in the kitchen. Don't overload me, or I tune out; the game is interactive, and if you spend all of your time painting a picture instead of letting me deface it, I'll start to tune out.

Do you take notes on what's going on and stay in character, or do you make jokes about the new guy's character sheet picture and fall asleep unless dice are being rolled?

I feel that this is a bit of a false dichotomy. There's a vast spectrum between paying minute and exacting attention to every detail of the campaign and taking a nap. I fall somewhere in the middle.

I don't take notes (although I probably should). I do pay attention to NPCs, names, key phrases. I tend to be quick to make connections when I hear recurring themes or names.

But by the same token, I tend to crack occasional jokes out of character. It's just my personality. When an opportunity for a quick one-liner presents itself, I take it. I try not to dominate the table or detract too much from the atmosphere - if we're in mid-combat, or in the middle of a horror adventure, or something like that, I will consciously keep such jokes to a minimum. But if we're in a more laid-back scene, like a tavern, information gathering, or a social encounter, I like being able to hop in and out of character. If the other players are bothered, however, I stop it; table cohesion is more important than my own personal amusement.

I don't fall asleep at the table. If I'm that tired, I make my apologies and don't attend. I don't need to be a distraction. And remarks about character sheets and artwork (we had an artist at one table, she did party pics, she was fantastic) are for pre-game only.

So... Which is it? What are you like, and what do you perceive the majority of players being like?

Well, I am as I've described. In-character, I zen my character, I do some intense and awesome stuff, I am the embodiment of in-character epic badassery, and I try to make sure that everyone else has the in-character opportunity to contribute as well. Out of character, I smile, laugh, joke - I'm the rarest form of Red Fel, the elusive social butterfly. (Believed extinct, almost mythic in reputation.) My character is there to rock; my player is there to have fun.

I can't testify to the "majority of players." Players are like snowflakes; each is individual, unique, extremely frail if you apply full force to an extremity, and likely to melt if you put them in a microwave. The players with whom I played in college alone were a diverse bunch; one always played the same joking rogue-type character, who was basically the person he wanted to be; one played idealistic heroines, without much regard to the actual setting; one played snobby heroes and barked at people who stepped out of character. It varies substantially even at a single table, let alone across the continuity.

That said, good players and good DMs share another similarity with snowflakes - like ice, they tend to crystallize around one another. They clump together. Good DMs tend to attract good players, who in turn attract other good players. And good players, in my mind, are able to balance in-character and out-of-character as situationally appropriate.

Thank you in advance for helping me figure this out.

Always a service to be of pleasure.

[Lord Raziere]

Me?

I tend to be the instigator type. I move and shake things as I go along, not content to be passive. I play my characters a little over the top, with little eccentricities here and there to round them out, and of course I eventually resort to explosions, fire or something similar such to things if nothing else works out. I do however like to make my characters well-rounded, complex people with more than one side to them, and/or have plausible reasons for being the way they are, at least to me.

I tend to stick to heroic types on the good side of the spectrum. I do like to either subvert archetypes or play them in a more reasonable light than their cliche puts them in. also some characters I play tend to have power-based disabilities like needing a helmet to contain the storm of psionic energy they naturally radiate, or being able to see the future....at the whim of cosmic entities who use it more to control the character's fate than to truly inform him of things. I also have a tendency to avoid human characters in favor of interesting races and whatnot.

As for other players, well that depends highly on the system, because the system often informs you of what kind of roleplayer they are. freeform tends to be where all the people who care about the pure fluff side of things, DnD tends to be more towards the people who like combat or optimization, rules-light systems tend to be more the people who want to solve things in more ways than just combat, rules-heavy systems tend to be the people who want grittiness and simulation, keep in mind though, a single player can have all of these systems to one degree or another, while players have preferences, I think they're generally flexible enough to play in multiple ways. so its more of a question of what the player feels like being at the time.

As for your questions, that honestly depends on the player. a player is as varied as human beings. no two are quite the same...

[GungHo]

My investment usually keys off of other people's investment. If the players/GMs are obviously having a good time and getting into it, I'll get into it. If they are bored, I'll probably get bored, even if I'm running the thing.

[Raimun]

I haven't DMd since time immemorial, so you could say I'm now a pure player.

How invested do you tend to get in games?

Verily.

How much do you care about the DM's detailed setting descriptions and characteristic NPCs?

Context is very important for me in RPGs. Otherwise, I would just go back to wargaming. I also like to write detailed back stories for my characters if I'm going to play them for many sessions.

Do you take notes on what's going on

This isn't a lecture with pop quizes, so no. It's not fun and I would just lose my focus on my character. Korgoth of Barbaria is no scribe!

and stay in character,

Oh yeah. In game I'm always in character and take it very seriously...

or do you make jokes about the new guy's character sheet picture

... yet, I still retain the right for occasional out of game, out of character-tomfoolery. All in good spirit, of course.

and fall asleep unless dice are being rolled?

Nope. Though, I do prefer that the rolling of the dice do happen as well. It's part of the experience, that cruel or glorious uncertainty.

I ask this because until very recently I assumed most tabletop gamers who don't have substantial experience in the DM chair were generally lazy, ungrateful, metagaming jerks who don't take anything except combat and looting seriously.

While metagaming is bad, do not disparage combat. Combat in RPGs is exciting because you know what you are fighting for. Also, some games have really interesting combat mechanics that let you try cool tactics.

Loving combat can also be good roleplaying for the right kind of character. Many of my characters in oneshots and 100% of my characters in long campaigns have at least some Blood Knight-tendencies. Typecasting for the win.

As an example, look up a web series known as "DM of the Rings"; my general assumption was that players are, 9 times out of 10, like the players in that group (except the Over-The-Top-Roleplayer... Never had the pleasure of meeting one of those). However, upon my implying this to be the case while posting on the boards, I was met with vehement opposition by almost everyone.

Comedy is usually built on exaggeration of actual events. DM of the Rings is funny but you have to note that it is a caricature of actual gaming. At least, that's my experience. My gaming group is way more in character than the one in DMotR. Sure, out of character banter does happen but it does not affect the game. No one quotes Vader to an undead king in a medievel setting or says in character: "Hark! Thy fate sucketh!"

So I'm giving them benefit of the doubt that they weren't just being self-righteous and decided to see if, on the whole, players are truly like how I've experienced them, or if it's true that not just some but the majority of players are actually different and the area I live in just sucks. Of course, in order for this thread to have any meaning, I need total honesty from you guys.

So... Which is it? What are you like, and what do you perceive the majority of players being like? Thank you in advance for helping me figure this out.

Most players I know are cool people.

[Lorsa]

Perhaps I should specifiy that I answered the actual question of "do you make jokes about the new guy's character sheet picture?". I've never done that. New guys in specific are ones you should be nice to and not laugh at them until you know them better. Do I ever make out-of-character jokes during sessions? Of course. That's part of the fun.

[The Fury]

If I'm honest I'm a reformed problem player. If I'm brutally honest the "reformed" bit is debatable.

I used to not be terribly interested in the story but very interested in derailing it, because I liked trolling the GM. So I guess I was "invested." Every time something related to the plot came up I'd try to get the party to go the other way.

As for some of the other stuff... I think I got accused of metagaming more often than I actually did it. I remember a GM that would tell me plot points out of character, I guess he was proud of them or something. So this guy would tell me who the villain is and tell me I'm being metagamey for acting untrusting of the shifty weirdo that won't tell us his name, ("Hey, he got really good on his Bluff check!")

I've never made fun of another player's character portrait that I recall. I've never made a habit of sleeping during a game session, though we did have a guy like that in our group and it was annoying. I'd usually have my character tie up his and leave him or her in an outhouse or something.

I like to think I'm a much better player now. I do things like making an effort to remember key NPCs and call PCs by their names. Also, I make a better effort to keep track of setting details, like town names and such.