Is it just me, or is there always that one annoying player?

[StaleGoat]

You know,
The one who think there character is the best and makes them over the top ridiculous
The one who never shuts up
The one who doesn't understand sometime they need to let other characters do things alone
The one who's probably a **** in some way - like greedy, rude
The one who ruins things just to be 'funny'

There's a player in my group who is ALWAYS greedy, ALWAYS an ******* and ALWAYS has to be in EVERYTHING.

I got fed up today. My character had died and I already had another one made up so I used him, and both of them were linked as super close friends from their pasts. So when my character died, so did the annoying persons, but the only other player survived and she had to carry the message to my character. I had it all planned out, I was going to say how he was glad she got out when she was so shy, and how he was glad she had a friend in the end, and how she would have been glad the player's survivor got out.
But then, just as I begin to speak, out of NOWHERE the annoying character appears and asks in a ridiculously goofy voice 'DiD you BuUuuUUuuuuUUUUury THeM?"
Then proceeded to take over what we were doing, bypassing the whole talk and moving us on to whatever plan his character had.

Does anyone else have that kind of player?
Are YOU that kind of player?
Got any annoying stories or rants for me?

[Stealth Marmot]

Of course there is THAT player at the table.

If you can't figure out who it is, it's you.

[Ursus the Grim]

I'm of the opinion that people always need to hate someone. Its in our nature. In High School, there were cliques. In politics, there's 'the Other.' In D&D, its the one player who doesn't fit in as seamlessly as the others.

There are some players who deserve scorn, sure. But I think even a player who isn't normally that offensive to our playstyle or sense of taste might get magnified by our innate need to dislike someone.

At some tables, its the munchkin. At others, its the idiot who scuttles the team's otherwise solid coordination. There's always that one annoying player because on some level, we're always looking for him.

[StaleGoat]

I'm of the opinion that people always need to hate someone. Its in our nature. In High School, there were cliques. In politics, there's 'the Other.' In D&D, its the one player who doesn't fit in as seamlessly as the others.

I kind of agree with you here, I'm not sure how it is in other schools but in my school there was literally a mixture of people in every 'clique'. Everyone was incredibly open, and that's how its kind of been everywhere, but that might just be an Australian thing?

BUT I feel like its some part of human nature to hate on someone at least, just to have someone to put blame on or something, though I think there are some cases, like the one I'm experiencing right now in my party, where it's beyond that. There are just some characters that you hate because of how annoying that actually are as a person.

[Cluedrew]

To Ursus the Grim: Your option on human nature matches your name. In the end it probably works out like most things, your not completely wrong but at the same time it is more complex than that.

As for that one annoying player, no there doesn't have to be that one annoying player. I don't agree with the explanation Stealth Marmot forwarded, sure you can be that player without realizing it, but that doesn't mean you are. And I think the belief that there has to be an annoying player is harmful because it allows those that do exist to continue. And I don't mean they should just be kicked, but did you consider saying "No, this is serious time, let me play out this scene."? If you never tell them that this is more than a joke how are they supposed to know?

Give them a chance to improve, and if they don't take it (and if you have and they didn't) then start looking at removing the player from the group.

[StaleGoat]

To Ursus the Grim: And I don't mean they should just be kicked, but did you consider saying "No, this is serious time, let me play out this scene."? If you never tell them that this is more than a joke how are they supposed to know?

Give them a chance to improve, and if they don't take it (and if you have and they didn't) then start looking at removing the player from the group.

The problem is with asking them to let you play it out, is that it's already over and that person is forcing our group (in particular, this might not apply to everyone, obviously) to move on. And I don't think its fair that the other players have to tell him that scenes like a character telling another character their childhood friend was viciously attacked and eaten is a 'serious scene'.

[SilverLeaf167]

Well, I'm the DM in our group, and I quite like all my players (though it helps that they're all close friends of mine). So either the answer is "No", or the definition should be expanded to include DMs.

[Arbane]

By definition, someone at the table has to be the most annoying player.

[Geddy2112]

Of course there is THAT player at the table.
If you can't figure out who it is, it's you.

By definition, someone at the table has to be the most annoying player.

This.

That said, just because there is that player, does not mean they have to be THAT player. There will always be one, but sometimes there is one so horrifically toxic they should not be at the table or part of the group.

At times, I have been that player, we all have. However, several people in our group have come and gone because they were THAT player.

[JAL_1138]

That said, just because there is that player, does not mean they have to be THAT player. There will always be one, but sometimes there is one so horrifically toxic they should not be at the table or part of the group.

Aye.

Either there is a most annoying person, or there are multiple people who are exactly the same degree of annoying, or no one at the table is annoying in the slightest. Practically speaking, there is virtually always going to be someone who is the most annoying.

That doesn't mean the most annoying person at the table is necessarily particularly or objectionably annoying. They might just be technically more annoying than the rest of the table, but not so annoying it actually bothers anybody or causes problems.

There's not necessarily a player at every table who grates on someone's nerves like nails on a chalkboard, or a player who's otherwise horrible and/or un-fun to game with. This would be a pretty miserable hobby if every group were guaranteed to include someone who's that aggravating to be around.

[ImNotTrevor]

I don't have any annoying players in my usual group. >.>

And I reject the notion that it is unfair that you need to distinguish to people when something serious is happening. If the campaign has been lighthearted thusfar and now we're changing pace, and someone doesn't pick up on that, it's just common sense to bring them in on that tonal shift. If they're not willing, then now you have a specific problem. If they're just not quite socially aware enough to catch the shift, then NOT pointing it out doesn't solve the problem any more than having a kid in your house who constantly tries to touch the stove, and just claiming its unfair that you need to teach the kid not to touch the stove while doing nothing and complaining on a forum.

By letting them know when they've misread the tone of a situation, you do one of 3 good things:
1. Reveal that this person is intentionally trying to ruin it.
2. Help them not make this mistake in the future.
3. Reveal that this person is uncomfortable with serious scenes in their RP, which can be worked around.

There are no downsides other than "but I don't wanna." If complaining is the most productive thing you want to do about it, it's now your own problem that this continues. You've made your bed. Lay in it.

[Squiddish]

In my group, there isn't one particular player. Everyone in my group is mostly civil and respectful (except for talking over each other). However, everyone has one annoying trait. For example, one player can't commit to a character concept, another can't remember his abilities, another can't stop making horrible puns, and the current DM is an optimizer and a rules lawyer but not a munchkin. My particular flaw is that I tend to throw a fit when one of my characters dies.

[Ruslan]

In any group, there will always be one player who is the most annoying player in the group. It's a fact of life.

[Cluedrew]

On Minimum Annoyance: Personally I think there is a very significant difference between a problem player and the least awesome player in your group. Because although the problem player in your group is necessary the least awesome player in your group (unless you have multiple problem players) the least awesome person in your group is not necessarily a problem player. Yes everyone has faults, but that doesn't seem to be the what is meant by "that one annoying player".

The problem is with asking them to let you play it out, is that it's already over and that person is forcing our group (in particular, this might not apply to everyone, obviously) to move on.

Unless you have some hard core improve rules of no rejections going on, just say "No, don't do that." And honestly how are they forcing the group? They are one person at the table, not even the GM, why can't you just ask for some serious time? Either ignore there actions or... actually yeah, I was going to say something about in character actions but don't do that. Out of character problems should be addressed out of character.

And I don't think its fair that the other players have to tell him that scenes like a character telling another character their childhood friend was viciously attacked and eaten is a 'serious scene'.

There are lots of media (especially in games were we have unexpected character deaths) where character death is treated much lighter than it would be in real life. Why should this be any different? That was a rhetorical question, I know the answer and you seem to as well, but does your annoying player?

[CharonsHelper]

another can't stop making horrible puns,

There is no such thing as a horrible pun. All puns are special - some are just unloved. (Exceptions only for intentionally misunderstanding the specific words of what someone else said to get the pun to work. But that's not the pun's fault - it's just being misused.)

[AshfireMage]

In my group, there isn't one particular player. Everyone in my group is mostly civil and respectful (except for talking over each other). However, everyone has one annoying trait. For example, one player can't commit to a character concept, another can't remember his abilities, another can't stop making horrible puns, and the current DM is an optimizer and a rules lawyer but not a munchkin. My particular flaw is that I tend to throw a fit when one of my characters dies.

This has been the case with my games, too- getting super into their character and starting long personal quests (sometimes even a good thing when the other players get involved somehow), going on long tangents about unrelated things, getting frustrated when the dice don't go their way, not paying attention when it's not their turn, forgetting what they're supposed to do (we cut that person a lot of slack because they were new and mostly there because their SO was), getting way to into their world and npcs at the expense of giving their players too much expository narration... Mine as a player is probably talking too loudly and telling unfunny jokes and as a dm it's probably being too much of a pushover.

But none of it has ever been game-ruining, so we just deal with it and occasionally remind someone to stop being annoying.

[Jamgretter]

In my group, there isn't one particular player. Everyone in my group is mostly civil and respectful (except for talking over each other). However, everyone has one annoying trait. For example, one player can't commit to a character concept, another can't remember his abilities, another can't stop making horrible puns, and the current DM is an optimizer and a rules lawyer but not a munchkin. My particular flaw is that I tend to throw a fit when one of my characters dies.

One day I'll get you guys to prepare for your turn, one day...

[Kelb_Panthera]

This may be appropriate.

Language warning.

[RazorChain]

The problem is with asking them to let you play it out, is that it's already over and that person is forcing our group (in particular, this might not apply to everyone, obviously) to move on. And I don't think its fair that the other players have to tell him that scenes like a character telling another character their childhood friend was viciously attacked and eaten is a 'serious scene'.

First of all your GM is supposed to control the scene and it's usually the GM and the players in the scene that decide together when it ends. In my game butting your head into a scene that you don't belong to just to make silly jokes would earn you an icy cold stare and a complete silence so you could try to stammer yourself through an apology while trying to hide under the gaming table. So this only tends to happen once...maybe twice.

It is always great to have table rules so this doesn't happen. I'm going to name a few in my game.

1) No multimedia devices unless it pertains the game
2) While we game only refer to each other with character names
3) Don't butt your head into scenes you don't belong and don't interrupt scenes
4) Open play, no note passing.

[Mordaedil]

Our table is pretty free of this, albeit we had one guy who was cursing a lot, but he didn't show up for most of the sessions, so we just dropped him eventually.

I mean, I might have been that guy, except I decided to do all my things in writing as to not disturb the others (we play online over Roll20), and the other guys are pretty good overall.

So not every table is cursed to have *that guy*.

[GungHo]

We're old. We don't really suffer fools. I'm probably the most irritating of us all, but it's usually due to sarcasm and impatience rather than needing attention because my daddy didn't hug me enough.

[No-Kill Cleric]

We had a poor soul who was painfully Genre UnSavvy. She brought a show-fighting kobold to the Dwarf Fortress oneshot levels of unsavvy. We spent two hours, real time, to try to get her character to wear a beard since we all knew that dwarf protection is based on beards. She thought it was stupid and went into the trap. She was really angry that no one warned her about her character nearly dying instantly.

She also spent an entire campaign complaining that her character didn't fit into the story, but when we told her she should've tried to make one to fit in, she complained that she didn't want to because she didn't vote for the setting (airships) since they're "boring" and so wasn't interested in making a character to match.


We don't play with her anymore.

She found an online group that's been much better for her, so wins all around.

Yes, there just seems to be That One Player.

[oxybe]

No, because we excise them as they try to creep in. We have better things to do then play bad D&D (or whatever RPG we're playing).

[Vitruviansquid]

No, because we excise them as they try to creep in. We have better things to do then play bad D&D (or whatever RPG we're playing).

I agree.

As soon as this player is identified, he/she should be ruthlessly excluded for the health of the game and the sanity of all the players.

[Potato_Priest]

You know,
The one who think there character is the best and makes them over the top ridiculous
The one who never shuts up
The one who doesn't understand sometime they need to let other characters do things alone
The one who's probably a **** in some way - like greedy, rude
The one who ruins things just to be 'funny'

Does anyone else have that kind of player?
Are YOU that kind of player?
Got any annoying stories or rants for me?

I play at a high school D&D club, so we see all sorts of problem players, for all sorts of reasons. In general, we try to look past each other's vastly different alignments and goals, and just try to play the game together. A lot of us would love to interrupt a dramatic scene with something funny (sometimes including myself, I am ashamed to say), and compared to a separate group that I run with only people that I want in it, it's not that great. However, it has been great training for interpersonal relationships. I have had to learn to accept that not all of us want to play the same kind of game with the same kind of story. The DM does a good job of railroading us together, and while that may generally be seen as a bad thing, it really does help. When you're suddenly cast into abyss, you are most certainly going to be willing to work with a bunch of jerks to get out, even if you aren't one yourself. Although many times I am frustrated by the actions of my other players in this campaign, it has been fun to been play a game with them nonetheless, and I am not sorry that I attend.

So, while on some level, yes, you should not play with people whom you don't want to play with, I think that tolerance of different playstyles is also important, and you might be able to learn to live with this guy if you try.

[Narmoth]

The problem is with asking them to let you play it out, is that it's already over and that person is forcing our group (in particular, this might not apply to everyone, obviously) to move on. And I don't think its fair that the other players have to tell him that scenes like a character telling another character their childhood friend was viciously attacked and eaten is a 'serious scene'.

What is the GM doing about this?

[Darth Ultron]

Does anyone else have that kind of player?
Are YOU that kind of player?
Got any annoying stories or rants for me?

I do. And I get rid of that player quick and send them running from my house never to return. I don't put up with any annoying players for every long, but maybe on a good day I will give them one chance. Not often though, mostly as soon as they show the slightest bit of being annoying they get the boot.

[Cluedrew]

As soon as this player is identified, he/she should be ruthlessly excluded for the health of the game and the sanity of all the players.

Sometimes they can be helped, although they have to be willing to be helped first. Which is not a trait that is as common as it should be, but if you find it you might just have a keeper.

[oxybe]

To be "that player" at my table means going through session 0 successfully, then ignoring all that and acting like a [expletive] duing session 1.

We have session 0 to help make sure everyone understands what kind of game we're playing, the tone/genre/theme ect... To have gotten past session 0 means you've understood all that and brainstorm a character and ideas on their place in the group/gameworld alongside the rest of the group and asked questions to the GM. To act like "that guy" past that point means strait up disrespecting the group by ignoring the pregame.

I feel no need to try to help someone who's made a blatant show of not wanting to show the minimum of respect to the group by not playing the game we all agreed to play.

Unless it's help show them the door. That I'm more then willing to help with.

[Cluedrew]

To oxybe: In that case yes, it is probably not worth trying. But on the other hand one of my worst role-playing experiances ended with the catalyst player (I cannot say it was entirely their fault, everyone messed up a little there) realizing what they had done and apologizing for it. I would be willing to give them another chance, and as long as they showed some improvement after that, probably third or forth while they found their feet.

So no, I'm not saying it applies in all cases, but there are cases where it applies.