Let's Talk About Some Things that Bug Us

[Octomac]

So, I have been playing and DM'ing D&D for, oh, about 12 years now. And in my time, I have been truly and generously blessed by the various powers of gaming to have a lot of really great players and DMs with whom I've gotten to play. That's awesome. And honestly, maybe a thread about truly great game experiences would be a better use of my time.

But I've had some not-so-good experiences, too. Maybe I'm just in a negative frame of mind today, but there are some things that seem to be unfortunately common across this great hobby of ours. I'm going to call a few things out here, and then, why don't you guys call a few of your own out? Let's have it out in the open. What is it that you don't like in your game? And why?

Here's mine.

As a DM:

"I pee on--"

No, you don't. Stop it. It wasn't funny when we were 14 and it's not funny now. Just stop it. Why does this come up so often? I mean, I know why it does, you get told you're in a realm of fantasy where anything is possible, and you have to -- are almost obligated to -- test those boundaries by acting out in some way that you'd never be allowed to explore in the real world. But please, stop this.

"I'll roll to--"

Why are you, the player, telling me, the DM, what you want to roll? I think this is a holdover from 3rd Edition, where they introduced a set of tables for a whole bunch of skills that said you could do impossible things at arbitrarily high DCs, and then assumed that gamers wouldn't be able to hit them. Which was silly of them. Regardless, don't tell me what you're rolling. It is literally a huge part of my job to tell you what you are rolling, or even if you should be rolling at all. Which, often times, you shouldn't.

"Are there any prostitu--"

You know what, let's just assume there are, you take 40 gold off your sheet, and very pointedly don't tell me or anyone else what you did with it. I get it, you want to carouse and drink and then get involved in the activities that usually follow those things, but I really don't want to hear about it, and I sure as hell don't want to narrate it to you. I'm fine with saying, "You wake the next morning in the company of several attractive humanoids, your wallet considerably lighter. Roll a Constitution save to determine how bad a hangover you suffer." I really don't want to go into more detail with you than that, though.

As a player:

"You rolled a 1, so you drop your sword and cut off your--"

No, I don't. Come on. There is a 5% chance of rolling a 1 on any action in the game for which you roll a d20. 5%. Let me put that in perspective for you. If any given airplane pilot had a 5% chance of bungling the controls and crashing his plane, there would be 1,870,000 plane crashes every single day. So no, my 16th-level master swordsman doesn't inflict any genital-related self-injuries when he misses. He just misses. Maybe he misses in a way that gives the enemy an opening -- that's fine. Critical fumble rules are still dumb because the math favors the enemy over the player, but how would I have survived as a swordsman this time if 1 out of every 20 swings lops off an ear or something?

"It turns out the orc was holding a child, and she screams as you skewer her ba--"

Jesus. What is wrong with you? Is this how you set up a moral quandary? No, that's just... That isn't how that's done. If you want to explore the gray areas of morality, that's fine, and there's a lot of very good fiction that does just that, but why, when it comes to D&D, does it always involve infanticide? Killing babies is wrong and evil, yes, no one is arguing... well, no one except the one creepy guy is arguing that. Come on, you can do better. I know you can do better, because it is literally impossible to do worse.

"Okay, got your characters all figured out? All right, you awaken in a prison cell with none of your--"

Uggggghhhhhhhhhhhh. All right. Okay. Prison break scenario. Sure. That can be a lot of fun. It's been done a lot, but I don't mind it. But please, please-please-please tell me about this before I devote a ton of time to picking out gear and armor and weapons that I may never actually see in-game. I'm not saying that so I can just re-roll as a monk, but if I'm going to start out in a Return to Castle Wolfenstein, knife-and-six-bullets situation, I would like to kind of get a heads-up before the start of the game.

With fellow players:

"Well, my character won't go on the adventure until I--"

Oh, shut up. There's this unspoken agreement among all of us that we've gotten together to play a game, and we've accepted the premise of that game. So when you come along playing your born-and-raised-in-the-streets rogue who won't do anything until he sees how it benefits him personally or a high-born, high-drama bard who refuses to do anything that doesn't coincide with her 74-page backstory novella, you are breaking that social contract. And that's a really crummy thing to do to your friends. Look, have a character in mind, and role-play that character by making decisions as though you were in that character's shoes. That's fine and good, and I encourage it. But don't bring a character to the table that you know isn't going to mesh with where the game is going.

"Hey, I'm chaotic neut--"

Alignments are dumb and not an excuse to do whatever you want. I get that it's fun to do "crazy" stuff every now and then (although this particular behavior tends to be the near-exclusive province of people that think simply using the words "cheese", "monkey", and "weasel" automatically qualifies as zany), but you're playing a character, not an alignment. Think about the consequences of what you're doing. Otherwise, the DM has to waste the rest of the group's time explaining why setting the stables on fire because the attendant "looked at me funny" will result in a summary execution of you and possibly your entire group, or worse, try to play out the results of that idiotic decision, derailing the entire game so you can revel in how "wacky" and "unpredictable" you are.

---

So that's me, being an old grump. Do you want to grump with me? What are some of your pet peeves. Specifically, tropes or things that keep cropping up in games, not just one singular bad experience.

[Asmotherion]

Most of your points, are just a Reminder to all DMs and Players alike to discuss the tone of the campain/adventure before rolling characters.

There are times I want a serious tone heavy RP campain, where D&D becomes a simutation of a world were magic is real and I'm living in medieval times.

Other times, I just want to grab a pizza, and have fun with the impossible things and dangerous practical jokes we pull at each other, in a world that has no real-life consequences.

I've had fun in both, but it was always anoying when someone took a "trolling" aproach to a serious campain, or a butthurt approach in a "for fun campain". That's why everyone should know what they are signing in for beforehand, so that no complains arise.

-What bugs me the most, is "spotlight stealing", both as a DM and a player really. We get it, your character is cool and all, and can do well in most situations. But if I'm playing a Bard with Persuation expertise, I will be buged if the fighter cut me off, and tried repetedly to steal the spotlight from what appears to be MY job.

Also, when a DM creates a PC-NPC and does the above... it's stupid... You're the DM, literally above gods in your own universe. Who are you trying to impress? The only DM-PC I can accept and like, is a downplayed one, that just sits in the corner, and provides passive help mostly. He might take care of a hoard of fodder to allow the PCs to take care of the Boss Fight, but his actions should never steal the spotlight.

-The second thing is stopping the game to argue rullings. If I'm the DM, things happen the way I say. My world functions as I imagin it. If you feel I was wrong, talk with me in the end of the session, and if you convince me, I'll make it up to you next session. Anything more than a brief mention/reminder I consider stalling. Don't steal valuable playtime from the rest of the group. If I'm a player, I'll just tell whoever is arguing to let it go, and discuss at the end of the session. If arguing goes on for more than a minute, I just quite the table.

-The third thing I can't stand is alignment restrictions. The DM can suggest a preferable alignment, but if I want to be an evil bastard, let me be, and, should I fail to blend in with the group, let me face the concequences. Sure, it might be more dificult to blend in with a group that has a LG Paladin, but why restrict my character, and not his for example? Let me play my character the way I like, and if I can't blend in, punish me in game.

-Finally, the "That's what my character would do" arguement. Damn, I've heard this one too much. "I'm chaotic evil, so I'll just start killing everyone"... no you wouldn't. You're chaotic evil, not chaotic stupid. You may disreguard the rules, and think little about murdering the inocent, but you're still supposed to be a rational person. You wouldn't kill a random hobbo just because "lol, I'm so random", or the next person who sees you will kill you out right, because "lol, I'm so Lawful Good". You may find amusment in torturing and killing, but you wouldn't kill your allies just because it's fun... they are still advantageus to you, and as long as you can keep having a similar goal (potentially for whole diferent reasons), you will work with them, and even turn a blind eye now and then to things that may bother you, such as the Cleric's preaching. They, in turn, will do the same, to be able to travel with a homocidal maniac such as you.

Same applies to the party's rogue: "I'm a chaotic rogue, stilling stuff is what I do". As a player, if I catch you stealing from me, I'll worn you once or twice, but the third time I'll out right attack you, as "this is what I do" literally, to every monster or NPC that tries to wrong me or my party, for the whole game. Just because you're a rogue who might or might not be a cleptomaniac, it does not justyfy stealing from your companions, especially if you've been a group for some time now, and on friendly terms with each other. At the very least, if you indeed are a cleptomaniac, give back what you steal, or I'll steal something from you that I can't give you back (your life).

In a party, everyone, reguardless of alignment, class or profecion, should be a team-player, or it's the DMs job to punish them by taking control of their character, and making them an NPC. Even if you have your own agenda, D&D is played under the assumption you are all working together for a greater purpose (reguardless of your reasons), and this is enough to unite the party.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I hate the trope that the PCs uncover some terrible threat and no one believes them and they have to nobly struggle through the disbelief and hostility and save the ignorant masses from themselves against all odds.

**** that, I say. My default response to NPCs being willfully ignorant is to let horrible things happen to them and then tell them I told them so.

[Arbane]

-The third thing I can't stand is alignment restrictions. The DM can suggest a preferable alignment, but if I want to be an evil bastard, let me be, and, should I fail to blend in with the group, let me face the concequences. Sure, it might be more dificult to blend in with a group that has a LG Paladin, but why restrict my character, and not his for example? Let me play my character the way I like, and if I can't blend in, punish me in game.

Oddly enough, this is one of the things that bugs me.

Edit to add: Over in the Red Flags for GMs thread, a pretty good explanation why this bugs me.

Exactly. My issue with evil characters is that a lot of people will make one who does things like this, then say "but I won't do it to the other PCs!" and expect that to be problem solved.

I still don't want to travel around with Hannibal Lector, helping him to gain more power in the process, unless I'm playing an evil character myself.

And a lot of commonly suggested workarounds are basically forms of "the non-evil characters get to be chumps", like the evil character being smarter/stealthier than anyone else and doing this all unseen, or "there is a greater evil so you have to work with torture dude." No thanks.

And yes, to be fair, bringing a Paladin into an evil campaign and expecting everyone to just roll with that would suck also. I don't think either "no evil character" or "no good characters" is inherently a red flag.

[Velaryon]

As a player:

1. I hate when GM's tell me what my character does or what my character thinks. That's my job to decide, not yours. You have the entire rest of the world to create and run as you see fit. Don't tell me that my character goes into the room unless I tell you first that my character goes into the room, and don't tell me how I feel about what's in the room when I do get there. If there's magic that suddenly starts controlling my actions, thoughts, or feelings, that's different. But if that's not what's happening, you just tell me what is going on around me and wait for me to tell you how I react to it.

2. Making me roll for trivial things that a normal person can do with no problem. Don't make me roll Perception to see that there's a door in front of me. Don't make me roll Dexterity to walk up a flight of stairs. Don't make me roll Intelligence to see whether I remember the name of the town my character was born in. Doing these things adds nothing to the game nor anyone's enjoyment of it. All it accomplishes is to frustrate players (namely, me) when doing simple everyday tasks that real people can do in their sleep become impossible because the d20 hates me that day.


As a GM:

1. Inviting people who are not part of the game to the session. If they are legitimately interested in learning to play the game, then talk to me and we'll see whether this is the right time and place for them to join up with a character. But in my experience, 99% of the time it's a friend, family member, or significant other who just wants to hang out with you. Do that on your own time. People hanging around in the gaming space who are not part of the game inevitably cause a distraction, and frequently bring the game crashing to a halt.

2. Players not keeping their character information straight. As GM, I keep track of all the places you go, the stuff that's in those places, the events that happen, the NPC's you interact with, and the enemies you fight. You keep track of one character and that character's belongings. It's your responsibility to know how your character's abilities work. It's your responsibility to know what items your character has. It's your responsibility to know how much XP you have. We all forget rules sometimes, or can't remember whether we marked off that healing potion that our character chugged in the last battle. That's not what I'm talking about. My problem is when you haven't bothered to read the description of the spell you're trying to cast, and you have to keep asking me how it works.

3. People who don't show up and then can't be reached at game time. Look, I know things come up. If that happens, call me or send me a Facebook message or something. Don't just not show up and then not answer your phone when I call to ask whether you're still coming even though you said three hours ago that you were good to game today. This is basic courtesy.

[TheCountAlucard]

As a GM, it bugs me a little when I go out of my way to make transparent how unpleasant an activity is, but the players freely have their characters soldier on through it since there's no penalties for it.

If you have to sleep on a bench in a galley ship, with hardtack and salt pork as your primary intake for days on end during the rainy season, I don't expect you to be chipper about the prospects of having to keep doing it.

[oxybe]

In general :

"It's what my character would do" - Look : you're being disruptive. Trying to deflect this behaviour on your character is even worse, because it shows you've made the active decision to bring a disruptive character but refuse to accept the consequences that come with being disruptive. I've had times where characters butted heads in a more serious manner, but that was usually because we players talked about it before hand and we're basically just roleplaying our OOC resolution. Being a jackass to Kevin or his PC and blaming it on Toralderan the Vile doesn't excuse the fact you brought Toralderan at the table in the first place.

"For the lols/grossness" : Time and place, dude. We Session 0'd for a reason, so please make characters in line with the genre/themes/tropes we discussed we'd be playing.

"Will brood for GPs" : If you refuse to interact with people, don't be surprised if you're left behind. Part of playing a team-based game is taking an active role in the team. We discussed this in Session 0.

"Munchkin/Dramaqueen-ing" : Session 0 dude. We discussed power level and game's difficulty, so please make characters accordingly. If you're too far over/under the power curve, you're likely affecting everyone's fun. If you need help making a character that fits the power level, ask me or the rest of the group, we're more then happy to help.

"Set Eldritch blasts to Stun. Gate me up, Gandalf!" : Please make characters in line with the genre/themes/tropes we discussed we'd be playing during Session 0. I can understand the fun of making a parody character, but there's a fine line between that parody being on the nose and breaking the nose. Make sure you fit in so it doesn't get too old too quickly.

"I [act of sexual or gore] the NPC" : No. We discussed this in Session 0. At best we do a fade to black, I don't care to roleplay out those scenes. Yes I understand it happens IRL, but this is the land of Elfington and Dwarfsylvania where magical elven princesses ride unicorns and shoot rainbows at poop monsters, we keep things at a relatively-speaking lighthearted PG13 level. Why? because I like it like that. I'm here to have fun, not discuss [the act that started the conversation].

No show, no notice - We discussed session time and attendance during Session 0, if you can't make it, text or email before the session would be nice. We fully understand that real life comes before the game, but if you know in advance, give us a heads up so we can plan accordingly

You'll see a common thread in my resolutions: Session 0. Single best way to nip many issues in the bud before they even show up, and if they do, you can kinda point at session 0, give the person a stern look and wait for them to get the hint or leave unless everyone is cool with amending the status quo.

And finally, the big one for me:

"Hey, let's play this Pathfinder Adventure Path!" - **** that noise. I'm outta here. Peace out. Exit, stage thataway. Aurevoir!

I've spent the better part of my last 10 years gaming under the banner of those wretched modules. I am tired of them and their mediocre plot and railroad. You guys have fun, I'll be staying at home playing TF2 or Final Fantasy Record Keeper on my phone.

[Vitruviansquid]

Y'know what I hate the most?

When people attempt to use the RPG as a vehicle for proving how much smarter they are than the rest of the table.

And I find that half of all the really crummy behaviors at the table are some manifestation of this (the other half is some form of, "I agreed to play even though I don't really want to, but I'm here and miserable, so I'm going to try to sabotage the game")

When the GM's trying to prove how much smarter he is, you end up with unsolvable puzzles, the terrible "moral quandaries" mentioned in the OP, spotlight-stealing NPCs, and the simple unfun garbage games where everything you try turns out to be wrong and bad and terrible.

When the player's trying to prove how much smarter he is, you end up with things like munchkinry, spotlight-stealing, arguing with the GM about rules, and such.

[Ninja-Radish]

I hate the trope that the PCs uncover some terrible threat and no one believes them and they have to nobly struggle through the disbelief and hostility and save the ignorant masses from themselves against all odds.

**** that, I say. My default response to NPCs being willfully ignorant is to let horrible things happen to them and then tell them I told them so.

That's interesting. I actually quite like that trope for one simple reason: I hate having NPCs following the group around. If nobody believes us about the uber threat, fantastic. That just means we won't have to deal with any annoying NPCs in the party and we can handle it on our own as we see fit.

I find that liberating. It's when all the NPCs believe the threat and try to boss you around or force you to handle it their way that I really get irritated.

[Wolfkingleo]

*Snip*

I agree with everything that you posted. In fact I tend hate alligment restrictions because GM's tend to play the "virtuous mission party" all the time, without spots for Anti-heroes (PC's that I like to play with)

Now one thing that I really HATE in RPG's is the "Quatum Ogre Dylemma", seriusly...when a Game Master wants to force his way to the players, fine if ended up being something well done (which, in my 14 years of D&D never happened, but I still hopes that one day it pays off). But doing a stupid railroading because you WANT something to happend disregarding how the party circunvented the trouble or opt for another way, is downright a**pull.

Seriously on one of the sessions that I participated, we manage to obtain a an official pardon from a city because of an accident that have been pinpointed in the group for the sake of the plot. Problem is that we managed to get that "a bit too soon" on our GM's planning and still we were hunted by a bunch of officials that, even showing the letter of amnesty, they act dickish because "they have their honor to abide". The DM denied any persuasion test and then just charged at the group, wich we wouldn't be rewarded with XP because we played too evasive instead of going head on to the trouble....

Man, I feel my blood boiling as I wroted that...

Cheers

[Arbane]

Y'know what I hate the most?

When people attempt to use the RPG as a vehicle for proving how much smarter they are than the rest of the table.

Wow, you are SO lucky you weren't playing in the 1970s. As far as I can tell, D&D was ALL about proving how much bigger your brain was than the other players'. The GM created whatever convoluted screw-you monsters, traps and puzzles they could dream up, and the players spent 6 hours playing mother-may-I trying to weasel their way out of certain death.

[Honest Tiefling]

"Let's do this because it is the DM's story!"

I hate that. I'll compromise with the DM, but at the point that non-evil characters are working with demons, trusting mass murderers, or committing genocide I do actually have to say, no, my character would not do that. Heck most of my evil characters wouldn't do that because most of those are bad ideas.

"Elves!"

If I hear one more backstory about how elves are so much better then humans and yet never help anyone or commit genocide of their own, I will probably end up biting someone.

"Oh, you agreed to this theme for the characters? I'll do something different!"

The session 0 is there for a reason, stick to the guidelines. If you say your character is completely different with a smirk on your face, I am setting the character on fire both in game and out of game.

[Traab]

Im going to agree with the "why would you roll a chaotic evil necromancer who keeps a paladin zombie as his main minion when you know the party is full of lawful good players?" Like was said, there is a social contract to the game. You all got together to play the game, and the game is going to be very short when the rest of the party sees your super eeeeeevil character enter the tavern and they yell out simultaneously, "I attack the evil guy" And it ruins the immersion to force them to ignore the fact that everything their characters stand for insists that you have to die. Same for the chaotic stupids and other such characters that were built for no other reason than to be a giant gaping digested food exhaust port and try to ruin everyone elses good time or just to keep the focus on you and you alone. Go start a video blog if you want to be the center of attention.

With the first example, look, I get it, sometimes you have a really neat idea for a character that you want to try out, but time and place people. Either convince the party to go the evil route with you, or wait till it can fit into the party with minimal conflict.

[minderp]

Players that sabotage the game and other players for the 'lols'.
Scene set as a serious battle, four player party advancing on the demon of sloth, in his home of slender beams hanging just over a lake of putrid and poisonous liquid, (think of Labyrinth the Bog of Eternal Stench, but laced with a poison there is no save from). Three players tiptoeing in magical silence towards the sleeping demon, fourth player..... Turns himself into an air-elemental so he can float above the lake and become a whirlpool.... splattering the other players in copious amounts of the liquid, and waking the demon...

I get that you like to play the jerk. I get it, you're a jerk. That's great. You spent time crafting a character with specific skills to piss everyone else off, and with the details, you spent ALOT of time finding the most annoying, non-party-friendly feats and spells.
Yep. I get it, you're a jerk.
But seriously, why?
It renders the time the other players spent planning pointless. It sabotages our quietly constructed readiness. It ruins the fun for everyone but you. Why not go play a one player campaign and ruin the fun for yourself?

[Frozen_Feet]

1) The assumption that no player wants anything bad happening to their characters.

I can get why a specific person would not want bad things happening to a specific character of theirs. Plenty of reasons, plenty of good reasons, even.

Yet, as a player, I've created characters with the specific intention of making them suffer, or proving them wrong, or them falling from grace. I've witnessed plenty of other people doing the same. As a GM, it is practically a requirement to be good at that position.

So it's clearly not generalizable across everyone.

Related to this is 2) the assumption that bad things happening to a character is inherently unfun. When it's clearly demonstrable that whole genres of games are based on characters suffering and even unexpected bad things happening in a game not of those genres can be engaging, interesting or uproariously amusing.

Again, I have no trouble getting why specific bad thing happening to specific character in a specific situation can be unfunny. But anyone who insists bad things are always unfunny is a sore loser and needs that attitude beaten out of them with a stick.

More concretely tied to my own campaigns: 3) A player saying "Let's just get on with the story."

I can understand why a player of mine might say this, given most of my games are conventions game at this time and no player can reasonably be expected in-depth how I run my games. But it is still amusing when *I* know there isn't really any story other than what the actions of the players are creating and I've been winging it for the last two and half hours.

4) a player wondering "how far we are off the rails" or "how badly we've wrecked the GMs plans".

As above, it's not mysterious why a player who has not played with me before makes such idle musings. But again, it amuses me, and often makes me wonder about what the people saying this were expecting, and how they've been perceiving the events of the game on their end. 'Cause I run location-based sanboxes, wilderness travels featuring heavy randomization, and just generally heavily improvize. So what makes it unclear the rails are not on the ground, but rather, in their heads?

5) Macabre curiosity of players.

I've run Death Love Doom to over 20 different people now, many of which were complete strangers, some of which were new to the entire hobby. Even when it's made abundantly clear something is off and they *don't* have to deal with it, 95% of characters won't quit before seeing the monster. And of the 5% who do chicken out, 95% their players still stick around to watch the horrified expressions of their fellows.

As a consequence of running these games, I have a lot more, hmmm, liberal attitudes towards what makes good.& acceptable gaming than most everyone else. (I may have caused mild embarrassment in the author of Death Love Doom when I told him I ran it in a convention. Thrice. I need to do this more often.)

6) Why do so many players have such crappy sense of direction?

Seriously. A lot of people can't grok left and right, let alone cardinal directions. Map drawing and reading skills are generally poor, except for OSR players or people who started way back.

Spatial visualization skills strike me as extremely useful for the hobby, yet they seem to be neglected by younger hobbyists. Why?

More generally about convention GMing (particular to the Finnish scene; not generalizable to other countries, such as USA): 5) why is there such a lack of female GMs?

In my games, one third of player have been female and lately the number's been closing one half (I actually keep records on this.) Based on visual observation, one third to one half of convention goers seem to be female. Yet, whenever I get a good look of who the other convention GMs are, only between one-twentieth and one-tenth of them are women.

6) Why is there so few convention GMs overall?

There is a small but vital group keeping up local Pathfinder Society. But when it comes to freelance convention GMs like me, running their own material or smaller systems... well, for Tracon Hitpoint, I heard there were a hopping seven of us. For an event with hundreds of goers, and theoretical capacity for a thousand, at least.

Ropecon, an older event, seems to not have had this problem, but still. Is the Finnish RPG community too small to sustain more than one major event focused around it? Or is the fault elsewhere?

It also made me think, what's the turnover rate? I've been convention GMing since 2011. At least one organizer already can distinquish me as "the guy who is always holding a game". Some of the other Convention GMs I know have likewise done this for years. But how many do it just once? Is majority of convention GMing done by a handful of activists, with most people coming and going? If so, is the number of one-off GMs rising or declining? What does this mean for the health of the hobby in general?

7) What is the level of preparation among other convention GMs?

And by this, I don't mean adventure notes or other game material. I mean basic stuff like bringing extra pens, extra dice, extra paper and empty character sheets with you, since a random convention goer might not have them. Because an organizer recently commented I was exceptionally well-prepared.

I can get not everyone has (or needs) multiple folders and a suitcase just to contain stuff for their game. I can get not everyone wants to go through trouble of writing print-outs and ordering art and advert posters for a game. But the basic stuff above? There isn't really excuse not to have them.

8) Is there anyone out there who's thought of actually holding a course to train new convention GMs?

The concept seems obvious enough to border on trivial. Arranging such a course would not be particularly difficult within the context of your typical con. But when I presented blueprints for how such a course could be implemented, I asked myself and others a question:

When was the last time anyone'd seen it done?

Seriously. When was the last time someone made dedicated effort to teach new convention GMs? When was the last time someone aimed such effort, specifically, to beginners?

I can think of (and have been part of) several organized efforts to introduce new players to the hobby, and can think of several RPG clubs and online groups. But teaching new GMs, specifically?

[Geodude6]

Players that don't know how the rules work. AT ALL. In one game I played in in my WM group (5e) one newer player (new to 5e but whet his teeth on 3.x) brought a level 4 Bugbear Knight with a Gazer familiar. He had both 18 Str (point buy) and Polearm Master at level 4, a Gazer familiar when he doesn't even cast spells, and was level 4 when we usually make new characters at level 3 and he explicitly stated that this was a new character. The whole night me and the DM were saying "wait what". The Gazer was part of his backstory (mine said I had a ring of protection +10). He was also unsure how his build worked which was fun. And he wondered why we kept rejecting his DM applications.

[Cluedrew]

People who don't understand you are playing a game with 4-5 other people.

About half the other items are specialization of this. If you spend 5 minutes deciding your reaction (seriously it was fight aggressively or fight defensively, and we told them the better option), break promises to other players (not PCs), cut people up into little boxes in a lighthearted game or otherwise go against the feel the other players and GMs set up, play by yourself, not in a group.

[Pex]

"Let's torture him."

No. I'm sick of this. As soon the party captures a prisoner there's always that one guy who says we should torture him to get answers or in response to not getting answers. I want to slap that guy and not always just in character. If the DM never has the prisoners talk, that's on him. Boo DM and the learns never to take prisoners. Otherwise, if we're given fair chance but we just happen to fail the Diplomacy or Intimidation check needed to get the prisoner to talk, shucks darn move on. I also accept certain prisoners would never talk, such as cult fanatics or mafia-like thieves' guild goons. I've reconciled with myself that it's ok to kill the prisoner even if I'm playing a paladin for party cohesion if nothing else to avoid prisoner dilemma arguments, just make it quick and painless as possible. However, enough with the torture already.

[Ninja-Radish]

"Let's torture him."

No. I'm sick of this. As soon the party captures a prisoner there's always that one guy who says we should torture him to get answers or in response to not getting answers. I want to slap that guy and not always just in character. If the DM never has the prisoners talk, that's on him. Boo DM and the learns never to take prisoners. Otherwise, if we're given fair chance but we just happen to fail the Diplomacy or Intimidation check needed to get the prisoner to talk, shucks darn move on. I also accept certain prisoners would never talk, such as cult fanatics or mafia-like thieves' guild goons. I've reconciled with myself that it's ok to kill the prisoner even if I'm playing a paladin for party cohesion if nothing else to avoid prisoner dilemma arguments, just make it quick and painless as possible. However, enough with the torture already.

Very interesting, I agree. I'm of the "take no prisoners" variety myself. I can't stand the players who want to take prisoners in the middle of a dungeon and insist on escorting them 100 miles through hostile territory to the nearest town so they can go to prison and await a trial.

Seriously, are you f--king kidding me?? The torturers are disconcerting, but the people who insist on playing superheroes from the golden age of comics in a D&D campaign are the ones who REALLY piss me off.

[Arbane]

Very interesting, I agree. I'm of the "take no prisoners" variety myself. I can't stand the players who want to take prisoners in the middle of a dungeon and insist on escorting them 100 miles through hostile territory to the nearest town so they can go to prison and await a trial.

Seriously, are you f--king kidding me?? The torturers are disconcerting, but the people who insist on playing superheroes from the golden age of comics in a D&D campaign are the ones who REALLY piss me off.

Having a reputation for accepting surrenders can be pretty useful, in my experience.

(And yeah, we've got a wanna-be torturemonkey in my current party. I ain't having none of that.)

[oxybe]

Only once had I ever played a full-on Fantasy Cape and it was fun. I went all-out complete with mask, gaudy costume, utility belt, alter ego and whatnot. I even had what was basically a quick costume switch feature: my costume was pretty much always on me when I went out, and by deactivating my magic item it would remove the illusion of my everyday clothes and reveal my costume.

He was basically DCAU Green Arrow by way of Brave and the Bold's Aquaman, but also a bard that focuses on illusions and being a hard to hit distraction in combat.

It also helped it was a location based game and we were fighting a corrupt government.

Character was fun, but more of a fun one-off then something i'd likely do again.

[icefractal]

"Let's torture him."

No. I'm sick of this. As soon the party captures a prisoner there's always that one guy who says we should torture him to get answers or in response to not getting answers. I want to slap that guy and not always just in character.

This! And it happens even with characters that are supposedly good-aligned. But really, even when it would be plausible for the character, I'm still sick of that ****.

And it particularly sucks because in a lot of cases I feel like subduing rather than killing makes more sense IC, but if it's just going to lead to torture BS then screw it, everyone dies.

[2D8HP]

...What is it that you don't like in your game? And why?

Here's mine.


"I'll roll to--"

Why are you, the player, telling me, the DM, what you want to roll? I think this is a holdover from 3rd Edition, where they introduced a set of tables for a whole bunch of skills that said you could do impossible things at arbitrarily high DCs, and then assumed that gamers wouldn't be able to hit them. Which was silly of them. Regardless, don't tell me what you're rolling. It is literally a huge part of my job to tell you what you are rolling, or even if you should be rolling at all. Which, often times, you shouldn't....

Can you be my DM?

Seriously, having to play a character sheet instead of a character really bugs me, but lately in my experience, the vast majority of DM's want me to play in the "I roll to" style you decry.

If you keep getting players who play in the "I roll to", style it probably because they have been trained to by their previous DM's. I'm old enough that I remember this not being the default style (I played 1978 to 1992 with most of my "table time" in the early 1980's, quit and started again in 2015), but if I want to play at all now I find I'm always having to say what I roll for instead of, what my character tries to do.

....74-page backstory novella....

I write long back-stories in order to submit to DM's, because DM's demand it, and I've become adept at it, all I have to do is write-up a Mad Max-ish survivor haunted by a tragic past, and BAM! I'm in like Flynn (the longer and more tragic, the more likely it seems that a DM will accept the PC).

But I'm tired of playing brooding PC's weighed down by the ghosts of their lost loved ones!

I want to play a happy-go-lucky swashbuckling hero who does daring feats with a smile!

But lately since I've noticed that by and large no DM ever actual uses any details from the back-stories they demand, I simply copy the longest and more tragic back-stories I've previously written, submit them to the DM, and then ignore them.

I've never played any games where the DM has made any use of the back-story charade, but most demand them, and seem to select potential players based on backstory word count.

In this Forum, I've seen some DM"s post that they don't like the long back-stories, well then GET YOUR FELLOW DM's TO STOP TRAINING PLAYERS TO WRITE THEM!

I don't DM anymore, but one thing that would drive my crazy is that the majority of players now seem to play non-standard classes/races that they find on-line

I wouldn't touch that mess, but to their credit, most current DM's seem to take it in stride.

I've had a big stack of dead PC's from0e/1e games I played (a little bit late 1970's, a little more early 80's), and the majority of my PC's died before reaching Second level, but I was a particularly incautious player:

Spoiler: The way I "rolled"

Show

IIRC-
To illustrate how this played out, the scene:
A dank almost crypt like basement/garage during the waning years of the Carter Administration, two pre-teens and some teenagers surround a ping pong table, that has books, papers, dice, pizza and sodas on it
Teen DM (my best friend's older brother): You turn the corner, and 20' away you see the door shown on the map.
Teen player (who thinks he's all that because he's been playing longer than me with the LBB's, but does he have the new PHB and DMG? No! So who's really the "Advanced" one huh!): With the lantern still tied to the ten foot pole, I slowly proceed forward observing if they are any drafts from unexpected places. You (looks at me) check the floor with the other pole.
Me (pre-teen): Oh man it's late, are we even getting into the treasure room today!
Teen player: You've got to check for traps!
Me: I run up and force the door open!
DM: Blarg the fighter falls through the floor onto the spikes below.
*rolls dice*
Your character is dead.
Teen player: Dude you got smoked!
Me: Look at my next character. I rolled a 15 for Strength.
DM: Really?
Me: Yeah, Derek totally witnessed me rolling it up!
DM: Did he?
Derek (my best friend, another pre-teen who invited me to the game): Are you gonna eat that slice of pizza?
Me: No.
Derek: Yeah I totally saw it.
*munch*
Me: See!
DM: *groan*

In memory of my best friend, Derek Lindstrom Whaley, who in 6th grade saw me reading the blue book and invited me to play D&D at his house - R.I.P.

,

Since by the time I wised up to employing a "ten-foot-poles-and-bags-of-flour", style of play, I just didn't get to play much D&D, I remember 1st level TSR D&D as being a meat-grinder.

Now I'm the cautious one, and urge retreat while other players say things like, "The DM wouldn't scale it so we'd lose."

Do our PC's know this?!

I'm pretty sure my PC has never heard of a CR!

*mumble, grumble, rant, rave, fume*

[LordCdrMilitant]

"Let's torture him."

No. I'm sick of this. As soon the party captures a prisoner there's always that one guy who says we should torture him to get answers or in response to not getting answers. I want to slap that guy and not always just in character. If the DM never has the prisoners talk, that's on him. Boo DM and the learns never to take prisoners. Otherwise, if we're given fair chance but we just happen to fail the Diplomacy or Intimidation check needed to get the prisoner to talk, shucks darn move on. I also accept certain prisoners would never talk, such as cult fanatics or mafia-like thieves' guild goons. I've reconciled with myself that it's ok to kill the prisoner even if I'm playing a paladin for party cohesion if nothing else to avoid prisoner dilemma arguments, just make it quick and painless as possible. However, enough with the torture already.

It makes sense depending on the game.

I expect my Dark Heresy party to take prisoners and walk through the 9 Actions of inquisitorial interrogation.

I do not expect a Traveler party to be torturing prisoners, though, and might have the authorities come if the act is reported.



And with regards to characters who are evil/good, it's possible to play together just fine, depending on setting.

The Paladin thinks that she can turn the evildoer's efforts to a good cause and convince them to seek penitence, the evil wizard finds the good people useful pawns and cover, etc.

But, no, you can't be a Chaos Cultist, because we're playing Dark Heresy, not Black Crusade right now. We can do that afterwords. Right now, the Inquisition can read your mind and you're going to get a bolt pistol round to the back of the head, and your lack of faith in the Emperor means you have no Fate Points, so you're dead.

Can you be my DM?

Seriously, having to play a character sheet instead of a character really bugs me, but lately in my experience, the vast majority of DM's want me to play in the "I roll to" style you decry.

If you keep getting players who play in the "I roll to", style it probably because they have been trained to by their previous DM's. I'm old enough that I remember this not being the default style (I played 1978 to 1992 with most of my "table time" in the early 1980's, quit and started again in 2015), but if I want to play at all now I find I'm always having to say what I roll for instead of, what my character tries to do.

I dislike it too when players tell me what they're going to roll. I tell you what to roll, based on what you said you're doing. You don't get to pick the stat you're rolling on.

I've had a player actually criticize me for this, saying I never let him do what he was good at. I'm sorry, but threatening someone by shoving the business end of a Plasma Rifle into their face is most not SOC [Unless, I guess, you're trying to demonstrate your wealth and influence by the fact you have a Plasma Rifle].

[Guizonde]

This! And it happens even with characters that are supposedly good-aligned. But really, even when it would be plausible for the character, I'm still sick of that ****.

And it particularly sucks because in a lot of cases I feel like subduing rather than killing makes more sense IC, but if it's just going to lead to torture BS then screw it, everyone dies.

i'm joining a pathfinder campaign where the theme is all pc's are divine-casters and one monk from the same god. it'll be interesting. however, the "necessary evil" bit would screw with falling from grace pretty quickly. the players and dm agreed to have one "necessary evil" player. me, an inquisitor. so far, i'm building him to be as glib and intimidating as possible, but thanks to the latitude of actions of the class, i'm the one who's going to have to torture or do unsavory things like assassinating, knocking out, taking prisoner, bribing... pretty much anything that would cause an alignment change. i'm ok with it (i've played good and evil characters before, and feel confident i won't overdo it), but i stated specifically to the party and dm i'm NOT roleplaying that. it gets too grim too quickly.

if you're wondering why i'm the fall guy or why there's a reason i'm the fall guy, most of the campaign will be spent dealing with evil, and it'll be probably a life or death decision to have someone who can mask alignments and infiltrate cults without losing their divine powers. since the god is cayden calean (portfolio is freedom, among others), no one but me could incarcerate a criminal without falling.

as an aside, i'm bummed that the "handle rope" skill was dropped in pathfinder. those 10m of rope have so many uses, from tying up an unsavory character to rappelling down a cliff.

what annoyed me tremendously was that at first, the campaign was meant to be a pretty hardline crusade "good for the good god" church-militant style. everyone was chanting "deus vult", dreaming of burning the evil off the world, until they saw the loyal good deities and how strict and unrelenting they were. it's like they couldn't comprehend how you could play a paladin of sarenrae as anything but a loyal stupid character. i've probably played too long without alignments, but alignments are really a restriction that stops players from playing the game, but play the alignment. that really bugs me. so instead, the party voted for caydean calean, the drunk god. i'm pretty sure our first act is going to be trashing a tavern. i'd be looking forward to it, but a)i've done it too many times before, and b)the tavern is where you get gossip, meaning you move the plot along. reason c is of course: you don't attack the barkeep. he has beer when you don't.

i'm still the fall guy, mind you, but something tells me, i'll actually be playing the voice of reason in that group. i'll keep you posted.

[Silus]

My biggest peeve as a DM currently: Interruptions.

I'm trying to set the scene and give some exposition for whatever job the party is on, and there's like a 70% chance that I get interrupted by some inane BS not related to said scene setting and/or exposition that could very well wait until AFTER the DM is done talking.

Not even kidding I've started docking XP from players for this.

[Darth Ultron]

People who don't understand you are playing a game with 4-5 other people.

This is a big one that bugs me. Sure, when asked most players lie and say they care about everyone in the game...yet one round later they are being the biggest jerk in the world.

"Let's torture him."

This also bugs me....like every player binged watched 24 or something right before the game.

[Vitruviansquid]

My biggest peeve as a DM currently: Interruptions.

I'm trying to set the scene and give some exposition for whatever job the party is on, and there's like a 70% chance that I get interrupted by some inane BS not related to said scene setting and/or exposition that could very well wait until AFTER the DM is done talking.

Not even kidding I've started docking XP from players for this.

It also seems like 70% out of those 70% chance of interruptions is a Monty Python reference.

[Silus]

It also seems like 70% out of those 70% chance of interruptions is a Monty Python reference.

Oh Gods I wish it was Monty Python stuff. Usually it's "so here's a bunch of neat character things that I'm totally gonna get and use" and I don't have the head to process the info 'cause I'm trying to DM.

[2D8HP]

...I dislike it too when players tell me what they're going to roll. I tell you what to roll, based on what you said you're doing. You don't get to pick the stat you're rolling on...

Again, my experience lately is the opposite.

Most DM's get annoyed if I don't cite a stat.

To all the DM's out there:

If you complain about your players being "roll-players" instead of "role-players, maybe you should get your fellow DM's to stop encouraging their players to play "character sheets instead of characters", otherwise, just as with the DM's who post that they're "tired of reading novel length back-stories", WHERE IN THE ABYSS ARE YOU?

...like every player binged watched 24 or something right before the game.

Oh yeah, my wife loved that show.

It disturbed me.

It also seems like 70% out of those 70% chance of interruptions is a Monty Python reference.

Sounds like youe foolishly interrupting Python skit recitals with a game (seriously I'm actually glad to learn that some things haven't changed).