What makes you go -_- when people make suggestions to DM?

[Akisa]

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

[valadil]

I never saw the appeal of disarming traps either. Either the d20 likes you or it doesn't, end of story.

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

[JupiterPaladin]

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

[ocato]

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

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

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

To each his own, I suppose.

[sonofzeal]

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

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

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

To each his own, I suppose.

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

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

[Kris Strife]

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

[AslanCross]

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

[TheCountAlucard]

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

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

[Saph]

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

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

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

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

- Saph

[only1doug]

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

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

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

- Saph

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

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

*said under breath

[SolkaTruesilver]

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

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

*said under breath

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

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

[magellan]

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

[JBento]

And it was good that they did so, because it often ended up being a killer mimic

[only1doug]

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

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

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

[Starbuck_II]

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

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

Still thought it would be too broken.

[Ecalsneerg]

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

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

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

[Knaight]

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

[Project_Mayhem]

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

Thats pretty funny actually

[Saph]

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

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

*said under breath

Heh. Yeah.

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

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

- Saph

[magellan]

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

[Akisa]

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

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

[Avilan the Grey]

The only time we ever had a hard debate about anything it wasn't even clear rule-lawering, it was an actual mistake by the GM:

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

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

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

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

[Tengu_temp]

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

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

[Burley]

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

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

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

[Roderick_BR]

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

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

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

To each his own, I suppose.

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

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

[AKA_Bait]

My usual WTF moments tend to happen when my players do one of two things:

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

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

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

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

[valadil]

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

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

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

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

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

[AslanCross]

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

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

[TheCountAlucard]

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

...

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

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

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

So, should I shank him, or what?

[BRC]

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

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

So, should I shank him, or what?

No, don't shank, Outflank

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

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

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

Fun can be had from this...