D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

[Guest 6801328]

Pouting. Pouting has to be the baddest wrongest fun.

Like, when the DM says "there are no gnomes in this world," so That Guy at the table immediately starts defiantly rolling up a gnome, and argues relentlessly about how much he neeeeeds to play a gnome in order to have fun, and tries to convince others to join "his side" of the argument.

Or when the DM says that we can't use any of the spells in Xanathar's Guide without checking with her first, so That Guy immediately fills his spellbook exclusively with Xanathar's content, and then loudly argues about each one of them at Session Zero because he neeeeeeeeds them in order to have fun.

Or when That Guy suggests a course of action for the party but gets outvoted by all of the other players, and then sits there with his arms folded across his chest refusing to participate, and answering any question with OH I'M SORRY DID YOU ACTUALLY WANT MY OPINION ALL OF A SUDDEN?

Don't be That Guy.

There are people who play like this?

 

[CleverNickName]

There are people who play like this?

I bet most of us can think of at least one person who fits the description.

 

[CleverNickName]

Ooh, yeah. More subtle (and insidious?) version of the same thing.

"You think that..."
"It seems to you that..."

Also the general category of:
Player: "I'll make a (insert skill) check."
DM: (narrates what the player actually does)

I once had a player that would try to use Dexterity for everything, because it had a higher bonus. Drove me crazy. One time he announced that he was going to make an Acrobatics check to "tapdance around the subject" while bartering with a merchant.
"That would be a Charisma (Deception) check," I told him.
"StOp CaLLiNg My ChArAcTeR's AcTiOnS!" he pouted.

Seriously, pouting is the worst.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Pouting. Pouting has to be the baddest wrongest fun.

Like, when the DM says "there are no gnomes in this world," so That Guy at the table immediately starts defiantly rolling up a gnome, and argues relentlessly about how much he neeeeeds to play a gnome in order to have fun, and tries to convince others to join "his side" of the argument.

Or when the DM says that we can't use any of the spells in Xanathar's Guide without checking with her first, so That Guy immediately fills his spellbook exclusively with Xanathar's content, and then loudly argues about each one of them at Session Zero because he neeeeeeeeds them in order to have fun.

Or when That Guy suggests a course of action for the party but gets outvoted by all of the other players, and then sits there with his arms folded across his chest refusing to participate, and answering any question with OH I'M SORRY DID YOU ACTUALLY WANT MY OPINION ALL OF A SUDDEN?

Don't be That Guy.

I agree with these, but the first one reminds me of another anoying thing:

Dm's who restrict races/classes for silly reasons or, worse, without being able to explain why beyond "because I don't like them." The latter especially speaks to a dm who doesn't care about the pc's.

By silly reasons I mean stuff that simply isn't true in the first place (no hexblades because getting a magic weapon at level one is too much - a nonsequitur since hexblades technically don't get a magic weapon as a class feature at any level, but even the blade pact isn't til level 3) or totally under the dm's control (no dragonborn because people would immediately attack if they saw a monstrous creature - you decide how the world reacts, so you could have people just be aware of that different races exist in the setting.)

 

[Stalker0]

I agree with these, but the first one reminds me of another anoying thing:

Dm's who restrict races/classes for silly reasons or, worse, without being able to explain why beyond "because I don't like them." The latter especially speaks to a dm who doesn't care about the pc's.

got to disagree on this one, as long as the DM mentions what he wants to change at the beginning, he has every right to do so.

creating a world is a lot harder than creating a character. If a dms world Doesn’t fit with your concept, then you should change your concept

 

[CleverNickName]

I agree with these, but the first one reminds me of another anoying thing:

Dm's who restrict races/classes for silly reasons or, worse, without being able to explain why beyond "because I don't like them." The latter especially speaks to a dm who doesn't care about the pc's.

By silly reasons I mean stuff that simply isn't true in the first place (no hexblades because getting a magic weapon at level one is too much - a nonsequitur since hexblades technically don't get a magic weapon as a class feature at any level, but even the blade pact isn't til level 3) or totally under the dm's control (no dragonborn because people would immediately attack if they saw a monstrous creature - you decide how the world reacts, so you could have people just be aware of that different races exist in the setting.)

But the DM is allowed to have preferences and opinions just as the players are, and is under no obligation to allow (or even like) everything ever published into her game. Saying the DM "doesn't care about the PCs" because she dislikes something is unfair...it would be like saying Bob doesn't care about the rest of the party because Bob doesn't like Fighters. ("But we neeeeeed one to protect the wizard and the cleric! Why are you being so selfish, Bob?")

The DM is also under no obligation to explain why they do/do not allow anything in their games. Demanding they do will only end in tears of frustration.
"Why don't you allow gnomes in your game?"
"What's a gnome?"
"It's like a funny little magic dwarf. They're in the Player's Handbook."
"I've never heard of them."
"Whadda ya mean you've never heard of them!?"
"Nobody's heard of them because they don't exist in this world, Bob."

Remember, the DM is an actual person who is also trying to enjoy the game. It's a tough job, and it takes a lot of creativity and time. "Let the players have whatever they want" is an unreasonable request for most of us.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with these, but the first one reminds me of another anoying thing:

Dm's who restrict races/classes for silly reasons or, worse, without being able to explain why beyond "because I don't like them." The latter especially speaks to a dm who doesn't care about the pc's.

By silly reasons I mean stuff that simply isn't true in the first place (no hexblades because getting a magic weapon at level one is too much - a nonsequitur since hexblades technically don't get a magic weapon as a class feature at any level, but even the blade pact isn't til level 3) or totally under the dm's control (no dragonborn because people would immediately attack if they saw a monstrous creature - you decide how the world reacts, so you could have people just be aware of that different races exist in the setting.)

So what qualifies as "silly"? Because I don't allow dragonborn in my campaign world. They've never existed up to this point, I run campaigns in a persistent world since before dragonborn were a thing. I don't have anything against them, I just don't want my world to look like Mos Eisley's Cantina.

That might be silly to you, to me it's maintaining a consistent world that makes sense to me. There's no requirement for a DM to cater to every possible playable option. That may mean I'm not the right DM for you, but I can't be the right DM for everyone.

 

[Lanefan]

What sets off your personal “that’s bad-wrong-fun” alarm? PvP without a Session Zero agreement? Stealing form the party? Tacking a critical miss chance onto the system?

For me, people trying to tell me how to play my character.

And from a more philosophical perspective: Do you think it’s possible for a group to enjoy that kind of bad-wrong-fun despite its downsides?

Very much yes. I'm so used to fumbles I can't see playing in a game without them. Stealing from the party, sure, why not - as long as the thief is well aware there's risks involved and there's no brakes on what the party's allowed to do in response. PvP - as long as it stays in character, let 'em fight.

 

[Lanefan]

The DM trying to tell me what my character would or wouldn't do.

Or - and worse - another player.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree with these, but the first one reminds me of another anoying thing:

Dm's who restrict races/classes for silly reasons or, worse, without being able to explain why beyond "because I don't like them."

"Because I don't like them" is the precise amount of explanation required. No more is needed: it's the DM's world and if you don't like what she's done with it then sure, ask questions (gawd knows I do, often enough!); but in the end you're stuck with whatever the answer is.

... totally under the dm's control (no dragonborn because people would immediately attack if they saw a monstrous creature - you decide how the world reacts, so you could have people just be aware of that different races exist in the setting.)

You could, but - and here's the key point - you don't have to.

If the DM sees Dragonborn as monsters first and PCs never (and that'd be me, by the way), then trying to play one is either going to be met with a flat "No" or a warning that you're giving yourself a severe challenge and to have a second character on standby for when - not if - the Dragonborn gets killed either by the party or the locals.