D&D 5E GMs of EN World: What player behavior annoys you the most?

[Greenfield]

I once had a player whose character was designed to permanently kill other PCs.

Another player's character, having seen this guy do what he thought was a secret between him and the DM, volunteered to "back him up" when he backtracked in the dungeon to mark some junctions.

Long story short, when the treacherous PC pulled his "kill them forever" move a little later (on the PC who had backed him up), he soon ran afoul of a simple trap they guy had left behind, and his own character was killed.

He went ballistic when he discovered that he'd been set up. He asked me, as DM, to do something about it, since that other player had "set out specifically to kill my character", ignoring the inconvenient fact that he'd already done the same to that other guy.

As for pet peeves: Mine is probably the adversarial player, the guy who's out to "beat" the DM.

We have some simple rules for our campaign regarding allowable source books, as I'm sure everyone else does. Anything outside of those sources has to be specially approved. One player in our group had a habit of introducing unapproved stuff into play, knowing that we wouldn't want to interrupt the game to question it, challenge it, vote on it, and wait while he remade that part of his character. He counted on the surprise factor to get away with things

Same problem, different form, is Prestige Classes. They are "at the DM's discretion", meaning you're supposed to talk to the DM about them before taking that class/level.

Over all there are two philosophies in making and advancing PCs. The first is to look at the available sources and build a "good faith" character, taking into account the campaign setting and style.

The other is to look at the available sources and design the most powerful build you can get away with, whether there's any way it could fit into the campaign world or not.

I like the first. The second, not so much.

 

[Nevvur]

That's generous. I had a GM once who just declared dice off the table to be 1s.

I love this. If I weren't only gaming on roll20 of late, I would instate this rule.

 

[David Norris-King]

I love this. If I weren't only gaming on roll20 of late, I would instate this rule.

We had this player who somehow managed to roll off the table and under furniture about a third of the time. Kind of became necessary.

He also was the kind of player I'm glad I've never had to deal with: a combat lone wolf who always went down due to bad decisions and only cared about the next combat. Plus, he sulked.

I really don't know how I'd even be able to deal with someone like that.

 

[MechaPilot]

That's generous. I had a GM once who just declared dice off the table to be 1s.

1s sounds a little too punitive to me. If I used a rule like that I'd go with the average, rounded down. So a d20 off the table would be considered a 10.

 

[David Norris-King]

1s sounds a little too punitive to me. If I used a rule like that I'd go with the average, rounded down. So a d20 off the table would be considered a 10.

I think it really depends on why it's happening. He was really showing off the entire performance of rolling dice and he kept on losing them under fridges and shelving units, so suddenly the game is on hold while we look for them.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

If you ruled that dice off the table are the average, then I'd just throw them off if the average is sufficient to succeed.

 

[David Norris-King]

"Oh, so, this guys got an AC of 13. I pass."

 

[Lylandra]

That's another one:

5. Roleplaying characters that upset or might upset other people. Roleplaying is a varied hobby and you never know which of your players might be homosexual, or trans, or have past traumas. Some of us are just a bit uncomfortable about certain topics. Do you really need a character with an abusive sexual relationship as backstory? Will it enhance a relatively light hearted and idealistic campaign, or bring down the tone?

Right, now after taking it to a dark place, how about something a bit sillier. Also throwing fuel on the fire.

6. Players taking notes. Please don't, not in my campaign anyway.

I run a super improvised theatre of the mind campaign, attempting to constantly keep the plot moving over the 2-2.5 hr session. Players trying to take notes is nice and all, but it means they aren't paying attention to what's happening right now and the right now tends to be the bit that kills people. It also generally affects their roleplaying.

It also sucks for me, since someone who's written down notes tends to be someone who gets hung up on little things like the names of characters or places changing when I forget and have to make it up on the spot. I generally run super simple adventure of the week games, with a basic overarching plot, so all they really need to follow is the overall thread.

This one is a side effect of the style of game I'm running of course and it definitely helps that I've got an a good memory for the plot and setting myself. Some of the more... meticulous players I've played with have had real trouble with this, especially since they usually have to, but they got used to it eventually.

Uh, I always take notes of... the NPC's names! To include them correctly in my after-session recaps. Because of this, when we run pre-scripted modules, I tend to "remember" them better than our GM
(and with a NPC ensemble with more than 80 often recurring NPC, who often share family names, things could get pretty confusing)

For #5: I wouldn't include such elements without being 100% sure that everyone is fine with it. And that it suits the campaign.

 

[Lylandra]

If you ruled that dice off the table are the average, then I'd just throw them off if the average is sufficient to succeed.

I'd totally do that as well!

For player behaviour... there's the borrower. He's constantly borrowing your stuff, especially your pens, even when you're the GM and you're trying to track HP in a 10 person encounter. Or your dice. Or your GM screen (because he's too lazy to look up skills for himself). Or your books.

 

[David Norris-King]

Uh, I always take notes of... the NPC's names! To include them correctly in my after-session recaps. Because of this, when we run pre-scripted modules, I tend to "remember" them better than our GM
(and with a NPC ensemble with more than 80 often recurring NPC, who often share family names, things could get pretty confusing)

For #5: I wouldn't include such elements without being 100% sure that everyone is fine with it. And that it suits the campaign.

Yeah, we don't ever really go back to old places and there's a very small cast of important NPCs, so I've never had to worry about that problem. I've found it best to give everybody a name starting with a different letter, so it doesn't matter if you call a character Commander Cody or Cooper, he'll still seem like the same guy.

Also, real world names wherever possible, preferably from Europe. I've played Lot5R enough times to know I don't have a hope in hell of remembering characters, or following which character I've already met from my notes.

As for number 5, that one generally turns up part way through the campaign, disturbingly enough. I think it often comes from Head Canon, or wanting to add depth to their character, but it's always awkward to deal with, either as a player or GM.