-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
DM's Suport Group: Most Cliche Player Behaviors Ever
- Thread starter GameDoc
- Start date
Ulrick
First Post
Players consistantly not telling you that they will either be late or unable to show up to a session, not responding to group emails, or both.
The old World of Darkness Vampire Storyteller's Handbooks called players like these "The X-Factor" because you have know idea when they'll show up. Usually, in my campaigns, this isn't much of an issue.
But a couple years ago I tried my hand at running a West Marches-style campaign and somehow I managed to collect about 4-5 of these X-Factors early into a pool of 10 players. The campaign folded in part because of their inconsistency.
The old World of Darkness Vampire Storyteller's Handbooks called players like these "The X-Factor" because you have know idea when they'll show up. Usually, in my campaigns, this isn't much of an issue.
But a couple years ago I tried my hand at running a West Marches-style campaign and somehow I managed to collect about 4-5 of these X-Factors early into a pool of 10 players. The campaign folded in part because of their inconsistency.
SkredlitheOgre
Explorer
As a player, I hate playing with people who make up the EXACT SAME CHARACTER regardless of genre. My old group GM loved GURPS and so I tried to take advantage of the numerous ads/disads/skills/powers/what have you while one of the other players was "a beautiful young woman of 25, who is good with technology and weapons and has eidetic memory." Every time.
On a related note: having eidetic memory and not writing things down, so you rely on the DM/other players to remember whatever it is that you're supposed to remember.
Players who stay in character ALL THE TIME: Generally breaking character and chatting during a break or something else is going on is accepted. This guy had a character who was hard of hearing, so HE played hard of hearing, even during breaks.
As a DM, I dislike: people in a group who are in a roleplaying situation and are getting impatient because there's no combat. Or who roll their dice and say "i got this number, so do I pass my Diplomacy check?"
Players who get so drunk that they are no longer contributing to the roleplaying/planning, but refuse to shut up. Srsly.
Players who agree to the timing/placement of games and then change things right after the game starts. For example: the host of our game reached out to some friends for a game I wanted to DM (Pathfinder). We got a group email going and we all agreed on 4 pm at the host's house. After a couple of weeks, one player emails me and says, "Okay, I won't be able to make it until 5:30 because of (personal issue). So, once I get there we can get started."
No, WE are starting at 4, because that's what we all agreed to and the game only goes until between 9 and 10. If you have something to do that legitimately important, than take care of that, because it's more important than gaming. I have since received another email from him saying he will no longer be able to attend due to custody timing of his children, unless we can change the day/time of the game, which took a lot of effort to figure out in the first place, so no, we aren't switching it, either.
Now, I may sound like a dick about this, but he was aware of this issue when he agreed to the 4 pm start time, so it's not like something changed.
On a related note: having eidetic memory and not writing things down, so you rely on the DM/other players to remember whatever it is that you're supposed to remember.
Players who stay in character ALL THE TIME: Generally breaking character and chatting during a break or something else is going on is accepted. This guy had a character who was hard of hearing, so HE played hard of hearing, even during breaks.
As a DM, I dislike: people in a group who are in a roleplaying situation and are getting impatient because there's no combat. Or who roll their dice and say "i got this number, so do I pass my Diplomacy check?"
Players who get so drunk that they are no longer contributing to the roleplaying/planning, but refuse to shut up. Srsly.
Players who agree to the timing/placement of games and then change things right after the game starts. For example: the host of our game reached out to some friends for a game I wanted to DM (Pathfinder). We got a group email going and we all agreed on 4 pm at the host's house. After a couple of weeks, one player emails me and says, "Okay, I won't be able to make it until 5:30 because of (personal issue). So, once I get there we can get started."
No, WE are starting at 4, because that's what we all agreed to and the game only goes until between 9 and 10. If you have something to do that legitimately important, than take care of that, because it's more important than gaming. I have since received another email from him saying he will no longer be able to attend due to custody timing of his children, unless we can change the day/time of the game, which took a lot of effort to figure out in the first place, so no, we aren't switching it, either.
Now, I may sound like a dick about this, but he was aware of this issue when he agreed to the 4 pm start time, so it's not like something changed.
Ulrick
First Post
In a similar vein, the following used to happen to me more or less occasionally in the heady days of 2e and early on in 3e. I'm quoting directly from Roger Moore in Dragon #228, but it still applies:
"Man, this City of Greyhawk campaign bites. You people should dump this stupid world. It's dead anyway. Let's get a Realms campaign going. I had a character once who was Elminister's nephew, and he--"
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
This has happened to me recently.
A player who ultimately made you quit the group because of his playstyle/attitude/personality emailing you a year later and asking if you are in a game he can join.
Short answer: no.
A player who ultimately made you quit the group because of his playstyle/attitude/personality emailing you a year later and asking if you are in a game he can join.
Short answer: no.
twisted.fate
First Post
We had a guy whose favorite sentence was, "What do you mean, I can't do [thing that doesn't make sense by any of the rules]? We used to do that all the time in my other group."
He left for non-game reasons before we had to kick him out. But now every time anyone mentions D&D around him, he goes "Can I get in on that?"
Like you said - short answer: no.
I once had to deal with a player who simply could not fathom a game different than the playstyle he liked.
I was running an arena combat. The players all made new characters, and were essentially set loose in a room with a set goal (get control of an object, be the first to get through a door controlled by a lever across the room, etc). It was made quite clear that players were in direct competition with each other, were encouraged to attack each other, and it was expected that multiple people would die. In the next round, players would get different options/bonuses based on whether they won, died, or just managed to survive the previous arena. Characters could be reused or rerolled as desired.
At one session, I had invited a new player (actually an old friend) to the game. He built a joke character that excelled at nothing; a halfling barbarian with high charisma and strength as a dump stat. He accomplished nothing in the arena, and was killed early and easily. When he died, he threw a small tantrum, ripped up his character sheet, and spent the next 20 minutes talking to people on his cell phone until someone came to pick him up.
I can certainly understand that not everyone likes arena battles or PvP action. He might have wanted more roleplaying or character development. But he knew exactly what the game was going to be (before he was invited to the game), and purposefully created a character that sucked at it. It's not like he even tried to do something unexpected, like rally the other characters together or try to escape the arena. He simply refused to make a character suited to the game, and was then surprised and angered when it didn't work out. Even more surprising, he was openly upset about his character dying when it was openly stated that multiple characters would die, and they could be reused or modified in subsequent challenges.
Needless to say, I was flabbergasted by his behavior. But I was also running a rather successful game for the other ~8 people there, so I just kept going. I'm fairly certain he expected the game to change to suit his desires, but it simply didn't happen and he left. It was like a Pathfinder player showed up to a 4e game, and then had a fit when his non-system-compatible character didn't work and every else just played the game.
I was running an arena combat. The players all made new characters, and were essentially set loose in a room with a set goal (get control of an object, be the first to get through a door controlled by a lever across the room, etc). It was made quite clear that players were in direct competition with each other, were encouraged to attack each other, and it was expected that multiple people would die. In the next round, players would get different options/bonuses based on whether they won, died, or just managed to survive the previous arena. Characters could be reused or rerolled as desired.
At one session, I had invited a new player (actually an old friend) to the game. He built a joke character that excelled at nothing; a halfling barbarian with high charisma and strength as a dump stat. He accomplished nothing in the arena, and was killed early and easily. When he died, he threw a small tantrum, ripped up his character sheet, and spent the next 20 minutes talking to people on his cell phone until someone came to pick him up.
I can certainly understand that not everyone likes arena battles or PvP action. He might have wanted more roleplaying or character development. But he knew exactly what the game was going to be (before he was invited to the game), and purposefully created a character that sucked at it. It's not like he even tried to do something unexpected, like rally the other characters together or try to escape the arena. He simply refused to make a character suited to the game, and was then surprised and angered when it didn't work out. Even more surprising, he was openly upset about his character dying when it was openly stated that multiple characters would die, and they could be reused or modified in subsequent challenges.
Needless to say, I was flabbergasted by his behavior. But I was also running a rather successful game for the other ~8 people there, so I just kept going. I'm fairly certain he expected the game to change to suit his desires, but it simply didn't happen and he left. It was like a Pathfinder player showed up to a 4e game, and then had a fit when his non-system-compatible character didn't work and every else just played the game.
Wepwawet
Explorer
Well, you do... You're saying that some D&D game is more important than spending time with one's children. From what you're saying he didn't know the custody timing when you all decided the time of the game.
I know it's pretty hard to come up with a schedule that works for everyone, but that's no reason to get angry at someone.
How about these?
Here's my faves:
The guy who is obsessed with killing (enter monster type here). I had a player who at 5th level (in 2nd edition D&D) charged into a group of vampires by himself. Why? Cause his character simply must kill all undead! Didn't work out so hot for him.
I also like the awesome melee combatant-guy who never bothers to buy a ranged weapon. The party somehow gets contained at range (by terrain or circumstances) and the guy who is normally the whirling blades of death starts looking around for rocks to chuck or (even worse) take no actions! I've seen it and I've seen it with guys who have twenty-plus years of rpg experience.
On the topic of the untrustworthy rogue (or any other character type that isn't "meshing" with the group). Here's how I see it: Adventuring is risking your life every single encounter. Your character wouldn't even contemplate putting his life on the line (unless you're playing a character with an odd deathwish and like short campaigns) unless it was with other adventurers he could trust completely. Think about it- if there is a one-in-a-thousand chance that when you need the rogue to toss you a potion that he's too busy pickpocketing the party's cleric? You or the rogue would be out of that party immediately. No second chances....no negotiation. As Charles Barkley would say, "I may be wrong...but I don't think so."
William C. Pfaff
President of Escape Velocity Gaming
Here's my faves:
The guy who is obsessed with killing (enter monster type here). I had a player who at 5th level (in 2nd edition D&D) charged into a group of vampires by himself. Why? Cause his character simply must kill all undead! Didn't work out so hot for him.
I also like the awesome melee combatant-guy who never bothers to buy a ranged weapon. The party somehow gets contained at range (by terrain or circumstances) and the guy who is normally the whirling blades of death starts looking around for rocks to chuck or (even worse) take no actions! I've seen it and I've seen it with guys who have twenty-plus years of rpg experience.
On the topic of the untrustworthy rogue (or any other character type that isn't "meshing" with the group). Here's how I see it: Adventuring is risking your life every single encounter. Your character wouldn't even contemplate putting his life on the line (unless you're playing a character with an odd deathwish and like short campaigns) unless it was with other adventurers he could trust completely. Think about it- if there is a one-in-a-thousand chance that when you need the rogue to toss you a potion that he's too busy pickpocketing the party's cleric? You or the rogue would be out of that party immediately. No second chances....no negotiation. As Charles Barkley would say, "I may be wrong...but I don't think so."
William C. Pfaff
President of Escape Velocity Gaming
Stumblewyk
Adventurer
The "there must be a combat-related solution to this!" guy.
The "I don't quite grasp the concept of beer-and-pretzels, laid-back game" guy.
The "every character I play is basically a dwarven fighter with an axe and platemail, even when we're not playing a fantasy game" guy.
The "I'm going to create the strangest possible character I can, even when the game calls for something very, very specific" guy.
The "the game is coming to a screeching goddamn halt while I look up this obscure rule, even after the DM and everyone else at the table has agreed to an on-the-fly ruling" guy.
The "I don't quite grasp the concept of beer-and-pretzels, laid-back game" guy.
The "every character I play is basically a dwarven fighter with an axe and platemail, even when we're not playing a fantasy game" guy.
The "I'm going to create the strangest possible character I can, even when the game calls for something very, very specific" guy.
The "the game is coming to a screeching goddamn halt while I look up this obscure rule, even after the DM and everyone else at the table has agreed to an on-the-fly ruling" guy.
Similar Threads
