DMs: What are your character pet peeves?

[Tyler Do'Urden]

The subject says it all... as a DM, what kind of characters can't you stand. I'm not talking about distinct classes (though we all have a few we don't know what to do with- Monks, for me), but tropes that really drive you crazy.

For me, it has to be the "mysterious wanderer from a far-away land". The guy with no family, no attachment to the campaign setting/region... unless the player has a really good backstory which plugs into something important in the campaign down the road (and this is rare, because the "mysterious wanderer" is generally a case of either an apathetic, lazy player- or someone who really wants to play some class or race from a sourcebook they found that doesn't a place in the game I'm running). Really, what I want from a player is a character that is invested into their world. They have a family. Friends. Mentors. Community. Something to fight for... to long for... to protect. That I can work with... and build upon.

I think my second biggest issue is tangental to the first- the "problem race"- the guy who insists on playing a mind flayer, or a grippli, or a mongrelman, or even a drow... in a campaign setting that is relatively low-magic (and the environs the players start in are nearly 95% human). Now, if it's just one weirdo PC in a group of "normals", this can be okay... but the "cantina scene" party is something I'd rather avoid, because it generally makes my plots fall apart pretty fast- unless I'm playing in a setting where such a party is appropriate (like, say, Planescape or Oathbound, or even the Forgotten Realms under some circumstances). What makes it worse is that often the player who wants to play the most exotic race has the least exotic play-style... largely playing the character as a human with a set of special powers. Ironically, the deepest roleplayers most often play... humans.

To fight both these tropes, I usually tell people straight up what the scenario is, and how they need to integrate their character into it. I also tend to ban non-standard races in the early game (though I may allow non-standard races later, if they've become relevant to the campaign).

What about your game?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not a big fan of anyone who plays the same character over and over again for completely different games, so I discouraged that.

As to specific character types, I can't stand righteous paladin types, pure mercenaries who are just in it for the money, or cautious types who have to think about everything before they act. Those would be examples of "anti-fun" character concepts.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have to agree on the overly cautious characters. I've made a special point of discouraging such characters for my current campaign.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

Trait

I hate it when all the characters in a new party take the weapon heirloom trait (Pathfinder RPG) just for the additional +1. Really? So all of you had separate dads who just happened to give you swords at the same time? Uncool.

 

[The Shaman]

Really, what I want from a player is a character that is invested into their world. They have a family. Friends. Mentors. Community. Something to fight for... to long for... to protect. That I can work with... and build upon.

See, I'm the exact opposite. A player who tries to give me family, friends, and mentors at the start of the game is welcome to do so for their own use, but they're wasting their time if they expect me to do something with them. I encourage the players to start families and make friends and find mentors in actual play, not create them whole-cloth in a bit of fiction that no one, not even the player writing it, experiences first-hand.

So I suppose one of my pet peeves is the inverse of yours.

What makes it worse is that often the player who wants to play the most exotic race has the least exotic play-style... largely playing the character as a human with a set of special powers. Ironically, the deepest roleplayers most often play... humans.

So true.


My other pet peeve is players who are reactive rather than proactive. I like players who scheme and plan and connive. I like players who set and chase goals that don't depend on 'plot hooks.' I cannot abide players whose sole contribution to moving the game forward is, 'We look for the mayor to see if he has any jobs for us to do.'

You're the adventurers - so go adventure!

 

[saskganesh]

The moody loner, the risk averse and the griefer.

I like to remind players that it is a group-orientated adventure game. Teamwork is not optional.

 

[KiloGex]

I think my second biggest issue is tangental to the first- the "problem race"- the guy who insists on playing a mind flayer, or a grippli, or a mongrelman, or even a drow... in a campaign setting that is relatively low-magic (and the environs the players start in are nearly 95% human).

I am right with you on this one! I run into this problem almost every single campaign, and in fact am going through it right now. In a very low-magic scenario where the humans are very suspect of foreign threats I have a player who is pushing to play a Fetchling! Now, I don't like to outright deny my players so I give them a fighting chance to argue their point. I ask "what about his yellow eyes?" to which he responds that his character will be "sensative to light" and need to wear goggles. "What about the fact that you have white skin?" where he comes back with "people can be pale, plus it goes with his light sensativity. He doesn't like the sun" and when I bring up that this level of pale would be suspect he claims that he'll just wear a cloak. To say the least, this is not happening.

I also cannot stand players that don't use their class. An alchemist who refuses to use her alchemy in combat because she's afraid of the splash damage, a paladin who refuses to engage in melee combat, a necromancer who hates casting spells and instead only uses a crossbow in combat. What's the point?

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

See, I'm the exact opposite. A player who tries to give me family, friends, and mentors at the start of the game is welcome to do so for their own use, but they're wasting their time if they expect me to do something with them. I encourage the players to start families and make friends and find mentors in actual play, not create them whole-cloth in a bit of fiction that no one, not even the player writing it, experiences first-hand.

So I suppose one of my pet peeves is the inverse of yours.So true.

Well, we might actually be in partial agreement here... the guy who comes with a pre-invented character with an elaborate backstory and whole world seemingly built around him is... not what I have in mind, and I can't stand that either (they often come with a whole bunch of in-jokes and references that I don't get, and that don't jibe with the campaign. They're practically the "mysterious wanderer" by other means, or perhaps the opposite extreme... the guy who is just playing his own game.). What I'm looking for is something a little more basic:

-show me how you're connected to at least two of the other PCs (so we don't have to have a "you all meet in a bar and decide to go adventuring moment).

-your character should have a job- what does he do when he's not adventuring. Tend a temple? Is he a local scholar? Have a profession- like a smith or an alchemist? Heck, maybe he's a farmer... or a guardsman... or a soldier. This gives an instant hook in the community. He might even be a mercenary- or an idle aristocrat- but those are all something I can "hang" things on.

-a few family members don't hurt- we can flesh out the rest later, but if your dad is the mayor, the baron, or the scion of a lost bloodline... that's helpful to me, and I'd best know that you intend this now.

Often, I don't want a full "character background" to be fleshed out until the character reaches early mid-levels (3rd-5th)... those first couple levels can be awfully brutal, and it's best NOT to get too attached to a character who might not live to see the later stages of the campaign.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

I hate it when all the characters in a new party take the weapon heirloom trait (Pathfinder RPG) just for the additional +1. Really? So all of you had separate dads who just happened to give you swords at the same time? Uncool.

I can hardly blame them- it is a cool trait. And I could see ways to work with it- in fact, a whole party built around characters who were all given a "linked" set of heirloom weapons could be really cool. But I can also see how it could get annoying.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

The 'big concept' character who wishes to micromanage their life. Example: a merchant who wants to know how his commodities, holdings, and labour are doing...in detail...with relevant gp value...and timelines. Makes me want to roll in natural disasters and roaming barbarian tribes.

If I can't roll one die to figure out non-adventure related background info I have very little interest in it.

Though, to be fair, I have no problem overwhelming PCs with the minutia of leadership in war-like situations...I just don't like the tables turned.

Oh, and any PC that has no business being a team member. I am not going to forge some artificial reason for an outcast/jerkface to be a part of the party. It never lasts and is draining on everyone involved.