DM's Suport Group: Most Cliche Player Behaviors Ever

[A flannel shirt]

Some of my personal faves.

The one that claims to be of disciple of a deity then acts like the opposite one.

The player that creates a social build character then complains that he sucks when combat happens. It gets even better when the player then demands the game change to better suit HIS character.

The complete dice roller. What I mean by that is the player that simply states, I roll my diplomacy, and did I roll high enough to get by? This is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing.

The over dramatic ROLE playing. The player that will stand up and go into this Shakespearean monolog with full movement and dialog.

But the guy that can’t find the shower is probably the worst one I’ve had to deal with.

 

[Emirikol]

How about the guy who's always excited to play every game system and gets the fellow players to switch from whatever STABLE campaign you were in to some new bizarre thing..and then doesn't reliably show up for games.

My other favorite is "The Quicker Picker Upper." He's the guy who picks up his die so fast after he rolls it that nobody actually ever sees what he rolled.

jh

 

[jonesy]

My other favorite is "The Quicker Picker Upper." He's the guy who picks up his die so fast after he rolls it that nobody actually ever sees what he rolled.

I did. It was a zero.

 

[Twichyboy]

In my group we have one person that ASSUMES the paladin is either going to play Lawful Stupid, or is going to act above everyone else, when in actuality our paladins are very good at staying in their alignment and not being a ego burden.

 

[twisted.fate]

Our DM was running a low-level primal-themed campaign. He specifically asked us to make reasonably heroic characters who would have an interest in fighting to preserve our little valley from evil.

We ended up with a noble barbarian, a (good) bog witch protecting her "territory," a young shifter druid just trying to help, and a nature-loving elven storm sorceress. All of these tied nicely into the primal/natural world theme, and all were reasonably heroic-style characters that could be counted on to generally Act Like Heroes.

Then, there was the guy who rolled up some kind of heavy-armor warrior with a dark past and a multiclass into warlock so he could use eyebite. He also had a sword that ate peoples' souls, and turned out to be a former bounty-hunting-torturer-executioner-evildude, who still had no qualms about torture when he saw it as necessary.

There were literally only two restrictions on character creation in this game, and he failed both of them.

LE SIGH.

 

[GameDoc]

Our DM was running a low-level primal-themed campaign. He specifically asked us to make reasonably heroic characters who would have an interest in fighting to preserve our little valley from evil.

We ended up with a noble barbarian, a (good) bog witch protecting her "territory," a young shifter druid just trying to help, and a nature-loving elven storm sorceress. All of these tied nicely into the primal/natural world theme, and all were reasonably heroic-style characters that could be counted on to generally Act Like Heroes.

Then, there was the guy who rolled up some kind of heavy-armor warrior with a dark past and a multiclass into warlock so he could use eyebite. He also had a sword that ate peoples' souls, and turned out to be a former bounty-hunting-torturer-executioner-evildude, who still had no qualms about torture when he saw it as necessary.

There were literally only two restrictions on character creation in this game, and he failed both of them.

LE SIGH.

How did he get a weapon that powerful (and specific) right off the bat?

I think when players do this it's a failure to either recognize or respect that the DM is another person, not an opnipotent being or game generating artificial intelligenc. He can't prepare for all possibilities and particularly when he gives out some parameters it's because he's preparing for a specific type of campaign or storyline. Sometimes I think some players forget the DM is another person with his own goals or desires for the gaming experience. He may not want to improv an entire session because you didn't feel like keeping your character concept in bounds or biting on any plot hooks.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Characters who don't ...

I'd have to say my biggest player pet peeves are the players that decide their characters DON'T do one of the most basic tenets of their character's beliefs or class.

The paladin who is uninterested in helping innocent people in danger.

The cleric of Pelor who can't be bothered to heal anyone because that's "boring".

The bard who never uses bardic knowledge, despite the party sitting around saying, "Gee, I wonder what this relic's story is?"

The non-spellcasting, non-ranged fighter/ranger/barbarian/monk who prefers to hang behind the rest of the party so as not to take damage, or have to be placed in harm's way.

The druid who says nothing when someone burns down an entire forest.

The wizard who is the only arcane caster in the party, and prepares a spell selection that only includes identify, phantom trap, and illusory script the day before it is known there will be a big combat.

Stuff like that.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The non-spellcasting, non-ranged fighter/ranger/barbarian/monk who prefers to hang behind the rest of the party so as not to take damage, or have to be placed in harm's way.

I have one of these players in my group. Always plays a melee-type, and usually hangs in the back because he's afraid to take any damage.

We once got in a fight on the shore of a black pool, and when zombies sprang out from the pool, the paladin moved in to engage them. The fighter though, he stood on the shore where he was nice and safe, shooting at them with his longbow. Nobody else could reach the paladin to help him, and so he got clobbered by the zombies. He survived, but barely. It would have been much easier if the fighter had done his job.

This is the same player, that at level 10, last game we played was whining about taking 17 damage. The one time he got hit the whole fight. He's only got 89 hit points, but "waaaaaah 17 damage!?!?!"

Come on.

And this dude is 40. Sheesh.

 

[Diamond Cross]

There are also players who refuse to follow the DM's guidelines on what classes they want.

Such as if the DM wants to use only the PHB, no ECL characters, and no prestige classes, a character will make a class from a book like the Complete Adventurer Book and whine whine whine whine whine until one of two things happen. Either the DM relents or simply says "then don't play". If the latter happens, the player goes off whining about how the DM is a bad person.

But then again, there's also the DM who believes in giving the players illusions of control. For example, if a player doesn't follow the story path that character is automatically killed off through impossible odds.

And this one DM I once played with had this one quirk that he'd never allow players to have wealthy characters of any sort because he was A socialist ans hated wealth because the Bible told him to be poor. As a result he always had the characters forced into poverty and living in the streets. And when challenged about it, he said it developed character.

 

[WHW4]

We once got in a fight on the shore of a black pool, and when zombies sprang out from the pool, the paladin moved in to engage them. The fighter though, he stood on the shore where he was nice and safe, shooting at them with his longbow. Nobody else could reach the paladin to help him, and so he got clobbered by the zombies. He survived, but barely. It would have been much easier if the fighter had done his job.

I could never say for certain without having been present, and your other examples do bear out the fighter's unwillingness to engage, however, I think here he actually used good tactics. Why would you wade INTO a watery pool filled with zombies? Why not draw the stupid things out, all the while pounding on them with bows? Brave or not, surely the Paladin could see the sense in that.