DM's Suport Group: Most Cliche Player Behaviors Ever

[Than]

In face to face games the same daft voice people put on when they try to roleplay.

At least to my ears there seems to be a standard roleplay tone of voice that most people seem to adopt when roleplaying. Now of course roleplaying is great and all, but would be nice if people could try a voice that matched their character rather than the same roleplay tone of voice that everyone seems to use.

The voice tone of voice I mean is a little like the tone used in many Monty Python movies.

 

[wingsandsword]

The only thing worse than this is kleptomaniac kender thieves who steal from and lie to the other party members "because it says here in the book that I have to."

A thin excuse for arsehat behaviour.

*sigh*

I once had to put up with one of these in a Planescape game (since it was at least vaguely plausible that a Kender could end up on the Outer Planes).

After a few sessions, whenever anybody in the party found anything missing, the standard operating procedure was to grab the Kender, hold said Kender in the air, invert Kender, and shake liberally until the desired item (among many others) fell to the ground. All while the Kender is complaining IG that she doesn't understand why everybody is getting upset, and the player is vehemently reminding everyone that Kender inherently have no sense of personal property so they inherently can't see anything wrong with pickpocketing and can never be taught otherwise.

My cliche:

Mr. I-Want-To-Be-Different: The player who wants their character to be completely and totally different than anything else in the game, without regards for setting or style. Playing a Mage game? They'll want to be a Werewolf or Vampire then. Playing Forgotten Realms? They'll want an excuse to play a Warforged. Playing Dragonlance? They'll want to play an Athasian Mul Gladiator. Playing in a quasi-historic game in medieval England? They'll want to be a Samurai or Ninja. Playing a Star Wars campaign set in the Old Republic? They'll want to play a Yuuzhan Vong deep-cover undercover scout.

(The person this most applies to is the same one who wanted to play a Kender, the game was originally Forgotten Realms before it went Planar, but he wasn't allowed to bring a Kender in until it went Planar and was at least remotely plausible to do so.)

 

[Jack Daniel]

For my money, it all boils down to a simple attitude problem:

Players treating the campaign world as a consequence-free environment for their characters to play "let's be a douchebag" in.

It seems to follow from a casual lack of respect for the setting, the DM, and whatever work that the DM is putting into the campaign; from a desire on the part of the problem player to act out power-trip fantasies; and, most insidiously, from the very structure of the game itself. In a game like D&D, it's all too often the case that the disincentives to avoid general douchebaggery just don't outweigh the positive rewards (treasure, experience, getting one's way) of willfully engaging in the same.

Another aspect of this problem relates to an observation that I've only made recently, as a result of my current campaign. At the start of the game, I began with the usual "buy-in" statement: I wanted a high-fantasy campaign about big-time heroes, people who were out to do the right thing. Good guys, not murders and thieves and anti-heroes. The players said okay, and things got off to a decent start. Then the player roster started to grow (always a danger when gaming at the FLGS), and the median party alignment continued to sink ever closer to chaos and evil... not just from the new blood that joined the game after the buy-in, but also from the original players who initially set out to play good guys. It's as if "goodness and lawfulness" must inevitably atrophy as a campaign progresses, and any DM who expects otherwise must sooner or later have his hopes summarily dashed. (In my experience, anyway.)

And I've finally discerned another major aspect of why this is: the alignment system in D&D is fundamentally toothless. The DM can always say "if your character goes evil, hand over the sheet, he's NPC'd," but there's always something a little arbitrary and sudden about alignment change in D&D. Arguments and hurt feelings would inevitably ensue. At any rate, D&D alignment is basically post hoc and descriptive: a character's alignment changes after the fact, in response to a character's overall and relatively long-term pattern of behavior. Ergo, I've come to understand, if I want a campaign of proper, heroic high fantasy---defined as a setting like Middle-Earth or the Star Wars galaxy, where the good guys are good, and evil is a real, corrupting force that the setting simply does not tolerate for long in its protagonists---one must enforce a more stringent, black-and-white alignment mechanic, something like Dark Side points from Star Wars d20 or corruption by Shadow from Decipher's LotR game.

I'll just bet that having a number on each player's sheet staring them in face, saying "you are this close to losing your character to the DM, and raise dead doesn't work on getting NPC'd"... that'll probably have a very positive impact on player behavior.

 

[Set]

The player who plays the Paladin, cavalier, knight, ventrue, high-status character and uses that to lord it over the other PCs. I've seen this *almost* as many times as I've seen a paladin in the game, with almost inevitable PVP ensuing when someone casts a spell on a foe the paladin is fighting and 'stealing his kill' or 'violating the terms of honorable combat' or some such twaddle, or *the rest of the party* decides to assign the magic wand found to the magic-user, and the Paladin flips out because he didn't get a fair share (of a wand? What, are we to break it into fifths?) and stabs the mage in the back and justifies that because he was just roleplaying a proper lawful character of higher standing than the mage.

More than I have ever experienced with people playing evil characters, it seems like 'paladin' or, worse, 'paladin-cavalier' (back in the days of 1e Unearthed Arcana) is catnip for douchey players on an ego-trip.

The excuse 'I was just role-playing!' after stealing something from another PC, or killing another PC, or sabotaging a situation so that the party gets wiped out (the most common paladin tactic, being a prick in a social situation guaranteed to get the rest of the party killed, or attacking town guards or merchants or *the King* for being 'disrespectful' or 'dishonorable') is very, very played out...

Our 'solution' was to go ten years discouraging anyone from playing a paladin, unless we already knew them well and knew that they were the sort of player we'd trust playing a chaotic evil sociopath with a license to murder anyone who violated a whimsical made up code of standards, subject to creative re-interpretation at their whim. Only then could they play a paladin.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Hmm.

Group of players who are all chaotic evil, irrespective of what actual alignment is listed on the character sheet. New player joins, tries to play a paladin by alignment, extant group sets about to make the Paladin fall.

IOW, "Griefers"

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The player who plays the Paladin, cavalier, knight, ventrue, high-status character and uses that to lord it over the other PCs. I've seen this *almost* as many times as I've seen a paladin in the game, with almost inevitable PVP ensuing when someone casts a spell on a foe the paladin is fighting and 'stealing his kill' or 'violating the terms of honorable combat' or some such twaddle, or *the rest of the party* decides to assign the magic wand found to the magic-user, and the Paladin flips out because he didn't get a fair share (of a wand? What, are we to break it into fifths?) and stabs the mage in the back and justifies that because he was just roleplaying a proper lawful character of higher standing than the mage.

More than I have ever experienced with people playing evil characters, it seems like 'paladin' or, worse, 'paladin-cavalier' (back in the days of 1e Unearthed Arcana) is catnip for douchey players on an ego-trip.

The excuse 'I was just role-playing!' after stealing something from another PC, or killing another PC, or sabotaging a situation so that the party gets wiped out (the most common paladin tactic, being a prick in a social situation guaranteed to get the rest of the party killed, or attacking town guards or merchants or *the King* for being 'disrespectful' or 'dishonorable') is very, very played out...

Our 'solution' was to go ten years discouraging anyone from playing a paladin, unless we already knew them well and knew that they were the sort of player we'd trust playing a chaotic evil sociopath with a license to murder anyone who violated a whimsical made up code of standards, subject to creative re-interpretation at their whim. Only then could they play a paladin.

Expanding on this, I've seen one too many Lawful Stupid (Good or Neutral) characters of the Crusading Zealot archetype. In your face and all self-righteous. Cleric or Paladin, it seldom makes much difference.

Denying others their due because of silly tithes, trying to dictate the actions of others, getting on some holier-than-thou soapbox. Another thin excuse to be an arsehat in-game.

I find followers of the old Lawful Neutral powers were the worst. Perhaps 'those' players gravitated to them because it gave them the greatest leeway to be an overbearing jerk.

This sort of nonsense has left me with a general distaste for divine characters for a long time.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I have a few that annoy me.

The 'Reformed' assassin. Took one level in the assassin prestige class and wants to keep the killing ability. Umm. NO!

Rogues, evil characters, dark loners, etc as above.

A certain kind of elf player. We are superior, and I will either tell you so or refuse to talk to my inferiors. Lotta fun either way.

Players who write large social power and influence into their backgrounds and expect to have it in all situations.

As per the ability score/roleplaying thread, players who cover every character weakness with 'roleplaying' If they do not have a huge jump score, they find a creative but highly implausible solution. If they do, they just roll.

And more, though I have nto had too much trouble with thee for a while now.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I have a few that annoy me.

The 'Reformed' assassin. Took one level in the assassin prestige class and wants to keep the killing ability. Umm. NO!

I've run in to a corollary of this: the fragile flower who has had enough of bloodshed and violence (as their character background, before the game even starts) and will stop. Every. Fight. "NOooooooo we can't kill them! Our good is their evil! NOoooooo I can't take up the sword again! Or employ magic! Or ... " [etc]. Then why the are you an adventurer, Cochise?!

Edit: I blame it on anime.

 

[haakon1]

they think they are above the law and throw morals out the window.

In my last session, the PC's -- including a dwarf and a paladin (new player) -- decided to break open the dwarven crypts in the Forge of Fury. OK, that's not necessarily bad, there could be undead to fight.

But they found there wasn't, and they found treasure -- a ring and a weapon -- they looted them.

They seemed to think that since the crypts warned of dire curses, but there was no magic, it was OK for them to take it since the warning was a trick . . . I didn't mess with the paladin because the player is new and I didn't want to go there.

But I don't get this behavior. I haven't had consequences for this . . . yet. I did mention in my notes to them on the session that this didn't seem exactly on the up-and-up.

 

[MortalPlague]

Character incompatibility.

I've had this so often of late for some reason... It's not that the PCs can't mesh together at the start of the game. They just won't. The players all know out of game that their characters are all in this tavern to meet up and form a party. In character, they pick fights with the other characters, deliberately sit elsewhere, or lack the initiative to get up and go chat up one of the other PCs by way of introduction. Sometimes, the fellow selling the quest will be sitting at the table with all the other PCs, and one will be sitting in a corner because 'he hasn't been approached'.

Sure, sure, put the party together beforehand. Make the players roll up characters who've been travelling together, or have a reason to stick together. And yet, when they roleplay it, they make no attempt whatsoever to form any kind of party bond. Quite the opposite... there's always characters being socially slighted, picking fights, insulting others, so on, so forth.

I can see roleplaying a character, but at a certain point, the players just need to make a concession towards getting started. We all sat down to play Dungeons and Dragons... why can't we get along and get to the good stuff?