Pet peeves of D&D gaming

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Players who are more interested in doing their own thing than following the campaign/adventure.

Boy howdy, can I relate to that!

Our whole group right now is very disjointed-- all have different places we want to go and different goals we want to fulfill... we're slowly getting better at it, starting to come together as a *team* but, it has taken almost 6 months (out of game) and 10 levels to get to this point.

 

[tetsujin28]

See, now that doesn't bother me at all. I think the whole concept of the 'party' is really dated. But I'm very much in favour of the Player as Author, and don't run 'adventures'. If the players aren't interested, it's their own darn fault.

 

[diaglo]

See, now that doesn't bother me at all. I think the whole concept of the 'party' is really dated. But I'm very much in favour of the Player as Author, and don't run 'adventures'. If the players aren't interested, it's their own darn fault.

that just means you enjoy the game for other reasons.

i play for the social aspect. being social means getting along or at least trying to work within a group. in the case of D&D we use parties.

if someone wants to play solo... then i don't mind. it just means the rest of the party won't be playing with them.

 

[diaglo]

players doing solo play throughout a campaign is yet another reason people complain about the video game trend the game is headed.

in video games you get parties...but you only have one player controlling them. it is in essence solo play.

 

[Voadam]

Peeves

Players who forget the rules consistently after having them explained multiple times "I run up 30 feet and full attack him three times."

Being cut out of the action for long periods of time whether from party splitting or from mishaps (spending a whole night incapacitated).

Having character powers change on me mid-stream (persistent spell is a 3 level boost for all day, then 4 level for all day, then 3 level for one duration category upgrade).

Figuring out a cool maneuver, setting up the character to be able to do it, finding a situation in-game to apply it to and executing it well, then have the DM decide it is too good so negating it and taking away the power or drastically reducing it.

House rules with no advance warning "You use the wand? That provokes an AoO! The three ogres swing at you . . ."

DMs treating PCs like incompetent nobodys in describing their actions. I chose to play a hero, not a gully dwarf.

My failings that I'm working on.

In our e-mail campaign sending off an action then sending off a message retracting that action to do something a little more optimal. I've gotten better at this but for a while it was quite egregious.

Not resisting the urge to look up stats for monsters we know we are going to face. At least my current PC has the knowledge skills and in-game research to back up my OOG knowledge. I've been working on refraining unless I get specific DM carte blanche to look them up due to knowledge skills and research.

 

[Woas]

My pet peeves:

*Players who use Greatswords with the arguement of: "well, my character would know that it could do more damage with a greatsword. I mean, if you put a 9mm Pistol next to a Self-Propelled Grenade Launcher and you wanted to do the most damage, you'd pick the Grenade Launcher. I mean, its just common sense. My character knows Greatswords are the best melee weapon for damamge."

*DMs who get to attached to their Homebrew that they keep it all in a lock box and if you try to explore in it, your are bluntly told by a building growing a huge fist and punching you for 3d6 damage to stop exploring and not to poke around. That was a true story of course.

*Players who cannot... nor try to, play any character (both alignment and mentality wise) other than themselves. Their arguement is "well, Neutral Good is boring to me. I wanna play Chaotic Neutral cause thats what I am. I wouldn't have fun as Neutral Good and thats the point of the game, to have fun right?" ........grrrrr

*Players (and sometimes DMs) who always take a negative stance with every NPC they come across. Example: "DM: You enter the grand chamber of the wizards tower, you see an old man working in the corner at what looks to be like a laboratory set up. He does not notice you." "PC: Hey you! Tell us where we can raise our dead friend! We were sent here to find something that can let us do it!" "DM as wizard: The wizard looks over to you kind with a shocked look on his face and says, "What?! Do you not understand that you are all trespassers on private property, extremely rude, and I could probably kill all of you with a wave of my hand?! This is my F'n house for crying out loud! Not a dungeon filled with monsters for your pleasure! NOW GET OUT! AND I HOPE YOUR FRIEND NEVER COMES BACK AGAIN!" .."Maybe if you were nicer next time, you'd actually be able to finish some quests!" He then goes back to working on some experiment."

 

[tetsujin28]

that just means you enjoy the game for other reasons.

i play for the social aspect. being social means getting along or at least trying to work within a group. in the case of D&D we use parties.

if someone wants to play solo... then i don't mind. it just means the rest of the party won't be playing with them.

It doesn't have to do with 'playing solo'. The 'party' being apart doesn't mean it isn't part of larger story. Trollbabe has great ideas on how to integrate just those kinds of situations.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Heh . . . got a good chance to develop quite a few over the years.

• Players who try to make their characters the "main hero," treating (or deeming) the other PCs as "Supporting Cast."
• Players trying to accomplish multiple actions in 1 round.
• Players that try to dictate how things will pan out, regardless of other character actions or NPC actions/reactions.
• Players who cause turmoil, inter-party strife, and in-game strife just for the heck of it (often ruining any chance for a serious game, esp. some players are trying to play a serious game).
• Saying that you'll attend, then not attending. (I hate doing this unintentionally); understandable/excuseable if there's a last-minute emergency, but damn irritating when ditched for another gaming group, or if the player really didn't want to attend in the first place (and should have just said so ahead of time).
• Uber-NPCs, both heroes & villains. Really bad when the party needs to recruit an uber-NPC ally to help them deal with the uber-NPC villain (instead of allowing an opportunity for the PCs to deal with the matter themselves).
• Players who consciously make characters molded against the rest of the party (an Evil blackguar dor assassin type with a group of good-aligned PCs, esp. w/ a paladin intheir midst).
• Players who try to use their AL as an excuse for their actions (esp. when those actions go against AL).
• Constant cheating in game, esp. when the cheater raises hell after he/she has been caught/confronted about his/her cheating.
• Players who are insistent about making up a character other than what's allowed by the DM (IF someone truly is a roleplayer, then why does it matter that they can't play a Chaotic half-dragon monk, or a psychic PC in a no-psionics game, etc.?)
• Games being on hold/cancelled because 1 specific person didn't attend a game session (I can understand not having enough people there to play/run, but not stopping a game because a single person didn't show). Even worse when said person has a bad habit of not showing up for games, even though he/she said so (see a previous bulleted item for that gripe/peeve).
• Lack of interest/effort by players to get into a game.

I know htere's more, but I can't think of anything else at the moment.

 

[the Jester]

My biggest gaming pet peeve is games with no sense of danger to them. If I can't die, I lose interest.

 

[Hida Bukkorosu]

people who don't show up is my #1.