Player schticks that grind your gears

[shilsen]

If you really think about the problem, its really a case by case thing. The person playing the PC in character isn't neccessarily the one screwing the party by roleplaying a certain way.

Oh, sure. I was specifically referring to cases when it is, referencing the complaints in this thread about players who'll do something disruptive and justify it by the "roleplaying my character" excuse.

For instance, if, for some reason, the (up until this minute) good party decides to go torture a peasant for info or slay a helpless opponent and the Paladin refuses to participate- or even actively disrupts the party actions- he's not being uncreative. The party is at fault here.

Actually, in this case, I would say nobody is at fault. Why can't a thus far good party decide at some point to torture or kill someone who's helpless? People change and also often act inconsistently, especially when under stress, and being in an adventuring party is pretty stressful. As long as the DM provides appropriate repercussions for their actions (which may include alignment shifts if such actions continue), what's the problem? And of course the paladin would refuse to participate or would disrupt the party's actions. Both sides are well within their rights to do so.

Similarly, if a DM intentionally sets up a situation that "baits" a particular PC (well into the campaign, so everyone knows everyone's peccidillos), its not bad roleplay or a lack of creativity for that PC's player to say "That's what my character would do" if that REALLY is the way the PC would act better than 50% of the time. The DM is the one guilty of screwing the party.

Agreed. Baiting PCs is very rarely, if ever, a good idea. And [pedantry]it's peccadillo(e)s.[/pedantry]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, in this case, I would say nobody is at fault.

Well, depending upon how out of control the situation gets, you may have serious fingerpointing at the end. If the situation gets way out of hand- say, infraparty conflict resulting in death- there WILL be some kind of attempt to allocate blame.

For instance, the second example I gave, "slaying a helpless opponent," can be interpreted several ways, including as a coup de grace, which is not an evil act. Its quite concievable that the party had done several coups in the past and wouldn't make the distinction between that and killing a captured foe who is "no longer useful." Similarly, while a coup de grace is within the realm of actions permissible to a Paladin in general, it is also quite possible to play a Paladin whose ethos does not permit it.

And, IMHO, a party that comes to blows over a Paladin's ethical concerns is more likely to be at fault than the person playing the Paladin...the counterexample of the guy who insists on playing his Pally as Lawful Paininthebutt notwithstanding.

BTW, thanks for the spellcheck!

 

[Illirion]

I have in my game:

"Rules Are Made To Make Playing The Game Easier"
This dude has played one too many computer RPG's and can't grasp the fact that rules in D&D were also invented to make the game seem more realistic and logical. He complained a lot when I told him he actually had to spend an action to draw his weapon and he was totally outraged when he found out he couldn't add his ability bonus to his bow damage and had to pay gold for a +3 Composite longbow.

I can get a lot btw from some of the previous posters. Almost every person I game with fell under one or more categories that have already been listed :\ . I consider myself the "I'm just here to build a good story and have fun" type of guy and I'm actually the DM .

 

[Chimera]

- Mr. How does my character special abliity work again?.. after the 6th session you think someone would figure out 'Stunning Fist'

That one gets on my nerves real fast. Tends to make players grumpy when my response becomes "The same way it worked last time. You have a PHB, You figure it out.".

The last group I ran, which was under 3.0 rules, used a big white-board for a battle mat. No grid, just freeform. Old minis (which are smaller) and a scale of 10' per inch. (Emphasis necessary).

More than two freaking years of playing that game and up to the very last session, some yahoo would always have to ask what the scale was.

 

[Greg K]

What, all of them? That's not realistic. That should be in the "DM schticks that grind your gears" thread..

There were two monasteries in his world (non-DND fantasy rpg). The particular order my character was was comprised of zealot priestly warrior-monks. Members of the monastery were taken in as young children, indoctrinated for years in the religious beliefs and ideals before being sent out into the world to aid the poor, smite the wicked, fight injustice, etc.

 

[Hussar]

There were two monasteries in his world (non-DND fantasy rpg). The particular order my character was was comprised of zealot priestly warrior-monks. Members of the monastery were taken in as young children, indoctrinated for years in the religious beliefs and ideals before being sent out into the world to aid the poor, smite the wicked, fight injustice, etc.

Sounds very good to me. I'm so sick of bland, flavourless monks and clerics that might as well be fighters for all the detail they are given. In a world where gawds are real, why shouldn't every priestly type, be they clerics, monks or paladins, be a zealot? It's not like they suffer from existential doubt.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Referring to deities as "gawds".

Too much God-damned Knights of the Dinner Table.

It helps my case that, in my accent, you can't even come close to pronouncing "gods" anything like "gawds". Makes it seem even sillier.

 

[Greg K]

Sounds very good to me. I'm so sick of bland, flavourless monks and clerics that might as well be fighters for all the detail they are given. In a world where gawds are real, why shouldn't every priestly type, be they clerics, monks or paladins, be a zealot? It's not like they suffer from existential doubt.

The Gm got no complaints from me. I was glad to see that he actually put thought into the religous types of his world rather giving players of divine characters free rein, because he had put no thought into the relgious aspects of his setting.

 

[Hussar]

Referring to deities as "gawds".

Too much God-damned Knights of the Dinner Table.

It helps my case that, in my accent, you can't even come close to pronouncing "gods" anything like "gawds". Makes it seem even sillier.

Gohds?

Just got into the habit of doing it on message boards so I don't offend anyone. My accent wouldn't do it either. [eye ther]

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just got into the habit of doing it on message boards so I don't offend anyone.

Well, except the people who find 'Gawds', 'Womyn', 'CU L8R', and 'A person should watch their language' offensive

-Hyp.