Things that annoy you as DM?

[zarberg]

People who play sorcerers (who only know a VERY limited amount of spells) and then don't have a clue that the spells they use changed from 3.0 to 3.5, even though the campaign they are playing in has been using the 3.5 rules for a LOOOONG time.


Those darn high AC Devoted Defenders!!! (I shouldn't complain too much, I play a Devoted Defender with a base AC of 32 who can expertise up to 37 and has 50' of movement and is immune to charm and compulsion).


Players who do something similar to the following:

Player: "I'm playing a necromancer"
DM: "Cool, I haven't had much experience with those, should be fun"
Player: "I'm playing a necromancer I found on the internet. I don't remember what the class was like, but I'll try to find it online later."
DM: "Riiiiiight."

 

[Belen]

I think what is being said is that the player should at least give a basic idea of what he is saying. Instead of saying "I am giving a rousing speech!" he should instead say "I am giving a rousing speech, reminding the town's defenders of their commitment to the safety of their wives and children". Something that simple is much preferred and it doesn't even take that much more time.

That's just bunk. It sounds like you run a game with little RP at all. How is that statement memorable? I hate it when a player pulls that in my game. It ruins the opportunity to roleplay.

I do not expect my players to have glorious speaches, but I do expect them to take their time and say what they mean. If it sounds bad (broken, choppy etc), then the roll means that it is perceived as charismatic.

Don't use numbers as an excuse for bad, or no, RP.

 

[TreChriron]

People who play [donkey]-hole characters, just so they have an excuse to act like a [donkey]-hole and piss everyone else off. Nothing wrong with playing a jerk if you're doing for RP purposes and everyone's having fun, but playing a jerk so you can be a jerk and get away with it is grounds for a serious beat-down...

Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen.

Oh my GOD I am so tired of the anti-social "what's a shower?" have NOT a clue about real life whiney loner arrogant selfish crap. pah LEEEESE.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Players who whine when things aren't going good for their characters.

Players who try to bend the combat rules by performing off-the-wall stunts during combat. "Okay, I'll climb up into the tree, tie my rope to the branch, and swing down while slashing with my sword. Will that allow me to avoid recieving an AoO from the giant?"

Players who always play as the same race/class combination. I know one guy who never plays as anything besides elf rangers when we play D&D. He's a good player, but it'd be nice to see him play as something else for once.

The thing I absolutely hate the most, though, is players who show up an hour or more late to the session and then act like it's no big deal. When players do that, it makes me want to do horrible, horrible things to their PC.

 

[kigmatzomat]

My peeve is players who don't level their character until the game session. I'm to the point now that if I don't have an electronic copy of the new character sheet by the start of game, you haven't leveled. Sorry, nope, no new spells for you and I hope you don't need that stat point or save bonus.

My game is bi-weekly. If I have time to prepare 8 hours of gaming material, you can update one dinky little character.

There's also the cousin of this type of player "I'm not anywhere"
It's a wonder if the party knows that his character even exists because he never seems to be anywhere at all.

I get around that by asking for locations on a regular basis, especially when I have *nothing* planned. After a while it becomes common place and the players get used to it. I also repeat back all the locations because sometimes it makes sense for people to rearrange once they hear someone else's idea. "Ooh, I'll setup up *my* hammock too!" Unless contradicted after the repeat, there you are until you say otherwise. If we disagree and one of the other players at the table doesn't vouch for you and tell me "I heard them say it" then you are wherever I thought you were.

Once the group passes my internal spatial mapping limit (~10 characters) I use battlemats at all times. Once the party hits the road the minis are laid out in travel formation. When sleeping the watch rotation is cleared and the locations of bedrolls and picketed mounts. In "dungeons" the marching order is fixed and once the drek hits the fan I draw out the map around them.

After running a group of 14 I learned that the DM running roughshod over a player every now and then is far more acceptable to the overall game than letting one player run over everyone else all the time.

 

[Ferret]

Players who make a character and play it like a different class. Example a 1st level sorcerer with 4 hp who tries to attack everything with his mace.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Knowledge skills are based on what the character knows (or IRL, what you know), and about such fictional things are magic, monsters, and world lore, are more appropriate to rolling to determine success, since a player won't know every detail their character will. Social skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc are things real-life people have some experience with, so I don't think its out of line to require the player to make SOME effort to justify their using the skill. Granted, a player might not be a master orator (lord knows I'm not), but as long as he makes some effort, most DMs would give the player the benefit of the doubt. Without the RPing requirement, D&D might as well be like Baldur's Gate or a CRPG with scripted events and dialogue, and based solely on the mathematical probabilities. This is where I begin to see the powergamer emerge- someone who refuses to engage in roleplaying their character and instead focuses on the numbers and rules to maximize the benefit they receive while playing. I'm not saying all people who focus on the numbers are like this, but its a trend I have seen dozens of times over the years.

So you'd be perfectly fine with someone who'd memorised all the monster books reciting out stats whenever his character met something?

Or for that matter the guy in the group who does rock climbing being allowed to do some rock climbing in order for his character to succeed at climbing?

Or for one of the guys in the group to beat you up in order to win a combat?

And furthermore, you'd consider anyone who didn't attempt these to be a 'powergamer' with no interest in roleplaying, regardless of whether he's any good or not.

'cause thats the equivalent of what you've just said.

 

[Gothmog]

Actually, thats not what I am saying, but I'll respond to each of your points:

So you'd be perfectly fine with someone who'd memorised all the monster books reciting out stats whenever his character met something?

Um, no. I'm talking about skills that are real life skills for either characters or players. For example, I am a neuroscientist, so recalling a pertinent detail about synaptic transmission and how it relates to thought generation would (in game terms) require a skill check. However, in real life, no one really knows the numerical mechanics (read- all the physics) behind this phenomenon. Likewise, PCs might have some lore or info about monsters, but wouldn't know numerical characteristics as such, since those numbers don't exist in the game world (DR, HD, or AC for example). Players memorizing stats from the game is clearly metagaming, and should not be permitted.

Or for that matter the guy in the group who does rock climbing being allowed to do some rock climbing in order for his character to succeed at climbing?

While I might give the guy a bonus for describing exactly what he is doing to climb a cliff, its simply ridiculous to make him climb a cliff to have his PC pass a skill check.

Or for one of the guys in the group to beat you up in order to win a combat?

Again, combat is a trained skill, which few modern people are familair with. Using an abstraction like D&D combat is fine here.

And furthermore, you'd consider anyone who didn't attempt these to be a 'powergamer' with no interest in roleplaying, regardless of whether he's any good or not.

'cause thats the equivalent of what you've just said.

I'd think the guy who wanted to climb the tree IRL to show me how his character did it was spastic and probably a little unhinged. Someone who memorized the stats of all monsters and spouted them off wouldn't be welcome at my table if he continued to do that after a warning. And RL violence isn't tolerated in my social situations, ever. These are things few people have much experience with IRL, so we have to rely on abstractions to decide how much a battle axe blow hurts, or exactly how difficult it is to scale a rocky outcropping in rain and a 20 mph wind.

These examples you give differ substantially from social situations in game though. First, barring the possibility the player is one of the unwashed, socially inept gamers, all people have some experience speaking with others and should be expected to at least ATTEMPT to role-play through what their character is saying to accomplish his goal. So I don't think it is at all unreasonable to ask a player to roleplay through the dialogue his character is using to influence others. It doesn't have to be a brilliant Shakespearean monologue, as long as some effort is made. A non-attempt (like I detailed earlier) would result in an automatic failure in my game, no matter what the roll was. Simply relying on the numbers strikes me as supremely lazy on the part of the player, and while it might be ok in a less roleplaying intensive game, it won't fly in my game. Each DM has to make that distinction for his game though. To me, it shows the player isn't even willing to expend the energy try to view or experience the world from his character's point of view, and its rather insulting to the DM since he spends a lot of time prepping for the game every session.

 

[kamosa]

Players that tell other players how to play their characters.

You know what I mean. "A elf would never be friends with a dwarf, that's just stupid" or "The priests is the healer, so get over here and heal me" or "That's not really how a chaotic good charter would act"

In general this person has "figured out" the system and is playing the most powerful character. They usually tend to play paladins or wizards. If any character contradicts their excellent knowledge of how the team tactics of D&D should work, they are pissed and start making snide comments.

To make matters worse they think d&d can only be played one way, their way. Any character that violates their sterio types and arctypes of the game is immediatly deamed inferior and any success it achieves is deemed luck or DM favoritism.

HMMMM...

Did we forget to invite you back? Must have....

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Woo! Time for ranting.

Players who insist that "The essence of the game is Roleplaying, playing a role." Yet can't be bothered to make up a character background.
Players who compare the game to a computer/console game. Especially annoying when they do this while the game is in progress.
Those same "Role-players" who refuse to talk in-character.
The guy who refuses to try and change his behavior when asked by the DM. Even more so though, the guy who comes to his defense.
Players who complain that NPC's are just there like robots, and only have one thing to say, regardless of the fact that they do their absolute best to avoid any and all interaction with NPC's.
Players who leave the party at the first available moment.
Players who always play characters contrary to the tone/goal of the campaign.
Players who complain about their choice of class. Especially the guy who complains that clerics are just healing machines (as opposed to, you know, arguably the strongest class in the game).
Players who play the brooding loner who hates everyone else. Add to that the guy who plays the person with no friends and no family.
Players who play the guy who sits in his room and doesn't want to do anything.
Players who believe that if they keep trying things at random, they're bound to find the right answer if they roll high enough.
Players who complain that they're inneffective when they don't even try to understand or use their character's abilities.
Players who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.
Players who come to the game late.
Players who draw, play game boys, or otherwise stop paying attention to the game for long periods of time.
Players who don't bother to learn what their spells do.
Players who complain at having to either memorize/type up/print out/photocopy 12 spells over the course of the week and complain that it's a lot of work without realizing that DM requires a lot more time and effort.
Players who refuse to DM.
Players who can't remember the names of NPC's they've encountered, places they've been to, or the fact that the basement with the sleeping woman encased in crystal was in fact the house of the man with bandages over his face, when they'd just been there at the beginning of the session.
Players who, when asked in person or via e-mail about how the campaign is going say that everythings fine only to complain to other players about it.
Players who play characters who don't discuss things, and don't share with the party.
Players who complain about their lack of equipment when they're in a town with "Relgar the magnificant, enchanter of goods and arificer of magic extrodinare, merchant of kings," they just acquired a large bag full of precious gemstones, and one of the characters has worked his mojo on Relgar's attractive apprentice, who promised them a good deal.
Spellcasters who don't use their spells to help the party.

Hm, about that covers my last game.