D&D General What's the most problematic D&D player you've ever played with?

[Zaukrie]

I don't know if I had bad players....but I've left a few DMs that were very heavy handed and wanted to tell their story, not the PC's story. We were just along for the ride. Two different times.....

 

[Oofta]

I think that the number of players that deliberately try to sabotage games is very low, but the number of players with a playstyle that will result in sabotage much higher. Some just like the attention being focused on them, some don't see how they role-play their character has to work with the rest of the group and the campaign.

I knew one guy though, that was a deliberate saboteur. His thinking was that if you were a skilled DM, you could handle anything he did.

I had a player once that went out of his way to thwart anything I had planned. If there was a plot hook meant for him, he'd ignore it. The signs all said go right he'd go left. For example the group was visiting a dwarven keep and the dwarves were rushing around talking about finding something they had lost. Basically a typical plot hook designed for a dwarven PC. He went up to the commander organizing the party of dwarves and told him in no uncertain terms he wasn't interested. The response was "We didn't ask for your help, what the **** are you talking about?"

So that should have been it, right? I have no problem with PCs not being interested in possible threads. But then the guy gloated while laughing that he hadn't been dumb enough to take me up on a side quest custom designed for him. He was proud of himself that once again, he had made me waste time prepping for something that he refused to bite. That wasn't really an issue because I hadn't really prepared much more than a handful of notes just in case and I've always run a very improvisational game anyway (even though people don't realize it).

Nowadays I'd just take him aside after the game and have a chat with him about it and probably politely ask him to find another game. Fortunately he didn't last much longer after that because he just wanted a game where the PCs sat around in a tavern and "things happened". Not sure what that meant exactly because either the DM throw out plot hooks and the players pursue them or the PCs sit around in the tavern drinking until they can't pay their bill and get kicked out.

On the other hand at least he wasn't playing a 7 ft tall albino elf with no weapons or spells of any kind. Nor did he want to play a half dragon half vampire with a cape that fluttered in the nonexistent wind. Ah well, those players weren't problematic ... just odd.

 

[MGibster]

Attacking or mouthing off to socially powerful NPCs

I hate it when players have their characters do this for the lulz. In a way, D&D is just a big old adolescent power fantasy so I can see why it's appealing to mouth of to the socially powerful without suffering any meaningful consequences. But then I'm sometimes faced with the choice of either ignoring it or ruining the fun for everyone by having the NPC actively work against them.

I had a player once that went out of his way to thwart anything I had planned. If there was a plot hook meant for him, he'd ignore it.

I have a few players who are like that. Part of me wonders if they've suffered under bad DMs in the past and they might be a little gun shy for fear that their current DM will take advantage. But then I have some players I've gamed with for years do whatever they can to avoid plot hooks that directly interest their characters. Oh, maybe I'm the trauma inducing DM?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Part of me thinks that so much problematic behavior within the game boils down to control. The player that refuses to go along with the rest of the party on the quest, the person that refuses to take the hook and just wants to sit at a tavern, the player that goes off on their own on some tangent, that mouths off to the authority figure, that's all a form of trying to take control of the game away from the DM and the other players. For however long, the game becomes immediately centered on what they are doing and what they are causing to happen, not the DM and not the rest of the players.

I ended up kicking that particular saboteur out for something that happened after gaming, but that was really the straw that broke the camel's back.

I had a player once that went out of his way to thwart anything I had planned. If there was a plot hook meant for him, he'd ignore it. The signs all said go right he'd go left. For example the group was visiting a dwarven keep and the dwarves were rushing around talking about finding something they had lost. Basically a typical plot hook designed for a dwarven PC. He went up to the commander organizing the party of dwarves and told him in no uncertain terms he wasn't interested. The response was "We didn't ask for your help, what the **** are you talking about?"

So that should have been it, right? I have no problem with PCs not being interested in possible threads. But then the guy gloated while laughing that he hadn't been dumb enough to take me up on a side quest custom designed for him. He was proud of himself that once again, he had made me waste time prepping for something that he refused to bite. That wasn't really an issue because I hadn't really prepared much more than a handful of notes just in case and I've always run a very improvisational game anyway (even though people don't realize it).

Nowadays I'd just take him aside after the game and have a chat with him about it and probably politely ask him to find another game. Fortunately he didn't last much longer after that because he just wanted a game where the PCs sat around in a tavern and "things happened". Not sure what that meant exactly because either the DM throw out plot hooks and the players pursue them or the PCs sit around in the tavern drinking until they can't pay their bill and get kicked out.

On the other hand at least he wasn't playing a 7 ft tall albino elf with no weapons or spells of any kind. Nor did he want to play a half dragon half vampire with a cape that fluttered in the nonexistent wind. Ah well, those players weren't problematic ... just odd.

I've had players do this as well. In The Rise of Tiamat, when the party met with the good dragons, the one player I listed up-thread started yelling at them, accusing them of being in league with Tiamat. They could've obliterated the entire party right then and there. I had to break out the canned response of "Does this person speak for all of you?"

It's this weird game of chicken, where they're heading right at the consequences of their actions and seeing whether the DM is going to swerve away first or not, again potentially holding the campaign hostage.

I hate it when players have their characters do this for the lulz. In a way, D&D is just a big old adolescent power fantasy so I can see why it's appealing to mouth of to the socially powerful without suffering any meaningful consequences. But then I'm sometimes faced with the choice of either ignoring it or ruining the fun for everyone by having the NPC actively work against them.

I have a few players who are like that. Part of me wonders if they've suffered under bad DMs in the past and they might be a little gun shy for fear that their current DM will take advantage. But then I have some players I've gamed with for years do whatever they can to avoid plot hooks that directly interest their characters. Oh, maybe I'm the trauma inducing DM?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I had a player triple-class cleric/wizard (maybe it was sorcerer?)/fighter. He would ask for rulings that would've drastically increased his power...had the text not deliberately specified otherwise. When we hit the endgame of the campaign, sure enough, he found that those low spell DCs he was dealing with meant the monsters almost always made their saves and he was the one complaining about it, like it was the fault of the system and not just the result of his choices.

The worst type of bad layer I've had to deal with is what I call the "bad optimizer." As in, they want to powergame/optimize, but they're bad at doing that and make crap characters instead.

So they end up with a paladin who's best stat is wisdom and they dumped charisma, complaining that their spells don't work. Or the studded-leather polearm fighter who's less tanky than the sword-and-board heavy armor paladin but the fighter wants to tank. Or the rogue who doesn't do a lot of damage because called shots cause disadvantage on the attack rolls (and therefore miss a lot, in a addition to not doing much damage). Or the trip-based character with no attacks to follow up with, because they have their free hand on the net (the other's on the horse's reins).

And you can't offer advice - they won't listen. After all, if they listened, they would have seen the advice about wearing heavy armor or putting your best stat numbers into key abilities for your class.

So they sit there and sulk, because the tough customer concept in their mind isn't what's happening at the table - and it's their own fault but they just can't see how smaller bonuses to rolls means you succeed less.

 

[Yora]

I had a player who liked to do stupid things for shits and giggles and got bored with the campaign after playing once or twice.
That's the worst it ever got.

 

[el-remmen]

There have been a few, but most recently another player in a game I was in spent more time on his phone (mostly playing free-to-play games) than paying attention to what was going on in the game to the point of never being ready when his turn came around in combat and complaining that my live-tweeting the game was "the same" as him being on his phone because I was on my tablet. The fact that live-tweeting meant I paid closer attention to the game (even when my character was not directly involved) and that I was always ready on my turn meant nothing for him argument-wise.

Furthermore, he complained endlessly when anything ever went against us - to the point that I got him a giant eraser printed with the words "NOT AGAIN!" to use to update his hit points on his sheet (he did not appreciate it).

He finally quit the game after his character was killed by a night raid of seawolves or some other aquatic lycanthrope on our ship. While we knew it was going to be a tough fight and needed to coordinate, he was mad that when he asked if his character (who had been off-duty and asleep) was in his armor, the DM replied, "Does it seem reasonable that he'd be in his armor now?" which he took as a no. So he spent the 10 rounds or whatever while the rest of us were in the fight for our lives. A couple of the raiders found their way to his cabin (about 6 rounds into his putting on his armor) and after some lucky shots and a crit, he was bleeding out with no one close by to help him. He wrote a long angry complaining email to the DM when he quit complaining that we "play wrong."

edit: the eraser said "NOT AGAIN!" not "WHY ME?" fixed it.

 

[The Green Hermit]

There are lots of stories in recent threads about domineering and unreasonable DMs, and about rules that aren't needed because no player would ever be that extreme. And there's apparently an old poll that shows the majority of DMs are bad.

I feel left out, because I've been lucky enough to never run into a really bad DM or legendarily bad player (well, one, but they were 10 and got better in a few sessions). I've read about some of the bad DMs on here (eek!)... but haven't seen the bad player stories. So, any stories out there of players who have their paladin turn into a homicidal maniac on a dime? Anyone wanting to be a class or concept not banned in session 0 that turned into a nightmare later and wouldn't be reined in? Anyone you've had to bring consequences on because you thought their play required it even if it led to the player not having fun? (Town guard on the un-clever thief?) Or are all the players angels (until some become DM and let their badness show).

My husband. Lol! He is a very reluctant player, but we sometimes need him. At those times, it is almost impossible to find a set time to play, because he always has reasons to avoid it.

 

[Catulle]

I know I've told this one in another thread. But the first group I ran into here in Arkansas invited me to their place to play some AD&D 1st edition (in 2001). One of the players was black and when he left the room for some reason another one of the players referred to him as an N word. I made my excuses, left, and never looked back.

Most of my problematic player stories are pretty tame. Back in my 3E days, I was running games for a local club and a dude who hadn't played in years showed up to one of our events with his daughter (16-17) in tow. One of the other players (early 20s) was macking on her (unsuccessfully) throughout the entire game. For some odd reason we never saw them at another club event again.

I had another player in the club who would often swear. I'm no prude, but when you're gaming at a public event, especially in mixed crowds of minors and adults, I think people should watch their language. It got bad enough that I started avoiding sitting at tables with that guy. Hell, this is actually two people. I had another guy who was like that but he didn't just swear he made completely inappropriate comments. He toned down his mannerisms when the attractive waitress came to take our order and when I asked why he couldn't be like that more often he loudly said, "I'm not trying to naughty word you." Yeah, that was it for me.

A) please tell me you let the poor guy know what was going on... (to be clear, not the racist; his(?) target)

B) Fricking ewww.

C) As a Scotsman, I have been that right sorry c... anute? more regularly than I would like and, yeah. Not on you.

 

[MGibster]

A) please tell me you let the poor guy know what was going on... (to be clear, not the racist; his(?) target)

They all knew one another quite well and I was in a situation where I was in the home of near strangers and very outnumbered so wasn't interested in getting into a conflict.

B) Fricking ewww.

I later found out that this guy had a habit of hitting on any woman with a pulse. It's just that most of our group was made of men so I rarely had any opportunity to take notice.

C) As a Scotsman, I have been that right sorry c... anute? more regularly than I would like and, yeah. Not on you.

I have a juvenile sense of humor and can swear with the, well, not on a Scotsman level, but it's not something that offends me in private spaces. It's the public spaces where it bothers me.