Peevish Motivations

[cyst13]

This thread is a variation of the ever popular "What is it about your players/GM that drives you up a wall?" question. I wish only to pose two simple rules. One, pick only one peeve per post. It can relate to either players or GMs. Two, after naming your peeve, give the best reason you can why you think your players/GMs do this. Example:

Peeve: My players break into side conversations that have nothing to do with the game.

Reason: There are eight people in my player group and it's impossible for me to keep more than half of them occupied at once, so the other half gets bored and starts yakking.

Admittedly, that example was a bit obvious, but I think you get the point. Also, try not to fall back on "my players/GMs are jerks/idiots" as reasons. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

[nexus]

Players that do completely out of character actions in game, ususally seemingly at random or chaotic. Examples would include randomly attacking NPCs, stealing objects or other bizzare acts in game.

Suspected Reason:They feel bored or that no progress is being made in the plot. Perhaps that they are not getting enough time in the limelight.

[teh bunneh]

I don't mind people talking out of turn during games. I do it myself sometimes (both as player and as GM). Gaming is a social outlet for my group -- we're all old friends, we love to get together and just chat. My pet peeve is players leaving the game early.

It's happened to me in two campaigns. The first, two players had recently begun dating each other. Halfway through the game at nearly every session, one of the players would begin to complain of a headache, so the two of them would leave. This went on for weeks. Of course, there was no headache. They were leaving early so they could go do the nasty -- which is perfectly understandable, but it drove me crazy that they didn't just tell me up front, "We can't be in your game because we want to spend time together." They finally did drop my game after I issued an ultimatum.

The second time, one player would just get up halfway through a game and leave, without so much as an excuse. Again, we issued an ultimatum and found out that she was participating in an on-line chat game that she found much more interesting than our FtF game, and she was just coming to be "polite."

If you've got something better to do, politely tell the GM that you'll have to drop the game. I'm a big boy, you're not going to hurt my feelings. It drives me bonkers when people just up and leave.

Bill.

[keithcurtis]

Peeve: Players that want to role-play every last detail of nitpicky events that are obviously not part of the game. Example: the characters are thrown in jail. The GM goes into no detail about the jail. He doesn't draw a map, introoduce NPCs, create conflict within the jail, ie. nothing is happening in the jail. Why do they not realize that the GM will not let them languish eternally? Why do they want to roleplay every second of their incarceration, spending every waking moment on escape attempts? Give the GM five seconds to say, "You are held for two weeks and then the local lord offers you a pardon in exchange for a quest."
This problem is compounded if only one character is in jail. The rest have to endure the pointless encounter as well.

Reason: I suspect no one likes to feel powerless. RPGs are in a very real sense power fantasies. I try not to jail PCs for this reason. If I can help it.

Though I used jail as an example, there are numerous occasions where an obstacle is in the players path that requires time but no role-play. I try to identify these ahead of time and just gloss over them. "Your ship is caught in the sticky fronds of the Lamanar Kelp Beds. It takes you a week to free it." But some catch me by surprise.

Keith "Wretched players. My world was perfect before I let you crumbs in." Curtis

[Magmarock]

Yeah, I hear you there Keith.

A similar problem is with reading the (sometimes) lengthy set-up for a game (boxed text from a module, of course). Usually, the Players want to interupt and question whomever is doing the talking... but the last time I started a module, my Players politely let me finish. Which was cool. ;)


My pet peeve: When I am presented with a new character with little or no background. I'm supposed to take this cardboard cut-out and insert him/her into my 3 dimensional campaign. I've nothing to "hook" them in to the plots with. Its like the PC is a shadow of the other PCs, only along for the ride. Drives me nuts. Its even worse if the Player won't allow me to help pad the PC's history.

Reason: I suspect the Player is afraid of putting all the work into the PC, only to have the PC die (I am not a PC killer, by the way, so there is no basis for this fear). Or they Player just doesn't care enough about the game, and the other people playing, to add to atmosphere.

Mags

[Blue]

The behavior of the host's children is generally good. But every once in a while, the youngest (about 16 Months) gets into a destructive mood and decides he wants to play with all the dice, miniatures, battlemats, or anything else he can get ahold of.

One guy ALWAYS goes to the bathroom as a fight begins.

One guy ALWAYS gets a call from his wife in mid-fight. It's uncanny! The woman's got fray-dar!

One person brings 18 books, even to a game where they technically don't need ANY.

One guy brings 3 lunches. I kid you not. Dang beanpole. Wish I could eat 3 lunches (I mean and not take up an entire couch in short order!)

Two guys you can COUNT ON never being on the same page. One is naturally argumentative and makes characters that for right or wrong always seem to take umbrage with where we're headed. Good thing we enjoy that, so I guess it's not really a peev so much as an idiosynchracy. But it really lengthens games.

One guy used to change characters every other game. Essentially he'd do something that he didn't like then he'd try to ditch the character by retiring it or getting it killed off.

[Shinitra]

My Pet Peeve: Players who are consistently, and considerably late to a game.

My boyfriend was running a game. Our two friends lived literally 3 doors down from us in our row of townhouses. Another friend drove from Jersey to Staten Island (about 30-40 minutes). The Jersey guy was ALWAYS on time. The people 3 doors down would invariably order pizza/Chinese/some food exactly at start time, then stay home to wait for delivery, then bring it over, then eat. Then we could start the game. And the GM always gave the starting time at least 3 days in advance.

At one point, we just started the game without them and made them wait over an hour (not as long as we waited for them) before their characters could get into the story again.

Possible reason: They were just inconsiderate jerks? I mean, at least order an hour earlier. Or come over and wait to order during a break. Or at least come over and let everyone order together so it can be a group delay. Obvisouly, for whatever reason, they didn't care enough about the game or the people in it to ever be on time.

[Kirby]

This thread is a variation of the ever popular "What is it about your players/GM that drives you up a wall?" question.

Peeve: When the GM is talking with a player or small group of players (especially something serious or plot-related), another player interrupts to tell the GM what his character is doing (usually something unimportant).

Reason: The player is an attention whore. (This particular one used to be a drama major before dropping out of college.)

[bblackmoor]

Players that do completely out of character actions in game, ususally seemingly at random or chaotic. Examples would include randomly attacking NPCs, stealing objects or other bizzare acts in game.

In one of my earliest D&D games, back in the 1980s, I had a player would do random things when he was bored. The funniest one was when the PCs were talking to an alchemist, his character started picking up flasks and drinking them. :jawdrop:

I guess he knew that I wouldn't kill his character. Well, he had other good traits...

[Worldmaker]

Self-proclaimed "GMs" who openly plagiarize are annoying. Especially when they openly plagiarize me.

[arcady]

The Peeve: all my male players always make male characters, the female players always also make male characters...

Reason: You tell me... The only way I get change on this is when I put presure to get it. In my MnM game, when I had all but one of the players, I announced that the next person to join had to play a female on the grounds that, well, this was a modern comic...

That actually lost me a player who was planning to join, and caused the player who did join to play one of the few female characters she's played...

Though in both the DnD games she plays males...

The male players... they're not young, they've got a mix of sexualities, they have no problems when women play men, or other men play women...

The frustrating thing is that I think better in female terms... I can't write male stories as well, so I'm always lost for subplots.

So why do they do it? I suppose they have tighter comfort zones than me - less interest in the unknown or mysterious. That explains the men. For the woman I mentioned above, I used to be on a mailing list with her former GM... He's got this fantasy world that makes the Taliban look like N.O.W. activists...

So maybe she just learned it as a defensive behavoir, and it's become her norm...

I'm not really sure.

On the other hand, she could just relate better to men and prefer them to her own gender. Certainly RPGs are a very male flooded hobby and you've got to be able to get comfortable in a non sexual way around men to enjoy it.

[Kirby]

Peeve: A player whose character always has to be strange & counter-productive to team efforts.

Reason: Player probably isn't great at *not* being the center of attention. Since he can't help solve problems, he creates them; bad attention is still attention.

Examples:

1) The team is sneaking up on a villain group that has beaten the team before. While everyone is trying to get into a good ambush spot in an abandoned warehouse, this player's character uses the building's p.a. system to announce our presence and calls the villains names.

2) When the team is up against a more powerful group and outnumbered, the team leader is talking with the opposing team leader to work things out without a fight. Said player's character, when asked about actions he's done, refers to the opponent leader's girlfriend as a "frigid bitch."

3) After the team has been ambushed by a law enforcement group designed to take us down (in a well-done "framed, now prove your innocence" plots) and realizes we are losing, but can escape and evade. Certain flying team members are designated to retrieve the non-flying members and when a flyer tries to grab and pull out said player's character (the last one to be evac'd), the player says he is going to "dodge." Now, instead of high-tailing it out of there, we have ot reinsert ourselves to get this maroon.

4) When the Baroness of the land (barony) is trying to figure out a way to discover who the head of the theives' guild is, a player who has a thief volunteers. The thief finds a way to get himself emplyed with the guild. The next day said player's character goes up to the Baroness during a public event to report on his status.

5) While the party is going through secret passages, the thief (going first, scouting) finds a trap while climbing down the ladder. He tries to disarm it but fails, then climbs down the rest of the ladder and says "all clear." When the baroness comes down next, the trap goes off and a blade cuts deep into her thigh. Said thief (same as in #4) then says, "be careful, that ladder is trapped."

6) When the party is exploring an enemy lair and split into two, one group comes upon a room with a treasure chest, another comes upon a trap. The player's thief (yep, same as #4) finds the group with the treasure chest and tells one character that his betrothed has been badly wounded. That character tells the thief to show him where she is. Said thief responds "down the hall in one of the rooms" and refuses to leave the treasure chest.

7) When the party is about to explore another enemy's lair, the party leaders are deciding who should scout and go first. A player's thief (guess who?) says he should because, "I'm good at finding traps, just ask the baroness." (To which my character responds in a non-friendly tone, "Too bad you can't disarm them or warn others about them.")

[teh bunneh]

A similar problem is with reading the (sometimes) lengthy set-up for a game (boxed text from a module, of course). Usually, the Players want to interupt and question whomever is doing the talking... but the last time I started a module, my Players politely let me finish. Which was cool. ;)

I used to have this problem a lot -- sometimes, my group would be very pro-active and start asking questions before I was done setting the scene. I solved it by telling them, "This is a cut scene" before the scene begins. They understand (after some explanation) that there will be time after I'm finished for them to ask questions/explore/attack the badguy/whatever.

In some ways I guess it kinda breaks the mood, but in many others it enhances it. Try it, it might work for you. :)

Bill.

[Kirby]

Peeve: A player who won't make a team member *ever* who works well with teams.

Reason: Player is an attention whore. (Oh yeah, all my posts so far have been about the same player.) Bad attention is still attention.

Examples:

1) Player runs an alien scientist brick. Refuses to pronounce Spanish names properly. Then character buys a chihuahua, jalapenos, and other Spanish-named items for his "apartment." Character claims he has difficulty learning other languages (only knows English & native), though he corrects others if they mispronounce German words. Character also cites Cherokee Indian history, despite lack of any related skills & this was a futuristic game where history prior to 2010 had been destroyed in a war.

2) In a Ravenloft D&D game, the player asks to bring in a WW I soldier.

3) In a Rifts game where -before we make any characters- we are told to make mercenary/bodyguard type- the player creates a Civil War soldier completely unfamiliar with 20th+ century technology. Character then goes to tell the entire party constantly how things looked in the 1860's. When the group we are hired to protect gets attacked, half the bodyguards agree to stay back to delay, other half goes with employers. Said character is with the former. When the employers leave, said character jumps into the driver's seat of a jeep, gets on the cb and says "If you leave me here, I will hunt you down and kill you." (This is where my 4-armed giant smacks him back, removes the seat, sits in the jeep and tells them to go.)

[Kirby]

Peeve: A player who makes incompetent character and either gets mad about his character not being efficient, or refuses to spend what points he is alloted.

Reason: Idiot?

Examples:

1) A Civil War character in a Rifts game (where the other characters are: Cyber night, Mech pilot, 4-armed mystical giant & technomage.)

2) A Champions game where the charcters are built on 250 points, the player only uses 215, complains about not being good enough, but refuses to spend his other points or XP, saying he doesn't need to, his character is good as is.

3) Character is a martial artist and the plot has him seeking revenge against a crime lord. At their meeting, these two are seated across a card table. Things are said and things happen. Player gets a surprise attack on crime lord. Tells the GM that he's so angry with this crime lord, that he's going to do what he thinks would be his most logical, powerful attack. Instead of doing his 7d6 punch and pushing it. He does his 3d6 STR attack. Even after EVERYONE explains the logic of doing the latter, he keeps to his 3d6. When attack is ineffective, player is upset.

OKAY, that's enough on that person. (This thread helps releive rants - thank you!)

[Kirby]

Peeve: GMs who micromanage combat.

Reason: Control freak (?)

Example: This GM would always ask you what your defenses, if they're hardened, and what your stun are, then would tell you what you had left. He never tells you if the attack is armor piercing, penetrating, or normal.

[Kirby]

Peeve: GMs who always stack combat in the villains' favor.

Reason: Control freak? Doesn't want the heroes to win? Fantasy wish?

Examples:

1) When team goes up against VIPER, there was always 1 viper villain per PC (almost always, the villains had more points and better dice damage & defenses) along with either a VIPER five team (which he later changed to six team) or an additional VIPER super.

2) Eurostar's full team versus a five man hero team, none of which have over 300 cp's.

3) Golden Age team (max attack 9d6) versus Lung Hung (from VOICE).

[Kirby]

Peeve: Players who roll for what they're doing, tell you they succeed and *then* tell you what they were doing. Then they're p.o.'d when you tell them no.

Reason: Control freak? Rude?

Example: D&D. Player would roll dice and then tell me he succeeded in doing a stunt, hitting a zombie, etc. When I told him he'd have to inform me first of what he's doing, his skills and anything else related, he'd get huffy and not participate unless necessary.

[bblackmoor]

Peeve: GMs who always stack combat in the villains' favor.

To play devil's advocate, keep in mind that in a five vs. five combat, the GM has one brain to run five characters, while the players have five brains to run five characters. Unless the GM is a tactical whiz (or just really lucky), or the players are incompetent (or just unlucky), the GM may feel the need to stack the deck a little in order to give the players an enjoyable challenge.

[bblackmoor]

Reason: Control freak? Rude?

And here I thought I was annoyed by control freaks. What is that, eight in a row? :)

[Kirby]

Peeve: People when they GM want team harmony but favor one player, or as a player (especially when team leader) plays a loner (except to GM's NPCs).

Examples:

1) GM talks about team spirit and do things together, then takes his favorite player in back-room to role-play individual encounters to keep things secret, but role-plays other character's individual encounters in front of everyone.

2) GM takes favorite player aside for ind. encounters about every 10-20 minutes; stays gone for 5-20 minutes each time.

3) Player is team leader, but plays a grim loner. However, if the player's character interacts with the GM's NPCs (same person whos is #1 & #2's fav. player), he's all about teamwork.

4) When player is not team leader, plays a character who has a team mentality history, but constantly disobeys orders and drags other players along with him. When the same starts to happen to him, he always gives ultimatums.

Let's see, I think this is all for *this* player.

[Kirby]

To play devil's advocate, keep in mind that in a five vs. five combat, the GM has one brain to run five characters, while the players have five brains to run five characters. Unless the GM is a tactical whiz (or just really lucky), or the players are incompetent (or just unlucky), the GM may feel the need to stack the deck a little in order to give the players an enjoyable challenge.
Being a GM & DM myself, I can say this is definitely not the case. Since we played a shared campaign world, we had the same resources. The GM would run us up against VIPER villains who usually had 50+ more points than us. He was very good with tactics. There were instances where he had a five man team take down our heroes. Then he changed them to six man teams with invisibility belts.

Since we lost to VIPER about 75% of the time, he didn't need to stack the deck.

[Kirby]

Peeve: GMs who favor one player over the rest.

Reason: Old friends, but still.

Examples:

1) GM will run private games with the player. Won't offer same for others; if asked, says he doesn't have the time and it would be unfair to rest; says he does it with said player because they live close.

2) GM lets the player constantly succeed with team NPCs. (In one particular game, the GM ran NPC twins in the group. Four of us guys wanted to date one of them. [We only had one PC.] It ended up said player had two PCs in this game [one of which was hidden from us for most of the time] and both ended up marrying the NPC twins. Ruined the roleplaying we had invested.)

3) GM lets the player have powers & abilities the rest of us are denied.

[Kirby]

Peeve: GMs who explain rules and reasons behind them, then doesn't follow them himself.

Reason: He builds his NPC characters to meet an ideal, not a point limitation, prior to the game starting. Forgets about it during the game.

Example:

I tried making a character with an armor piercing knife attack as well as Find Weakness @ 11- with a staff attack. GM told me that the idea was too powerful and I could have either one, just not both. Made sense so I kept the Find Weakness (first PC to have it in that game!).

When I tried to raise my Find Weakness from 13- to 14-, GM said that would make the ability too powerful and that since no villains had more than 5 points of lack of weakness, 13- would be sufficient. I said okay.

GM later admits that one of his team NPCs has claw attacks that have both 2x Armor Piercing and Find Weakness on 17-. When my character finally gets five points lack of weakness, he faces a villain who has Find Weakness on 20-!

Alrighty, that's the last rant on that player. :D

[Kirby]

I wish only to pose two simple rules. One, pick only one peeve per post. It can relate to either players or GMs. Two, after naming your peeve, give the best reason you can why you think your players/GMs do this.
Peeve: Players whose characters have no personality

Reason: Not quite sure, actually. Lack of imagination? The player is definitely not shy and has gamed as long -if not longer- than me. She's also married to a GM.

Examples:

1) In D&D, player never plays humans because "they are boring." Always plays a mult-class character [with ONE exception] because "that's interesting."

2) In Champions, player plays shapechanging bricks with growth & or shrinking whenever possible. Somehow ends up with highest defenses & strength, but complains she can't do anything.

3) If player can't punch it or squish it, she's at a loss of what to do. Has skipped phases in combat to try and figure out what she should do.

Okay, that's all for now. Thanks Cyst for a good thread idea. :thumbup: A ranting outlet is good therapy!

[Ghost Archer]

First off: I run all of my games online, in WebRPG.

Peeve: I am running with a story, describing something important, in the middle of a fight or some such thing where timing is critical. I drop a line/statement/action and pause for a player to respond. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
Five MINUTES later, I get a my response.

Reason: Gone to the bathroom? Gone to get a drink? Ordered pizza? Chatting with a friend? Can't think fast enough to respond in less than five minutes? If it were a face to face game I throw something very heavy. Good grief, people, its a compuiter, its supposed to be FAST!

[Ghost Archer]

Peeve: If I see one more blatant ripoff of Wolverine/Goku/Buffy/whoever, I will scream.

Reason: Total lack of imagination? This IS the most adapable game on the planet and all you can come up with is "I want to be a saiyan"? I don't even know what a saiyan is! (Found out, thanks Michael Surbrook)

[Ghost Archer]

Peeve: "When can I do something?"

Reason: Okay, as I said, I run in WebRPG. Unfortunately this does have a tendency to slow things a great deal by the nature of the medium. I can only type so fast and, in my advance old age, follow only so many conversations. If I am not actually running combat, things tend to get complex. Some of this may be my fault but the players have to understand I can't type as fast as I can talk and that I have to read and assimilate everything before I respond.
Last night I was running an unscheduled solo for a new player. Things were going very well, the story was developing nicely, she was enjoying the game. Another of my players showed up and immediately wanted to know what was going on, where was it happening, how could she get there and get involved. Some people can't understand other people need a little 'me' time in the game. Wait your turn, Katt (aka 'Catwoman' see previous peeves).
I understand why most of my players are 'attention whores'; most of them are in their middle teens and youth has very little patience, although one of my oldest players gets very jealous when I exclude her in whatever I am running. Guess we all want attention.

[teh bunneh]

Alrighty, that's the last rant on that player. :D

Dude! Find a new group to game with! You must be a saint -- you've got way more patience than I would. :shock: :)

Bill.
(I'd be getting the chainsaw and pruning out the deadwood...) :bmk:
:winkgrin:

[Kirby]

Dude! Find a new group to game with! You must be a saint -- you've got way more patience than I would. :shock: :)
lol - Thank you, but no, I'm no saint. All of those rants were of the same gaming group. I haven't been with them for four to five years now. Also, these things built up over a five year period. I'm sure they had a peeve or two about me. One was probably that I didn't fudge die rolls for a few years. While I'm sure they appreciated the misses or low damage, they really didn't appreciate the critical hits. :no:

Oh my! You've reminded me of another thing. :D (And I am able to keep this on thread!)

Peeve: GM ends a campaign without any prior notice.

Reason: Says he's run out of ideas or put himself into a corner.

Examples:

1) In a DC game, I'm on my third character (1st one died, 2nd one voted off the team [with another character whom mine threatened b/c he was incompetent and tended to get our team in more trouble], 3rd was a homeless, generic brick) and I was really getting back into the game. Our game ended with a 'to be continued' plot line (which did make sense). Next GM was up. After a game or two, previous GM says he's ending the game.

2) In a Rifts game, the GM sends our group on a mission to the moon. While there, we detect much GM heavy-handedness in an effort to sabatoge our ride home, which works. We ended up in a jungle for several game months. GM then cancels the game because he couldn't figure out a way to get us out of there.

What really bothered me about both of these guys' decisions was that they never asked for our input. There was a previous time (when, with 4 GMs we had nearly 20-30 games we were alternating between) when we pow-wowed, but this time nothing. Thanks for listening. Err, reading. :confused:

[cyst13]

While this has been an interesting thread so far, I might make one suggestion. It's easy to always blame the other guy (especially if he's an idiot). In my first post, though, the reason I gave related to my own behavior. I think when we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that most of the people we choose to game with are not less intelligent than ourselves or we wouldn't choose to game with them. While it's fine to point out what's wrong with what the other guy is doing, attempt a bit of introspection to see if you are doing anything yourself that would encourage peevish behavior in others. It usually takes two to tango.

Kirby's nemesis, for example, may have been initially making honest player mistakes cause he didn't have a good feel for gaming. After a while, he may have realized that Kirby started to hate his guts, then he began acting even worse just to get Kirby's goat. Wasn't there, but that's my intuition.

[Magmarock]

Peeve: People when they GM want team harmony but favor one player, or as a player (especially when team leader) plays a loner (except to GM's NPCs).

Examples:

1) GM talks about team spirit and do things together, then takes his favorite player in back-room to role-play individual encounters to keep things secret, but role-plays other character's individual encounters in front of everyone.

2) GM takes favorite player aside for ind. encounters about every 10-20 minutes; stays gone for 5-20 minutes each time.

3) Player is team leader, but plays a grim loner. However, if the player's character interacts with the GM's NPCs (same person whos is #1 & #2's fav. player), he's all about teamwork.

4) When player is not team leader, plays a character who has a team mentality history, but constantly disobeys orders and drags other players along with him. When the same starts to happen to him, he always gives ultimatums.

Let's see, I think this is all for *this* player.

The next time these two "lovebirds" take off for a backroom tryst, you should offer them some chilled Romulan ale, violin music and a box of Trojans. That oughtta curb their behavior. ;) Unless.... :D

[All meant in fun, of course]

Mags

[jackalope]

Peeve: Players who are extremely boring.

Reason: They don't understand that I, as GM, expect to find the game interesting and enjoyable as well, and that means sometimes they can't get what they want. All of the player's I've had like this thought the GM was there to entertain them.

Here are some examples:
1) One player who played the same personality-less elven fighter/mage/cleric in four successive campaigns. When I started a campaign in a world without elves, he quit.

2) One player would regualrly engage shop-keepers in conversation, and expected me to role-play idle chit-chat. It was literally like "So, has the weather been nice? That's great." I make it expressly clear at the start of my campaigns that I am an action-oriented GM, and I like to run a fast-paced, exciting game with a lot of suspense and tension. Consequently, all of my shop-keepers became the same dour, unfriendly jerk who only says "If you ain't buyin nothing, leave. If you're buying something, get on with it." His name is Horace.

3) One player described a dagger he wanted to purchase. It was an ornamental dagger. I told him to write down a description of the dagger, handed him a gem price guide, and told him to figure out a reasonable price for it, okay it with me, and it was his. He proceed to waste the next half-hour - I kid you not, a HALF-HOUR - describing the dagger to me, until I finally snapped and told him I didn't give a flying f*ck what the g*ddamn dagger looked like or why. I felt bad, but I felt death from boredom was imminent for my player's and I.

[jackalope]

Peeve: Players who are utterly psycho.

Reason: Beats me, ask a psychologist.

Examples:
1) In a Werewolf campaign, a player (in wolf form) was hurled over the edge of an apartment building by a Spirit Bear. He demanded a roll to catch the ledge. I pointed out that a wolf, with wolf paws, has no chance of performing such a manuever. I also pointed out that he would be unharmed by the fall, and would only be out of combat (a combat they were going to lose anyway) for a few rounds. He loudly demanded a roll, I gave him one at a penalty. He blew it, regardless of the penalty. I said his character hit the street below, he proceed to grab his dice and start hurling them at me, grabbed one of my books and tore it in half, and stormed out of my friends house, breaking a glass cabinent on his way out.

His character was COMPLETELY UNHARMED by the fall. No one understands what hsi deal was.

[nexus]

Peeve: Players who are extremely boring.

Reason: They don't understand that I, as GM, expect to find the game interesting and enjoyable as well, and that means sometimes they can't get what they want. All of the player's I've had like this thought the GM was there to entertain them.

Here are some examples:
1) One player who played the same personality-less elven fighter/mage/cleric in four successive campaigns. When I started a campaign in a world without elves, he quit.

2) One player would regualrly engage shop-keepers in conversation, and expected me to role-play idle chit-chat. It was literally like "So, has the weather been nice? That's great." I make it expressly clear at the start of my campaigns that I am an action-oriented GM, and I like to run a fast-paced, exciting game with a lot of suspense and tension. Consequently, all of my shop-keepers became the same dour, unfriendly jerk who only says "If you ain't buyin nothing, leave. If you're buying something, get on with it." His name is Horace.

3) One player described a dagger he wanted to purchase. It was an ornamental dagger. I told him to write down a description of the dagger, handed him a gem price guide, and told him to figure out a reasonable price for it, okay it with me, and it was his. He proceed to waste the next half-hour - I kid you not, a HALF-HOUR - describing the dagger to me, until I finally snapped and told him I didn't give a flying f*ck what the g*ddamn dagger looked like or why. I felt bad, but I felt death from boredom was imminent for my player's and I.

Wow dude, that's harsh. :)

Actually, there have been some games I -wish- I had players that were quite that interested in actually talking with NPC and treating them like people instead of equipment vendors and Target dummies or actually cared what their equipment looked like instead of how many D6 of damage it did. But play styles and tolerances are all different.

[nexus]

Peeve: Players who are utterly psycho.

Reason: Beats me, ask a psychologist.

Examples:
1) In a Werewolf campaign, a player (in wolf form) was hurled over the edge of an apartment building by a Spirit Bear. He demanded a roll to catch the ledge. I pointed out that a wolf, with wolf paws, has no chance of performing such a manuever. I also pointed out that he would be unharmed by the fall, and would only be out of combat (a combat they were going to lose anyway) for a few rounds. He loudly demanded a roll, I gave him one at a penalty. He blew it, regardless of the penalty. I said his character hit the street below, he proceed to grab his dice and start hurling them at me, grabbed one of my books and tore it in half, and stormed out of my friends house, breaking a glass cabinent on his way out.

His character was COMPLETELY UNHARMED by the fall. No one understands what hsi deal was.

Some people are immature dinks that can't stand to "lose" in any since, not matter how mild the set back. I've run into a few of them in my time as a gamer. You're better off without him. Imagine his reaction if, GASP! his character actually got hit in combat or something.

[jackalope]

Peeve: GM's who are perverts/sickos/misogynists/etc. While I'm not a woman, I occassionally create female characters and play them. Some GM's see that as license to do all sorts of weird things to my character. That annoys me.

Reason: Women won't sleep with them.

Examples:
1) I played a female Gypsy (Bard variant of my own design) in a AD&D game set in Greyhawk. While in transport aboard a ship, a galleyhand enter my character's room (where she was alone) and started "fondling" my character. So I pull out a knife and stabbed him in the guts. The DM protested. I asked him if he reasonably expected my character to simply allow herself to be raped by this ship's crew. He said "That's how women were treated in those days." I immediately quit the game.

2) I was part of an ongoing campaign in which characters died and new characters joined quite frequently. It was an all-male group, and we created all-male characters, so I decided to "break the trend" and make a hulking barbarian brutess. Over the next several months, I started noticing a trend in the prediciments that befell my character. I kept ending up covered in excrement. None of the other characters got tossed into dung pits, or forced to escape through narrow sewer tunnels, or the half dozen other poo-related perils of my heroine. So I made up a new male character, and started playing him. The excrement adventures ended. I don't even want to know what that was about.

No wonder it's hard to get women to play RPGs. Some of us are really disturbed.

[nexus]

2) I was part of an ongoing campaign in which characters died and new characters joined quite frequently. It was an all-male group, and we created all-male characters, so I decided to "break the trend" and make a hulking barbarian brutess. Over the next several months, I started noticing a trend in the prediciments that befell my character. I kept ending up covered in excrement. None of the other characters got tossed into dung pits, or forced to escape through narrow sewer tunnels, or the half dozen other poo-related perils of my heroine. So I made up a new male character, and started playing him. The excrement adventures ended. I don't even want to know what that was about.

No wonder it's hard to get women to play RPGs. Some of us are really disturbed.

Oh Dear Lord that's disturbing.

[Soulcatcher]

My main peeves:

1) Players who throw temper tantrums.

2) Players who prevent the role-playing of important scenes because they are impatient.

3) Players who use player knowledge instead of character knowledge.

I have a classic example of the third case from a D&D campaign from many years past. Player A was always doing things with his character to piss off Player B's character. As a player he found out that Player Bs character wanted to buy a particular sword from a shop. Player A's char shows up at the shop but can't afford the magic wpn and his char can't even use it. Player A's char seeks out my char to borrow money for the purchase and my char lends the money, even though as a player I didn't want to. I had to stay in character. Player A buys the wpn and tries to extort Player B, who refuses to pay the exhorbitant price demand. My char finds out what has really happened and arranges for a covert independant buyer to purchase the wpn from player A, who didn't want it anymore, and then my char sold the wpn to player B's char at a fair price :whistle: . When player B's char showed up with the wpn, the look on Player A's face was priceless :shock: :jawdrop: :weep: . I was able to resolve the player abuse and help the "victim" while staying in character the whole time which was also priceless. :cheers:

[arcady]

Well if we're going to turn this into a rant on bad or problem players...

I've got stories...

But I'll start with:

Players who do drugs, and especially those who try to bring some aspect of that into my presence. When part of your life is to study case law, you know that yes - you can get 25 to life for simply being in the room with someone who possessing, even if you never knew about it.

I've had to boot a number of people out of my house and my game for showing up high, doing 'show and tell night', and so on...

I've seen what the stuff does to people - I don't like it, I have no need for it's presence in my life. I may find the laws against it vastly too harsh, but that does not mean I have sympathy for the people who use it beyond the issue of civil rights.

As for reasons people would have the audacity to bring this stuff around... Some people seem to think that others must support them in their choices, and that they have a right to push that on anyone they choose, and endanger those people without their consent.

[Kirby]

The next time these two "lovebirds" take off for a backroom tryst, you should offer them some chilled Romulan ale, violin music and a box of Trojans. That oughtta curb their behavior. ;) Unless.... :D

[All meant in fun, of course]
Heh, actually, that night, after like the fifth time they left, I told the other players to tell the GM I was going home to sleep. I was very tired that day, I don't know if I had lots of things to do, or this was when I finished working 14 days with no days off. Anyway, after the second time they went into the back room, I started resting my eyes and cat-napping. When they went back that last time, I said that I was too tired to just wait. The truth is, I was very tired, but had I been involved in the game, I would have kept going.

I've been known to stay up for 48+ hours without sleep and when the opportunity came to game or sleep, I chose to game! :rockon:

[Kirby]

Peeve: GM's who are perverts/sickos/misogynists/etc.
It's the combination that's bad right? :yes: Perverts alone are okay? :bounce: (hee hee hee)

-Ahem- Anyway....



Examples:
1) ... He said "That's how women were treated in those days." I immediately quit the game.
Yeah, too bad he didn't know that "in those days," men thought women on ships were bad luck and to be avoided like the plague.

Heck, I'm a pervert (though a very controlled one) and I don't do that stuff. Though I did have a PC who had to DNPC women living with him. :love:

[Kirby]

Kirby's nemesis, for example, may have been initially making honest player mistakes cause he didn't have a good feel for gaming. After a while, he may have realized that Kirby started to hate his guts, then he began acting even worse just to get Kirby's goat. Wasn't there, but that's my intuition.
:confused: Not sure which "nemesis" you're referring to, as I've referred to four people. The one player that gave our whole group the worst peeves was the one I kept in touch with the longest after leaving that gaming group. :) As I've stated before, these events happened over a five year period of gaming twice a week on average. So out of roughly 520 or so gaming sessions, this is pretty much all of the peeves over that course of time. This is just the first time I've been able to channel my peeves to an audience.

[jackalope]

Yeah, too bad he didn't know that "in those days," men thought women on ships were bad luck and to be avoided like the plague.

Which of course ignores the fact the campaign took place in Greyhawk, so "those days" never exsisted! I never had a problem with the various Dungeons & Dragons campaigns settings lack of rampant racism, sexism, and xenophobia. And I don't see a need to introduce those elements. It is escapist fantasy afterall, not a sociology class.

And yeah, being an average run-of-the-mill perv is fine. I have my moments just like everybody else. There's just this line, a hazy line true, but a line you don't cross.

[Blue]

How about... Playes who try and play other people's character's for them!

I'm referring to something like this..
GM: It appears to be about 50ft between the buildings
Player1: Can't jump that far, and my teleport is too short.
Player 2: How about doing both! You'd only fall a few inches then you can teleport up to the edge.
GM: Are you on the roof with him, player2?
Player 2: Oops. Sorry.
GM: Would you like to try that?
Player 1: Actually, mind control is line of sight, right? I'll compel the villain with one order--Come to me!
GM: Very good!
Player 2: But if you do then everyone in the other building who is coming up the stairs to get him won't find him when they get to the top.
GM: Player 2...
Player 2: Sorry.
Player 1: Good point. Before he gets on the helicopter, I'm going to scare the pilot with a mental illusion of a rocket flying at his vehicle. That'll delay them another phase or two until the team gets there.
Player 2: Why don't you just use your Mind control to compel the pilot to break the controls.
GM: PLAYER 2!
Player 2: Oops, sorry...

and so on...

[Magmarock]

How about... Playes who try and play other people's character's for them!

*SNIP*

and so on...

We had a married couple in our game for over a year, and the guy kept telling his wife how to play her PC, even during combat. He would also talk over her when she tried to roleplay or ask questions.

We solved this problem by setting them on opposite sides of the room. Once he was able to see she was talking, he piped down and let her speak. I don't know what their problem was, maybe he just was used to tuning her out or something.

The couple is no longer gaming with us, and we all miss her roleplying in our group... but no one misses him. Too bad there is no chance she'd game without him.

Mags

[Kirby]

I don't know what their problem was, maybe he just was used to tuning her out or something.
Heh, yeah, that can happen in marriage. :angel: :whistle:

[arcady]

Peeve: GM's who are perverts/sickos/misogynists/etc. While I'm not a woman, I occassionally create female characters and play them. Some GM's see that as license to do all sorts of weird things to my character. That annoys me.

Examples:
asked him if he reasonably expected my character to simply allow herself to be raped by this ship's crew. He said "That's how women were treated in those days." I immediately quit the game.

all-male characters, so I decided to "break the trend" and make a hulking barbarian brutess. Over the next several months, I started noticing a trend in the prediciments that befell my character. I kept ending up covered in excrement. None of the other characters got tossed into dung pits, or forced

No wonder it's hard to get women to play RPGs. Some of us are really disturbed.I've had three female PCs get this bag over the years.

In one V&V PBeM I joined from the ground floor, when the GM sent out turn one for everybody, my introduction to the campaign was that my super strong, invulnerable speedster (with the problem of having all of that always on) had as her first scene being raped by a normal who in my background was one of her buddies that she went night-clubbing with...

In another game, back in the 80s, the people who introduced me to the Hero system later invited me over to the house of one player for a game of Arduin. I made a female PC - and then was then forced to roll on a chart in the rulebook for my hips-waist-bust. I protested and asked to see the chart the male characters rolled on for their 'dimensions'. It was not produced and I was told if I wanted to play the character, start rolling. The results were comically strange, and I just wrote them were they told me when I should have left...

The GM had his own DM-PC, who had this mysterious black sword...

Said character made advances on my PC. I turned them down. I was chased across a field, when he attacked with the sword I pulled out my own sword to defend. In one swipe he shattered my sword in two, with another he split my character in two going up vertical from groin to head...

Never spoke to that person, or those in that group present that day, nor played or looked at Arduin, again.

In a third scenerio, early 2003, playing with a maried couple and a few others. Husband is the DM, wife spends a lot of game time talking about how often her PC has been raped, or how she was raped by this, that, or the other kind of creature... three year old daughter occaisionally walks in to play with the dice... they tell me stories of being creeped out at game stores by people that leer at her, or even at their daughter...

A few weeks later all the PCs are captured. We're walked through a scene where we see the local noblewoman gang raped by the villains as we're held down, then she's cut into pieces and thus killed. Then after we're marched off to cells we're told that all the female PCs are later rounded up and raped.

After protesting over this sort of tone in the game, I'm told it won't happen again... but it did, and I no longer game with them.

[Old Man]

That is wrong on so many levels.

I take high offense to PCs and NPCs that think rape is ok.

[cyst13]

Surprisingly, I've read LOTS of accounts on these boards of rape being a common element in certain people's games. Everyone posting to these boards have been unanimous in their condemnation of this kind of gaming. While that's admirable (and I agree), I really wish at least one person who does game rapes would have the courage to speak up and defend his games. I'm really interested to understand just what is going through the mind of a GM who thinks it would be fun for a player to have their character raped.

If you know some one who games rapes, get them to sign on to these boards and offer an explanation, if at all possible. I really want to hear this.

[Kirby]

I made a female PC - and then was then forced to roll on a chart in the rulebook for my hips-waist-bust.
:o Heh, um, I used to do this with my buds when we gamed in high school. In defense, you had to roll wether you were male or female. Unfortunately, we weren't quite sure what proper measurements were (we thought that for bust measurements, the higher numbers were linked to higher letters) and the dice were totally random. Sometimes we'd have a 40D-22-34. Yeah, we were pervs and not too educated in *that* department at that time. :o

[jackalope]

Peeve: Newbies Who Lack Imagination

Reason: I blame Marvel.

Examples
1) Today a friend asked to join my Champions game. I need a few more players, so I said sure. Then I asked him what kind of character he wanted to play.

He said, no joke, "Can I play Wolverine?"

I almost throtled him, but then I remembered that every newbie wants to play Wolverine at first, and calmly talked him out of it.

As an aside to the posters above: Yikes.

[nexus]

Surprisingly, I've read LOTS of accounts on these boards of rape being a common element in certain people's games. Everyone posting to these boards have been unanimous in their condemnation of this kind of gaming. While that's admirable (and I agree), I really wish at least one person who does game rapes would have the courage to speak up and defend his games. I'm really interested to understand just what is going through the mind of a GM who thinks it would be fun for a player to have their character raped.

If you know some one who games rapes, get them to sign on to these boards and offer an explanation, if at all possible. I really want to hear this.

A PC was raped in a Dark Champions game I ran once a few years back. The story involved a psioncists who could create a manifestation of his ID as a seperate being. What he didn't know was the creature had developed a will of its own and was leaving his body and performing vile crimes across the city.

The PC (A female vigilante with telekinetic powers) confronted the "ghost rapist" and lost badly (She didn't know how to fight it). I paused the game there and we talked about what should happen. I offered to have her saved at the last minute by a passer by or some such, but she was willing to run with the results of her actions and play the character afterword. The attack in itself was not detailed, we just cut to the next day's aftermath.

It did honestly make for some good roleplaying particularly when she confronted the psioncist later and found he was a kid that didn't even know what his "other half" was doing beyond having odd dreams. It got quite tense as her desire for vengence fought with her relunctance to harm the "innocent".

I've had several players write rape into their characters backgrounds (including one male PC) but I don't personally like to handle it in game. Too many potential problems and way to sensitive a topic, but yes I do think it can be done in a mature fashion and could enhance the game. But...caution and maturity is advised.

[cyst13]

I'll buy that. I said almost exactly that in a different thread. I think the main difference between what you described and what I've heard other people describe is that you used the rape as an almost neutral element of the story. You weren't trying to humiliate the PC; you were setting up a motivation for a revenge drama.

Most of the rape incidents in games I've heard detailed on these boards have been by male players or GMs directed against female players. And I definitely got the sense that the only reason the rape was in the game was so the male players could get a vicarious power thrill at the expense of the female players. That's where the games get into the realm of twisted psycho-drama.

[Kirby]

Peeve: Newbies Who Lack Imagination

Reason: I blame Marvel.
:rofl: I can so agree with this!


Examples
He said, no joke, "Can I play Wolverine?"
I can remember back in 7th grade telling a school buddy about gaming (he asked because I was carrying a Deities & Demigods book around). When I was telling him about the different classes you could be, he asked me if he could play Wolverine in the D&D game. He said he could enjoy D&D if he could play Wolverine.

Also, when I had first started playing Champions (being introduced by a co-worker) a fellow co-worker asked about it and I explained the basics. He too asked if he could play Wovlerine. I tried explaining he could build a character like Wolverine and spend XP to make him more like him. He said he'd rather start out with Wolverine than someone "not quite" Wolverine. -Sigh- If only I knew then how to trick him back then.... :sneaky:

As an aside, if I was going to copy a Marvel character, I'd at least ask about Juggernaut. :)

[Magmarock]

I'll buy that. I said almost exactly that in a different thread. I think the main difference between what you described and what I've heard other people describe is that you used the rape as an almost neutral element of the story. You weren't trying to humiliate the PC; you were setting up a motivation for a revenge drama.

Most of the rape incidents in games I've heard detailed on these boards have been by male players or GMs directed against female players. And I definitely got the sense that the only reason the rape was in the game was so the male players could get a vicarious power thrill at the expense of the female players. That's where the games get into the realm of twisted psycho-drama.

As far as I can remember in my gaming career... and my memory sux big-time, due to medical problems... there have been only two events. Way back when, playing basic D&D my younger brother's friends wanted to rape a felled female NPC (she was unconscious, not dead, and they thought it would be funny) and as DM, I nipped that in the bud. Fast. Told them it was wrong, period. I also told them this was not what the game was about. I told them if that is how they wanted to play, that I wouldn't run the game for them. It never came up again.

Many years later when playing in a Champions campaign my younger brother was running, a particularly nasty villain called Annihilator captured a female hero. The GM took the Player aside and said that it was entirely within this villain's demeanor to rape the heroine but if she, the Player, didn't want this in the storyline he would skip it and have traditional torture happen instead. The Player opted for the rape and it was done, "off screen". It added an interesting element to the game, and the heroine was particularly motivated to 'get the bad guy', going so far as to ignore all the other targets to pound Annihilator into dust. As I recall, Annihilator is still in Stronghold (in that campaign, we never ran into him again).

In retrospect, I'm not sure if this particular Player was able to handle the role-play situation well. I mean, it might have affected her in some way. We haven't really talked about it. I think the game was handled well by the GM.

Now a days, other than the occasion leer and short soliloquy, the topic/plot of rape hasn't come up in any of the Champions games we've played since.


I replied to a similar thread on the Hero boards, I think it was almost a year ago. I believe that the PCs should never be raped In Game unless it's something that a) is agreed upon by the Player of said PC before it happens; b) is not gratuitous, frivolous, or unnecessary to further the plot; c) is always done off screen.

However, I think the threat of rape is a credible plot motivation from the right villain... just so long as the GM makes sure something happens to prevent it.


Mags

[Magmarock]

From a Player's standpoint:

Peeve: After a GM requests a full, detailed background of my character, the GM uses none of it to hook my PC into the game.

Reason: The GM has requested the same of all PCs and therefore has way too much material, so he/she must now pick and choose the best ideas to run with... and my subplots are not up to snuff.

Yeah, I know it's a very specific reason I game above, and I could be way off the mark. My second guess on the reason is that asking for the full, detailed background is the GM's way of screening out those Players who are not committed to playing their PCs well.


Mags

[Magmarock]

Also from a Player's standpoint (but could be GM's, too):

Peeve: In PbPs & PBeMs, Players (or GMs) who don't bother to check up on anything that has gone before. Doubly so when they post OOCs saying, "I didn't have time to look up x or y..."


Peeve: In PbPs & PBeMs, Players (or GMs) who constantly post this: "My stupid computer/server/system crashed so pardon the short post and I don't have time to rewrite this so you are going to get this sub-standard post instead... yada yada yada prada, coulda, woulda, shoulda... [I]whatever!"


Reason (for both): Said person is either too freakin' lazy or doesn't give a crap about the other people who put too much time and effort into their posts.


Mags

[Vanguard00]

That is wrong on so many levels.

I take high offense to PCs and NPCs that think rape is ok.


I played a mercenary captain who had to be taught that rape wasn't right. If they were hired to "pacify" a region he got first pick of the spoils. If he was staying in a town or a village he'd make sure he had company at least one night in three, whether she wanted to be his company or not. He took a serving girl by the arm, almost dragged her upstairs to his room, and no one said a word because of the dozens of armed men under his control. That sort of thing. He simply believed that the strong took from the weak. It was his way.

After some game time had passed the other characters began keeping him in check, and eventually he switched over to the "rape is wrong" side.

At no time was any of the scenes mentioned above depicted in detail. All of that was part of the adventure. It was to turn people of lesser morals into heroes.

It should be noted, by the way, that there was cool RPing between my character and the now-former-prostitute. She wouldn't give it up for anything despite his best efforts. She ended up being a priestess.

[arcady]

Peeve: After a GM requests a full, detailed background of my character, the GM uses none of it to hook my PC into the game. I give my players a lot of room to initiate actions...

So while I expect long backgrounds, I also expect the -player- to bring it into the game, not me.

I have so much other stuff to track, if you don't start your own subplots you might not get any.

The general rule I operate under is that the only people who deserve to have fun at my table are the ones who do stuff. The wallflowers can be left aside. I'll try to get you active from time to time, but if you stay on the wall, I'll just put wallpaper over you.

[cyst13]

I second Arcady on this one. All the players COMBINED don't have as much info to regulate as the GM. If a player wants to address a certain element of the PC's background, he/she has got to let the GM know. I'm usually far too busy thinking about how all the bizarre things the PCs have done so far are going to derail the plot to spend much time worrying about some PC's long lost love, or whatever. Players should just assume the GM has forgotten everything that's not immediately in front of his face. That's usually not so far from the truth.

[Kirby]

From a Player's standpoint:

Peeve: After a GM requests a full, detailed background of my character, the GM uses none of it to hook my PC into the game.
I've had this happen to me before, but with a twist. The GM was normally pretty good about using background info eventually in the game, usually as "background noise" NPCs, though when appropriate they would come into a plot, usually a one-shot-plot deal, but still useful. In one of his DC games, my first character ended up dying after a long run in the campaign. My second character lasted a while (and had several background linked plots since this was more of a DC character) until he and another member were voted out. The GM loved my third character's background because I (intentionally) gave him links to both Genocide and Raven. The strange thing was, during my third character's run, a subplot arised dealing with my original character. Before the subplot had time to surface, the GM ended the campaign.

[Magmarock]

The general rule I operate under is that the only people who deserve to have fun at my table are the ones who do stuff. The wallflowers can be left aside. I'll try to get you active from time to time, but if you stay on the wall, I'll just put wallpaper over you.

You assume too much. Anyone who knows me and my gaming style also knows full well that I am no wallflower. Where the hell that came from, I don't know, because no where did I imply that I sit around and do nothing. Shame on you for making assumptions like that.

~~~

I disagree with you and cyst13 on this point. As a long-time DM and GM, I have always strived to include elements of each PC's background into my games... either as a main plot or a sub-plot. I don't expect my Players to inform or remind me of anything. How the heck am I supposed to surprise them or supply them with a mystery if I did that? IMO any GM who ignores such a treasure-trove is plain nuts.

Furthermore, the background elements which I refer to are not things that PCs have control over. They are events and such which have happened in the past that should affect future events. I wasn't talking about personality traits and the like.


Mags

[Magmarock]

Which brings on my next Peeve: Players in any game (FtF, PbP, PBeM, etc) who basically stand around and literally only comment on what the other people are doing, yet never doing anything themselves. These people are self-proclaimed narrators. These are people who have written detailed backgrounds and they post frequently, even daily (or show up to every gaming session) but they are really only just taking up space which could better be used by an actual Player. The DM or GM does everything he can to get them involved but these are the aforementioned "wallflowers" and nothing will change that. Ever.



Reason: They want to play but have no clue? They think they are contributing but they aren't? Your guess is as good as mine...

[Kirby]

I second Arcady on this one.
I'm going to side against this. While I do think that the PC should do things relevant to his background, I believe the GM has to mold it into a plot. When a GM requests a background write-up, it is my opinion that the player can flesh it out in talk and maybe some slight "background noise" every once in a while; however, I believe it is up to the GM to utilize the potential and create a grander scope.

For example, my first true DC charcter was born in Russia, developed his powers when being sent to a government sanctioned school for future Olympic athletes, "rescued" his first true love from her abusive, alcoholic father, later had his government official father killed by a British double agent and then his mom (who was American) moved him to the U.S. In his senior year of high school, he came home to find his house burned down and his mother dead. I wrote that my character didn't realize that the CIA telling him what happened was out of the ordinary.

During game play, my charcter would often stop in "Little Moscow" and always order a snack from a specific mom & pop store because the owners were always nice and friendly to his mom. Aside from this, my character didn't have much he could initiate in regards to his background.

The GM later introduced a plot through that store (blowing it up, but still) and way after my character was killed, another plot arose about my character from his Russian school background. (This, I think, would have been better had the plot developed while my character was around.)
_________________________

The next example is when I was a GM. The player wrote up a "mysterious" background for his character (female) and how she had been tested by an important NPC's (good guy) company to evaluate her powers. She would talk about some of this to the other members, but he never had her tell about the mysterious background. What he wrote for me was four possible backgrounds for her as suggestions. I ended up using two of them mixed with a third.

To me, if the GM requires the players to give a background then it is the GM's responsibility to include this into the campaign sooner or later.

[arcady]

A player who isn't 'wallflowering' will do things.

I wasn't stating a belief you were a wallflower, though I can see you reading it that way because I had the two statements so close together without any disconnect.

Let me explain myself better. :)

We all seem to recognize the wallflower problem, so let's move on.

If you have a detailed background, I expect you as a player to do things like "I check up on my sister." or "I do some research to see what Doc. T-Bear is up to."

You do it, you start it, as the player. Once you've got it going, I'll work with it. But you carry it at least as much as I do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the rape topic:
I wouldn't want to see it in a game, even if the victim PC's player consents.

I don't feel it's right for a GM to pull aside a player and ask consent for the topic - even that can be disturbing.
I don't want to see other players initiating it against other PCs or NPCs.
I don't want to sit at a table and have it a topic.

Unlike most of the traumas PCs face, this one has a very high chance of hitting home with at least one of the PCs - given that all but two, maybe three of the men in my family have been victims of sexual assault, I know this isn't just for the 'women at the table'. Only one of the women in my family denies having been a victim, but I don't believe her because I remember her once telling me otherwise when I was a child...

[this is mostly btw, drug related - the caucasian side of my ancestry (*), through my maternal step-grandfather who was a dealer, and relatives on my stepfather's side even though he himself works in criminal law like I intend.]

I know full well that even casual discussion of the topic can be silently very trumatic to someone at the table - with one out of three American women a victim, and an unknown [because it isn't counted] number of men in the same category - you're very likely to hit a raw nerve.

(*) Everytime I tell people about this they immediately ask which of my asian or native american ancestors it was, until I explain they've got the wrong end of the coin... But then, statistically most drug use and dealing is in the suburbs - estascy, heroine, speed, and cocaine - though all these get minor sentences for large amounts, nothing like the 20 year mandatory min for 5g of crack...

[Magmarock]

From a GM's Standpoint:

Peeve: A Player who constantly proclaims OOC what he/she thinks the current plotline is, or where it's going. This ruins the surprise for other Players and cuts into roleplaying.


Reason: He thinks he is going to get brownie points for figuring things out first? Or maybe he hopes everyone at the table with think he is brilliant?



Pros
1) If the plot is too simple, the GM can always change it, or toss in a twist.
2) The Player can inadvertatnly give you some crazy-wild plots to use in future games.
3) If the guesses are too far off-field, the GM can adjust the game in the PC's favor by giving more clues.

Cons
1) Doing this prevents the PCs from conversing (i.e. roleplay).
2) Other Players will start using Player Knowldege to figure things out faster, making the GM's job harder.


Mags

[Magmarock]

I wasn't stating a belief you were a wallflower, though I can see you reading it that way because I had the two statements so close together without any disconnect.

Let me explain myself better. :)

We all seem to recognize the wallflower problem, so let's move on.



Fair enough. :)


But there should be a distinction here; A lot depends on whether the game being run is a reactive or proactve game. I'll start another thread so we don't derail this one, ok?

Mags

[cyst13]

There is a good side of players announcing their guess as to where the plot is headed. It allows the GM to determine whether the players are on the same wavelength as him. When I run investigation games, I always encourage the players to discuss out loud what they think is going on. That way if they've got the whole mystery ass-backwards, I know I'd better do something to get them turned around. Even so, there's no reason why the players can't have these discussions in character. I generally prefer an absolute minimum of OOC chatter from anyone during the game.

[Magmarock]

I generally prefer an absolute minimum of OOC chatter from anyone during the game.

I should strongly stress this. I usually do when combat breaks out, limiting sililoquays to a PC's turn so they don't have a big ol' pow-wow on Phase 12.

I also encourage the Players to plan contingencies before a fight breaks out. However, if the group has Teamwork and such, I'll allow more leeway on the matter.


Mags

[nexus]

Off topic a bit, but I generally don't discourage OOC talk during a game, but I game mostly for social interaction so a bit of chatting with friends seems to make it more fun than 5 hours of straight play. But I can understand some people take things more seriously.

[Magmarock]

Off topic a bit, but I generally don't discourage OOC talk during a game, but I game mostly for social interaction so a bit of chatting with friends seems to make it more fun than 5 hours of straight play. But I can understand some people take things more seriously.


Oh, believe me, we get more than enough talk out of the way before and after the game. And I tend to derail my game more than most of my Players, so a lot of it is aimed at me. :)



Mags

[arcady]

I don't do anything to stop off topic chatter either, and frequently participate or even start it myself.

At most, I'll just work to shift the subject at times back to the game.

[nexus]

Players who's role playing shuts down the instant combat time is annouced. IC talking stops, character disadvantages and personality vanish and its becomes pure tactics.


Reason:They want to "win" the encounter. That isn't as petty as it sounds. I can understand not wanting your character to die and games are supposed to be fun. No wants to "lose" but part of the fun in an rpg to me is playing in character and "winning" as your hero of choice. Its really jarring when a character psych lims and behavior seem to go completely flat during combat encounter and only increasing the IMO, false divide between action and role playing.

[Kirby]

Players who's role playing shuts down the instant combat time is annouced. IC talking stops, character disadvantages and personality vanish and its becomes pure tactics.
This reminds me of a character I made by design. In a DC game, I had a former Navy SEAL character turned vigilante. Once combat or a mission began, he didn't speak. I had chosen this because EVERYONE else on the team spoke in combat. Plus, my character was designed to take on two or three lower levels at a time, while everyone else was mostly designed to take on one big wig at a time. After a while, I wished I had let him speak in combat, but I stuck to it and it was good. Three times I forgot and spoke out in combat, all were sarcastic replies to the villains about them either missing me or not hurting me at all. The first two times (and I witnessed the rolls) the villains knocked the smart-alec out of me. The third time (against a COIL special team) I said it to the biggest brick. Luckily, I remembered we were in a cone of silence (basically D&D 15' radius silence) and I told the GM (knowing I would be trashed). The GM agreed and the COIL villain didn't take vengeance on me. (The three times my character did speak, he insulted greatly.) :stupid:

[cyst13]

A lot of the win mentality over role-playing stems from the GM. If you put yourself at a combat disadvantage to honor you psych limits and the GM slaps you down without any acknowledgement of your attempts to play in character, you're going to stop putting yourself at a disadvantage rather quickly. The GM has to reward the character over winning behavior if he ever wants to see it repeated.

[Koshka]

Peeve: GMs who favor one player over the rest.

Reason: Old friends, but still.

There's one GM locally who's a big offender in this line.

Example: The favored player wanted me to join the game. The GM told me the point cap was 50 active points, so that's how I wrote the character. The favored PC had a STR of 75 and had been at that level since the campaign began. Care to guess how the danger room "let's see what you can do" session went? I dropped out after that game session.

Second example, but same game: When our group of friends gets together for someone's birthday, tradition is that the birthday person picks what activities will go on. Last year, the favored player wanted a one-shot Champions game with as many characters from the campaign as possible. OK, I hadn't bothered to delete the character sheet, so I reprinted it and started to update it. The GM told me what point level to raise my old character to. Then he gave one of the other members of our group (who hadn't been in this game, so was building from scratch) a point total well over what he'd told me. That was his last chance -- I showed up at the birthday party and played (with a character built to the higher point total), but never again.

.....
Peeve: GMs who want everyone there at a specific time, but aren't ready to start for another hour at minimum.

Reason: several, actually. One GM I know works I.T., and system crashes aren't limited to convenient times. If he's on call .... But there was the other GM, who never bothered to tell anyone the game would be delayed because his wife (who was the favored player in everything he ran) found something interesting in the cable guide and wanted to watch it. Never mind that they had two VCRs hooked up. With my work schedule, I had to bend the speed limit to get there on time. I would have appreciated a simple call saying I could take time to eat dinner first.

[Blue]

Surprisingly, I've read LOTS of accounts on these boards of rape being a common element in certain people's games. Everyone posting to these boards have been unanimous in their condemnation of this kind of gaming. While that's admirable (and I agree), I really wish at least one person who does game rapes would have the courage to speak up and defend his games. I'm really interested to understand just what is going through the mind of a GM who thinks it would be fun for a player to have their character raped.

If you know some one who games rapes, get them to sign on to these boards and offer an explanation, if at all possible. I really want to hear this.
There have been two attempted rapes by NPCs in games I GM'd, but in both cases the bad guys were easily dispatched, and that was by design. In one case I needed the heroes to side with the woman right away and I knew this would do it; They'd come to her aid and put themselves at odds with the local order of asssassins that ran roughshod over the town (of which these guys were members). The other was a means of revealing the NPC as the dragon they'd been seeking; When she continually warned off the bad guys and the heroes, more concerned with finding the dragon than helping the girl, didn't help, she unleashed her full might on the villains and burnt down several buildings. They then had to find her, when if they'd simply helped the woman in distress they'd have already been on their way to the next stage; Instead their indifference to her plight cost them two game sessions of tracking down the dragon who'd fled. Love that irony.

As a rule in superheroic games, rape is so out of place. But I do have 1 character who has a rape in her past, but not in the conventional sense. Audra Blue is victim of the man who gave her cybernetics; During his horrendous experiments he realized he could plug into his subjects using his own cybernetic interface. Audra lives in terror of this guy, who has never shown up in the campaign. While she's very powerful in the networld due to subsequent years of practice, he is almost godlike. Physically, he's never touched her to do anything more than surgery. But the results are worse because she couldn't even escape into her own head. Pretty hideous I know. And it's not an aspect discovered yet by the player characters as except for being Agoraphobic and quite brilliant in technical matters, she seems completely healthy and normal.

[Maelstrom]

I played a Wolverine clone once . . . in a Traveller game! This was so long ago, the GM said, "Who? What? What kind of claws?"

So I don't get ticked at clones, even though they're place is in a dedicated system (like Marvel's newest).

I have only two pet peeves: GMs who run extensive NPC-NPC interactions (Forfend if the interactions are important to the game!) and players who sulk if somehow thwarted (by rules, by plot, or even by fiat if I get angry.)

[NestorDRod]

Peeve: If I see one more blatant ripoff of Wolverine/Goku/Buffy/whoever, I will scream.

Reason: Total lack of imagination? This IS the most adapable game on the planet and all you can come up with is "I want to be a saiyan"? I don't even know what a saiyan is! (Found out, thanks Michael Surbrook)

Thanks... I think.

Actually, I think this is a case of wish-fullfilment. These guys want to play someone who is cool, not some nobody no one has ever heard of. And they all know that Wolverine/Goku/whoever to be a mook-munching badass that -can kick any ass you can name. Wala, one rip-off character.