What are the most annoying player habits!

[Brandi]

Originally posted by Hermit

The players with out of character "issues" that they can't keep from bringing into the game.

 

This becomes an order of magnitude worse when said issues are sexual.

[ghost-angel]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Now if there were just some joke to point out that a pluralization

DOES NOT HAVE A BLOODY APOSTOPHE, DAMNIT!

 

or that apostrophe is spelled with an 'r'.

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Now if there were just some joke to point out that a pluralization

DOES NOT HAVE A BLOODY APOSTOPHE, DAMNIT!

Except when pluralizing letters and digits.

[Doug Limmer]

Originally posted by BobGreenwade

Except when pluralizing letters and digits.

Actually, I don't think this is true. The plural of C is Cs. I can't find my Strunk & White to back me up, though. (My dictionary lists both, with Cs first, although my dictionary probably also has "alright" in it.)

[tkdguy]

Players who:

1. Whine whenever things don't go their way.

2. Try to use the rulebook to overrule the GM. Not in MY game, bub!

3. Take everything that isn't nailed down just because they've infiltrated the villains' base and defeated them (aka the D&D mentality).

4. Interrupt the GM from finishing his sentence by yelling out something unrelated to the game. Usually done in groups.

5. Constantly quote from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

[freakboy6117]

one The Elements of Style for all those like my self hopelessly outgunned in the war on bad grammer

[ZootSoot]

1. The player who, when GMing, insists that the story happens as planned.

 

2. Ignoring the rules to make something "kewl" happen.

 

3. Players who cannot develop a personality for the characters.

 

4. Players who play the same character over and over and over (occasionally bringing back a favoured character is good, but to always play the same character . . .)

 

5. The player, as GM, who says "I never kill a character unless the player has the character do something stupid" which really means "if yopu play your character differently than I would in the same situation, I will kill your character.

 

6. Players who insist on the stupidest aspect of the genre being the norm for the game.

 

7. The player, as a gm, who is so caught up in the created environment that s/he ignores the players' inputs and actions while describing them.

[Jhereg]

Originally posted by JmOz

Biggest one for me is "Back Peddling"

 

Amen!

 

Except we call it “Time Travelingâ€, and a couple players will sheepishly ask something like, “Can we say I brought my rocket launcher to this dinner party?â€

 

Some others:

 

- Players that cease all participation (even putting their heads down on the table) when their character isn’t in the spotlight.

 

- Players that use their characters to sabotage another player’s idea.

 

- Players that make their characters do something stupid just to “make something happenâ€. I have a player that will shoot the nearest person (last time it was a bum) if he feels the group isn’t making progress.

 

- Casual Killers in a light-hearted campaign (not to mention it’s infectious).

 

- Players who jump on an action and go through with it, before telling the GM.

GM: Player 1, you’re having a little trouble with the controls, but you should be able to make it.

Player 2: [rolls dice] Made my Combat Piloting by 4 to do it for him. We’re ok.

 

- Players who try to best another player’s niche. For example: the Brick investing all his points into becoming a better tech than the Tech. It’s a common decency thing. “I can see into the future too, but better than Kyle.â€

[ChocolateMousje]

The player (who often GMs) who refuses to define what he's doing... ("I start casting a spell", "I activate an item") especially when we ask and he refuses to tell exactly what he's doing even when it's the game's current GM doing the asking.

[Chudwine]

This is an interesting topic as is it both an opportunity to vent and also to see how widespread certain behaviors are (at least among the people posting here).

 

My primary pet peeves are as follows:

1. Like many others I get annoyed at players who are not "on table" when a combat is going on. Nothing slows combat more. A secondary issue is that the character who is not paying attention is likely to have the least effective combatant which can also lead to hard feelings.

 

2. The player who tries to research the adventure into submission. This is especially true when the player keeps trying to get additional skill rolls by framing the same question in slightly different manners in the hope that the GM will finally relent and give away the story.

I'm going to draw a distinction here between research and investigation. Research as I am defining it has to do with interacting with inanimate objects (books, computers etc) and is dead boring for the other players. An investigation, at least has the character interacting with NPCs and can be good for some entertainment value.

 

3. The player who takes any problem or anything that makes his character look bad personally. I have found this to happen more often when the character is an idealized self-image of the player. For that reason I am very leery of allowing any such characters into any campaign I run - it is just asking for trouble.

 

4. Sort of the reverse of JmOz's Backpeddling problem. I have a serious issue (granted this is more of a GM problem thing) with GM's who are unwilling to allow character skills, competencies and abilities to supercede the statements (or lack thereof) of the player.

I have met a few too many GM's who's rule is - "If you didn't say it, the character didn't do it."

I think I understand where this is coming from. It is a hard and fast rule and should serve to prevent bitching and whining. Still it makes certain types of characters (those designed to be knowledgeable and competent) almost impossible to play.

I am ashamed to admit that in one such campaign I made a list of "things to always do" and kept adding to it and then rereading it every time my character was going to attempt something (this being the only way I could think of to be certain I didn't forget anything important). Ultimately I grew tired of this seriously passive-aggressive style of play and (when discussing matters with the GM made no difference) left the campaign.

 

5. The player who give his character no social or psychological hooks or weaknesses (this is out standard loner survivalist without a past - Wolverine has a lot to answer for). A danger sign for this is when the character has no one and nothing he cares about except (possibly) the other PCs.

Again, I recognize that at least some of these players are scarred survivors of campaigns where friends, family and other NPCs existed only to be taken hostage or killed in horrific fashions. But I'm not like that so give me something to work with here.

 

6. Finally, and this comes down to my borderline obsession with play balance. My view is that character balance really only exists between the PCs, so I hate what I call the Doc Savage syndrome. This is when a player creates a generalist character who, because of how effectively he was designed, it better than all the specialists in their areas of expertise.

[Korvar]

Originally posted by Brandi

This becomes an order of magnitude worse when said issues are sexual.

 

Ew. Just... ew.

[CrosshairCollie]

Since I've got one of these, I have to say it.

 

Players whose characters, regardless of their background, Psych Lims, or any context regarding the situation react to ALL stimuli with a phrase I'll paraphrase from the movie Wild Wild West:

 

"Shoot first, shoot again, shoot some more, and then, if anybody's left alive, ask a few questions!"

[Korvar]

Players who sulk when things don't go their way.

 

Players who discover the plot hole in my game, or who come up with a novel way around the problems I set them, thus actually making me think for a change

[Patriot]

Players who think by being a total (explitive deleted), it makes him better then the Gm , or any other player

[Mike W]

I can live with the occasional error on the character sheet. We all make mistakes or write things down wrong from time to time. Hopefully, we catch them before they come up in game. But the two things that really bug me are:

 

1. Players who aren't ready/paying attention and need to ask not one question, but several or who need a whole recap of the situation. Be prepared.

 

2. Players who play versions of the same character, over and over and over again. The player who is always a brick of some kind for example. He's got the dwarven fighter in D&D, the 80 STR brick in Champs, the Wookie in Star Wars, and on and on.

 

3. Noisy eaters who just HAVE to eat at the game table.

 

4. Players who don't take criticism from other PCs well(or even don't recognize it). I once played a Champs game with a someone whose character went off half cocked all the time and when the other players told his character "no, don't". he said "well, it's what my character would do so shut up!". We actually had to sit down and explain to him(even though he was an experienced gamer) that it wasn't the other players talking,it was their characters trying to rein in his and he need to be more calm about the situation. We almost had to kick him out of the group.

[Hugh Neilson]

One sided role players have to be the worst.

 

These are the guys who justify anything their character does with "well, I'm role playing my character". This can include stealing from other group members, trying to kill party members, just being a general useless/lazy/whiny PITA or whatever. But anyone else who role plays what THEIR character would do as a result is being unfair.

 

Similarly, players who play as if all player characters have PC tattooed across their foreheads, and therefore allow them free reign when they would react completely differently to an NPC taking similar actions.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by ZootSoot

2. Ignoring the rules to make something "kewl" happen.

Is this the GM? I think a lot (most?) rpgers would disagree with this one.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by ChocolateMousje

The player (who often GMs) who refuses to define what he's doing... ("I start casting a spell", "I activate an item") especially when we ask and he refuses to tell exactly what he's doing even when it's the game's current GM doing the asking.

Even when the GM's asking? WTF??!!

[Badger]

I'm probably guilty of playing with the same type character to an extent. I always go for the higher DEX type character it is more a comfortable with the type than anything. Playing with a true brick just aint my style. This habit probably goes back more to the Street Fighter type video games than anything else. I always preferred the fast, agile fighters. Course as far as personality and non-combat related skills I differ them widely.

 

But players who refuse to play "in character" bug me. You know even though he would have a psych lim of cowardice where the guy would run from his shadow or something but instead goes in bullets flying whatever the circumstance. Thankfully never experienced this version of player (not in an extreme sense anyway).

[Solomon]

Player Habits I Hate:

 

"Out of Combat Slo-Mo": A player I know has a difficult time understanding "out of combat" roleplaying. Everything happens in phases and turns to him.

Example: "On phase twelve I ask the Countess how is she doing, and congratulate on her birthday. Then I hold my action and, as soon as she replies, I comment about the weather".

 

"Scavenger Syndrome": Most common amongst old-school D&D players. They'll pick up and sell anything that's not nailed to the floor, no matter how worthless the item, or how inappropriate stealing the item might be.

 

"Short attention span": No comment.

Actual real-life example:

Player: "I rub a pencil on the top page in the notepad. Maybe there are scratches left by a previous message"

GM: "You're right, there's a date and an address."

Player (flipping through a magazine, raises his head and looks around puzzled): "Uh... wha... are you talking to me?"

[winterhawk]

Originally posted by ZootSoot

2. Ignoring the rules to make something "kewl" happen.

 

As a GM, one of my 'house rules' is to throw out the rules (to a degree) if they would ruin a scene.

[McCoy]

Had one player, haven't seen him in years, that would be on the verge of a panic attack if his character took a single pip of BODY damage. He usually played Powered Armor characters, with Damage Resistance, Force Field, Armor (double hardened), Damage Reduction (physical & energy), full Life Support, and for some reason I could never understand, Regeneration. His characters usually had fully half their points in defenses, with some skills and movement powers and just one (usually pretty good) attack.

 

Maybe he had been tramatized by a killer GM in D&D. But to put this into prespective, in over two decades of GM'ing Champions I have killed ONE player character, and that was a set up (player was moving to another town, and wanted his character to be KIA). Just a genre convention, PC's may be KO'ed and/or severely wounded, but only NPC's die.

[Brandi]

Originally posted by freakboy6117

one The Elements of Style for all those like my self hopelessly outgunned in the war on bad grammer

 

Actually, The Elements of Style only touches lightly on grammar (and don't worry, I've often used the wrong ending on that word too ), focusing more on punctuation usage and writing style; for a real grammary, check out The Deluxe Transitive Vampire.

[Brandi]

Originally posted by Korvar

Ew. Just... ew.

 

You have no idea.

 

I don't remember if I mentioned it here but one guy I used to game with apparently came up with a character for a game I was mercifully not a part of. A female superhero whose only power was basically something along the lines of 12d6 Mind Control with one effect only, "You want to fuck me."

 

Did I mention she either was or looked 14?

 

He was subsequently banned from playing female characters and I think just plain avoided shortly after that.

[tkdguy]

Just out of curiosity, is this guy the type who tries to "seduce" female gamers by having his characters hit on their characters?