What are the most annoying player habits!

[BobGreenwade]

Maybe I have my threads confused, but it seems to me that somewhere in here there was a comment -- now escaping all of my manual searching -- about smart players playing smart or dumb characters, dumb players playing smart characters, etc. Something about that disturbed me from the start, and now I've figured out what it was.

 

For a while I played with an old school buddy of mine who, by his own admission, is not super smart. For the first several Champions games, he liked to play the dumb, out-of-control brick. I figured, well, that's his schtick and he's having fun with it (and not spoiling anything for anyone else -- adding to it, in fact), so let him go with it.

 

Then a game came up where he wanted to play a ninja. You know -- someone with a brain. Somewhat to my surprise, he did a very effective (if slightly cheesy) job with it.

 

A short time later we played together in a one-shot game with pregenerated characters, and he was handed a character who (according to the description he was given) was lazy and would rather be napping than taking care of business. Sure enough, he spent half the game session sitting back with his eyes closed, and to this day I'm not sure whether he was actually asleep or just playing in character (for all I know, both).

 

After that, he played a wide variety of characters, and really impressed me with his range of ability in that regard. His characters tended to be fairly straightforward, if not one-note, in terms of abilities because he didn't want too many choices during combat, but even so he always made reasonable decisions along the way.

 

My fellow Oregonians, if you ever have occasion to have George Carter at your game table, do not underestimate him as a role-player or a gamer. He's not strong on raw intellect (and he knows it), but he understands and grasps a lot more than the average gamer.

[Enforcer84]

I know its been mentioned, but I think the player actions that bother me most is the "But why can't I?/How Could they do that to me?" They never bother to learn the rules and act confused that the rules might not make perfect sense for their situation. Then they'd be very upset when their characters were harmed and suddenly seem to have memorized the book (incorrectly, but they spout it off as gospel).

[Enforcer84]

Hey, Bob, now I'm following YOU!

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Jhaierr

3) There was someone who did not (and still doesn't) understand the concept of "normal speaking voice." I would constantly be attacked by endless, ear-piercing "speak-yelling"... I think that's the only way I can describe it. He's one of those people who you eat with at a restaurant and EVERYONE in your area can hear half of the conversation you are having (his half). Does anyone know someone like this?

 

Yes, we have one where I work... he is partially deaf. He knows how loud it sounds to everyone else, but (I assume) it sounds pretty normal to him. If he were to talk more quietly, he'd probably have some trouble hearing himself speak. While it's a bit loud, it's not intolerably so, so everyone takes it in stride.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Tim

My pet peeve.

 

Players whose characters have to either oppose the rest of the group in secret, or be contrary no matter what.

 

This reminds me of a warstory I read (I think on RPG net but not sure) of a GM who had a player like this, always looking to kill or mess up the party, worked contrary to the rest of the players and so on, and the GM was very tired of it. So, when the new campaign started, he told this player, in secret, that the character was actually a secret agent for an invading alien force, and he was working undercover with the group to get all thier information, and that this might go on for years. The player loved it, and worked well in the group and never did anything disharmonious. Somehow the alien invasion subplot never did materialize.

[Lord Mhoram]

The things that bug me about players...

 

Those that refuse to work within my worlds. I build very detailed and oftimes quirky campaign worlds- I try to spend at least an entire session with each player to get a concept they really like, that fits my world. If my world doesn't have Elves or anything like them, no you cannot play an Elf. No, superpowers materilized in the world only 10 years ago, you cannot play a third generation mutant.

 

Cheaters- those that misrepresent thier dice rolls, or combat values. I run games at the FLGS I work at occasionally and get these way to often.

 

People who treat the game as a wargame or tactical exercise. I understand that in combat, but not in the entire game.

 

Players who are way to serious about gaming. I game to spend time with friends, as do the rest of our group. Gaming is just how we share time. So in a 5 hour session, maybe 3 hours of it is gaming. So what, we are there for the fun of being together.

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram

Those that refuse to work within my worlds. I build very detailed and oftimes quirky campaign worlds- I try to spend at least an entire session with each player to get a concept they really like, that fits my world. If my world doesn't have Elves or anything like them, no you cannot play an Elf. No, superpowers materilized in the world only 10 years ago, you cannot play a third generation mutant.

 

Whoa yeah. When I was helping run our community college's RPG club, I used to get that all the time.

 

I'd run entire sessions of nothing but chargen, giving every player at least 30-45 minutes alone with me to figure out what his character did, where it came from, where it was going. And there'd always be 1-2 people who just had to have the favorite concept that they always played, even if it simply didn't fit. VtM game? Somebody wants to play a Mage. A game about the human race's First Contact Team, sent through a discovered artifact/stargate to see what's on the other side? Somebody wants to play a CIA uber-assassin.(*)

 

I mean, the one player said "Of course they'd send him along -- what if they wanted to take out the alien leader on the other side?" The concept that such a momentous decision as to whether or not to cold-bloodedly assassinate humanity's first contact w/ any alien species would not normally be made on the fly, by the leader of the initial scout-team (2-star general or not), seemed to be utterly outside his capacity to grasp.

 

I eventually had to say 'screw it' and run only one-shots and extended mini-series, with all pregens.

 

 

 

 

 

(*) Granted, the scout team -- since the other side of the gate could've been anything, and the folks didn't know -- was composed of one Air Force general w/ diplomatic experience (in case they ran into a situation requiring immediate talking and/or high-level command decisions) and three Special Forces guys... all wearing space suits... but hey, their sole job was to figure out WTF type of situation was immediately on the other side of that gate and what (roughly) it would need, and then report back ASAP, at which point they'd either assemble a full diplomatic team, 2000 bruisers with bazookas, or just blow up the gate, depending. But even so, a cinematic CIA urban assassin does not have a role for this.

 

Granted, the campaign idea seed would've had the team getting stranded and having to operate on its own for extended periods, but the above theory is how the mission planners were staffing it.

[TheQuestionMan]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram

Players who are way to serious about gaming. I game to spend time with friends, as do the rest of our group. Gaming is just how we share time. So in a 5 hour session, maybe 3 hours of it is gaming. So what, we are there for the fun of being together.

 

I suffered from this for a while and occasionally it pops up now and again . It might have something to do with the fact that half the conversations are on arcane subject like computers , systems , programs , etc ... In turn I guess they get bored when I talk shop with the the justice system , the courts , law enforcement , etc , etc ... We all have different outside interests , but gaming is what brought us together .

[Jhaierr]

Originally posted by Zed-F

Yes, we have one where I work... he is partially deaf. He knows how loud it sounds to everyone else, but (I assume) it sounds pretty normal to him. If he were to talk more quietly, he'd probably have some trouble hearing himself speak. While it's a bit loud, it's not intolerably so, so everyone takes it in stride.

 

Yeah, I know one or two people like that. The guy we know isn't hard of hearing, and as far as I know doesn't have any hard-of-hearing people in his family. He's just kinda loud. LOL His brother is the exact opposite, too. Weird.

[Vondy]

Players who create characters with no reason or motivation to be a part of the group.

 

Its a defacto way of saying: my character's storyline has to take precedence or I won't be a part of things.

 

I don't run multiple solo-games all in one session. If you want a solo-game you need to be the only player there.

[ChuckB]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram

The things that bug me about players...

 

Those that refuse to work within my worlds. I build very detailed and oftimes quirky campaign worlds- I try to spend at least an entire session with each player to get a concept they really like, that fits my world. If my world doesn't have Elves or anything like them, no you cannot play an Elf. No, superpowers materilized in the world only 10 years ago, you cannot play a third generation mutant.

 

Limited genre games work best if you already have players who are on the same wavelength as you.

 

If you're running a Champs game in the WildCards universe , it's useful if the players are already familiar with the source material and understand the inherent limits (usually one good power , no real high tech characters , etc.).

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Von D-Man

Players who create characters with no reason or motivation to be a part of the group.

 

Its a defacto way of saying: my character's storyline has to take precedence or I won't be a part of things.

 

I don't run multiple solo-games all in one session. If you want a solo-game you need to be the only player there.

 

We had a player who ran characters who just weren't interested in being part of the group. When he changed characters in a fantasy game, we encountered his new character at the Inn. One of the party talked to him briefly, and discovered he wasn't interested in adventuring. So we decided to hire a town crier to put the word out we were looking for a new recruit, and would interview adventurers.

 

The character doesn't have "PC" tattooed on his forehead, so we simply treated him like anyone else who didn't want to join our little band. He quickly got the message that it was up to him to come up with a reason to join the group, or his character would simply be left behind "not adventuring", as his personality dictated.

[Jhereg]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The character doesn't have "PC" tattooed on his forehead, so we simply treated him like anyone else who didn't want to join our little band. He quickly got the message that it was up to him to come up with a reason to join the group, or his character would simply be left behind "not adventuring", as his personality dictated.

That’s a big one in my group. There’s always a loner/Wolverine-wanna-be that doesn’t have any motivation to join a group. And the player expects the GM and other players to pull him along. Little does he realize, the players don’t give a crap about a character they just met, and the GM (me) will not halt the story to haggle with an uncooperative character, not to mention the uncooperative player. They usually get left behind, and on more than one occasion, sit there pouting all night because “everyone else made it impossible to playâ€.

[nexus]

PCs that never ever react to anything. Are never afraid, never impressed. No matter what the setting or what happens.

[Jhaierr]

Originally posted by nexus

PCs that never ever react to anything. Are never afraid, never impressed. No matter what the setting or what happens.

 

Argh! That drives me INSANE. Aarrrrgh!

[Jhereg]

Unimaginative Combatants

This is usually a hold-over from D&D. They’re the guys that always use their most powerful attack, then wait to be hit or missed, then start all over again. No dodging. No cover. No tactics. Just trading licks, and expecting their DCV to make or break them.

[Karma]

Originally posted by ZootSoot

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

 

"You Vill Not Do Anythink Outside of Ze Rules in Ze Book even if it Vould make Ze Game More Fun"

 

Sorry Zoot, I'm sure your not trying to be a rules Nazi.

 

Can anyone remember the Golden Rule in the book. You know the one that says 'Ignore any rules that you have to in pursuit of fun for everyone'. Personally if a player had his character in a game to something really cool that didn't detract from the setting or the scenreo I'd ignore the rules myself AND award him extra XP for it.

 

Then again if the "kewl" thing does detract from the setting/fun of other participants (inc. GM) I agree with you.

[BaronDread]

Players who can't stand to have a chink in their defenses, or a less than perfect offense. I call them "Cause-and-Effecters". Usually their method of operation goes something like this...

 

Last game I had to fight a Desolid bad guy...I'm spending all my points to make my attacks affect Desolid characters!

 

Last game, my Entangle was escaped from by a villian with Teleport...I'm spending all my experience to buy "Can't be escaped with Teleportation" for my Entangle!

 

Last game, I got hit with a Drain...I'm spending all my experience points on Power Defense!

 

These players are the hell bent on turning my RPG into a strategy game. They make me ill.

 

Of course, they're the reason that all experience point expenditures have to be discussed with me first. I love reminding them of their character concept, and how they must spend their points on things that fit within it!

[Karma]

Originally posted by tkdguy

You just reminded me of another annoying player habit: rolling dice to determine the PC's action. Some player just do that instead of deciding what their characters will do. It's the worst in D&D with chaotic characters. They always argue it's the only way to get a truly random response.

I don't like that either (and thankfully 3rd ed pointed out that CN does not equal 'totally insanely random' so I can just show any idiot who does that my photocopy of that exact page (which I always keep on hand if anyone chooses Chaotic alignments).

What I do enjoy (unless its disruptive to the game) is when someone thinks of a 'worse possible response' to a situation and then rolls a 'Wisdom' check (or whatever) to see if they do it. Its kind of the opposite of the 'my charater is as intelligent as me' syndrome.

[Karma]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Often, such players will also ask why other people never get along with their characters. Gosh, maybe it's because the personality you play all your characters with is grating. It seems these people never take a personality that's easy to get along with, or even inobtrusive.

And they get so personally involved with that charater type that if you DO point out how obnoxious it is they take it as a personal insult.

That being said, I have to start playing 'good and nice' characters again before someone starts accusing me of 'personality crossover'. My last few characters have been disturbing (Pirate who kept calling for 'keel hauling' for even minor infractions (thankfully not in control of the punishments), Fanatical religious leader who thought genocide was a perfectly acceptable idea against those who had run his people out of their 'ancestral home' (thankfully still hasn't got enough support to try it yet), and a cold assassin who sees the taking of lives as 'simply business' (although to be fair she is the most honorable and least bloodthirsty of the 'Assassins Guild' she belongs to).

Yeah definitely time for a real hero.

[Karma]

Originally posted by Enforcer84

We had a rogue in our party that tried to steal from us all the time.

I have a rogue in my game who does that. To be fair she does return what she steals (as secretly as she took it). She does it to determine which of the party are the best 'marks' should she need some extra cash (which I suppose makes sense in a Charater Concept kind of way). Then again if she does get caught she might find herself practicing being a 'one armed bandit'. The party is not made up of most forgiving types.

[Karma]

Originally posted by BaronDread

Players who can't stand to have a chink in their defenses, or a less than perfect offense. I call them "Cause-and-Effecters". Usually their method of operation goes something like this...

Answers from said kind of player who thinks these decisions are perfectly justifiable

Last game I had to fight a Desolid bad guy...I'm spending all my points to make my attacks affect Desolid characters!

So my character learned that he is useless against those with Desolid and may very well loose more Desolid criminal's in the future if he doesn't do something about this. Also learned how dangerous said people are (since they can enter safes/guarded rooms/anywhere they want and can't be stopped) and so feels that such an expenditure is not just necessary but vital...

Last game, my Entangle was escaped from by a villian with Teleport...I'm spending all my experience to buy "Can't be escaped with Teleportation" for my Entangle!

Ditto. Teleporting criminals are only slightly less of a menace than desolid criminals (at least you can hit'm) so they should definitely be made a second priority. Given what I have learned against this criminal it would be good if I could do something to make sure this situation doesn't happen again. If the criminal is still at large it is even more important that I discover a way to capture him.

Last game, I got hit with a Drain...I'm spending all my experience points on Power Defense!

IC: Criminals with these types of powers are a menace to everyone and their powers make them difficult to fight. I must find a way to take away their adavantage.

These players are the hell bent on turning my RPG into a strategy game. They make me ill.

 

Of course, they're the reason that all experience point expenditures have to be discussed with me first. I love reminding them of their character concept, and how they must spend their points on things that fit within it!

Really, how many times have we seen a superhero (esp. a gadgeteer) get his ass handed to him in the comics and then (usually next issue) work out a way to defeat the criminal's advantage? True this is usually a 'cunning plan' but sometimes its a 'new use of their powers' and that's what this is about.

 

Of course your right about character concept. Sometimes you can't justify something while keeping in concept. Then you just have to hope your teammates have the answer.

 

I actually have more problems with people using *Experience* (defined as 'what you learned') to improve a part of their character that they didn't use during the adventure.

 

"I know I didn't actually use my EB during the investigation, but I want it to be cooler"

 

To me it makes more sense for the character to use the 'experience' to improve those aspects of the character that he learned needed improving

 

"I discovered that my investigative skills suck, I'll use my XP on that. My EB? I didn't use it during the adventure so while I as a player would like to improve it my character hasn't learned it's drawback's yet"

 

When I do this as a player the other players look at me like I'm a loon. And don't get me started about how they react when I get them to justify their XP expenditure in terms of 'what they learned during the advanture'.

[Susano]

Originally posted by nexus

You see it in anime alot. Catgirl Nuku Nuku, The Ctarl Ctarl, Unapuma and Anapuma...

They usually have high agility as well (overall combat monster) but this guy has a fetish for strong women so he'll sacrifice agility for strength.

 

Oh boy... I hope he never sees my "Kazei 5" game...

 

(30 STR catgirls anyone?)

 

(Anna & Uni raise thier hands)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Karma

Answers from said kind of player who thinks these decisions are perfectly justifiable

 

So my character learned that he is useless against those with Desolid and may very well loose more Desolid criminal's in the future if he doesn't do something about this. Also learned how dangerous said people are (since they can enter safes/guarded rooms/anywhere they want and can't be stopped) and so feels that such an expenditure is not just necessary but vital...

 

Ditto. Teleporting criminals are only slightly less of a menace than desolid criminals (at least you can hit'm) so they should definitely be made a second priority. Given what I have learned against this criminal it would be good if I could do something to make sure this situation doesn't happen again. If the criminal is still at large it is even more important that I discover a way to capture him.

 

IC: Criminals with these types of powers are a menace to everyone and their powers make them difficult to fight. I must find a way to take away their adavantage.

 

GM Answer: OK, that's why your character would like to have these powers. NOw explain how he trains himself to make his Electric Blast affect desolid people, his Webs teleport-proof or himself more resistant to sedatives. How does he even know it will work if he doesn't have a teamate with similar powers to practice on?

 

Originally posted by Karma

Really, how many times have we seen a superhero (esp. a gadgeteer) get his ass handed to him in the comics and then (usually next issue) work out a way to defeat the criminal's advantage? True this is usually a 'cunning plan' but sometimes its a 'new use of their powers' and that's what this is about.

 

Gadgeteers are the notable exception - Reed Richards discovering a way to deal with an unusual opponent is his character concept.

 

And you're right - it's normally a cunning plan, not "suddenly, Captain America develops the power to prevent his opponent from becoming desolid". Why not just buy a Transform - Superpowered People to Normal People? That will solve most problems, won't it?

 

Originally posted by Karma

Of course your right about character concept. Sometimes you can't justify something while keeping in concept. Then you just have to hope your teammates have the answer.

 

"Annoying player habits" - wanting and believing everything can be solved with force, magic and/or superpowers. "Oh no - we have to use our BRAINS!"

 

I actually have more problems with people using *Experience* (defined as 'what you learned') to improve a part of their character that they didn't use during the adventure.

 

Originally posted by Karma

"I know I didn't actually use my EB during the investigation, but I want it to be cooler"

 

To me it makes more sense for the character to use the 'experience' to improve those aspects of the character that he learned needed improving

 

This assumes the character has perfect control over which aspects of his abilities will improve. This is a lot easier to justify with skills than with powers. "FlameGuy has trained hard and long to make a fire attack that is Based on ECV. Why can't you just accept that?'" doesn't have the same ring as "FlameGuy has taken several courses on forensics at his local commuinity college."

 

I had a player decide the group needed better investigative skils. Her character had no investigative background, but did feel a responsibility to help out the team. She took several courses, and spent 1 xp at a time buying familiarities, then 11- rolls, then full skills with various investigative skills. It actually looked like someone training and radually becoming more knowledgeable, rather than "Yesterday I couldn't even spell injunear and today I are one!"

 

Originally posted by Karma

"I discovered that my investigative skills suck, I'll use my XP on that. My EB? I didn't use it during the adventure so while I as a player would like to improve it my character hasn't learned it's drawback's yet"

 

Better still "My character has been training with his EB for several months and only just discovered his investigative skills could be important. I'll spend this xp on skill levels with my EB. But my character is now registering for classes in forensics at his community college to develop his investigative skills, and I intend to spend xp on that in the future."

 

It is nice to see players buy Contacts, say, based on the events in an adventure. But then don't forget about it. "I'm buying a minimal contact with that detective we met. My character will cultivate the relationship (help him out on some of-camera cases, take him for lunch, etc.) to justify me gradually buying up the Contact."

[Klytus]

Well, let's see. Off the top of my head...

 

- The Uber-Tweaker (aka the Munchkin) who will spend hours deciding on how to spend character points (Hero) or level-up (D&D) to make sure they have utterly maximized the effectiveness of the character.

 

- The Lose-Cannon who makes their characters as wild and care-free as possible so they can behave irresponsibly and recklessly in-game and have it be "in character" - yet they act surprised when the other players don't like it.

 

- The Loner who insists on making a character that doesn't get along with people or would never want to hang out with the rest of the party, even though they KNOW this is a party-based campaign

 

- The Same Guy Different Outfit (S.G.D.O.), who in spite of their best efforts to make each character unique and different, they are all, at their core, the same.

 

- The Frustrated Actor, the fellow who tries so hard to be interesting, unique and amusing, but falls short.

 

- The Deliberate Idiot, who makes their characters stupid on purpose; not because they like the challenge of role-playing stupidity, but so they, as a player, can be lazy and not pay attention to the game and have an excuse for why the character forgot things that happened 10 minutes ago.