I have a few pet peeves with D&D. There are simply things about the game that I don't like.
The cool thing about it, though, is that D&D is (almost) one big optional rule set. Yeah, you probably shouldn't mess with the fundamental mechanics, but you can probably get rid of classes, spells, or armor that you find objectionable.
So what's a DM to do? What if your players like those features? You probably don't want to be that DM, the guy who says no "just because". That always seemed like a pretty nasty way to play.
The right way seems to be tailoring your campaign around those peeves, effectively writing them out with logical reasons. You have to apply those reasons evenly across the entire campaign so it doesn't seem vindictive or random. Finally, most importantly, you have to let your players know those limits, right off the bat, before the game even starts, so they can adjust accordingly
Of course, you're not off the hook. You're still obligated, in fact perhaps more so, to make the campaign interesting, exciting, and fun. The players had to sacrifice something to play by your rules, you have to reward them for it. You might even want to give them a way to earn those pet peeves in the campaign.
Do other DMs have pet peeves? Do you grin and bear them? Or do you write them out of your campagin somehow? Or, is the writing pet peeves out of a campaign a horrible, selfish idea?
I have my pet peeves, here's what they are and how I "solved" them. http://community.wizards.com/content/blog/4184196
I'm not bothered by classes, spells, armor or other stuff like that. If the players want them in the game, they can have them. We discuss these sorts of things during Session Zero.
The only pet peeve I have is I don't like players to ask questions of the DM during play. I prefer they instead take actions or make declarations. Not "Is there a door?" but rather "I want to look around for doors." Not "Can I approach the king?" but "I try to approach the king." Questions drive me up a wall. This includes asking whether they can make ability checks or the like - ARGH.
I got pretty frustrated with my group the other day, but I'm chalking that up to burnout.
Here are a few of my peeves:
- People that show up, especially 10 minutes late, and expect to play without a character.
- Same as above, but when they refuse to use a pregen.
- Players that roll dice across the tables/players that use heavy/large dice.
- Players that refuse to use/download the Basic Rules, and instead fight over the 1 PHB (that I own)
Angry_Steak wrote:
Isereth's advice has lead me to talk to my players about the "DM may I?" problem. It is becoming a peeve but I understand old habits die hard...
Dragonborn and Teiflings. For some reason they bother me and take the wind out of my sails as a DM. I hate saying no to something in the core PHB but it takes away from my fun. Thankfully our current campaign no one selected either.
One of my biggest pet peeves is a group who wants to solve everything by fighting. Instead of looking for info or trying to interact they just say "I swing my sword at it" I feel it takes the spirit out of the game.
iserith wrote:
Barky wrote:
Angry_Steak wrote:
@Noct (phone won't quote)
I've considered tightening things up and encouraging my players to take responsibility for their items; in the very least, their character sheets. I'm not sure how to handle their lack of dice. Roll for them? Hand them my own dice whenever they need it? Would buying a cheap folder for a first timer's sheets help to encourage taking responsibility?
Llenlleawg wrote:
Barky wrote:
If you run your game in a store and someone shows up within their dice, I suggest encouraging them to buy some to use for the session.
Same with a pencil if they didn't bring one and the store you game in sells them.
...and if the player can't keep their character sheet together or forgets to bring it to the game, there really isn't anything I can do for them - that's like trying to play baseball and not remembering to bring a bat.
Angry_Steak wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm thinking about implementing this concept, so let me take a swing...
Llenlleawg wrote:
iserith wrote:
eleran wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Elves. I can't stand elves. I don't like drow, nor half-elves. Whenever a player chooses to play one, I just sigh, and realize that I'm probably expected to include them in my campaign now.
eleran wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Barky wrote:
For some reason charm spells annoy me. In our 4e campaign, my wizard had the "Fast Friends" spell, and every potentially awesome confrontation with enemies started out with my wizard attempting to make friends with them. A more exprienced DM could have rolled with it, but it was my first campaign, and it annoyed me visibly, which I actually regret, so maybe it's just me.
DarthMacho wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Xaspian wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
As for pet peeves, one of mine is when a player gets impatient and tries to rush the other players through something in order to get to a situation he finds more interesting. Especially when those other players don't do that to him. Grrr.
Noctaem wrote:
DarthMacho wrote:
No problem, I really appreciate you calling me out on my poorly written post. You'd never know I was an English Major in college by reading that one, lol.
Also, I think "Fast Friends" was a particularly annoying power that I also wasn't ready to deal with. I'm hoping that with more experience, and the transition to 5e, that I'll handle these situations more easily.
The player in question always had an interesting approach to the game. She would always attempt to make friends with the monsters first, but she would always gravitate to the most destructive attack spells when choosing powers, which were mostly ranged area bursts. She would stand in the back and get annoyed with the characters in melee because sometimes she couldn't place them without doing collateral damage to the party. Overall the campaign was a lot of fun, and the player did a lot of awesome things in the campaign.
My biggest peeve with 5e is the vague rules. Yes, I know this was a design decision.
You can mess things up easily (i.e.make a ruling that leads to something being overpowered or underpowered) and quite often have to reverse your initial decision later, which leads to a more inconsistent experience with the players.
My other peeve is DMs who ask for rolls for trivial stuff that even I could complete without fail.
DaveDash wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
I think it is totally alright for a dm to ban the things he does not like in his campaign. it is important to communicate such things early.
As a dm im open to just about anything and have developed subraces and prestige classes with players to accomidate their game experience.
I have two pet peeves, number one being the loser Larry pc. The loser Larry pc is always doing things, accidentally of course, that is detrimental to the pcs. the loser Larry pc is just for Trolls, players concerned just with destroying the campaign, creating conflict within the group and ruining everyones experience. For people like this its a petiful way to exercise power and control over others like a bully. Loser Larry and Trolls get the boot from any game I GM.
The second pet peeve are players start thinking about what thier pc will do only on there turn. I would like players to think about what their pc will do on thier turn prior. I can ask but for the most part there is not much I can do. I know many players who pay attention plan ahead and think about what thier pc is going to do prior to there turn. But when it is there turn, there minds go through that process all over again. That is just how some people play. I just grin and bear it. Patience is a virtue for Dms
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
DarthMacho wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
Barky wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Ranthalan wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
I've developed a couple pet peeves during my short time as a Dm.
1.) Players insisting on using any race other than the ones in the PHb. Prior to beginning my first campaign, one of the players presented about 10 different character ideas. Only one was in the PHb (a Dragonborn). The rest were things like wandering scarecrows, homunculi, and I think one was a faerie. He allowed me to veto any I didn't think would work, but gave me a bit of a sour look when I actually did.
It's a little frustrating when someone's character concept can only be achieved by being *the* most special snowflake in the game, especially when DM'ing for the first time and the PHb had only just come out so I had no idea how to go about creating new races.
2.) Not knowing what your spells until you cast them. This one really bogs down some games. There have been times when it's gone like this:
Me: Okay, you're casting Dissonant Whispers. What does that do?
Player: Ummm...you do a dexterity saving throw...I think.
Me: (Reaches for PHb to look up yet another spell)
There have been sessions where I've had to do that every five minutes it seemed.
iserith wrote:
I don't have a problem with questions, but I do see where Isereth is coming from. Questions don't do anything to advance the action, and in most cases questions can just as easily be parsed as an action their character is taking in an attempt to find the answer they're looking for, which would achieve the same goal in a way that doesn't kill dramatic momentum. "I look for an exit" as opposed to "are there any exits?", etc.
Devils-Advocate wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
Barky wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
...they really didn't remove minor actions though, they just changed the name to bonus action and spun it as something you can only do when an ability grants you an opportunity to do so, instead of a resource you always have, but can only spend when an ability grants you a way to use it. There's no functional difference, it's just presented slightly differently.
iserith wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
...am I the only DM reading this discussion and getting caught up on the example chosen?
I mean, I can follow the discussion and have it clear who things which what about what thing, but I keep reading "Is there an exit?" mentioned as something that a player might ask, and I only see two possible responses to that question if it were asked at my table: A) "Please don't interrupt me while I am telling you what your character can see from where they are located to ask me what your character can see," or B) "I just told you what your character could see around them, please pay better attention in the future so I don't have to repeat myself so much."
Devils-Advocate wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
I've never had any problems with players asking me where the exits are. If anything is unclear, even after telling them where the exits are, I simply draw them a map. I find it hard to imagine how any DM could get upset about that. If you just told them, and they have to ask again, then your description was probably not very clear to begin with.
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
The pet peevs I have are.
1. Players uesing there character to mean and act like a jerk.
2. The old time players trying to take over. (I have guys playing that have been playing since Chainmail)
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
noman1200 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
noman1200 wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
noman1200 wrote:
Ranthalan wrote:
noman1200 wrote:
My pet peeves (as a player and once-upon-a-time DM). Potential solutions also included, so nobody can say I'm just a complainer:
- Player does not know what his spells do. May have cards with incomplete notes.
Solution: type out (not just cut-and-paste) all your spells and bring the sheet along to the game. If you need to look it up, there it is without 
the other 250 pages of rulebook to hide behind.
Full Disclosure: I already do this with my own characters. Class powers (that do more than change my statistics) too.
- Combat spells in 5e do not share much in the way of mechanics. In one, the PC makes an attack roll. In another, the DM makes a Save for the target. Some spells work automatically.
Solution: Big thick book of errata from WotC. 
- Player does not know what he wants to do when his turn comes.
Solution: DM can say, "Player X it's your turn. Player Y, you are up next." This is a two-minute-warning to the player. After two minutes (real time), by fiat the stalled PC is readying an action for later.
- Player still does not have a legal character after several sessions of half-hearted effort at table
Solution: I have been at one table that asked the player in question to go to an empty table and finish his character, and join back in when done.
Solution 2: There is a Depository of Pre-Gen Characters thread available in the 'Player Help' section of these boards.
- Player is tactically inept (as in ignorant or unknowing, not deliberately sabotaging / willfully stupid)
Solution: My city's Public Library has a number of Adventurer's Guidebook or Complete Warrior type sourcebooks, which are full of tactical advice. Tactics don't go obsolete when Editions do. 
Solution 2: More tactically-inclined players can lay out 2 or 3 good options and let the non-tactical PC pick one. (Requires trust respect and cooperation among the players, of course.)
- Player is saving ALL his spell slots for "when we REALLY need them".
Full Disclosure: This was me with 4e Daily powers.
Solution: "Budget" to spend one slot per fight, another if things get out of hand. If the situation just screams 
or 
at you, go ahead and Alpha Strike it.
- Players do not bring dice &c to game played in FLGS
Solution: Offer them yours once. On the way out, stop them off by the dice &c display(s) and ask if they could use anything.
- Players come up with something clever that I didn't think of and totally nuke my carefully-designed encounter
Solution: TAKE NOTES so the same thing doesn't happen twice! Then reward the PCs for their victory.