Wait wait wait!
The group will make a solid decision, and the moment the DM begins explaining the repurcussions, this player will pipe up , "Wait! Can I X while they do Y"
Despite best efforts this player cannot pitch in at the appropriate time.
If you like this thread, try:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=176017
This one is a DM's absolute worst nightmare.
Part of DMing is being able to pull a random roll out of an orifice to rectify (no pun intended) a question or skillful attempt. This includes house rules, as well as those times that a player does something odd. Example:
Barbarian Orc: Since I succeeded in grappling that goblin, I want to club the other goblins with it. Can I do that with a STR of 19 with a Belt of Fire Giant Strength on?
DM: Sure, why not. Treat the goblin as a....hell i dunno...1d6+Str bludgeoning weapon that takes half of the damage it deals.
-------------
Now, as for the Apprentice, this is a self-designed would-be DM. He's certain he can do the job better, he just needs to learn how to handle the players (he thinks). This turns into someone who is not only a nazi about the vanilla D&D rules and carries the books on their laptop in PDF format, but also the rules the DM makes up on the fly.
Early signs are a player who corrects the DM. "But aren't there already rules for that in The Book of Random Stuff?"
If the player survives the DM's unholy wrath for this sort of behavior, they begin taking notes and waiting for "unfair" treatment.
Apprentice (aka Human Thief):"I want to use a goblin for a club!"
DM: You're unable to do this.
Apprentice (angry): YOU LET THE BARBARIAN DO IT 9 WEEKS AGO
DM(frustrated): The goblin isn't hugely different in stature than yourself. You succeeded at a grapple, but you only have an STR of 12. That's better than average, but you can't go using sentient beings for clubs.
Apprentice then jots this down.
9 weeks later
Apprentice: THE GIANT JUST USED A HUMAN AS A CLUB? WHATS ITS STR?
DM:...ummm, 14, it's a pretty weak giant. Why?
Apprentice: IT CANT DO THAT. YOU SAID THAT I COULDN'T DO IT TO A SMALL CREATURE WHEN I WAS A MEDIUM. ITS A LARGE AND CANT DO IT TO A MEDIUM IF ITS ONLY +2!
DM: The giant clubs you to death with the lifeless body of the human.
3) The WoW Crowd
These players want it easy. Nothing bad should ever happen to their characters at all. They should always be victorious in any combat, parley, roleplay, etc encounter with the least amount of effort. Should anything bad happen to a character(like heaven forbid they lose a body part), they immediately consider their character concept broken and unplayable. Rather than considering the event as a good roleplaying opportunity or finding their way into a temple and paying for a cleric/healer to cast regenerate. Should a DM try to add any 'realism' into his/her world, or make the possibility of good luck(critical hits, for example) come with the possibility of bad luck(critical misses/fumbles, for example), or even try to challenge his/her players with difficult encounters, that DM is immediately accused of trying to punish players and is labeled as a horrible DM. These types of players often give someone the impression that they'd be much happier playing a game like World of Warcraft.
I would've clubbed that person to death with a LIVE seal
The DM's Apprentice
This one is a DM's absolute worst nightmare.
Part of DMing is being able to pull a random roll out of an orifice to rectify (no pun intended) a question or skillful attempt. This includes house rules, as well as those times that a player does something odd. Example:
Barbarian Orc: Since I succeeded in grappling that goblin, I want to club the other goblins with it. Can I do that with a STR of 19 with a Belt of Fire Giant Strength on?
DM: Sure, why not. Treat the goblin as a....hell i dunno...1d6+Str bludgeoning weapon that takes half of the damage it deals.
-------------
Now, as for the Apprentice, this is a self-designed would-be DM. He's certain he can do the job better, he just needs to learn how to handle the players (he thinks). This turns into someone who is not only a nazi about the vanilla D&D rules and carries the books on their laptop in PDF format, but also the rules the DM makes up on the fly.
Early signs are a player who corrects the DM. "But aren't there already rules for that in The Book of Random Stuff?"
If the player survives the DM's unholy wrath for this sort of behavior, they begin taking notes and waiting for "unfair" treatment.
Apprentice (aka Human Thief):"I want to use a goblin for a club!"
DM: You're unable to do this.
Apprentice (angry): YOU LET THE BARBARIAN DO IT 9 WEEKS AGO
DM(frustrated): The goblin isn't hugely different in stature than yourself. You succeeded at a grapple, but you only have an STR of 12. That's better than average, but you can't go using sentient beings for clubs.
Apprentice then jots this down.
9 weeks later
Apprentice: THE GIANT JUST USED A HUMAN AS A CLUB? WHATS ITS STR?
DM:...ummm, 14, it's a pretty weak giant. Why?
Apprentice: IT CANT DO THAT. YOU SAID THAT I COULDN'T DO IT TO A SMALL CREATURE WHEN I WAS A MEDIUM. ITS A LARGE AND CANT DO IT TO A MEDIUM IF ITS ONLY +2!
DM: The giant clubs you to death with the lifeless body of the human.
Careful, now. Players are entitled to have DMs who are consistent with rules.
(http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=176017)
Careful, now. Players are entitled to have DMs who are consistent with rules.
Corvus considers consistency to be a plague. After all, if the players know what rules you're using, they sometimes object when you break them.
The Undecider:
"Rogue, go. Okay, Fighter, you're up in two more turns. Figure out what you're going to do."
"Okay! The Rogue is finished. Wizard, it's your turn now. Fighter, you're on deck."
"Wizard's done. Fighter, it's your turn. What will you do?"
...... and then you wait at least three minutes as the Fighter starts looking at the board, agonising over whether to use Cleave (there's only one enemy) or Tide Of Iron (and they don't want to move the enemy) or a Melee Basic, and where to stand (there is only one open space next to the only enemy they can reach) and what Minor Action to take (he has no Minor Action abilities or powers), and then the Fighter pulls out the rulebook to look up the stuff that's printed on the cards from the builder, and....
Repeat, every round.
The Slloooooooooow Roller: Moves, declares attack, and.... pause. Wait 3 seconds. Pick up D20. Wait 3 seconds. Begin shaking hand back and forth. Repeats attack declaration - "So, this is Thorn Strike against the goblin with the red mark on the mini..." continues to shake die, waits, waits, flings die. Forcefully. It rolls off the table. Repeat from "pick up D20".
The Fastroller: Rolls his attack first.
Like, before declaring what power he's going to use.
Or moving into range of the target.
He's not cheating and he knows what he wants to do, but he often neglects to tell anyone else. REALLY REALLY annoying in a DM.
How Am I Supposed To Remember That?:
Dragonborn breath is a minor action. It's always been one and it will always be one. You've been playing a Dragonborn weekly for 5 months. How complicated is this?
(This same player will NEVER forget that Dwarves get Second Wind as a minor action, but will *always* try to spend their own Second Wind as a minor - despite never having played a Dwarf.)
Corvus considers consistency to be a plague. After all, if the players know what rules you're using, they sometimes object when you break them.
Nahh, I'm a fan of consistency. I just remember that DM's are the gods of their worlds; the rules are really theirs to do whatever the hell they want with them. D&D isn't a game about numbers, it's a roleplaying game; everything comes with bonuses and penalties that affect each player differently, and they don't have to follow a set of in-stone rules. A DM can't technically "break" rules. Which leads me to another one:
The Archivist Archivist
This player typically plays a character that is more thinky than swishy, such as a Mage, Warlock, Wizard, Sorcerer, or Rogue.
This player considers the WotC and TSR books to be absolute and finite in their scope and power over how a D&D game should be played. You start paying for having this player in the group as early as character creation. You'll hear forum whines such as "You shouldn't let her roll an evil character", or, "are you sure we have to play THIS edition?"
Confirmation of this being the real problem comes when the player starts asking for permission to use various feats (i.e. Mortalbane) from multiple different handbooks, having obviously planned out the entire character in advance.
These are the beginning of the player trying to ensure the game works 100% to their own understanding and translation of it, thus giving them a massive advantage and limiting the difficulty. This poisons the game for other players quickly.
From this point forward, the player demands a set rule system that is little different than using the rulebooks verbatim. They're so lame they will actually start quoting page numbers and books as if it's the holy freakin' word.
DM: You take xDx from stumbling over the Thingy.
Player: OK
Archivist Archivist: WAIT WAIT, that roll can't count! Page 36 of the Book of Thingamajigs clearly states "A Thingy deals yDy damage, especially when it's Tuesday"!
DM: ...in my world, this is how it works.
At this point, the Archivist Archivist is likely to either quit the game or throw a tantrum. You get a similar response if you refuse to let them construct the ubercharacter they have in mind by declining one of their feat choices. You can sometimes actually catch them going onto internet forums and posting about how horrible a DM you are on these very forums if they brought a laptop.
Fallen asleep
Can be combined with anything that distracts someone from the game in hand but actually I found myself falling asleep yesterday evening despite a latte and two glasses of diet coke (one in the pub down the road before the game).
Sits there oblivious to the need to roll initiative. Somehow the character name does not penetrate the fog - it takes my real name to get me paying attention.
The solution I think is more fizzy/caffeine and more sugar
to sort it out, or perhaps a Pro-Plus tablet or two if nothing else will work.This player has real combat experience, or some reasonable facsimile thereof. The worst are the SCA heavy fighters. They will constantly complain about how opportunity attacks work, about how unfair it is to archers, whatever they have decided is "unrealistic."
Worst is if you're married to one and have to hear the complaints at home for the next week after the game, too. And the car ride on the way to the game.
Doesn't seem to matter how much I tell her to just let it go, it's only a game, my wife is solidly one of these players.
The Grade Schooler
This player has been out of grade school for 15 years, yet he still seems incapable of speaking up for himself without being called upon first. He relies on the DM to tell him when his turn in the initiative is up, to remind him to take any damage, status effects, or saving throws, to allow him the opportunity to speak up in roleplaying scenes, to tell him how many actions he has left before he ends each turn, and asks for DM approval before doing anything, from things he is clearly entitled to do to things that are totally inconsequential anyway. If the DM doesn't explicitly tell him he can use a second wind, a healing potion, or attack this round he will assume that he can't because that's the DM's prerogative. If the DM gets confused and passes him in the initiative order accidentally, he assumes that his turn has been taken away from him for some reason, and he'll stew about it until the end of the encounter before he'll ask why he lost all those rounds, if he ever asks at all.
OK, I've only played with this guy once, but man did it annoy me.
The "True" Roleplayer
Chooses a class, a race, and a god, and thinks their character is done. Responds to any attempts by the DM or other players to learn more about her character's personality by insisting, "I'm a cleric of Pelor! A cleric of Pelor!" as if that explains everything. Tells anybody whose character has more depth than that that they are roleplaying wrong, because "a dwarf fighter would never do that!"
Easily the most disruptive personality I've ever gamed with. Never welcome at my table again. I would rather go home and watch Pluto Nash three times in a row than play with this person ever again.
still, he's a good guy and we put up with that because he's new, and because no one's a perfect player.
This player refuses to learn the rules, but knows how to correct them. The DM is doing combat wrong of course, but does this player understand treasure parcels or experience budgets? No, and he has no intention of learning, because that would be work. That will not stop him, however, from voicing repeatedly that you are doing it wrong because complaining is easy and protesting is self-satisfying.
This short-attention span goober should go back to watching TV. You could have the most glorious battle going on, the other players are on the edge of their seats, nails are bitten to the quick and everyone holds their breaths as the almighty d20 clatters on the table to an unknown decision. Wham! Someone takes massive damage. Great roleplaying as party members scramble to help their nearly dead comrade. Then it happens:
"Okay, Talon, it's your turn."
"Huh?"
"It's your turn. What do you do?"
"Uh, what's happening again?"
Mind you, for the whole sequence, this player has been looking at the map. He has watched as positions are marked, conditions are noted, AoEs are indicated, and the fate of the Free World hangs in the balance. I guess none of us saw the glassy stare. We were too busy doing something rash... LIKE PAYING ATTENTION!
Nahh, I'm a fan of consistency. I just remember that DM's are the gods of their worlds; the rules are really theirs to do whatever the hell they want with them. D&D isn't a game about numbers, it's a roleplaying game; everything comes with bonuses and penalties that affect each player differently, and they don't have to follow a set of in-stone rules. A DM can't technically "break" rules.
I don't inherently disagree with anything you've just said. However, I note that your style (from your previous posts and your posts about various player types you hate) very much seems to imply that you change the rules, on the fly, contradicting previous rulings, to the detriment of the PCs in every case, and you don't let people take back actions when they declared them assuming a certain set of rules and you've yanked the carpet out from under them by changing those rules.
I don't think I'd like playing in your game. And, hey, I *don't* play in your game, so I suspect we're both happier for it.
"Okay, Talon, it's your turn."
"Huh?"
"It's your turn. What do you do?"
"Uh, what's happening again?"
I hate to admit it, but this is me sometimes. I really should remember to take my Ritalin.
Huh?
This short-attention span goober should go back to watching TV.
We had one of these at an LFR game a couple of months ago. He spent the entire game texting, and we nearly had to throw things at him to get his attention when it was his turn. Argh!
The Warrior
This player has real combat experience, or some reasonable facsimile thereof. The worst are the SCA heavy fighters. They will constantly complain about how opportunity attacks work, about how unfair it is to archers, whatever they have decided is "unrealistic."
Worst is if you're married to one and have to hear the complaints at home for the next week after the game, too. And the car ride on the way to the game.
Doesn't seem to matter how much I tell her to just let it go, it's only a game, my wife is solidly one of these players.
I am a heavy fighter in the SCA, and I don't complain about the game. I understand it is a game and 'realism' in D&D is a silly idea. I can see how some of my comrades would annoy the rest of us D&D players
. Is your wife a fighter? Do you SCA and what kingdom are you in?These players will resort to arguing realism in any situation that benefits them, even though they know that D&D is abstract. The latest example of this was dealing with a creature with natural invisibility, they contended that they should know exactly where the creature moved because "It should be bleeding because we hurt it." These players are rather insistent on reality when it helps, but will conveniently ignore it when they can't pull a benefit from it. Often slows the game to a halt as arguments go back and forth, and can be a nightmare for some DMs.
This player has been playing D&D since it came with those crappy, crumbly dice you had to fill in with a crayon and Elf was a class. He's completely unable to adapt to edition changes, resulting in a 12-rulebook pileup at the table. He still talks about infravision, ultravision, arcane spell failure, non-weapon proficiencies, cursed items, class restrictions based on race ...
I am a heavy fighter in the SCA, and I don't complain about the game. I understand it is a game and 'realism' in D&D is a silly idea. I can see how some of my comrades would annoy the rest of us D&D players
Sorry, wasn't clear. A sizable portion of this type of player will be the SCA fighters, but not all SCA fighters are guilty of this.
She used to fight, but we don't really have time these days. We're in An Tir. We only really go to one event a year, and we'll be missing it this year.
This player knows little about any edition prior to the one where they started playing, but decides in-advance they are not nearly as good as this edition.
Early signs of this player are:
1. Defaming any books you own on prior editions
2. Irritation with players who are older, better at D&D, have been playing the prior editions, or all of the above
3. Quotation of the current edition as with the Archivist Archivist
This begins affecting gameplay when:
1. The player spazzes when the houserules include adaptations of earlier editions, such as pantheons, vision types, or critical systems
2. The player begins belittling the other players, expressing superiority in their familiarity with the most current edition
3. The player begins tugging at the DM, wanting the campaign to move to the new system they've been waiting ages for
4. The player becomes silent in RP, waiting for mechanic-based situations in which to use all of those nifty numbers on their sheet.
5. The player becomes a variant of one of the many "I am the better DM than the DM" variants listed in these threads.
Inevitably, the player walks on campaigns until they find people who agree entirely with them. They either stay in these small clusters, away from the rest of the D&D community (best case scenario) or are unable to find like-minded people who they can stand for extended periods, and find themselves bouncing between campaigns, making other players hate them.
Edit: You can avoid players like this by looking for signs of the behavior in other things. These people usually talk about how Windows ME wasn't all that bad and they love Vista, think that RIAA is right to sue anyone who downloads or uploads copyrighted media (even if it's a 12 year old girl), and always turn you down if you try to bring them out as a "wingman" because they know they're going home alone per the usual.
Oh, you know this one. He/she is the one with their cell phone out, and are taking calls all night long or playing games on their phone, or is texting, or the one that has the lap top on the table and is surfing the web while you are leading the game that you just spent a good part of your week working on, and spent the better part of that morning trying to make the game balanced for each of your players and they are ignoring what is going on. ARRRRRGGGGGGGGG
The Modernist
1. The player spazzes when the houserules include adaptations of earlier editions, such as pantheons, vision types, or critical systems
2. The player begins belittling the other players, expressing superiority in their familiarity with the most current edition
3. The player begins tugging at the DM, wanting the campaign to move to the new system they've been waiting ages for
4. The player becomes silent in RP, waiting for mechanic-based situations in which to use all of those nifty numbers on their sheet.
5. The player becomes a variant of one of the many "I am the better DM than the DM" variants listed in these threads.
The modernist undoubtedly exists – anybody who was playing 3.5 when 4e came out knows that – but I feel compelled to nitpick that, by your definition, #3 is impossible since the player does not play older editions, and #4 and #5 are different categories of worst players unrelated to edition. May I suggest a variation?
The Edition Evangelist
Insists that a certain edition of the game is inherently superior. Sees collecting converts more important than actually playing. Joins games in other editions with little understanding of the rules, and insists that the rules are somehow incorrect because they do not align with his preferred edition. Refuses to learn new rules and browbeats DM and players to adopt preferred rules, piecemeal or in whole. Sulks when the players will not accommodate their favorite new or old mechanic, regardless of how poorly it meshes with the rest of the game. Quotes from their preferred edition as if its revealed word should instantly sway everybody at the table. Believes that these rules constitute a correction to the current edition, regardless of how well they translate. Sees convincing the group that they are having less fun than they think they are as more important than simply finding some other players who actually want to play the same edition they do and leaving us the hell alone so we can play the game we want to play.
The Retroist:
To this player, older is always better. Always.
They would like nothing more to see D&D dragged back to the days when all Wizards had an obligatory beard, all Fighters wore fur skirts and horned helms, and Humans were the only race called to become Paladins.
This player will ceaselessly bemoan each step the game takes away from the TSR days. Any advance the mechanics have made over the years has "destroyed the spirit of the game." Any inspiration the game takes from material published after the 60's is "Japanime videogame crap." Any new player options the game offers are "for powergaming munchkins." Any streamlining of the rules is "dumbing the game down for preschoolers."
They cling fervently to obsolete and archaic design precepts, obtuse and counterintuitive mechanics, newbie traps, skill adjudication through arbitrary DM fiat, etc. all because they believe that the hobby is some kind of elite club rather than a fun social activity, and should therefore have a high bar of entry to keep the "undesirables" (read: anyone who wants to play anything that isn't regurgitated tolkienesque bull:censored
I'd say this is the true counterbalance to the Modernist or, as has been edited, the Edition Evangelist. Actually, I'd say that if Edition Evangelism is the religion, that the Modernist and the Retroist are the fringe cult denominations.
I had to deal with a Retroist because we prefer to run 3.5 and 2.0. He loved 1st Ed and would tolerate 2.0 by way of AD&D, but made us all bat**** insane. By the time we got him into a 3.5 campaign, he complained constantly that the 20 was the good roll, the 1 was the fumble roll, and power score no longer existed.
Buuut since we're all taking ninja jabs here and there, let's get to the real crux of the problem.
The Forum Weenie
This player finds the "worst players" thread offensive half the time they read it, unless it supports their own mode of play. Why? Because they are a weenie.
Insecure, infantile, and almost constantly upset about something unimportant, this player ignores the grand scheme of damn near everything and leaps at any opportunity to try to defame the opinions of others. While many people who post on internet forums can be accused of this, the Forum Weenie has one particular issue that stands above all else.
They take it home with them.
By that I mean they think on it when AFK. They post during game sessions and drive the DM insane because they aren't paying attention, or they ARE the DM and the players really wish the DM would stop talking about how awesome they are online and start actually being a decent DM for ONE BLOODY SESSION. They become emotionally involved and stressed over what people say on the interwebs and it colors their behavior in session.
If they see another player exhibiting the same behavior they were just complaining about online, they identify and categorize them, and the DM usually has to deal with the situation because the Forum Weenie begins playing D&D *AGAINST* the player they just singled out because they don't have their own opinions anymore. Their opinions are forfeit to the popular opinions of the loud minority of other weenies who also post on the forums during games.
This player is usually good in all other things it is just that his role-playing is a little too extreame. He has the urge to punnish the other players characters for the ingame things that they have done that his character disagrees with. He believes that role-playing takes place above fun, and that there is no talking situation that he should not be apart of, even if the conversation is soully based on another player. This player's charaters always are unshakable in thier beliefs.
His "role-playing" often leads to:
Party Deaths
Overriding what other charaters do, becouse he believes that HIS character would not do that.
Other partymembers not role-playing at all becouse they too afraid to cross this charaters beliefs
I.E. The party rogue is arguing with a kobold ally of theirs, and it looks like it might come to blows. The DM enjoying this littile exchange, becouse the Kobold is not too important (tho it seemed as though the two would not kill eachother), and the rogue is finally getting some god-forsaken character development. The Obstructive Role-Player (hes a cleric in this example) has said ealier that his character would not like to kill unecessary people. He uses this minor part of his personality as an excuse to interject himself into their conversation, and try to force the rogue to his will. The rogue, still steamed, does not want the cleric telling him what he/his charater should do. The cleric then decides that his character would most likely subdue the po-ed rogue using violent force, and does so. Now the DM has to deal with the tension between party members, and pray to god that the group does not split up....again
The agravating part is that he is actually thinks he is role-playing well.
At the very beginning, this guy looks great. He understands the rules and has good stats, yet roleplays well. Now, this is the player everyone is looking for. But, well the Players are on a Quest, he splits up. He becomes a slaver, half fiend, criminal, whatever, and now he's evil. Okay, okay, I know a lot of you like evil parties and so do I, but a pure evil character with a high bonus in bluff next to a bunch of good characters whom he plans on enslaving isn't exactly fun. It causes paranoia in the party, and it ends with the players all roleplaying pushing boulders up a hill well TERPM laughs.
He can be prevented, but he'll keep coming back. Eventually, he starts using the motivation of insanity, in an attempt to single handedly torture the other characters/
My addition from the first thread.
3) The WoW Crowd
These players want it easy. Nothing bad should ever happen to their characters at all. They should always be victorious in any combat, parley, roleplay, etc encounter with the least amount of effort. Should anything bad happen to a character(like heaven forbid they lose a body part), they immediately consider their character concept broken and unplayable. Rather than considering the event as a good roleplaying opportunity or finding their way into a temple and paying for a cleric/healer to cast regenerate. Should a DM try to add any 'realism' into his/her world, or make the possibility of good luck(critical hits, for example) come with the possibility of bad luck(critical misses/fumbles, for example), or even try to challenge his/her players with difficult encounters, that DM is immediately accused of trying to punish players and is labeled as a horrible DM. These types of players often give someone the impression that they'd be much happier playing a game like World of Warcraft.
The Crusader: No one ever agrees completely with everyone, but these folk take it too far, not realizing that a difference in opinion is a natural and acceptable stance. No, the Crusader's word is scripture and anyone who disagrees is a heretic that has to be run to the ground, even if they die trying. Generally known for causing long, drawn out arguments over game mechanics and houserules, sometimes even derailing games and/or threads in the process. Also known for holding and executing grudges such as making "subtle" references, deliberately bashing enemies if they're a DM, and yes, making their own Worst Player entry about the people that disagreed with them.
Seriously, man. Feel free to play however you want, but don't be an ass to those that don't see your way. That gets you nowhere.
The Evil Roleplaying Munchkin
At the very beginning, this guy looks great. He understands the rules and has good stats, yet roleplays well. Now, this is the player everyone is looking for. But, well the Players are on a Quest, he splits up. He becomes a slaver, half fiend, criminal, whatever, and now he's evil. Okay, okay, I know a lot of you like evil parties and so do I, but a pure evil character with a high bonus in bluff next to a bunch of good characters whom he plans on enslaving isn't exactly fun. It causes paranoia in the party, and it ends with the players all roleplaying pushing boulders up a hill well TERPM laughs.
He can be prevented, but he'll keep coming back. Eventually, he starts using the motivation of insanity, in an attempt to single handedly torture the other characters/
I'd say this guy was a great player unless he did it too often.
This player is the one who always remembers only the details that aren't important. Usually, this detail is not only very important to them, but governs their next actions to the end it may cause a TPK. Consequences of having them in the party CAN turn into shifting a mundane item into being an important one, but far more often, it just leads to a lot of DM explaining.
At its absolute worst, it turns into the RP equivalent of "GROGNAR SMAAAASH".
ex.
Thief has a blood vengeance quest against a specific group of orcs. The group has a specific symbol. The DM has created a dungeon and a group of wizards occupy it. They have a different symbol.
Thief: OOOH IS it THAT symbol?
DM: No. It's very plainly not that symbol. Your symbol was an eye with a knife in it. This symbol is a burning book.
Thief: Oh
5 minutes later
DM: You meet a wizard who addresses you. She's in flowing robes with the same symbol as is present in the rest of the dungeon emblazoned on them. "Hello! I'm Ryani"
Thief: I'm attacking her!
DM:....why? She seems surprised, take a free round Surprise Attack.
Thief: Wow...
DM: She's dead. One more like that and I'm making you CE.
Thief: BUT SHE HAD THE SYMBOL!
DM: ITS NOT THE SAME SYMBOL!
Every symbol you encounter for the rest of the campaign, you're being asked "Is it the same symbol?" and something retarded is bound to happen no matter what your answer is.
The Crusader: No one ever agrees completely with everyone, but these folk take it too far, not realizing that a difference in opinion is a natural and acceptable stance. No, the Crusader's word is scripture and anyone who disagrees is a heretic that has to be run to the ground, even if they die trying. Generally known for causing long, drawn out arguments over game mechanics and houserules, sometimes even derailing games and/or threads in the process. Also known for holding and executing grudges such as making "subtle" references, deliberately bashing enemies if they're a DM, and yes, making their own Worst Player entry about the people that disagreed with them.
Seriously, man. Feel free to play however you want, but don't be an ass to those that don't see your way. That gets you nowhere.
I apologise if I hit a little too close to home. This thread's intent is for comedic affect, not to offend.
making their own Worst Player entry about the people that disagreed with them.
Aren't you being a bit hypocritical?
Seriously, man. This thread is just meant to be funny. Please see below, from eariler in the thread.
The Forum Weenie
This player finds the "worst players" thread offensive half the time they read it, unless it supports their own mode of play. Why? Because they are a weenie.
Insecure, infantile, and almost constantly upset about something unimportant, this player ignores the grand scheme of damn near everything and leaps at any opportunity to try to defame the opinions of others. While many people who post on internet forums can be accused of this, the Forum Weenie has one particular issue that stands above all else.
They take it home with them.
By that I mean they think on it when AFK. They post during game sessions and drive the DM insane because they aren't paying attention, or they ARE the DM and the players really wish the DM would stop talking about how awesome they are online and start actually being a decent DM for ONE BLOODY SESSION. They become emotionally involved and stressed over what people say on the interwebs and it colors their behavior in session.
If they see another player exhibiting the same behavior they were just complaining about online, they identify and categorize them, and the DM usually has to deal with the situation because the Forum Weenie begins playing D&D *AGAINST* the player they just singled out because they don't have their own opinions anymore. Their opinions are forfeit to the popular opinions of the loud minority of other weenies who also post on the forums during games.
I apologise if I hit a little too close to home. This thread's intent is for comedic affect, not to offend.
It's got nothing to do with me personally, I'm just trying to toss a little bit of civility in here. It's true that this thread is intended for being silly. Judging by the five and a half page long debate that led to that same post on the previous thread (and how the subject matter of the argument seems pretty similar), I'd say that your post isn't. If it was, then my apologies.
Aren't you being a bit hypocritical?
Not really, no.
Seriously, man. This thread is just meant to be funny. Please see below, from eariler in the thread.
Only problem there is that I didn't dwell on it all day and it's not something I intend to dwell on. I was just pointing out that you did something that seemed unnecessarily rude. Take it as you will, I'm not really going to spend another half-dozen pages discussing something largely irrelevant to the subject.
It's got nothing to do with me personally, I'm just trying to toss a little bit of civility in here. It's true that this thread is intended for being silly. Judging by the five and a half page long debate that led to that same post on the previous thread (and how the subject matter of the argument seems pretty similar), I'd say that your post isn't. If it was, then my apologies.
Not really, no.
Only problem there is that I didn't dwell on it all day and it's not something I intend to dwell on. I was just pointing out that you did something that seemed unnecessarily rude. Take it as you will, I'm not really going to spend another half-dozen pages discussing something largely irrelevant to the subject.
Then why bring it up at all?
Seriously, man. Feel free to lighten up a bit and stop being so over-sensitive.
Then why bring it up at all?
Being an ass does require attention.
Seriously, man. Feel free to lighten up a bit and stop being so over-sensitive.
Says the man that antagonized the people he was debating with after being shushed for almost derailing a thread on a flamewar. Right.
BOT:
The Paladin: He's LG or at least NG... In real life. He's always the first to get people to calm down or to watch their manners. Sometimes a real lifesaver, but as he tends to swat people over the head with a hawk's eye and an iron fist, he can become quite a pain in the ass. Fairly known for playing, you guessed it, paladins.
Being an ass does require attention.
Says the man that antagonized the people he was debating with after being shushed for almost derailing a thread on a flamewar. Right.
Seriously, man. Feel free to stop trying to derail this thread.
Seriously, man. Feel free to stop trying to derail this thread.
BOT:
The Paladin: He's LG or at least NG... In real life. He's always the first to get people to calm down or to watch their manners. Sometimes a real lifesaver, but as he tends to swat people over the head with a hawk's eye and an iron fist, he can become quite a pain in the ass. Fairly known for playing, you guessed it, paladins.
I could say the same. I'm certainly not responding to you after this.
Oh, and seriously, man, repetition gets pretty annoying.
Oh, and seriously, man, repetition gets pretty annoying.
Then I would try to lighten up a bit if I were you, and not try to start flame wars. ;)
I'm sorry if you were still holding a grudge over the discussion that was a part of the original thread, but that ended quite awhile ago(and I apologised for my part in the 'derailment.' Please try to pay more attention to what you read). Try not to dwell on things(especially differing opinions/disagreements on an internet forum). You'll be a lot happier (and more importantly you won't be a poster boy for The Forum Weenie(Quoted eariler) )* :D
People need to remember that this thread is meant to be funny, not offensive. Ligthen up, don't be so oversensitive, read it, have fun, and a few laughs. Now with that said, lets get back on topic.
( )* Please note, the above was said in jest.
Then I would try to lighten up a bit if I were you, and not try to start flame wars.
Both of you want peace, but you also both seem to want to have the last word in this argument. Well, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT! IT'S MINE NOW, SUCKERS! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
*Runs off with Last Word*
Irrelevant Tangent:
This person is a loudmouth who never hesitates to start an off-topic conversation in the middle of a game. If the story reminds him of the Matrix, he'll start talking about Neo. If a character reminds him of a local politician, he'll blab away about political news. No moment is too emotional and no action too intense for the Irrelevant Tangent to swing wide and derail the game.
Both of you want peace, but you also both seem to want to have the last word in this argument. Well, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT! IT'S MINE NOW, SUCKERS! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
*Runs off with Last Word*
~Makes Spot check vs Sleight of Hand....fails~.
"I've done X" - A counterpart to the Warrior, above. Prefaces stupid diatribes with "I've done X, so I know how things work in this situation." or "I've taken course/training Y for Z years, so I have knowledge." Can be found in numerous quantities in the "Best Swords in real life" thread in OTT, or in complaint threads in GD, where they start out whining with "I've played since..."
My character is coolest - A subform of the pedestrian "one-upper". Rambles about character abilities. Does this even when the game isn't going.
The anime/video game disciple - "This is kinda like in (Valkyrie Profile/some obscure anime/etc.) when so-and-so and blah blah blah..." Yeh, you know this guy. If you think you don't, you probably are this guy.
Both of you want peace, but you also both seem to want to have the last word in this argument. Well, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT! IT'S MINE NOW, SUCKERS! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
*Runs off with Last Word*
Aaaw! Give it back! C'mon, give it! That's it, I'm telling!
*runs off teary eyed*
The Obstructive Role-Player
This player is usually good in all other things it is just that his role-playing is a little too extreame. He has the urge to punnish the other players characters for the ingame things that they have done that his character disagrees with. He believes that role-playing takes place above fun, and that there is no talking situation that he should not be apart of, even if the conversation is soully based on another player. This player's charaters always are unshakable in thier beliefs.
The agravating part is that he is actually thinks he is role-playing well.
Man, one of my friends is totally like this. I don't game with him if I can avoid it. Really nice guy, but...
I remember when I had a doppelganger screwing up the party, had them arrested for murder. My obstructovist friend was convinced (despite ample evidence to the contrary) that they would get a fair trial and be exonerated. Did I mention he was playing a paladin?
While the rest of the group were doing what I assumed was the natural course of action when you're going to be hung for a crime you didn't commit, he was cleaning his cell. Specifically said that while his comrades were fighting their way out, he was cleaning his cell.
Thanks to his inaction, the escape attempt almost ended in a TPK.
This player SAYS he is coming to the game. He SAYS he will be on time. Well game day comes around, and guess who's not here? He eventually shows up...an hour after you call him. Other forms of The Unreliable come way to early, or on the wrong day. Worst forms have The Unreliable coming on the wrong day AND the wrong time.
During a session I had, a player (who is repeatedly obnoxious) gets on my last nerve. I tell him, in the not so nice manner to be quiet.
After the game he comes up to me I apologize(I overstepped bounds, I understand and will apologize for things that aren't nice), and then he tells me "if you ever say that to me again, I'm going to kill you".
Note: Levels of obnoxiousness include "Fastrolling" and using meta game knowledge excuse to justify his rolls (not sure how that ranks). IE- we all know one of the characters secretly sold his soul to Orcus, but no one has proof, we only have suspicious that he lies about things (then again, character who sold his soul is a changeling, and lies really well). So each chance he gets he'll roll, he'll also tell me to roll when it doesn't make sense for my character to roll: rolling arcana when my character is divine and has never had any interest in the arcane)
The Tricksy Roller: Has figured out a special, magical way of always rolling high whenever he wants to. Dice towers (*not* dice cups) are his mortal enemy.
The "I Rolled A 17" When You Are Sitting Next To Him And Actually Saw That He Rolled A 3 But Picked It Up Really Quickly
Both of these people just plain perplex me. Why would you ever want to cheat at DnD? I guess my complete lack of ability to understand this stems from the way I play: RP-heavy, with failures, particularly non-combat failures, just an excuse to RP more. I guess if you're playing against an adversarial DM who's likely to TPK your party out of sheer malice, but even there the right way to go is to kick the DM off his stool. Cheating introduces a new level of doubt that never ought to be in a game of DnD. Once you catch someone doing it, you never know if that player really rolled a crit or if they're cheating again. Even if it's all out in the open for everybody to see, or it's coming out of a dice tower. This person can be the best RPer, the coolest person to have with you in combat (although probably cooler than they should be, given all the crits they roll), have the best backstory out there, but in the end if you don't let them go it changes the entire game dynamic until they do leave.
Pratar_the_Golden, thank you for breaking up the fight lol.
I will post the original thread on my first post,
ON WITH THE SILLINESS!
I didn't see part one, but here's one from a while ago...
this player rolls dice all the time, just because other people roll. Or, rolls to be better than other people, probably very similar in mentality to The WoW player.
Common things:
DM: "A and B, Roll skill checks"
A:"13"
b:"2"
c:"16"
DM: "You're not there, C..."
Or
When casting a ritual
DM: "A, give me an arcana check"
A: "12"
C: "16, I do better than him."
DM: "Aren't you a barbarian?...are you trained in that skill? Do you have that feat?"
C: "No, but I still made a better check, so let's use mine."
DM *facepalm*
So how about someone names this kind of worst player:
During a session I had, a player (who is repeatedly obnoxious) gets on my last nerve. I tell him, in the not so nice manner to be quiet.
After the game he comes up to me I apologize(I overstepped bounds, I understand and will apologize for things that aren't nice), and then he tells me "if you ever say that to me again, I'm going to kill you".
Wow. Does he threaten people often like that? Apologizing usually works for me when I snap at people (I've been trying to stop, and, thankfully, haven't done it recently). Im sorry that you play with someone like that. If it helps, I have had some very annoying people to play with myself, though your problem seems to go well beyond annoying.
The Psycopath
Nobody knows why he does it, maybe this player is board or just insane, but the only thing for certin is that he kills everything that moves. Enemies, allys, other player charaters, monsters, cats, and pretty much anything else.
The Thief
This character likes to rob any source of wealth. Houses, banks, and caravans all fall to his wraith. When not aquiring wealth in this manner, he is urging the group to go to the nearest town.
The Kid With ADD
Its not his falt, but this person cannot focus on anything for more than three seconds. He is not paying attention during combat, he forsakes the plot on regular occasion, and he wants a new class every other day.
Unfortunatly for me, my whole group is composed of people with ADD.
This is the player whose real goal is to get to maximum level quickly. They will slaughter anything or shortcut any puzzle to achieve this end. While this is normally a hardcore Chaotic player, and wouldn't be a huge issue....
This player wants to make up their own XP. Often, just for mundane tasks.
"I killed that Orc by making the pillar fall on it instead of shooting it with my bow. Do I get extra XP?"
"How much XP do I get for opening the door that led to the Dragon?"
"How much XP did we get for getting on board the ship?"
"How much XP for breathing?"
The Gene is, quiet possibly, a god. Little else can explain how such an entity can come to be. He is, without a doubt, one of a kind, mostly because God burned the mold when he saw what came out.
The Gene does it all: He metagames, he role-plays obstructively, he's stupid, a braggart, and is prone to death or getting the party killed. The Gene may not ruin your game outright, but expect him to go through characters like candy when he's not getting his comrades killed. Prone also to suicidal heroics and death via metagaming. Druid falls in the water while the Gene is wearing plate? Expect the Druid to swim away while the Gene sinks to his death. Powerful vampire on the loose with a woman offering the party shelter? Expect the Gene to stay in the inn and be brainwashed.
The Gene's ego is also of legend. As is his obscurificating idiocy. The Gene cannot comprehend the terror and legend his stupidty spawns. Very often blames other party members, or his "character," for his own tactical errors or fights he starts himself. It wasn't his fault he angered a tribe of Gypsies who was helping the party, they stole his (mundane) knife! It wasn't his fault he refused the Vampire's offer of transport and got half the party killed on the road, it mighty have been a trap!
The Gene may very well be a legend among your local gaming community. You may have only played a single game with the Gene as your dubious ally, but afterward, you know the stories are true.
Beware the coming of the Gene. For he is a wonder of terror too strange to live, but to damn stupid to die.
Me. I suck.
Yep.
#29 I Can hear you Now This person will not get off their cell phone or stop texting no matter what. has the power to generally disrupt any adventure.
Reality > Game, when we want it to be
These players will resort to arguing realism in any situation that benefits them, even though they know that D&D is abstract. The latest example of this was dealing with a creature with natural invisibility, they contended that they should know exactly where the creature moved because "It should be bleeding because we hurt it." These players are rather insistent on reality when it helps, but will conveniently ignore it when they can't pull a benefit from it. Often slows the game to a halt as arguments go back and forth, and can be a nightmare for some DMs.
I play with a group of physicists, engineers and mathematicians, all with pretty good academic backgrounds.
We banned use of science in D&D many years ago :D
This player just can't stand playing an official class. First he'll be a ridiculously broken Adept that quadruples (or more) everyone's EXP gains for 3 standard actions in a row, then he'll be able to deal 2d6 with an at-will controller power...
I play with a group of physicists, engineers and mathematicians, all with pretty good academic backgrounds.
We banned use of science in D&D many years ago :D
I'm a mathmagician. It says so on my business card.
In my first group, we faced a tall stone tower. I looked for some form of high energy weapon to quickly heat air, cause a large shock wave to damage it, and then strike it with a high pressure wind.
Yes I wanted to nuke the durned thing. :headexplo
This person is tight with the DM. Maybe they're the DM's SO. Maybe they've been friends since 2nd grade. It doesn't matter. Monsters don't seem to attack them, they do silly things that disrupt the game and the DM doesn't call them on it, or worse encourages it. Treasures that would be good for them always seem to be in the treasure pile. They turn out to be the hub of the campaign, and if they can't show up the DM calls the game. Combined with any of the other worst player types and you'll be clawing your eyes out.
I've had this happen in 2 campaigns. 1 was a homebrew 2nd ed campaign where we were all supposed to get magic armor sets that the badguys happened to own. When I started the DM's girl friend had already gotten almost all of the pieces of her armor, and his best friend wasn't far behind.
The second time was in a 4e campaign. Player was a gnome illusionist. Annoying personality, annoying character. Monsters seemed to forget he existed, and he'd derail the game during down time by doing...very silly things.
This sort can hardly be said to be disruptive at first glance, then the complaining or "helpful suggestions" start..if they dont know better. These freaks mean well but..
When it comes to adversaries or adversity violence is only a last resort and then committed to with the ferocity of a bear. Traps and puzzles are dealt with as obstacles on a road..buried, broken, pushed out the way or avoided. No matter how evil the character is they will never treat underlings as disposable trash because this is simply not how you treat people who *insert fightclub quote*. Adversaries of all sorts are best dealt with in a manner that someone over thirty might.
In terms of RP the Pragmatist is thrilled with the oddest interpersonal relations regarding "unimportant" npcs but treats anything quest-like as a chore that ought not have a more reasonable alternative or whoever suggests it will get a dirty or nonplussed/underwhelmed look at least. Love is out of the question as such things take longer to properly develop than the game will last! Drama is something tawdry and irritating, bad enough that so many rules are crafted to try to evoke a sense of danger.
Quite simply they either don't get the fantasy genre or they know the assumptions it is based on and hate them with a fiery passion as though they are an affront to reality that offends in a way that game rules themselves cannot come close to. Anything that they relate to these abominations carries a taint of unreality that makes staying in character hard for them if these items or the associated ideas carry a strong influence in the game. Think Sleeper locked in a room with a mage that has five points of Permanent Paradox.
Prepare for complaining from the younger of this crowd or frequent sighs and "helpful suggestions" from the older of these folk if the actions and reasoning of most characters of influence in the game are not what could be expected from a 'real' person placed in their shoes.
Similarly they will complain on forums about anything they see as an enemy of fun, and thus this hobby as a whole, with little empathy for those who do enjoy x houserule or y liberal interpretation of rules that overvalue or undervalue someones character. That may not be so bad but they see the very eye of the beast that is fantasy as a potential threat to fun and so find some ways of running a game to be lame and..Doing It Wrong.
If you must play with this type..
-Inform them that you don't afraid of the genre and threaten to answer complaints with violence
-Distracting them with some RP or "adventures in commerce" that are seemingly unrelated to any real adventure to give them something down to earth to invest their interest in might calm them a bit, as long as this doesnt take too much table time. After all, it's hardly pragmatic to have four or five people over to watch two guys play out something that is seemingly not of consequence.
"man .... we should take the fight tol the enemy's throat, not do all this namby pamby stuff like each and every city block."
"No, the plan is to take over this district fortify it, and then proceed"
"Bah, 3 to 1 (people of the party) ... fair enough"
----4 sessions later------
"no orcs were waiting for us here and we fortified a location and got our payment .... but we could have used these materials to fortify further into the city."
"That's what I said before .... take the fight to the enemy ... we could have taken 3 times as much territory, thus 3 times the pay!"
This player, of which is usually most of us at some point, knows what he rolled. Moreover, he knows if it's successful or not, and will tell the DM.
ie:
DM: Alright, roll to hit
*rolls*
Player: Argh, I missed.
Rest-of-party: Yeah, that sucks.
DM: What'd you roll
Player: I missed.
DM: But what did you roll?
Also:
DM: Okay, you attack it and... miss.
Player: No, I hit.
DM: what did you roll?
Player: High enough.
He Knows What He Rolled
This player, of which is usually most of us at some point, knows what he rolled. Moreover, he knows if it's successful or not, and will tell the DM.
ie:
DM: Alright, roll to hit
*rolls*
Player: Argh, I missed.
Rest-of-party: Yeah, that sucks.
DM: What'd you roll
Player: I missed.
DM: But what did you roll?
Also:
DM: Okay, you attack it and... miss.
Player: No, I hit.
DM: what did you roll?
Player: High enough.
I don't know, if the pc is making public rolls I don't see the problem ... but obviously he's not, otherwise the DM wouldn't have to ask would he?
Is the player atleast trustworthy? If the PC is trustworthy I don't see how it's particular that bad .... but if he constantly hits it might be problematic.
How do you feel about pcs making higher level spell damage rolls (like, 18 D6) just using a laptop random dice generator?
Or pcs not rolling at all and just asking "can i take average?" (e.g 18 d6 = 9 x 7)
The Caligula: You're really not sure why you game with this guy. His characters are all "good" or "neutral" or "unaligned," but in reality they're evil. He plots how to steal every magic item and treasure parcel for himself. He argues about everything with everyone, for every conceivable reason. He's been the cause of his fair share of party deaths and hates everyone in the party (in character). You tell him to cooperate and he says he is. There's no saving this guy, he ruins roleplaying opportunities yelling in the middle of negotiations "do this or I'll kill you I'm high level!" or some such nonsense forcing the DM to either ignore him (at their peril as there will be arguement over him saying that) or punish everyone. He always trys to make the most powerful character he can so that if the party opposes him he can try to threaten his way out of it (like it would come to a fight).
The Player Who Cried Broken: His characters are all underpowered and suck. Yours are all overpowered and are broken. No matter what either of you are playing. He seeks pity from the DM by constantly bemoaning how awful his character is and announcing in long dramatic ways every time he fails a die roll or rolls low damage. In reality though he contributes just as much as everyone else, he just doesn't want the be the subject of the DM's ire or simply enjoys having pity cast on his situation.
The Chaotic Neutral: You all know him, back in the day. The guy who put chaotic nuetral on his character sheet as a license to do anything. The answer to every question is "What? I'm chaotic neutral." He doesn't have a character so much as a random assortment of violence coupled with sick humor. Most encounters start out as combats with this guy, even if they weren't supposed to be.
The Chaotic Neutral: You all know him, back in the day. The guy who put chaotic nuetral on his character sheet as a license to do anything. The answer to every question is "What? I'm chaotic neutral." He doesn't have a character so much as a random assortment of violence coupled with sick humor. Most encounters start out as combats with this guy, even if they weren't supposed to be.
They still exist.
One of our players is going to be out of action while she is in hospital for an operation. She is giving her character to this guy. She's the party fireball caster.
Oh dear.
The Player Who Cried Broken: His characters are all underpowered and suck. Yours are all overpowered and are broken. No matter what either of you are playing. He seeks pity from the DM by constantly bemoaning how awful his character is and announcing in long dramatic ways every time he fails a die roll or rolls low damage. In reality though he contributes just as much as everyone else, he just doesn't want the be the subject of the DM's ire or simply enjoys having pity cast on his situation.
Ah yes. The infamous, "I'm rock. Paper is broken, nerf it. Scissors is fine." argument.
I don't know, if the pc is making public rolls I don't see the problem
He is making public rolls, but the DM usually can't see them over his DM screen.
Drink spiller
We have a simple rule: NO DRINKS ON THE BATTLE MAP (to protect it against stains and to protect the dungeon masters screen etc etc etc).
You tell this player this 100 times and remind them everytime. The one time you are busy reading a power he poors a fizzy drink in a glass on the battle map and lets it fizz out of the glass pasting a burst 8 area in fizzy sticky drink. (no, your mini's and the drawn out battle area aren't spared this grizzly fate).
He Knows What He Rolled
This player, of which is usually most of us at some point, knows what he rolled. Moreover, he knows if it's successful or not, and will tell the DM.
ie:
DM: Alright, roll to hit
*rolls*
Player: Argh, I missed.
Rest-of-party: Yeah, that sucks.
DM: What'd you roll
Player: I missed.
DM: But what did you roll?
Also:
DM: Okay, you attack it and... miss.
Player: No, I hit.
DM: what did you roll?
Player: High enough.
The former case is usually not that bad; after a couple of rounds of combat, you can usually eyeball the monster's defenses (at least the ones you target), and even if he's wrong, he's penalizing himself rather than the latter. I'm the first version pretty often just because I tend to track my rolls. If the 8 missed, and I rolled a 5, I know I missed.
He is making public rolls, but the DM usually can't see them over his DM screen.
Ahh, sorry, in our group we play over two lounges and a 4 xs 4 metre room ... so basically none of us see the other's rolls. Well I can barely see my own ... lucky I sit next to someone really nice and lovely when my dice rolls a bit too far away from me and she just tells me the result ... but we just say what it is ....
During big fights we kinda get the idea and we start going "That aint going to do it, neither is that .... my wolf hit though!"
Our group generally merely asks what meat shield monsters are wearing and we basically know o.o well two of us dont but more experienced players ...
If we're not sure, just say it :x
The Dice-Cheater. I have encountered two varieties of this particular beast:
The Tricksy Roller: Has figured out a special, magical way of always rolling high whenever he wants to. Dice towers (*not* dice cups) are his mortal enemy.
The "I Rolled A 17" When You Are Sitting Next To Him And Actually Saw That He Rolled A 3 But Picked It Up Really Quickly
Both of these people just plain perplex me. Why would you ever want to cheat at DnD? I guess my complete lack of ability to understand this stems from the way I play: RP-heavy, with failures, particularly non-combat failures, just an excuse to RP more. I guess if you're playing against an adversarial DM who's likely to TPK your party out of sheer malice, but even there the right way to go is to kick the DM off his stool. Cheating introduces a new level of doubt that never ought to be in a game of DnD. Once you catch someone doing it, you never know if that player really rolled a crit or if they're cheating again. Even if it's all out in the open for everybody to see, or it's coming out of a dice tower. This person can be the best RPer, the coolest person to have with you in combat (although probably cooler than they should be, given all the crits they roll), have the best backstory out there, but in the end if you don't let them go it changes the entire game dynamic until they do leave.
In response to the The "I Rolled A 17" When You Are Sitting Next To Him And Actually Saw That He Rolled A 3 But Picked It Up Really Quickly I have an explanation:
"The What else am I supposed to do" player
This player has made a character that sucks, sort of on purpose, and refuses to learn how to optimize, and when they realize their PC is totally nerfed compared to the other PCs in the group, cheats on their die rolls and fudges any rule their way to stay effective in combat... When really, the solution is to just make a better character and know the rules better.
Optimization is this player's forte. And he does this through multiclassing multiple times. This is the player who can't make a character without using five different books and at least three different classes, whether they mix together or not. According to him, his characters spent years of indecisiveness trying to figure out what to do in life.
(Note: I'm not saying multiclassing is a BAD thing. I'm saying that choosing to multiclass into a Fighter/Wizard/Psion/Scout is stupidly complicated and usually hard to even understand how he roleplays this person)
The Whiner
Based off of true events. This character seems to whine and complain about every tiny little thing that goes wrong for him. Rolled a 3 when he used his Encounter power? He thinks the game is broken and sucks. A creature made its saving throw to stop being immobilized, which would have set it up for perfect flanking positions? The monster is way overpowered. Someone else did more damage than him? The character is completely broken and over-optimized.
Conversely, when he does finally succeed, he turns into...
The Condescender
"Y'know, your character could be doing a lot better if you had picked *this* power and *this* feat. I can't believe you actually went with that useless weapon choice..."
He's an experienced player, and he knows it. If you've been playing for less than seven years, he immediately thinks that he's far superior to you, and it's entirely your fault for not knowing how to play the game. Only own a single book, and have been trying to learn how to play on your own? You shouldn't even be playing this game, go find another group.
One more:
The Off-Topic Maniac
The lights are dimmed. The room is quiet. The DM begins to speak in a low voice...when suddenly, "Y'know, I really think Cloud could beat Cecil in a one-on-one fight." Cue shushes and angry looks. Oh, but this isn't even the first step; he'll keep doing it. Whenever the DM tries to move the campaign along, this player is prepped and ready to bring up completely random things, most prominent among them theoretical fights between different universes. Typical choices: Sasuke (Naruto) vs. Luffy (One Piece). Naruto vs. Aizen (Bleach). Any Final Fantasy character battle, though this has been somewhat diffused by the impending release of Dissidia.
Sadly, I have to deal with all of these on a very frequent basis...and one of the players could probably fit into about 10-15 different annoying types from these two threads.
Glad it's been sorted out in 4e, though I do on principle like the 3e version. It's just in practice that it sucks.
The Modernist
This is odd, because as far as editions go, I'm the exact opposite. I used ot play over at a friends house, who had a copy of AD&D. I flicked through it while waiting for someone else to finish making up their character, and realised, "Hey, it isn't perfect, not by a long shot, but this could actually be tons and tons of fun if we're all in the right mindset." We never got round to playing it, but something I'd really like to do is play every edition of D&D at least once.
The Misinterpreter
The guy who'll read a rule, then read a feat, power, spell, class ability, paragon path feature, ED feature, magic item power or magic item ability, and then instantly declare that they've broken the game. In actuality, what they've done is misinterpreted the rules. And as an example, since this has actually happened to me:
Guy: Hey, I've broken the game! I can fly, permanently as a Sorcerer from level 16!
Me: Ok, how?
Guy: Well, use Dominant Winds, and fly at least 2 squares. I can then stay airborne until my next turn, when I can activate the power again.
Me: No. No you can't.
Guy: Read this paragraph *points to DMG, page 47*.
Me: Ok, and?
Guy: Read the bit headed, "Remaining in the Air".
Section reads: "During your turn, if you fail to fly at least 2 squares, you crash."
Guy: See? If I fly more than 2 squares, I get to stay in the air!
Me: No, you don't, because that paragraph doesn't say what you want it to say.
Guy: But it does!
Me: No, the whole thing is dependant on you having a fly speed, so it doesn't apply to that power.
Guy: It does!
*Argument continues in a circular fashion for however long it takes one of us to get bored*.
Very, very annoying.
How Am I Supposed To Remember That?:
Dragonborn breath is a minor action. It's always been one and it will always be one. You've been playing a Dragonborn weekly for 5 months. How complicated is this?
(This same player will NEVER forget that Dwarves get Second Wind as a minor action, but will *always* try to spend their own Second Wind as a minor - despite never having played a Dwarf.)
I'm the DM and NEVER remember that my dragonborns breath isn't standard... LoL. Just one of those quirks I guess- never causes a problem other than him looking at me with that "I should attack you instead of that goblin" look. Lol
So far in my campaign i have....
The Grade Schooler
The Slow Roller
The Fast Roller
Huh? [his laptop appeared on the table at least 4 times in a 6 hour session and I heard that damn AIM sound everytime...]
The Multi-Tasker (See Huh, Gradeschooler, and Slow roller....)
Obstructive Roleplayer (Fast roller as well)
The Unreliable
The Kid with ADD....who WONT take his medicine (guess which other types this guy is ;p)
And I cant believe this one hasn't been mentioned
The Double Roller
This has two variants:
1) The player will reroll anything he doesnt like if he thinks no one noticed...initiative is a popular one here
2) The player 'accidently' rolls an extra D20 and then goes with 'oops ill just use the X' (where X is the better obviously)
Yea..he's in my group too....why the )@$# do i play with these guys? lol
If someone is absent and their character is being played by someone else: " No that 3 was their initiative, now i'll roll mine!" (after looking at the dice - unless it's good)
Huh?
This short-attention span goober should go back to watching TV. You could have the most glorious battle going on, the other players are on the edge of their seats, nails are bitten to the quick and everyone holds their breaths as the almighty d20 clatters on the table to an unknown decision. Wham! Someone takes massive damage. Great roleplaying as party members scramble to help their nearly dead comrade. Then it happens:
"Okay, Talon, it's your turn."
"Huh?"
"It's your turn. What do you do?"
"Uh, what's happening again?"
Mind you, for the whole sequence, this player has been looking at the map. He has watched as positions are marked, conditions are noted, AoEs are indicated, and the fate of the Free World hangs in the balance. I guess none of us saw the glassy stare. We were too busy doing something rash... LIKE PAYING ATTENTION!
Correct dm response: Well you were evidentally were hit on the head by magic acorn taking no damage but dazed until now not knowing what occured around you. What do you do?
The Double Roller
This has two variants:
1) The player will reroll anything he doesnt like if he thinks no one noticed...initiative is a popular one here
2) The player 'accidently' rolls an extra D20 and then goes with 'oops ill just use the X' (where X is the better obviously)
DM: Ok, you're up.
PC: *rolls a 3*
PC: Oh. I, uh, attack the mummy. *rolls again*
------
DM: Ok, you're up.
PC: *rolls a 17*
PC: I attack the mummy with a 17, modified by... *etc etc*
Ms. Dice Hurler
This player always throws her dice when they don't roll well for her. If she gets a critical miss off it flies. Surprisingly ... nobody sits across from her. The dice do make nice caltrops on the floor though.
Mr. Lucky
I had a player in one of my groups before. He made up a halfling character. This was back in 2E. His character ended up having terible stats. His highest stat was a 12. Yet somehow he always made his saves and ended up surviving the campaign.
Dr. Pill
This player always showed up to game night messed up on pills. He was a useless player/character. He took forever to take his action, was always changing stuff on his character sheet that shouldn't have been changed. He would nod off at the game table. He'd forget his books/dice/character sheet at home. We got fed up with his antics and kicked him from the group.
(haven't read all, 1800+ posts is a lot)
Drink spiller
We have a simple rule: NO DRINKS ON THE BATTLE MAP (to protect it against stains and to protect the dungeon masters screen etc etc etc).
You tell this player this 100 times and remind them everytime. The one time you are busy reading a power he poors a fizzy drink in a glass on the battle map and lets it fizz out of the glass pasting a burst 8 area in fizzy sticky drink. (no, your mini's and the drawn out battle area aren't spared this grizzly fate).
I just like the idea of labeling spills in terms of burst area.
I just like the idea of labeling spills in terms of burst area.
Coke Spill
Level 1 Encounter Attack Power
Trigger: You must be pouring yourself a drink
Range: Close Blast 1D10 from Player
Target: All creatures and objects within blast
Attack: Any vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 Fizzy damage and target is wet (save ends)
Aftereffect: Target is sticky (save ends)
Sorry I had to...
This person is simply unable to keep his dice rolls on the table. The task of applying a sufficient, but not excessive, amount of force to a die is beyond him. As a result, he is constantly crawling around on the floor for his dice.
Everybody else rolls in a fairly standard manner - shake the dice once or twice, then roll onto the table. What does this guy do? He picks up all of the dice and drops them from about one inch above the table. And somehow, he can't comprehend why he gets numerous rolls that are exactly the same. Whether he's cheap or just lazy, he doesn't feel the need to actually roll them - just drop 'em.
Crazy Creator
There are two typical archetypes for characters in the party's games: serious, deep characters, and ones that are good or neutral. This player can play neither. Every single character of his is made under the premise of being something goofy or something completely evil. His favorite classes? Rogue and Warlock, no matter what edition we're playing. The rest of the party may be Lawful Good, but he's going to be the only Evil warlock that enjoys cursing the party members in case he decides to stab them in the back later.
Coke Spill
Level 1 Encounter Attack Power
Trigger: You must be pouring yourself a drink
Range: Close Blast 1D10 from Player
Target: All creatures and objects within blast
Attack: Any vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 Fizzy damage and target is wet (save ends)
Aftereffect: Target is sticky (save ends)
*edited my signature to include this awesome encounter power*
*edited my signature to include this awesome encounter power*
Whoo! I got sigged!
Anyway here's my contribution:
The rules encyclopedia
I'm guilty of this one at times. Not quite as bad as the rules lawyer as this player understands that fun and story comes first. At first they seem good to have around. This player spends alot of time thinking about D&D (or whatever system you are playing) and thus has a strong knowledge of the rules which leads the DM to occasionaly ask his opinion on more awkward rules decisions. This player also occasionaly points out rules that have been missed. This only becomes a problem when the player ends up helping the GM do terrible things to the PCs. Cue looks from all the other players that scream "Why did you tell him that?"
While this is only a minor problem on it's own, when combined with a Killer DM it means TPKs. This player's innability to keep quiet when an applicable rule is going unnoticed can also fuel Rules Lawyers making that player harder to bear.
Yes. You.
You
Yes. You.
Me?
Whoo! I got sigged!
Anyway here's my contribution:
The rules encyclopedia
I'm guilty of this one at times. Not quite as bad as the rules lawyer as this player understands that fun and story comes first. At first they seem good to have around. This player spends alot of time thinking about D&D (or whatever system you are playing) and thus has a strong knowledge of the rules which leads the DM to occasionaly ask his opinion on more awkward rules decisions. This player also occasionaly points out rules that have been missed. This only becomes a problem when the player ends up helping the GM do terrible things to the PCs. Cue looks from all the other players that scream "Why did you tell him that?"
While this is only a minor problem on it's own, when combined with a Killer DM it means TPKs. This player's innability to keep quiet when an applicable rule is going unnoticed can also fuel Rules Lawyers making that player harder to bear.
I'm kind of on this at times. If the DM forgets to give an AoO to one of the monsters, I will often point it out. Why? That's a game mechanic. I'm not sitting in the back merely because my character likes running away and singing about stuff. Well, that too. I'm back there because I don't want to get into a position where I'm about to die and running away means the bad guys get a free hit on me. I also think that if you get into a good relationship like this with the DM, it's harder for him to behave like an adversary. OTOH, it's a *whole lot* easier to fall into that when people are rules lawyering on you (as a DM).
The Party Role Whiner
"My striker keeps getting down to low HPs! My defender can't deal out damage like the striker can! My leader just stands back and buffs everybody and can't do squat for his own damage! My controller is... controllery!"
I understand that you can create some hybridized roles that, for example, allow a fighter to deal on someone when they need to. However, to a great extent, if you choose to play a leader, that means you buff the party. That's your job. If you didn't want to do that, you should have chosen another class.
The Unreliable
This player SAYS he is coming to the game. He SAYS he will be on time. Well game day comes around, and guess who's not here? He eventually shows up...an hour after you call him. Other forms of The Unreliable come way to early, or on the wrong day. Worst forms have The Unreliable coming on the wrong day AND the wrong time.
We had someone who couldn't EVER make it to the games on time. The saddest part was, he was frikken living in the DM's house. All he had to do was roll out of bed and come to the table in the living room!
He understands the rules. He gets along with the players and the DM. He's a good roleplayer. The only problem is that, like the French (just kidding), he's a surrender monkey. An enemy gets a critical on someone. He yells, "If he does that one more time, it'll kill me! I've gotta flee!" There's a trap in the first room. "There's probably a trap in every room. Maybe we could hire someone to get the traps for us. After all, if the rogue messes up we'll all die!"
Whenever he hears the word trap, dungeon, war, curse, or damage, he cowers. He flees. He desperately begs the cleric to heal him when he's taken only 1 point of damage.
Coke Spill
Level 1 Encounter Attack Power
Trigger: You must be pouring yourself a drink
Range: Close Blast 1D10 from Player
Target: All creatures and objects within blast
Attack: Any vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 Fizzy damage and target is wet (save ends)
Aftereffect: Target is sticky (save ends)
Sorry I had to...
Which is worse? that or...
I was enjoying a glass of milk during the game (poured in the kitchen and brought to the table). The DM did something to make me laugh, which I ended up snotting into my glass. Yes that's right. In the course of laughing, milk came out my nose. I did manage to catch it in my glass though, and then made a trip to the restroom to wash my face. I requested a different glass with a different drink. When I went into the kitchen to pick up my glass that another player had graciously offered to pour, another member at the table requested a glass of milk. You can probably see where this is going. Sitting at my chair, I calmly take a drink, and the player who'd poured my drink comes in from the kitchen and hands the player who requested a glass of milk his drink. I casually pointed to it and mouthed to the guy, "wasn't that my glass?" To which he motioned, with a smirk, for me to stay silent.
I swear the juvenile behaviour.
The Fearless Leader: These are the players who feel they automatically gain initiative in a verbal respect. They are often the first ones to speak up when the part must make a decision, even cutting off other players as they believe their ideas are the most sound and the rest of the party needs to listen before they speak up on their own advice. The fearless leaders get frustrated when the party does not act how the fearless leader wishes and basically turns the game into the fearless leader playing all the characters and the other players simply rolling the dice and nothing more. (the best advice I can offer players like these is this, shut up and wait your turn, it will come. Let others play how they want because your tactics don't always win the day, you pick the wrong choice as often as anyone else.)
The Goofball: These players take characters whos sole purpose is to inject comedy into the game. In small doses, this character is often very welcome, especially if the player has good timing with his jokes and silliness. Although most often this character turns into a premature TPK as the players grow more and more tired of this character. All sense of a serious game or getting lost within the story falls flat completely with the constant inserts of depantsing, shoelace knotting, mockery and taunting and fart jokes. These games are often BAD and sometimes the DM is blamed. (the best advice I can offer players like these is to stop trying to be funny. Its forced and because of this you fail at your objective. Let it happen naturally and most of all remember the game does not revolve around you, so allow the players to focus on the story at hand.)
I'v got more, but I'll stop here for now.;)
Which is worse? that or...
I was enjoying a glass of milk during the game (poured in the kitchen and brought to the table). The DM did something to make me laugh, which I ended up snotting into my glass. Yes that's right. In the course of laughing, milk came out my nose. I did manage to catch it in my glass though, and then made a trip to the restroom to wash my face. I requested a different glass with a different drink. When I went into the kitchen to pick up my glass that another player had graciously offered to pour, another member at the table requested a glass of milk. You can probably see where this is going. Sitting at my chair, I calmly take a drink, and the player who'd poured my drink comes in from the kitchen and hands the player who requested a glass of milk his drink. I casually pointed to it and mouthed to the guy, "wasn't that my glass?" To which he motioned, with a smirk, for me to stay silent.
I swear the juvenile behaviour.
yours is worse, but luckily my playgroup isn't that juvinile. They don't even laugh when I say "I lay my hand on myself" with my paladins lay on hands.
I´ve encountered 2 players of that kind in my life, both of them were crappy optimizers (they actually did try to do it) and always ended up being overpowered or killed. And when that happened they´d always say how power game oriented unbalanced and absent of roll playing D&D was and how awesome WOD really is.
As a side note when i finally played WOD with one of them i realyzed why they stated that. When playing the game they used the ¨better storyteller system¨ as an excuse to bully the DM into doing whatever they wanted.
The rules encyclopedia
I'm guilty of this one at times. Not quite as bad as the rules lawyer as this player understands that fun and story comes first. At first they seem good to have around. This player spends alot of time thinking about D&D (or whatever system you are playing) and thus has a strong knowledge of the rules which leads the DM to occasionaly ask his opinion on more awkward rules decisions. This player also occasionaly points out rules that have been missed. This only becomes a problem when the player ends up helping the GM do terrible things to the PCs. Cue looks from all the other players that scream "Why did you tell him that?"
While this is only a minor problem on it's own, when combined with a Killer DM it means TPKs. This player's innability to keep quiet when an applicable rule is going unnoticed can also fuel Rules Lawyers making that player harder to bear.
I'm guilty of this one. I prefer to actually know the system I work in and tend to remember pages that I've often had to look up (look the status effects and actions pages in the PHB).
My innability to keep quiet is indeed present. >.<
Though my current DM is hesitant to actually call for TPK's (only one of us actually permanently dies then), so I feel less guilty about it.
And no, I haven't caused any TPK's so far.
I try to work with the story and the campaign though, by understanding the rules system. For example if a player wants to try a certain thing, action or concept but is hesitant, I enjoy being able to help him to pull it of, within the rules.
On the flipside of this, is that I can't really stand ST's that claim to play by the rules, but make up the rules because they're too lazy to even flip through the pages.
I'm all for houserules and changing rules, but only if a dm actually knows how the rule is supposed to work. (unless he's trying to simplify a rule, but even that denotes an attempt to understand the system)
Atm, I'm blessed with a decent DM, so I'm happy.
the That´s why WOD is better guy
I´ve encountered 2 players of that kind in my life, both of them were crappy optimizers (they actually did try to do it) and always ended up being overpowered or killed. And when that happened they´d always say how power game oriented unbalanced and absent of roll playing D&D was and how awesome WOD really is.
As a side note when i finally played WOD with one of them i realyzed why they stated that. When playing the game they used the ¨better storyteller system¨ as an excuse to bully the DM into doing whatever they wanted.
I know the type. WoD is my favourite rpg system so far. But try to even get one of the normal wod folk to like D&D.
WoD isn't better, it's different. God, the combat system, especially the old WoD one, is terrible. But for RP'ing and immersion I still prefer it.
But the type can be taken generally, it isn't specific to WoD.
Any player that thoroughly enjoyed a certain system will hold dear to it, and will think it better than every other system.
Think of the fans of older editions of d&d, that claim that the new editions change d&d for the worse.
The wallflower/tagalong
This player will almost never say anything, except things that indicate that he's still with them. "I'm with them." "I do the same."
Typically: "I tagalong with the others and let everyone else do the talking", lean back in his chair, reach for his snacks and will enjoy the movie playing out before him.
Even if it was stated that he's alone, he'll try to push it that he is next to one of the party members and is following their lead.
He isn't playing, he is watching his favourite TV show. Character development is impossible since he'll avoid saying anything that could resemble an opinion.
Characters are usually something the player considers halfway funny or silly, or are cardboard copies of something he once came up with.
Don't expect any contributions, solutions or ideas from this one or any other kind of involvement. He's here for his own amusement. He doesn't want to actually play, he wants to watch and enjoy the spectacle.
In combat, on his turn he'll usually do whatever comes up in his, whether it's a smart or stupid thing to do. He wants his turn to pass as fast as possible so he can resume the viewing.
Usually when you flat out ask the player what he thinks the party should do, he is dumbfounded, since he didn't expect or want the spotlight.
The more disruptive of this type of player, can be combined with other types people suggested.
He'll start to actually suggest things and talk. He'll suggest or sometimes flat out state actions for other characters to do, because he thinks it would be more enjoyable to watch. While stating "I tagalong and let everyone else do the talking" a minute later.
Considers that the others should provide him enjoyment, since "he's playing too"
A type I noticed more in RP heavy campaign's/stories, but it's certainly applicable.
While not disruptive immediately, I personally don't consider this a good type of player. The example player I base this off, was getting pretty disruptive in it. He had learned to use the sentence "I watch for a moment of weakness and wait for the perfect moment to strike."
Then proceed to do nothing for the entire combat. It was like this every encounter for about 3 sessions.
We tried to get the player involved through a multitude of ways, but ultimately, they failed.
There is a difference between shy and insecure people, and flat out refusing to get involved.
I'm sure others will have other opinions about this, but I personally suggested to the player in question that he go rent a movie, and make room for someone actually interested in playing the game.
The DM and other players should work hard to include them and make them less shy - if it's shyness that's at fault. Particularly coming in in the middle of a campaign, like I've just done, you should be able to ask what's going on and understand things like in-jokes, the general aim of the campaign, if not the history of the group. I'm fitting in nicely but it took about two months of playing to relax enough to ask ... "so why are we looking for these jewels again?"
If it persists, then I agree, but I disagree that this is for the personal amusement of the wall-flower gamer, it's often down to confusion and disorientation which needs to be counteracted by the people in the group ASAP on the others noticing that the person needs inclusion.