TheRPGSite

Greetings to all...

We've all had our share of annoying players in our games. Here's some of the types that I've seen crop up frequently:

01. The Guy With The Corny Motiff

This is the player who is obsessed with some kind of theme and incorporates it into his character in every way possible, including his name & how he talks.

For example: wolf theme - Has wolf-head shaped helmet, wears wolfskin cape, wolf-head pommel on sword & daggers. Has two trained wolves that follow him around. Insists on being refered to as  "The Wolf Master".  Makes comments like, "Wolves do not need comfort" or "Never get between The Wolf Master and his prey", etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Irritation Level: Mild

02. The Beligerent Spaz

This player is always starting unneccessary conflicts / fights with NPCs, never wants to compromise, always makes rigid demands and backs them up with threats, and in general makes it difficult to negotiate with anybody.  
In one game, an inn keeper quoted the price of 5gp per night. The Beligerent Spaz said 2gp and no more. Then the owner refused, the guy grabbed a torch and set fire to the roof thatch, saying, "Fine! Then we'll burn down your inn!" (The rest of the party was not pleased.)

Irritation Level: Severe

03. The Independent Dungeon Crawler

This is the player who abritrarily and abruptly decides to try to find their own path and goes off and leaves the party, forcing the GM to split the action between two stories and sets of descriptions. Sometimes the player comes back (often with wandering monsters hot on his tail) but sometimes they want to have their own adventure seperate from the party.

Irritation Level: Medium

04. The Sneaky Note-Passer

This player is always pulling something shady and underhanded on his/her fellow PCs and, therefore, keeps passing notes to the GM: "I'm going to steal the dwarf's cap when he goes to sleep" or "While everyone is inside, I go out and untie Arthyr's horse so that it runs off", etc.  This also disrupts the flow of the game because the GM has to pause and consider what the player is doing & react to it.

Irritation Level: Medium

05. The Chicken

This player (not the *character*) is for some reason deathly afraid of getting into ANY combat situation. So whenever any kind of threat, hint of a threat, or anything creepy happens, the player is like: "I'm going to keep my character far away from the door..." or "I vote that we all leave the area immediately, right now." - Essentially running away from any conflict which can limit plot development.

Irritation Level: Medium

06. The Skill Bonus Opportunist

This is the player who tries to beat the game mathematically by choosing skills based on bonuses rather than on what their character would or should use: "I'll take Gymnastics because that will give me +2 dodge, Hand-to-Hand Commando will give me +1 to dodge, Fencing will give me +1 to dodge, and Ninjitsu will give me +2 to dodge.."  Etc.

Irritation Level: Mild

07. The Mooch

This is the player who never, ever pays for any food or beverages ordered by the players, not because they can't afford it, but because it doesn't occur to them to contribute. This player also never has their own dice, pens, character sheets, or books. They actually do have all these things but they don't bring them.

Irritation Level: Medium

08. The Debater

This player nit-picks every little detail, particularly in combat situations, always trying to argue that somehow their character: A) Did not get injured, B) Is not affected by something that affected everyone else, C) Is justified in breaking some rule, D) Etc. Often they will quote some obscure rule or reason and want to stop the game to prove their point. If the GM refuses to submit, they piss and moan about it for hours.

Irritation Level: Severe

09. The Out-of-Character / In-Character Switcher

This player makes comments in-character and then insists they were talking out of character when it lands them in trouble. For example, the characters are trying to bluff their way past the town guards. The player gets frustrated and says, "Fuck you" or something to one of the guards - who reacts appropriately. Then the player says, "I didn't say that in character!"

Irritation Level: Severe

What are some of the annoying player types you've encountered over the years?

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;49125201. The Guy With The Corny Motiff

This is the player who is obsessed with some kind of theme and incorporates it into his character in every way possible, including his name & how he talks.

For example: wolf theme - Has wolf-head shaped helmet, wears wolfskin cape, wolf-head pommel on sword & daggers. Has two trained wolves that follow him around. Insists on being refered to as  "The Wolf Master".  Makes comments like, "Wolves do not need comfort" or "Never get between The Wolf Master and his prey", etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Irritation Level: Mild

You made a mistake here....this one belongs in AWESOME PLAYERS THREAD

Quote from: Planet Algol;491256You made a mistake here....this one belongs in AWESOME PLAYERS THREAD

LOL - I take it that's a style you use? :hmm:

Honestly, I haven't played with any of those types since university. At that point I dealt just about all of them at one time or another. Goes off on his own guy can be alright, and sometimes when he's traveling with a bunch of dumbass companions his choice is really the only sensible one.

Here are two that I deal with (actually they're the same dude).

Distracted stoner: asks questions that I've literally just answered in my description.

"You enter a 20X30 room."
"Okay, a room. how big is it?"

Back story bitch: continually bitches that you haven't worked his ten page, single-spaced back story into the game enough- starting with the first session.  

The irritation level on both of these is pretty low, because with the first the other PC has gotten in the habit of stepping in and answering the question and with the second, up until recently, I just told him to suck it up in the most abusive manner possible; but over the last four sessions I worked his back story in until it was the main thing going on for a while.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;491257LOL - I take it that's a style you use? :hmm:

I like it too, truthfully. It shows enthusiasm.

I once had a character named Maim Heartrender (I was 15, so be cool). Every thirty minutes or so I would slam my fist on the table and shout "MAIM!"
Good times.

I don't have much experience with these kinds of "quirky" gamers but I do have (limited) experience with the setting lawyer type. It's even worse when the damn thing is homebrewed and he attempts to make his case. WTF ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Aos;491260I like it too, truthfully. It shows enthusiasm.

I once had a character named Main Heartrender (I was 15, so be cool). Every thirty minutes or so I would slam my fist on the table and shout "MAIM!"
Good times.

You don't have to be 15 for that to be an awesome character.

I love OTT, one-trick-pony PCs such as The Wolfmaster. Plenty of my favorite characters of the other guys in my group have been along those lines.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;491257LOL - I take it that's a style you use? :hmm:

Most (75%) of my PCs are absurd caricatures, it's fun!

Quote from: Aos;491259Here are two that I deal with (actually they're the same dude).

Distracted stoner: asks questions that I've literally just answered in my description.

"You enter a 20X30 room."
"Okay, a room. how big is it?"

LOL!!

QuoteBack story bitch: continually bitches that you haven't worked his ten page, single-spaced back story into the game enough- starting with the first session.  

I've encountered that a few types.... -sigh-

QuoteThe irritation level on both of these is pretty low, because with the first the other PC has gotten in the habit of stepping in and answering the question and with the second, up until recently, I just told him to suck it up in the most abusive manner possible; but over the last four sessions I worked his back story in until it was the main thing going on for a while.

Right on. Generally these things are pretty tolerable and when they become a hastle, I usually pull the player aside somewhere private and ask them to cool it. If they won't, I advise them to find another game.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;49125209. The Out-of-Character / In-Character Switcher

This player makes comments in-character and then insists they were talking out of character when it lands them in trouble. For example, the characters are trying to bluff their way past the town guards. The player gets frustrated and says, "Fuck you" or something to one of the guards - who reacts appropriately. Then the player says, "I didn't say that in character!"

Irritation Level: Severe

Even more annoying are the players who stay in-character during bathroom breaks, smoke breaks, supper/lunch, etc ...

Quote from: David R;491262I don't have much experience with these kinds of "quirky" gamers but I do have (limited) experience with the setting lawyer type. It's even worse when the damn thing is homebrewed and he attempts to make his case. WTF ?

I have zero tolerance for rules lawyers. I run a fair game and encourage players to challenge me if they think I didn't do something right or forgot something (happens sometimes). But I believe that the GM always has the final ruling. When someone gets pissy and nit-picky, it ruins the game for everyone.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;491266Right on. Generally these things are pretty tolerable and when they become a hastle, I usually pull the player aside somewhere private and ask them to cool it. If they won't, I advise them to find another game.

I have two guys in my group right now, I've been friends with both of them for over two decades and they were both in my wedding. I can't really give them the boot, but I can and do ridicule the shit out of them when they cross the line. It works pretty well, I guess, because I am the default referee, and they're generally happy to play whatever I want to run.

Quote from: Planet Algol;491265Most (75%) of my PCs are absurd caricatures, it's fun!

Don't get me wrong: I definitely encourage quirks in characters and it can be fun - sort of like seeing a cheesy movie that doesn't take itself seriously.

Like this farce for instance - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoEfF2Wrfoo

I just find it annoying when the player is so over-the-top with it that they get delusions about their abilities.

The "Wolf-Master" is based on a real player I knew. He got it in his head that he had some sort of just-add-water power over wolves of all types simply because he was "The Wolf Master".  -- As I recall, he died after single-handedly trying to "calm down my little brothers" when the party ran into a bunch of Death Dogs in a crypt. He walked in unarmed and was found later with no arms.

What about the player that believes he is entitled to be successful, and so bitched anytime he takes damage or has a problem, believing the gm is out to get him or just stupid or something. Otherwise the player is forcing anime themes on you?

Shouty McFatbeard.

He talks VERY LOUDLY over all the other players and takes control of any discussion with NPCs by jumping in and speaking VERY LOUDLY. He is always fat and has a big beard. Always.

I can add a few!

The Thing - This player doesn't like the game you're running and is always complaining about it or going on about the game he wants to run.

The Usurper - This guy wants to DM.  And he always talks down your game to the other players because, that's right, he wants to DM.

Admittedly I'm guilty of both to an extent.  Though in my defense I avoid joining groups for the sole purpose of usurping them and I try pretty hard to give others a turn running what they want to play at least some of the time.  But then I mainly build my own groups to avoid these problems.

Quote from: ggroy;491267Even more annoying are the players who stay in-character during bathroom breaks, smoke breaks, supper/lunch, etc ...

That would really be irritating....! LOL!

Quote from: Daztur;491283Shouty McFatbeard.

He talks VERY LOUDLY over all the other players and takes control of any discussion with NPCs but jumping in and speaking VERY LOUDLY. He is always fat and has a big beard. Always.

The player or the character is always fat & has a beard? :)

I've run across players like that alot, particularly in tournaments or walk-in games at game stores. I suspect it has something to do with low self-esteem.

Quote from: David Johansen;491287The Thing - This player doesn't like the game you're running and is always complaining about it or going on about the game he wants to run.

--SNIP--

QuoteAdmittedly I'm guilty of both to an extent.  Though in my defense I avoid joining groups for the sole purpose of usurping them and I try pretty hard to give others a turn running what they want to play at least some of the time.  But then I mainly build my own groups to avoid these problems.

I'm guilty of that as well, usually in homebrew games where the GM thinks their new game is so unbelievably amazing but it seems to me there is a major problem or plot hole.

I remember a game an aquaintance of mine started in which there were no women. None at all. I found this irritating particularly because there were a number of merchants like dress makers, perfume makers, etc.  Also, there were some very peculiar social customs that didn't make any sense and the combat system was absolutely ridiculous. -- I think I lasted for one game only.

Smelly Gamer.

If I can smell anything but soap on you? Get out. Go home, take a shower, see you next time.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;491271The "Wolf-Master" is based on a real player I knew. He got it in his head that he had some sort of just-add-water power over wolves of all types simply because he was "The Wolf Master".  -- As I recall, he died after single-handedly trying to "calm down my little brothers" when the party ran into a bunch of Death Dogs in a crypt. He walked in unarmed and was found later with no arms.

Awww...

I know, different tables different rules, but I think you missed a trick there. As a GM I live for precisely moments like a character that walks unarmed to try to try to pacify a monster he feels he has an in-character affinity with. It's dramatic, it's cinematic and is simply the kind of awesome moment you talk about after the game.

I'm always looking out for opportunities when I can just run with a player's ideas give a character the spotlight to do something really cool and generally kick myself in hindsight I realise I missed one such opportunity.

Quote from: David Johansen;491287Admittedly I'm guilty of both to an extent.  Though in my defense I avoid joining groups for the sole purpose of usurping them and I try pretty hard to give others a turn running what they want to play at least some of the time.  But then I mainly build my own groups to avoid these problems.

Fucking usurpers. This one time I joined this group of new gamers as the GM and the games were going great. This one player was extremely interested in my GMing style , world building and all that good GM stuff. So we have these conversations and soon this player has taken over the group and I was given the option of running a game twice a month. We played weekly so MsUsurper got the other two slots. Since I don't like playing I declined. It was not acrimonious (if fact I'm still in contact with the group offering advice and setting/game suggestions) but I should have seen it coming.

Regards,
David R

We have a hardcore method actor/immersion nazi player. Now for most of the time this guy is a stellar player. Great guy, fun to be around, always brings great booze to the game, plays character to a hilt, etc. Sometimes he just crosses the line an inch or two (e.g. slamming his fist on my glass table, freaking out the new guy with an "intense" in-character argument), but for the most part he's okay.

Also when two players decide to interact in-game and roll dice outside my view, typically when I'm running another action with someone else. Or when some smartass player picks up the dice, does not announce an action, rolls and points, "look I got a 04 for my Library Use roll". No, you did not. Wait for your turn, announce your action and roll in plain sight, bitch. I'm the GM. I wear the Viking hat around here. :mad:

But that's pretty much it. Most of the people I game with have been my friends for 10+ years, and the "new guys" are usually stellar players too, so friction's at a minimum. I consider myself a lucky gamer.

The independent creative mind

A player who gets only bits of what's happening around him and weaves them in a complete, imaginative, coherent and totally unrelated to what's really happening version of the game.

"So... we were kidnapped by these space aliens... Are they doing experiments on us? Do I see openings in this strange white room?" to the other speechless players and DM after the party saw some faerie lights dancing among the trees.

The "failed enforcer" DM

"I don't want to waste the evening between jokes and stupidity, so, please, put your minds on the game... Which reminds me of what happened yesterday! You have to hear this, bwahahaha!"

The "waiting is the best part of pleasure" gamer.

He usually arrives with a broken console, laptop, whatever asking for assistance "just five minutes before gaming". After two hours, if the device is fixed, he must "totally show the cool intro of this game!", then proceeding to play the first five levels for no reason at all.

In alternative, he asks permission to "connect to Facebook for just five minutes", then showing all his cosplaying videos that "you totally must see!" along with any single other video that comes in his mind. Of course this usually triggers the desire to show "this video I saw, it is just too cool!" in other players too, causing a chain reaction.

I hate the quiet loner type. You know, they always roll up an Assassin or a Rogue or whatever is the game's equivalent of the guy who's stealthy, can see everything and can stab people secretly.

No, it's not because he steals from the party - that would be an inprovement because he'd at least be AROUND.

No, what these idiots always do is never do anything WITH the party. Always take the alternate route, or go scout out shit when the party is doing anything, or whatever. They are a permanent, one member split party, and they barely ever interact with the rest of the group.

Quote from: Aos;491260I like it too, truthfully. It shows enthusiasm.

I once had a character named Maim Heartrender (I was 15, so be cool). Every thirty minutes or so I would slam my fist on the table and shout "MAIM!"
Good times.

I once played a Viking named Erik the Vengeful (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=6783) and during the first session, I kept on pounding the table and shouting "FEUD" whenever someone crossed me.

I'm pretty easy to get along with for gaming, but the one thing I do find tweaks me is the person who provides constant meta-narrative commentary rather than actually playing things out. So I'm trying to act out a scene in character, and they say "You know you can never trust guys like this!" or "Wouldn't it be cool if he turned out to be foo" when I'm trying to have a conversation with the NPC in which my character figures out whether he is foo or not. It's not a major thing, but there's almost always one in a group. If I think something like that, rather than saying it out of character, I try to have my character express his doubts or concerns.

Actually, there is one other type - the iPhone guy. These are people who have iPhones and other smartphones who are constantly on them, even if they're not making calls or texts. They might be viewing videos, checking the time or their messages, playing with apps, etc. I find it a total drag to be trying to do things like plan, or have IC conversations with them and have them glance up from phone, nod, and then look back down at it without anything more.

This is more of a general social thing, but it's especially annoying during gaming since attention is an important requirement for best play.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;491334I once played a Viking named Erik the Vengeful (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=6783) and during the first session, I kept on pounding the table and shouting "FEUD" whenever someone crossed me.

IIRC, Maim Heartrender was a F/MU; he was kind  of like cross between Conan and Elric, with rabies.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;491335Actually, there is one other type - the iPhone guy. These are people who have iPhones and other smartphones who are constantly on them, even if they're not making calls or texts. They might be viewing videos, checking the time or their messages, playing with apps, etc. I find it a total drag to be trying to do things like plan, or have IC conversations with them and have them glance up from phone, nod, and then look back down at it without anything more.

This is more of a general social thing, but it's especially annoying during gaming since attention is an important requirement for best play.

This, with the inclusion of laptops as well. We have one guy who shows up just to get away from his wife, then spends all night surfing the web, watching videos, and playing parody song he thinks we'd all find funny (And rarely do).

At least he can occasionally roll dice.

Quote from: David Johansen;491287The Thing - This player doesn't like the game you're running and is always complaining about it or going on about the game he wants to run.

In practice, I've found that "obligation gamers" frequently fit into this category.

These are the individuals who agree to play in another person's game that they may not like, but in return, the other person agrees to play in their game.   Basically an "I'll play in your game, if you agree to play in my game" type of social dynamics.

I have encountered this with individuals who heavily insist on playing older or less popular rpg games, but they have a hard time finding enough players.  So they end up trying to recruit players/groups, with this "I'll play in your game, if you agree to play in my game" strategy.

Quote from: David R;491313Fucking usurpers. This one time I joined this group of new gamers as the GM and the games were going great. This one player was extremely interested in my GMing style , world building and all that good GM stuff. So we have these conversations and soon this player has taken over the group and I was given the option of running a game twice a month. We played weekly so MsUsurper got the other two slots. Since I don't like playing I declined. It was not acrimonious (if fact I'm still in contact with the group offering advice and setting/game suggestions) but I should have seen it coming.

Regards,
David R

Experiences vary but in my roleplaying career I've always been in groups with multiple, willing GMs and and we've always found ways to rotate GM seat in a fair, adult manner.  Who formed the group or whose house we play at never seemed a material factor in this.

Quote from: Soylent Green;491360Experiences vary but in my roleplaying career I've always been in groups with multiple, willing GMs and and we've always found ways to rotate GM seat in a fair, adult manner.  Who formed the group or whose house we play at never seemed a material factor in this.

Very true, this is my experience as well. I guess it's just hyperbole on my part because I really didn't see it coming and I am the kind of gamer who only likes to run games and not play in them.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Soylent Green;491307I know, different tables different rules, but I think you missed a trick there. As a GM I live for precisely moments like a character that walks unarmed to try to try to pacify a monster he feels he has an in-character affinity with. It's dramatic, it's cinematic and is simply the kind of awesome moment you talk about after the game.

I'm always looking out for opportunities when I can just run with a player's ideas give a character the spotlight to do something really cool and generally kick myself in hindsight I realise I missed one such opportunity.

You could be right; I was much younger at the time and playing with a very cut-throat bunch of players (none of which particularly cared for the character).

These days I do try to incorporate more cinematic action and if a PC did something like that, it would probably have a different outcome.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;491335Actually, there is one other type - the iPhone guy. These are people who have iPhones and other smartphones who are constantly on them, even if they're not making calls or texts. They might be viewing videos, checking the time or their messages, playing with apps, etc. I find it a total drag to be trying to do things like plan, or have IC conversations with them and have them glance up from phone, nod, and then look back down at it without anything more.

Woe to the person who pulled that in one of my games...

My rule is: all cellphone must be silenced & put away; no laptop use; no other electronic crap. If someone needs to have their phone on, there better be a damn good reason why and it also better be a one-time thing.

- The Guy Who Is Just Roleplaying His Character

It's okay for him to steal from party members, refuse to share loot and get his will across by having his PC threaten the other PCs with force, because he's just playing his character the way he or she would act in that situation. Coincidentally, if another player gets an idea to go against the party's will on some matter, he's the first one up in arms about it.

- The Namer

If the DM runs a game in a lovingly crafted fantasy world based on Oriental culture and mythology, his character is called Sam Urai. If it's a cold, damp twisted mirror image of Dark Ages Britain, he will be playing Bob Swordsman or Dude McHero. His wizard PCs are invariably Oz, Merlin or Crowley, possibly with some variant spelling if he's really going full hog on this one. If he rolls one single attribute that's not srictly above the mathematical average, the character will be female and called Yoos Lass. And it's never the newbie guy who has only played MMORPGs before joining your group, it's the guys who were already playing AD&D back in the 80s.

*breaks down sobbing*

That's why the most important rule in "among the beautiful creatures" is that players who go and make an elf or a dude named Dude McFuken are dragged out back and beaten to death.  I dunno why people don't play my games by the book.

Anyhow, thought of a couple more on reflection.

The Comic - "You don't censor the funny!" says this fellow and he endlessly quotes highly context dependant video game and movie bits which mostly come off as crude and offensive without any respect for anyone in the group or the game at hand.

The Video Star - This guy is obessed with the latest video game.  His character is from the game and he tells everyone this.  He wants the magic item from the game and he tells everyone this.  He hums the tune to the game constantly and always tries to create parallels between the game everyone is playing and the one he'd obviously rather be playing.

Quote from: David Johansen;491514The Video Star - This guy is obessed with the latest video game.  His character is from the game and he tells everyone this.  He wants the magic item from the game and he tells everyone this.  He hums the tune to the game constantly and always tries to create parallels between the game everyone is playing and the one he'd obviously rather be playing.

I used to get this all the time, but with anime.  The guy showing up to my ADRPG with a Magical Girl Sailor Princess character and expecting to play it completely straight was the last straw (and the source of my ironclad "no anime" table rule).

Quote from: daniel_ream;491532I used to get this all the time, but with anime.  The guy showing up to my ADRPG with a Magical Girl Sailor Princess character and expecting to play it completely straight was the last straw (and the source of my ironclad "no anime" table rule).

I got this once or twice, but they usually end up being their own character, instead of just a copy of a videogame/anime character, with time.I can say I did model some characters BASED on other characters from videogames/films/animes/comics etc, but I try to make them all individual in their own way.

I have no problem with that, as long as the player understands that some aspects of anime characters are specific to Japanese culture and don't translate well to Western fantasy (bishounen, magical girls, and everyone is in high school).

My real table rule is "If I can't immediately spot that it's an anime character, it's probably okay."

EDIT: And cross-dressing.  Fuck off with the cross-dressing.

"Mr. Circumstance Bonus"

This person completely fails to understand that skill rules generally already assume that you're using appropriate tools and taking basic precautions when you make a skill roll. Before every roll they make, they ask if they can have a bonus to their roll for a whole litany of ridiculous or obvious things, and they whine, argue, or sulk when you tell them no.

There's only one kind of bad player: The player who values their fun above everyone else's. Every single toxic behavior can be attributed to this. And while there's something to be said for the players who are not aware their behavior is disruptive, you can at least talk to them and attempt to resolve the problem.

Quote from: ggroy;491267Even more annoying are the players who stay in-character during bathroom breaks, smoke breaks, supper/lunch, etc ...

You mean like Adam Baldwin did on the set of Firefly?

How is this in any way annoying? Does it disrupt your immersion? Is the character concept annoying to begin with? Color me puzzled.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;491271I just find it annoying when the player is so over-the-top with it that they get delusions about their abilities.

Calling players deluded because they don't comprehend the rules to your imaginary world is one of the more delightfully insane remarks I've encountered here.

Quote from: The Butcher;491321Also when two players decide to interact in-game and roll dice outside my view, typically when I'm running another action with someone else.

This is EXACTLY what happens in LARPs, and I'd kill to be able to get the same kind of thing in my Tabletop games. Unfortunately not a lot of Tabletop systems support this kind of play.

Quote from: Reckall;491323A player who gets only bits of what's happening around him and weaves them in a complete, imaginative, coherent and totally unrelated to what's really happening version of the game.

I've encountered cognitive drift, but this example sounds somewhat extreme. At least this kind of player is great for Call of Cthulhu games.

Quote from: David Johansen;491514That's why the most important rule in "among the beautiful creatures" is that players who go and make an elf or a dude named Dude McFuken are dragged out back and beaten to death.  I dunno why people don't play my games by the book.

I miss that game, though I don't remember that rule :?

Quote from: DrTeeth;491555"Mr. Circumstance Bonus"

This person completely fails to understand that skill rules generally already assume that you're using appropriate tools and taking basic precautions when you make a skill roll. Before every roll they make, they ask if they can have a bonus to their roll for a whole litany of ridiculous or obvious things, and they whine, argue, or sulk when you tell them no.

On the other hand you have to play Fantasy Flight's Warhammer 40k games this way (at least upto Rogue Trader) because the skill system DOESN'T assume average competence, and it's one reason I no longer play them.

Maybe things got fixed in Black Crusade.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;491621How is this in any way annoying? Does it disrupt your immersion? Is the character concept annoying to begin with? Color me puzzled.

Of the cases I've come across, it typically involved somebody staying in-character as a way to justify their own bad behavior away from the game table.

In one particular egregious case, it involved a player who was playing a rowdy hard drinking fighter type character.  During breaks, supper and over the duration of the game, this person was constantly chugging down beers and talking in-character like his rowdy hard drinking fighter.  Quite a few times the DM ended up taking away his car keys, when he tried to drive home really drunk.  He ended up physically fighting with the DM and a few other players over it, all the while talking in-character that he couldn't be stopped by them.

It got really annoying after several times.  :banghead:

Quote from: Reckall;491323The independent creative mind

A player who gets only bits of what's happening around him and weaves them in a complete, imaginative, coherent and totally unrelated to what's really happening version of the game.

I've had one where this player was also the first one to chirp up whenever somebody asked for information.

Player 1: "Who was the guy who tried to kill us three sessions ago?"
Player Clueless: "Oh! That was Bob!"
Me: "No. Bob's the guy who saved you from the dragon and introduced Steve to his wife. The guy who tried to kill you was--"
Player Clueless: "Oh! Right! Melissa! She's totally a dragon cultist!"
Me: "That's still not it."

I genuinely don't have problems with the players who are only half-paying attention to the continuity (as long as they're having fun). But these players are one-man disinformation campaigns that confuse everybody else at the table.

Quote from: David Johansen;491514That's why the most important rule in "among the beautiful creatures" is that players who go and make an elf or a dude named Dude McFuken are dragged out back and beaten to death.  I dunno why people don't play my games by the book.

My groups would just make it a point to kill any PC with a stupid name.

Albedo explicitly recommends karmic justice for any PC with a stupid name (i.e. the rabbit 2nd lieutenant with the name "Thumper" should display a tragic gift for finding the land mines).

Here's one: The Practical Psychopath.

Okay, imagine this. The PC, playing the heroic Captain Niceness has tracked down a cult who has been kidnapping babies and torturing them to death. The cult leader explains that they need to torture seven more babies to death before the full moon or a portal will open releasing a horrific monster upon the world.
Now Captain Niceness can probably take the monster, especially with the aid of the other PCs, so he does the only thing he can.
"Okay, I pull out my knife and torture the remaining seven babies to death. Is that it? Is the world saved? How much XP do I get?"

This shows up in everyday situations.

"I ask the cute teenage clerk for information on her boyfriend."
"She looks embarrassed and nervous at the question."
"I torture her until she talks."

This guy is not a pervert who masturbates about tortured babies when he lies in bed at night. He just wants to quickest path to mission objective, and is honestly baffled why anyone would bother doing anything else.

He can't seem to think long term either. He is honestly surprised that the cute clerk calls the cops after he is done torturing her. But he learns his lesson. He makes sure to kill the clerks from then on after the torture is done.

When everyone at the table gets upset, he really can't figure out why. It's all about beating the bad guy, or getting the treasure, or whatever the objective is. The end justifies the sadistic, bloodthirsty means. He doesn't understand genre or characterization. Just getting the job done.

A lot of them, if you are playing a game with an alignment system, if they are forced to play a good alignment, because, say, he likes the Paladin's powers, and has to be Lawful Good, he will come up with the most ridiculous reasons why torturing babies to death is a Lawful Good act.

Another one: The Hoarder.

This one isn't as annoying as the other, since he's not usually disruptive, and his problems usually only hurt himself.

Okay, imagine this:
"Okay, Bob. Your character has just had a huge pile of rocks fall on him. He's tough, but not quite enough. You take exactly enough damage to kill you."
"Crap!"
"But, in this hypothetical system made up for this forum post, you can spend an Awesome Point to reduce the damage you've taken."
"Um...."
"You only need to spend one Awesome Point, to reduce the damage by one, and your character will live."
"Um...."
"Let's go over this. In this rather silly example game, you gain Awesome Points very easily, and they never go away unless you spend them. The other players have been spending Awesome Points like crazy and getting them back. You don't spend them ever."
"Well, I might need them later."
"We've been playing this game for seven years now. You have accrued two hundred and fifty-six thousand, three hundred and eleven Awesome Points."
"Yeah."
"All of your powers require the expenditure of an Awesome Point to use. You have never used any of these powers in seven years, relying on basic stats and skills."
"Um, yeah."
"So, do you spend an Awesome Point, and live?"
".... I don't know."
"If you spend it, you live. If you don't, you die."
"But.... what if I need the point later?"
"You'll have to spend one of the remaining two hundred and fifty-six thousand, three hundred and ten points you have left."
"I guess...."
"So, do you spend one Awesome Point, to avoid dying?"
"... I don't know...."
"Seriously?"
"I might need it later!!!!"

Obviously, this guy can play really well in games where resource management isn't an issue. Where you can use your powers all the time, and there aren't points to run out of.
But, if he has anything that he might run out of, he never spends any of them, because he is terrified of not having them when he needs them.

Brian

Re: PCs torturing people.

PCs torture people because in roleplaying games it is an effective means of producing true information.

IRL, we do not torture people as part of criminal investigations because it is an ineffective means of producing true information, and causes confabulation, where the tortured person actually becomes less capable of providing true information due to neurological injury.

If you do not want your PCs to torture people, make it as ineffective an information gathering method as it is in real life.

Quote from: daniel_ream;491658albedo explicitly recommends karmic justice for any pc with a stupid name (i.e. The rabbit 2nd lieutenant with the name "thumper" should display a tragic gift for finding the land mines).

god forbid anyone make any jokes at the expense of the serious business of pretending to be a space rabbit!

Quote from: Elfdart;491650My groups would just make it a point to kill any PC with a stupid name.

It bad enough for one player to choose a stupid name for his character, but having the other players kill said character just seems compound the problem.  I mean if stupid names damage immersion,  characters killing other characters because of their given name brings a whole new level of meta-gaming hell into the session.

Surely it would be easier just to talk to the guy?

Quote from: Premier;491489- The Guy Who Is Just Roleplaying His Character

It's okay for him to steal from party members, refuse to share loot and get his will across by having his PC threaten the other PCs with force, because he's just playing his character the way he or she would act in that situation. Coincidentally, if another player gets an idea to go against the party's will on some matter, he's the first one up in arms about it.

I've run into that one several times. In most cases, the other party members eventually mutiny and kill him or let him get killed somehow. And then the player throws a big fit and is indignant & astounded that people are upset about his behaivor - further reinforcing their views.

Quote from: DrTeeth;491555"Mr. Circumstance Bonus"

This person completely fails to understand that skill rules generally already assume that you're using appropriate tools and taking basic precautions when you make a skill roll. Before every roll they make, they ask if they can have a bonus to their roll for a whole litany of ridiculous or obvious things, and they whine, argue, or sulk when you tell them no.

Never experienced that one, but it sounds really irritating.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;491621There's only one kind of bad player: The player who values their fun above everyone else's. Every single toxic behavior can be attributed to this.

Oh! Well, thanks for dissmissing the reality of everyone else. Of course, you are correct: there's only one kind of bad player - the kind deemed by you. Silly me.

Remind me to genuflect to you sometime this decade.

(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/4700/4782/king_16_lg.gif)

QuoteCalling players deluded because they don't comprehend the rules to your imaginary world is one of the more delightfully insane remarks I've encountered here.

Some day in the future, our robot masters will implant in all of us a chip that makes it so that everything we say and write will be extremely intelligent and wise. Sadly, your above comment is a testament to the fact that we have yet to enter that Golden Age.

You seem to be of the opinion that a player can - at will - grant his/her character brand new abilities when they feel like it, or because they think they should have them. I think pretty much everyone else everywhere who plays RPGs would disagree with you.

Having a basic understanding of the parameters of the game is insane? - Thanks for the tip, my wooly friend.

Quote from: BillionSix;491661Here's one: The Practical Psychopath.

I have encountered  players who feel they must kill every NPC they come across to "cover up the party's tracks" or some excuse like that. This causes big problems in most games, particularly in those with modern crime investigation capabilities. In no time at all, the party becomes known as a bunch of bloodthirsty scumbags and then everybody wants to take them out.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;491631I've had one where this player was also the first one to chirp up whenever somebody asked for information.

Player 1: "Who was the guy who tried to kill us three sessions ago?"
Player Clueless: "Oh! That was Bob!"
Me: "No. Bob's the guy who saved you from the dragon and introduced Steve to his wife. The guy who tried to kill you was--"
Player Clueless: "Oh! Right! Melissa! She's totally a dragon cultist!"
Me: "That's still not it."

I genuinely don't have problems with the players who are only half-paying attention to the continuity (as long as they're having fun). But these players are one-man disinformation campaigns that confuse everybody else at the table.

I love such players and the wackiness that ensues.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;491678I have encountered  players who feel they must kill every NPC they come across to "cover up the party's tracks" or some excuse like that. This causes big problems in most games, particularly in those with modern crime investigation capabilities. In no time at all, the party becomes known as a bunch of bloodthirsty scumbags and then everybody wants to take them out.

I've been there.  These guys, if they have any fucking clue, build PCs that are (for all intents and purposes) untouchable and don't mind the target-rich play space that their antics create.  This ends one of three ways: they take over the game, they get crushed by implausible enforcers or you shitcan the game.  They win no matter what.

Ah yes that seasoned gamer who has it all figured out.  Kill all the witnesses, burn the village, draw steel when the barkeep gouges on drink prices, torture people for information and kill them.  "What?  of course my character is lawful good!  I gave a cursed penny of bowel disease to a peasant once!"

The problem with many of these is that the player has figured out how to "win" the game.  One more reason to play games where PCs don't have the power to slaughter entire villages.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;491663If you do not want your PCs to torture people, make it as ineffective an information gathering method as it is in real life.

"Never start with the head, the victim gets all fuzzy." Heh. As some one who's taken a variety of interrogation courses, and performed interrogations in a Law enforcement setting I agree wholeheartedly with Pseudoephedrine. In my experience it's less about violence-which often as not produces poisonous results-and more about attention to detail; ensuring the odds seem stacked in your favor (Whether they are or not) and having the stamina for banality. (Tell me again who said what. Again. Again. Again. Again.)

In my games violent torture can produce results-but those results can be unreliable. But then in Shadowrun they've developed the "Mind Probe" spell which makes physical interrogation both slow and pointless.

Another one that I've run across is the Multi-Race Player.

This is the guy who wants to make a character that is part Dragon / part Vampire, or something along those lines. While I'm a big fan of players using non-standard races, you have to draw the line somewhere. I don't allow any races that dramatically overballance the game (or are impossible like the example I gave), so I've never had a player do this in one of my games.
But I've played in some walk-in games run by other people that had existing PCs that had such characters.

It's basically someone who wants a super-tough character that nobody can beat and can't be physically challenged by the rest of the party.

Quote from: Serious Paul;491714"Never start with the head, the victim gets all fuzzy." Heh. As some one who's taken a variety of interrogation courses, and performed interrogations in a Law enforcement setting I agree wholeheartedly with Pseudoephedrine. In my experience it's less about violence-which often as not produces poisonous results-and more about attention to detail; ensuring the odds seem stacked in your favor (Whether they are or not) and having the stamina for banality. (Tell me again who said what. Again. Again. Again. Again.)

In my games violent torture can produce results-but those results can be unreliable. But then in Shadowrun they've developed the "Mind Probe" spell which makes physical interrogation both slow and pointless.

I agree with all of this.

I have had players who created characters "who had no problem killing" and who took forensic/surveilence counter measures but this was for a very hard core espionage game. They ended up killing themselves (intentionally) with an IED. Talk about taking out the GM control of a TPK.....

Regards,
David R

My experiences have been pretty mild but one thing that has always irked me is the niche stealer.

The player that simply must play the character they claim to have in mind even although it is extremely similar to someone else in the party already.  So you may have been playing the party ranger for months and been understood as the scout and the tracker etc, and now the new guy makes a second ranger.  Extra points for annoyance if the player min maxes their character to the hilt in order to be better at filling the niche than the existing character.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;491829My experiences have been pretty mild but one thing that has always irked me is the niche stealer.

The player that simply must play the character they claim to have in mind even although it is extremely similar to someone else in the party already.  So you may have been playing the party ranger for months and been understood as the scout and the tracker etc, and now the new guy makes a second ranger.  Extra points for annoyance if the player min maxes their character to the hilt in order to be better at filling the niche than the existing character.

I understand what you are saying, but this could also lead to some funny role-playing opportunities if managed well.

How dare someone steal my thunder!

Quote from: Reckall;491863I understand what you are saying, but this could also lead to some funny role-playing opportunities if managed well.

If it were managed well it wouldn't happen in the first place.

Quote from: Planet Algol;491867How dare someone steal my thunder!

Well, thanks for the effort you've put into attempting to clarify what I said, but I think I expressed it well enough the first time.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;491870Well, thanks for the effort you've put into attempting to clarify what I said, but I think I expressed it well enough the first time.

Clarify? I was calling folks that care about their imaginary elf's "niche protection" entitled manbabies...

Yes, those entitled manbabies, thinking they have a right to fun when they're gaming! GAMING SHOULD BE A GRUELING EXPERIENCE IN WHICH NO HOLDS ARE BARRED AND NO PRISONERS ARE TAKEN. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

No. That's retarded. The whole point of playing is having fun, and if someone quite intentionally tries to steal away your fun for their own enjoyment, it is neither strange nor irrational to be upset about it.

Quote from: Axiomatic;491891Yes, those entitled manbabies, thinking they have a right to fun when they're gaming! GAMING SHOULD BE A GRUELING EXPERIENCE IN WHICH NO HOLDS ARE BARRED AND NO PRISONERS ARE TAKEN. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

No. That's retarded. The whole point of playing is having fun, and if someone quite intentionally tries to steal away your fun for their own enjoyment, it is neither strange nor irrational to be upset about it.

Intentionally?

The premise is that the second player made his or her character AFTER you had made yours, while also designing it to be better at the one thing you actually use yours to do.

Maybe the second dude just likes playing Rangers?

I fail to see what so terrible about a party having two Rangers, "With two skilled trackers there's no way we can lose the trail!"

Quote from: Dog Quixote;491868If it were managed well it wouldn't happen in the first place.

Why not? the "Prima donna" trying to upstage the "Prima donna" is a staple. Why should the Master castrate this opportunity (along with the opportunity for a brawl)?

Quote from: Planet Algol;491899Maybe the second dude just likes playing Rangers?

Yeah.  Maybe he feels entitled to play the character he wants regardless of the existing party.

Just like you apparently feel entitled to act like an arsehole.


'Entitled' has become a bullshit word people throw around these days to describe anything they don't like.

Personally whenever I join a new group I ask what characters the group has and take care to create a character that fits into the group without stepping on existing players' toes.  I just consider it common courtesy.

Quote from: Reckall;491915Why not? the "Prima donna" trying to upstage the "Prima donna" is a staple. Why should the Master castrate this opportunity (along with the opportunity for a brawl)?

Yeah, it might be fun, especially for a short game.  But I have done that in the past and it got pretty tedious quickly.  Becoming comic relief when that was not your intention originally is just an aspect of the original problem.

I've got a couple I can add.

The charts obsessed player - I once played D&D with this kid who was obsessed with random charts. He was always bragging about the charts he had made. He actually rolled his character from a series of charts. Ended up with a necropheliac necromancer (the class type and name were the only thing he conciously selected, age, race, ht, wt, appearance, and personality traits all came from his charts). I think he ended up turning undead after trying to get it on with a zombie, so to his credit at least he followed his character instincts. Also, it was really amuzing when one of the other players died and his corpse was raped by the necropheliac. The player of the dead character was super pissed but the rest of us were laughing like crazy. I think the DM made him roll to hit too, which was also mildly amuzing.

Annoyance level: Mild.


The dude who got too stoned to play and keeps asking a ton of questions and laughing and forgetting what he was doing and why he just rolled the dice or what's going on in any way - self explanatory.

Annoyance level: Pretty bad. If you can't handle it, don't smoke it. Same goes for those who are too drunk to play. Don't drink as much. Easy solution.

This isn't an archetype, but I did think of an annoying situation I had with a player.  I invite him to my game.  Like the other players, I ask him for a short paragraph about his character so that I can work to incorporate him into the group.  He doesn't send it.  I remind him a few days before game day.  He doesn't send it.  I remind him the evening before game day.  He doesn't send it.  I finally tell him at around 1:00 AM of game day that he can either send me the paragraph or not come.  I check my e-mail about an hour before we play, and he has sent me about 700 words of backstory.  I skim it but continue preparing for the game.

We start playing and he announces his character name, which is different from what he told me.  I make an comment about "oh, I thought your name was such-and-such."  He then gets exasperated with me because LIKE DUH I TOLD YOU IN THE WRITE-UP THAT I KEEP MY TRUE IDENTITY SECRET.

Quote from: Soylent Green;491667It bad enough for one player to choose a stupid name for his character, but having the other players kill said character just seems compound the problem.  I mean if stupid names damage immersion,  characters killing other characters because of their given name brings a whole new level of meta-gaming hell into the session.

Surely it would be easier just to talk to the guy?

Maybe so, but it's more fun to kill "Heyward Jabomey", "Woody the Wood Elf" or the hundredth ranger with "Strider" in his name. Most deserving of fragging are the fucktarded PCs with apostrophes in their names (Irish characters might get a pass, but Drizz't du' O'whatevers are DOA) because the player thinks it adds some kind of exoticism to the name. You know what it really adds?  A dead PC!

Seriously though, it's not like we don't give fair warning ("If you name your halfling thief Dick Hertz..."), and we do give quite a bit of leeway. But stupid, unspellable, unpronounceable and outright ripped off names suck and peer pressure is an effective way to deal with it.

Translation: "people who give their imaginary elf for a game of make believe a name I don't like are doing it wrong"

How about: the incompetent munchkin.

You know this guy, the one who figures out how to dual-wield bastard swords in 3.5ed and thinks that they're incredibly powerful while working on a way to include Monkey Grip into their build.

Annoyance level: low.

Can be fun to watch their munchkin attempt backfire themselves into worthlessness, but they sometimes cheat to make up for their stupidity and it's annoying listening to people going on and on about how awesome their character will be and then the ensuing whining.

Quote from: Planet Algol;492397Translation: "people who give their imaginary elf for a game of make believe a name I don't like are doing it wrong"

I think it's more "People who are disrespectful of my stated desire that the game world be internally consistent and not sophomorically anachronistic or unpronounceably pseudo-exotic are annoying me on purpose. If they can exercise the right to annoy me, I can exercise the right to kill their character."

How dare Darth Conan's player disrespect you!

EDIT: And disrespect you on purpose.... Oh the inhumanity...

How dare I kill Darth Conan! Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

He annoys me by picking an annoying name, I annoy him by killing his character. *shrug* Roll up a new one, takes a couple minutes. This time, pick a name that's not calculated to irritate everyone around you.

Picking an annoying name, and then getting upset when people express their annoyance? What did you expect?

You're not a special snowflake, you don't get to aggravate everyone else because it's your "right" to do so. Who cares? If everyone at the table except for you has agreed on something, and you go against it just to be a douche, then you should assume you'll be punished by the group.

Or you can just leave - nobody's forcing you to play with a group that doesn't play the same tone of game you like.

Quote from: Kaldric;492406I think it's more "People who are disrespectful of my stated desire that the game world be internally consistent and not sophomorically anachronistic or unpronounceably pseudo-exotic are annoying me on purpose."

So if someone name their character Darth Conan it's out of a desire to annoy you and not becaue it's an awesome name?

They're not exclusive.

If everyone at the table says "Yeah, it's a fairly serious tone, no derivative/anachronistic names" and you say "My PC's name is Darth Conan, and he's my PC, so I can do what I want."

Yeah, the name is awesome. And yeah, you're intentionally being annoying.

edit: I'm not actually sure why you're defending the position you seem to be defending. You seem to be championing an individual's right to go against conventions upon which the group has agreed, for frivolous reasons. I'm honestly curious as to why you're defending this?

How dare someone be frivolous about make-believe elves.

So, you're arguing that the group has no right to define their desired tone, and if one player wishes to be frivolous, they ought to bow to his desire.

Okay. "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

In this case, the larger group isn't going to have fun if they have to deal with silly names. No disputing taste, either they like them, or they don't, and they don't like them.

If the single player can't have fun under those conditions, he needs to find a more congenial game.

Or do you think it's the larger group's responsibility to discard their desires and play according to the style of the single player?

edit: I've considered that you might be arguing from a third perspective: RPG players have no right to expect non-frivolous anything, because the game is inherently 100% frivolous.

If I like someone enough to want to play D&D with them I should respect their desire to play an imaginary elf named Jacob the Snake.

That's one point of view, certainly.

I think that if someone likes my group well enough to play D&D with us, they should respect the desire of every other person at the table not to have to call them Jake the Snake while they play.

You have the right to demand whatever you like from those you play with. They have the right not to play with you if they don't feel like acceding to your demands.

If I have a group of 5 players, and one of them doesn't get along with the others because he wants to be Jake the Snake, and they find the name annoying - Jake either changes, or leaves. Or everybody else leaves because he's annoying them - same result.

edit: Basically, I'm saying - it's a game. If you do something the rest of the group doesn't like, there's no moral imperative for them to play with you.

I want to party up with Jake the Snake and the Wolf Master.  I'm going to play Itchy Jack,  a spastic, hairless dwarf-fighter wearing armor made out of recycled pots and pans and wielding an oversize, bloodstained baker's rolling pin as his only weapon.

"We like you and you're a good D&D player but we're going to have to ask you to leave the group because the names you choose for your imaginary elves don't confirm to our standards of seriousness or plausibility."

"So this guy was interested in learning how to play D&D but he wanted to name his magic-user Larry Potter; we told him he would have to find another group that would put up with his deliberately annoying names. We sure showed him that he was doing it wrong!"

Some people give their characters goofy names because they don't want to play nice with others. Some people honestly don't care what their character is named and would just refer to him as "My guy" if they could.
These aren't necessarily bad players. Say you are playing a video game, like Portal. You know nothing about the main character except that she has leg braces and gets a portal gun. You don't care. She's a cipher. She's meant to be. She's the avatar that lets you explore the world and solve its puzzles and defeat its enemies.
Some people don't want to go all Master Thespian and create a character with depth. They like playing themselves with cool powers. Or skills they don't have in real life. So when they are put on the spot and told to name "their guy" they come up with something goofy so they can just start playing.

Algol, this is what I'm taking from your examples, please correct me if I've misinterpreted.

Established groups who ask new players to conform to their naming conventions are "playing it wrong"?

A group that doesn't realize the essential frivolity of playing imaginary elves is "playing it wrong"?

---

If this is what you're saying - and as near as I can tell, it's exactly what you're saying, then I think you're really, really wrong. A person who joins an established group and demands that all of them change their playstyle to conform to the new guy's personal vision of D&D, is a selfish jerk.

Anyone who does that is the very definition of a selfish jerk. If you must play a certain way - find a group that plays that way. Why be a douche about it? Just find people who like to play the game YOUR way, instead of trying to force yourself on a group that doesn't play it your way.

---
If you don't care about your character name, then John Smith is a perfectly fine name. Not disruptive, and requires no effort. Dorkwad McDouche'Nozzle is intentionally disruptive, and required at least some effort to come up with.

I think we have lost track of the topic. Annoying Player Archetypes, not Squabble Over Opinons of What Constitutes Annoyance.



So on topic:

Connivers. The type who are always trying to pull one over on you or the other players. When done in moderation, it can be awesome; but when every game is "watch out for Steve, he's up t something" it gets old fast.


ass kissers I'm not opposed to the occassional "GM gets a blowjob" volunteers, but the ones that are agreeing with everything I say and jumping all over one another to mix me a drink work my nerves. They're not going to be able to make the drink as close to perfection as I myself am able to do.

On the subject of silly names, I'm going to side with Kaldric.

I'd love to have Darth Conan, the Wolfmaster, Jake the Snake and Aos' Itchy Jack in my gonzo kitchen-sink D&D game.

That would not necessarily be true if I was running, say, a humans-only D&D game set in a reasonably accurate (for our purposes) fantastic facsimile of Medieval Europe, or a modern-day Vampire game, or maybe even a Glorantha Runequest game (the Wolfmaster excepted. That guy belongs in Glorantha 100%).

I'm a huge fan of gonzo gaming (my favorite RPG used to be Rifts, for fuck's sake), but it's not the only way to play or run a RPG. It doesn't have to be all gonzo, all the time.

You know what? You're the GM. You don't have the right to complain if you OK a character and are then annoyed by the name.

Presumably, the player didn't conceal the name to you until game day. In fact, I rather suspect he told you outright he wanted to play Darth Conan.

If you don't want him to play Darth Conan, your job is to say "pick a different name", not say "sure" and be a passive aggressive asshole.

Personally, I have no problem with silly names at all. Or derivative ones. I played a 3 strength wizard who dressed like Black Mage from 8-Bit theatre, that I called "Goblin" after one of the casters in Black Company.

A dwarf in one of my 2nd edition campaigns was called Ulek McGroin.

I have no problem with wacky stuff at all - my favorite of the very few 2nd edition characters I ever played had the Jester kit, and I had a blast.

But that wasn't the point of what I was saying, which is: If you come into a game where the assumption is serious play, and after having this explained to you, you deliberately try to screw that up for your own selfish reasons - you're being selfish. If you try to justify your behavior by saying "well, RPGs are inherently frivolous, and if you try to take them seriously, you're doing it wrong!" you're not just selfish, you're kind of a jerk.

Quote from: Planet Algol;492414How dare someone be frivolous about make-believe elves.

Exactly - you should be frivolous about REAL elves.

Well, "Hero Protagonist" in "Snowcrash" works just fine, and the novel is quite serious in themes (even if often funny in tone).

I don't see that there's much that's more frivolous about TTRPGs than, say, getting borderline hysterical about watching eleven men you've never met keep an inflated pig's bladder away from eleven other men you've never met.  And that's a multi-billion dollar industry.

Quote from: donteatpoop;492434So on topic:

Connivers. The type who are always trying to pull one over on you or the other players. When done in moderation, it can be awesome; but when every game is "watch out for Steve, he's up t something" it gets old fast.

LOL - A friend of mine owned a RPG store and there was this walk-in guy we got stuck with over a year who did exactly that. He was always doing something shitty to other PCs and not even clever or funny stuff. For example, he always played a thief (suprise) and when he was on guard duty, he'd pick-pocket the other sleeping players, take their daggers, and just throw them into the woods. He'd throw his own as well to try to 'cover his tracks'. As a result, we had to keep re-purchasing daggers everywhere we went.

Quote from: Werekoala;492491Exactly - you should be frivolous about REAL elves.

You are hilarious. :D

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;492631LOL - A friend of mine owned a RPG store and there was this walk-in guy we got stuck with over a year who did exactly that. He was always doing something shitty to other PCs and not even clever or funny stuff. For example, he always played a thief (suprise) and when he was on guard duty, he'd pick-pocket the other sleeping players, take their daggers, and just throw them into the woods. He'd throw his own as well to try to 'cover his tracks'. As a result, we had to keep re-purchasing daggers everywhere we went.

That is both funny and stupid.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;492666That is both funny and stupid.

Tell me about it. The guy did all kinds of shitty things like that; his character got murdered by the other PCs at least 20 times - no joke.

Here's a couple of other crappy things he did:

1) While the party was in a tavern trying to get information, he ducked outside and loosened the cinch on everyone's saddle (except for his). Later, when the party was being chased, they all fell off their horses because their saddles slid sideways. One PC died because he fell when they were riding on a narrow bridge over a deep canyon.

2) The party had fought a bunch of goons to get a iron key neccessary to free the town's mayor who was being held hostage by slavers in a mountain stronghold. The party scaled a cliff and came in at nightfall, silently took out four guards, and were just about to rescue the mayor. Suddenly, this guy grabs the key and throws it off the side of a cliff.

Adendum: About two rounds later, we threw him off the cliff.