Forums of the Megaverse®

I'm not a fan of power gamers. They're the worst kind of rules lawyer.

Tough choices, my love...
I picked the Two-Fisted coward... I suppose you based him on that guy who always played minotaurs who always fought the weakest creatures available?

Vrykolas2k wrote:Tough choices, my love...
I picked the Two-Fisted coward... I suppose you based him on that guy who always played minotaurs who always fought the weakest creatures available?

And then get pissed when that frail one turns out out to be a mind mage or dragon or something hungry for minotaur meat.

There is at least one type of annoying player not mentioned: the Advisor. This is the guy who is always making out-of-character, and unwelcome suggestions to other players about how they should player their characters. This type is often combined with the Rules Lawyer.

Captain Shiva wrote:There is at least one type of annoying player not mentioned: the Advisor. This is the guy who is always making out-of-character, and unwelcome suggestions to other players about how they should player their characters. This type is often combined with the Rules Lawyer.

She also forgot the Loathesome Quoter.
Not every gaming episode has to include things said by Yoda, Gandalf, or some bunch of idiotic englishmen whom some people think are funny.

Has anyone ever encountered a Finisher? The guy who butts in and finishes other people's sentences for them? Or the Can't Finder, the one who who can't find things on their own character sheet? How about the Wanna Seer, the one who despite often having dice and sourcebooks of their own, does not bother to bring them with them to the game session, and wants to "see" other people's? How about Last minute Charlie, the player who does not use the time waititng for his turn in intiative to figure what his character is going to do, but instead, waits until called upon by the GM, and holds up the game while he tries to figure out what he is going to do? Or Wally What?, who is not paying the slightest bit of attention to what is going on, and responds to everything said to them with "what?" And last but not least, the Grabber, the person who is constantly taking other people's game material without permission, and looking at it(including the GM's private notes,) often laying it aside, out of the rightful owner's reach. When confronted, he then turns into Wally What?

Oh yea I've had the Grabber before. He was a friend so we got through it alright.

femfan wrote:so what's wrong with playing someone of the opposite sex? As long as you play the person as a character and not a stereotype I don't see a problem. I prefer to play female characters because everything is more interesting when a woman does it. I mean really guys, who would you rather watch in a movie kicking ass? An strong female character or some guy? I know what type of movies I like to watch and why. Games are the same or do only girls play Tomb Raider?

The issue isn't when someone plays characters of the opposite sex, the issue is when someone plays characters of the opposite badly and consistently. My brother, when I break down and invite him to play games with us, always goes for the beautiful woman who is basically a stripper and a whore with loose morals. In every game. It really gets old after a while.

I dislike the X-file. Everyone else I can deal with, but it's hard to deal with someone that isn't there. I've had countless games ruined because of these types - trying to establish a consistent game where everyone shows up, and there's always someone missing. So our group would hold off this week. Then next week. then soon no one wants to play that game or show up because they know they're not going to get to play.

SirJames wrote:I used to play in a group playing D&D and we had a guy in our group that was a Rules lawyer. How I see it and it even says in the books that the rules are made as guidelines.

That's fine, as long as the house-guidelines are consistent.

two fisted coward is my most hated. I can't stand someone who doesn't take up their role in a group.

I picked the Hack-n-slasher. I had a player who would show up, play for a few minutes, then promptly fall asleep. He would wake up whenever the game heated up into combat. I began simply staing that his character, too, had fallen asleep and that when combat began he would have to wake up and find the party in order to fight. He stopped falling asleep, but he would still participate as little as possible until the fighting began. I ran two sessions with no combat at all and he started a fight in a bar. I had his character imprisoned. He didn't come back the next week.

(A lack of imagination, I guess, since I was going to suggest that the party could break him out, he could escape on his own, or he could play out the trial and try to defend his actions. Oh well.)

Dog_O_War wrote:I dislike the X-file. Everyone else I can deal with, but it's hard to deal with someone that isn't there. I've had countless games ruined because of these types - trying to establish a consistent game where everyone shows up, and there's always someone missing. So our group would hold off this week. Then next week. then soon no one wants to play that game or show up because they know they're not going to get to play.

I hold the game 20 minutes; if they show after that, they can wait until I get to a place to include them.
If they don't show up or are late without notification three times, they're gone.
It isn't like people have to rely on the pony express to deliver a message anymore or anything.
I started this practice due precisely to what you describe.

Let me add two more, the Expert, who knows everything about the underlying concepts on which the game is based; for instance,for D&D, he turns into an expert of medieval history, for Shadowrun, he becomes a computer expert, and for any martial arts game, he claims to have studied Ninjitsu. I gamed with a guy like this once, who despite his self-proclaimed genius level intellect, was apparently unable to understand the concept of soap and water. I once went in his room, and I thought a truckload of armpits had overturned out in the street. This guy was also a Group Leader, who constantly tried to undermine the GM's rulings, and get other players to do what he said with their characters. Another type is the Storyteller, who constantly tries to sidetrack the game with epic tales of his past gaming exploits, whic often bear little, if any relation to the actual events that transpired during that particular gaming session.

Captain Shiva wrote:Let me add two more, the Expert, who knows everything about the underlying concepts on which the game is based; for instance,for D&D, he turns into an expert of medieval history, for Shadowrun, he becomes a computer expert, and for any martial arts game, he claims to have studied Ninjitsu. I gamed with a guy like this once, who despite his self-proclaimed genius level intellect, was apparently unable to understand the concept of soap and water. I once went in his room, and I thought a truckload of armpits had overturned out in the street. This guy was also a Group Leader, who constantly tried to undermine the GM's rulings, and get other players to do what he said with their characters. Another type is the Storyteller, who constantly tries to sidetrack the game with epic tales of his past gaming exploits, whic often bear little, if any relation to the actual events that transpired during that particular gaming session.

Wow.
You've encountered more bottom-feeders than we have, evidently...
I offer sympathies.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Captain Shiva wrote:Let me add two more, the Expert, who knows everything about the underlying concepts on which the game is based; for instance,for D&D, he turns into an expert of medieval history, for Shadowrun, he becomes a computer expert, and for any martial arts game, he claims to have studied Ninjitsu. I gamed with a guy like this once, who despite his self-proclaimed genius level intellect, was apparently unable to understand the concept of soap and water. I once went in his room, and I thought a truckload of armpits had overturned out in the street. This guy was also a Group Leader, who constantly tried to undermine the GM's rulings, and get other players to do what he said with their characters. Another type is the Storyteller, who constantly tries to sidetrack the game with epic tales of his past gaming exploits, whic often bear little, if any relation to the actual events that transpired during that particular gaming session.

Wow.
You've encountered more bottom-feeders than we have, evidently...
I offer sympathies.

Most of the individuals I referenced belong to more than one category; one guy is a Grabber/Finisher/Storyteller/Wally What, and he, incidentally, will not be invited to play in my next Rifts campaign. This person is beyond any doubt the single dumbest human being I have ever encountered.He is a lousy player, and a worse GM. An Advisor actually caused me to get thrown out of a Rifts game, when I told him that "this game has one GM, and one GM only, and that is not you." If you go to the topic, "Your GM Did What?" and click on the link in one of my posts, you can read the whole sordid story. I have gamed with Gender Benders, but they later had sex-change operations, so their desire to play a female character was legitimate.I myself once played a female charcter(a Blind Warrior Woman Battle Magus) not because I wanted to play a female, but because there are no Blind Warrior Men, and I liked the abilities and bonuses.Now myself, I am a bit of a Power Gamer, a Rules Lawyer, and a Hack and Slasher, but I am not all about destroying stuff. I have played a Vulcan in a Star Trek RPG, and acquitted myself quite well. Whatever game I play in, i genuinely want to play, or I would not be there. I arrive on time, and I immediately get out my dice, character sheet, and sourcebooks, without having to be told to by the GM. I have been in the past accused of hogging the spotlight, but if no one has any ideas what to do to resolve a situation, and I do, should I stand idly by? I wait my turn like everytone else, but when my turn comes, I do something, if I can, that no one else has tried before. Let's face it: if the party has blasted a monster 10 times with their laser rifles, and it is still alive, it might be time to change tactics. One thing may annoy me more than anything else: a player who does not play their character to it's full potential. No one ever accused me of that, I assure you.I have been gaming since 1986, and I have noticed a change in the demographics of RPG players. it used to be that gamers were the nerdy guys who were smart, but had little social skills, who were inventive, and would rack their brains to try to come up with new ideas for things their character could do. The newer ones are the ones who in school, sat in the back of the class talking, interrupting the teacher, and never showing up for class prepared.To play an RPG, and do it the way I consider right, is simply beyond their attention span.

I answered the Perv, but I really can't stand the Off-Color Comment Maker. I can forgive a lot of failings, as I have many myself. However, I don't put up with racist, sexist or other similar remarks. At a minimum, I award negative XP, and I've fired a player before.

Yes, reading through this and the like posts, I realise how fortunate I've been to have encountered mostly very mild examples - certainly nothing that was to the point I didn't want to play.

Oh I swore I heard you say venus!

lather wrote:Oh I swore I heard you say venus!

There are other planetary bodies whose names could be brought into this discussion, but probably should not be.

voted "the Freek" because you mis-clasified "power gamer" with the "Munchkin" definition.

Captain Shiva wrote:

lather wrote:Oh I swore I heard you say venus!

There are other planetary bodies whose names could be brought into this discussion, but probably should not be.

indeed, I was careful this time.

I just rememebred another type: the Delusionist, who thinks that things in the game actually happened, and that life is one big LARP.

Captain Shiva wrote:I just rememebred another type: the Delusionist, who thinks that things in the game actually happened, and that life is one big LARP.

*Calls his GM...
"Hey, I just killed my parents, bratty little sister, her cat, and the dog... how much XP do I get?"

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Captain Shiva wrote:I just rememebred another type: the Delusionist, who thinks that things in the game actually happened, and that life is one big LARP.

*Calls his GM...
"Hey, I just killed my parents, bratty little sister, her cat, and the dog... how much XP do I get?"

"I'll tell you at the end of the week."

Like the GM question, I'm not gonna assume the "extreme" in any one case mentioned, because the extreme in any case is going to be "most annoying"...therefor I base it on if all were relatively "manageable" which one would I like to game with the least.

The one I dislike the most is one not mentioned.

The cheater. I hate you. I'd rather game with everyone mentioned above rather than the guy who cheats. I don't care how smooth, and nice smelling, and he showes up on time, and is friendly...if you're cheating, you're untrustworthy, and I wouldn't want you in my house or any of my friends. This is basically "If you cheat more than once"...One time cheating...eh, I'll make fun of you, but I can over-look it, after all, it is just a game. Though, if you do it again, I begin to question why you're playing.

The Great Unclean One can be asked to shower before he comes. In fact, if someone smells in our group, we'd tell them. Not to be mean, but because they should know. If you continue to show up smelly we'll continue to tell you...but sometimes this can't be helped, especially if there is a medical problem.

The Rules Lawyer isn't so bad, as long as they are tempered. We've made it a point to argue rules after a game, not during. At worse, we'll take a quick vote which usually goes "who thinks we should give a..." and generally the group makes it known "ok, we know you know the rules but for the sake of the game, we're ignoring them...moving on"

The X-File can be bad, real bad. This depends entirely on how many are playing. If you have 5 people in a party, one showing up isn't a big loss. If you have only 3, then the game has to stop. At least call.

The Two-Fisted Coward just seems like a funny character personality. I'd probably enjoy playing with this guy.

The Star as long as he keeps the game moving and the game is still fun, that's cool. I don't have to be a star to enjoy the game.

The Perv, I AM the perv.

The Gender Bender at least he's trying.

The Freak, like the star, as long as he's not disrupting the game that it can't be enjoyed, it's fine. Hell, they add a bit of spice to a game if tempered.

The Loner this can be bad if it stalls the game, though isn't managable. This guy, like the star and the freak is really GM dependant on how annying they are to a game.

The Leader is fine. Every group needs one...I don't care if he does it or I do it, as long as it gets done.

The Sycophant eh...no comment.

The Power Gamer/ Munchkin, this is bad especially when the rest of the group isn't munchkin or PG. PG itself isn't bad, though the munchkin does get on my nerves when it moves the player into the "star" position.

The Hack-n-Slasher, sometimes it's fun to JUST BREAK THINGS!

A lot of people seem to be defending the types. Understandable. Any of them are tolerable in small doses. I think the point of the thread is that they are taken too far.

For instance:

The Great Unclean One: Also known as the Cat P*ss Man. Not bad in small doses. A nice guy with an occasional funk is tolerable. But that guy who never changes his clothes, and has filth and stink as a part of his self-image, and makes up stories about soap allergies to maintain his stank. That guy is a problem. I think it's a self-esteem problem. He does this to keep people at arm's length. If they can't get close in the first place, they can't reject him.

The X-File: If it is only occasional, just make sure the plots don't center on him. But the guy who always flakes out? Why is he in the group?

The Two-Fisted Coward: Sad. Can't even pretend to be brave. With these guys, I imagine a sort of trauma gained from an early gaming group. Their first campaign, played with a terrible GM when they were 13, was basically, "Try to survive. But you won't." Their GM told them that "winning" is surviving to the end of the game, then started wiping out the whole party. So this imprinted the player with a "turtle" attitude. Pile on all the defenses you can, and avoid trouble.

The Star: Nothing wrong with a dynamic character who likes center stage. In moderation. I think the problem is with the real attention whores. The ones that go into passive-aggressive hissy fits when they are out of the limelight for even a second. If something cool happens to another player, then it's "Whatever. I'll be on the couch. Call me when something good happens." That's if you are lucky. Some aren't so passive, and will just jump in and steal the attention back.

The Perv: A character who likes the sexy sexins, and isn't shy about it, is okay, given an open-minded group. The Perv is a different animal. "The mayor greets you." "I cast a spell to turn him into a hot chick! Can I have sex with him now?" or "I just created a new D-Bee race. Guess how many sexual organs it has!" There are stories of worse stuff, including people who literally are messing with themselves under the table while the game is on. If the perversion is non-stop, and ruins the game, then it's a bad thing.

The Gender Bender: I have done this. I will be honest, it is a lot easier to do this in a chat game, where I am less self-conscious about making the female character actually act feminine. I try to make them realistic, unless it's a more humorous game, when I will go more over the top. This is not what we are talking about. We mean the Lesbian Stripper Ninja. The women played by male players who have heard of women, seen them on the internet, and someday hope to meet one.

The Freak: A variation on the Star. At least the Star cares about the story. The Freak is just bored, and doesn't care about anyone's fun. In moderation, with a decent player, this can add spice to the game. But dude who sets fire to the tavern just because his character hasn't done anything in 30 seconds is not a good player.

The Loner: "I'm a loner. I walk my lonely path. Alone. Alone, I face my enemy, then go on my lonely way. Alone." These dudes read every comic Wolverine was ever in. The good ones realize that Wolverine wasn't really a loner. He joined the X-men. He had friendships and relationships, and went on missions with them, and let Colossus throw him at people. Sure, he grunted and made lots of loner noises, but he was a team player, really. Or at least he tried to be most of the time. The bad ones just refuse to talk to anyone. They don't realize that if they don't join the group, nothing happens to them. They sit at different tables from the group, don't agree to go on the same mission as the group, and ultimately complain when the adventure passes them by.

The Leader: If one player is good at taking charge, making plans, and organizing things, then great. A group can only benefit from someone who is a good leader. This guy, however, is not. He desperately wants to be. He is a guy who feels powerless in his real life, and wants to be respected and obeyed in the fictional game world. The problem is, he sucks at it. The players are doing their own thing, or maybe following the guy who is actually good at leading. So he sits there and says, "I should be the leader! Do what I tell you!" I think the funniest thing you could do to this guy is actually make him the leader. Then watch him fail. Because leading is not about having the Leader title. It's about actually getting people to follow you. And shouting random orders, and throwing a hissy fit when they aren't obeyed is not the mark of a good leader.

The Sycophant: I'll be honest, I haven't seen this one before. I have seen the opposite, where a GM blatantly favors a specific player. Often the player is a long time buddy, or the GMs sex provider. But this is a topic for the Annoying GM thread.

The Power Gamer/Munchkin: Wanting to play a powerful character is not true Munchkinism. Some people just like that level of power in a game. There is nothing wrong with wanting enough power to meet all challenges. A true Munchkin, however, doesn't want there to be any challenges. It's a more aggressive version of the two-fisted coward. He wants to be more powerful than anything he meets, including the other PCs. This is the guy who probably plays first-person shooter games in God Mode. The munchkin in his purest form can be spotted by his whiny bratty sense of entitlement. Side note: I worked in a supermarket for years, and there are shopping munchkins. They will see an item that has blatantly been moved or shifted to the wrong spot where it kind of looks like it's much cheaper, but only if you are really stupid. Most people will point it out, let you fix it, and move on. But the munchkin will demand it at the blatantly wrong cheaper price. Their entire psyche is given over to "I WANT IT! I WANT IT! I WANT IT!" They noticed it, they want it, they deserve it, and they don't care how stupid and petty this makes them look. Compare this to a munchkin arguing that his character should have some über gun from some obscure book that only comes from a distant place in the Three Galaxies, but he should still have it in the Palladium Fantasy world and it should still do MDC damage he noticed it, he wants it, he deserves it, and "I WANT IT! I WANT IT! I WANT IT!"

The Hack-and-Slasher: Nothing wrong with enjoying a good fight. This is the guy who kills every friendly NPC, kills the other PCs girlfriend, kills the random passersby on the street, then gets confused when the cops show up, gets indignant when the GM shifts him to an evil alignment, and when the other players yell at him for ruining the game, has this stupid look of wounded innocence, like he doesn't think he did anything wrong.

There are a few others.

The Pro From Dover: This is the dude who chooses something, and has to be the best at it. In the world. His skill universally recognized. This is not necessarily combat. I have seen guys who play a doctor, but have to be the greatest surgeon on earth. Or the most famous musician. In the palladium rules, this isn't much of a problem, since characters are fairly standardized at what they can do. But point buy systems? They will choose one thing, or a group of related things, and raise them to godlike proportions. If it is one of those games that names their skill ranks, like 1- Poor, 2 - Average, 3 - Good, 4 - Great, 5 - Excellent, 6 - Extraordinary, 7 - So Amazingly Perfect That Should Any Man Gaze Upon You Whilst You Perform This Skill His Eyes Will Melt From Their Sockets, His Mind And Soul Will Be Burned Away, And He Will Spend The Rest Of His Days Speaking Of Nothing But The Glory Of Your Flawless Skill; then the Pro will read it as 1 - Worthless, 2 - Worthless, 3 - Worthless, 4 - Worthless, 5 - Worthless, 6 - Worthless, 7 - Acceptable.

The Story Munchkin: This is a character who creates a character who dominates the game. However, not in the combat arena. He creates a backstory that necessitates everything being about him. He is obsessively hunting the man who killed his brother. He does nothing else. The other PCs can follow, and if they are good, they can help. Though he would prefer you just stay out of his way. But he will do nothing except hunt the man who killed his brother. "Okay, you need to find the Lost Orb of Phanasticoria." "Sorry, I can't. I have to find the man who killed my brother." Kind of a mix of Loner and Star.

The Anti-Munchkin: I've seen this. The character who is paranoid about being seen as a munchkin, or thinking of himself as a munchkin, so he won't make a character who is, y'know, good at anything. Mediocre stats, pointless skills (for roleplaying, you know.) and the most basic of weapons. And no cool powers. Probably plays the Vagabond in Rifts. Now there is nothing wrong with playing an underdog with a good personality and backstory, especially in a low-powered campaign. But if your fear of munchkinism drives you to make a useless character every time, you have a problem.

Brian

If a new guy can get in on this I put the rule lawyer but I'm not concerned with the ones who want to stay within the "house rules" so much as the ones who know the books and there can be no variation on how it is interrupted or room for originality.

Tensu wrote:If a new guy can get in on this I put the rule lawyer but I'm not concerned with the ones who want to stay within the "house rules" so much as the ones who know the books and there can be no variation on how it is interrupted or room for originality.

New guys can't - you must edit your post to remove content, as per the online forums official posting guide (third paragraph, 2nd sentence I believe).

dark brandon wrote:The cheater.

Never happened to me. At least that I'm aware of.

Although I tend to only play with close friends.

lather wrote:

dark brandon wrote:The cheater.

Never happened to me. At least that I'm aware of.

Although I tend to only play with close friends.

We've had it twice. Once in a rifts game, another in a D&D game. I game with close friends as well, but that doesn't mean we're an exclusive gaming group. Our door is alway open for cool people who just wanna have fun. But cheaters tend to sap the fun away from a game.

Here's a compliment we got from someone who gamed with us.

Why? Because unlike all the 'established' and 'experienced' roleplayers with years and years under their belt, these guys took a n00blet like me without a moment's hesitation. They didn't roll their eyes everytime I had to ask a question about a system (and my god did I ask a lot of questions) and they didn't make fun of my inexperience in being 'in character'. More importantly they made me feel like one of the gang when everyone else I was meeting in the roleplaying scene was already seperated into pretty tight clics.

Now, granted, my choice of gaming styles have changed since I first started so I really haven't gamed with any of 'em in a long while but I wanted to submit another view of them. My self esteem, especially back then, really couldn't handle the dark stares of 'serious' roleplaying groups as I fumbling awkwardly through a system. If it hadn't been for Brandon (aten, aka Galactis kid) and the gang I probably wouldn't have stayed with it and developed into who I am now.

Tensu wrote:If a new guy can get in on this I put the rule lawyer but I'm not concerned with the ones who want to stay within the "house rules" so much as the ones who know the books and there can be no variation on how it is interrupted or room for originality.

FNGs are welcome.
Thing with some rules lawyers, like me, is this: If you say you're going to run a game, and haven't given us a copy of the house rules to be used, we logically assume it's right out of the book. Doesn't matter if the advantage is to us or not, we like to know how the game works. Which is why I print out copies of my house-rules (if any) and give them to the players a few days in advance of game-time, so they can look through and see where any differences lie.

As for the loner, I usually play a "pseudo-loner"; I go off and do my own thing to the benefit of the group and its objectives. Basically, I play the smart loner (a la, Wolverine) as opposed to the stupid loner (the guy who wanders off and gets killed, or comes back and wonders where everyone else went).

I don't know enough cool people to extend my gaming circle, and I don't like people enough to try. I volunteer to work with kids sentenced to public service, because criminals, scofflaws, delinquents, and idiots and innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time all have great stories but they're the kind of folks I don't want to talk to after the job is completed. I wasn't always like this. Once upon a time I was software programming mentor for years, and I loved it. Introducing newbies to programming was fun. I don't understand why somebody would treat a newbie poorly; it should be fun to mentor them and answer their questions.
I think that I make role-playing too intimate to not be exclusive. The people I game with, I know extremely well.

P.S. that was a female gamer who posted that...

Send all thank yous for introducing another female to RPG so Galactus Kid under the subject "Fuchikoma Clan Rocks"

BillionSix wrote:A lot of people seem to be defending the types. Understandable. Any of them are tolerable in small doses. I think the point of the thread is that they are taken too far.

Though, I think all of them would be intolerable if taken too far.

the X-File, cause we have one in our group - and no one from the other categories.

also, Id like to nominate the Weirdo. I once gmed Cthulhu with a guy who claimed to have some experience but didnt get the BASICS of roleplaying straight. He thought that he could just describe stuff and things automatically happen as he imagined them - not only to his character, but to all the NPCs.
so, he went something like "Okay, so my character climbs up to the 30th floor, hangs on the window and hears the mayor say to some other guy...". We were thunderstruck. I mean, if he wants to state that his character (an Average Joe, I think his role was a Jazz musician) tries to climb up a building, fine, he gets his (slim) chance, if he fails the results are applied, if he makes it I describe what he can see and hear - if he makes his roll(s) for that. By the way, the mayor wasnt even in the office and therefore the conversation the player described as happening never took place.

we never invited him back.

16 years later Im still awed by this weird act.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Tensu wrote:If a new guy can get in on this I put the rule lawyer but I'm not concerned with the ones who want to stay within the "house rules" so much as the ones who know the books and there can be no variation on how it is interrupted or room for originality.

FNGs are welcome.
Thing with some rules lawyers, like me, is this: If you say you're going to run a game, and haven't given us a copy of the house rules to be used, we logically assume it's right out of the book. Doesn't matter if the advantage is to us or not, we like to know how the game works. Which is why I print out copies of my house-rules (if any) and give them to the players a few days in advance of game-time, so they can look through and see where any differences lie.

As for the loner, I usually play a "pseudo-loner"; I go off and do my own thing to the benefit of the group and its objectives. Basically, I play the smart loner (a la, Wolverine) as opposed to the stupid loner (the guy who wanders off and gets killed, or comes back and wonders where everyone else went).

Well as of right now I'm actually loosing all but the last of my players this weekend as one is moving west to be with his family and the other 2 left for a new job opportunity on the east coast, I will miss them as all but the "X-File" were fellow GMs and used the same house rules. However with my groups I always start off with informing them of the "house rules" for when I'm the sole GM and rule number one is just because it is in a book doesn't mean it exists or will happen that way in the game. Though actually making out hand outs for players may make the difference for me in the future.

I have one question what would you call the player who always accuses you of railroading when they just "charge in" when the situation calls for a more delicate touch and get their buts handed to them? I'm not sure I'm talking about the hack and slash type per say so much as the one who decides paying a modest fee to enter a walled city is to much so lets just fly over not considering what type of defenses there may be? That is another one that annoys me to no ends.

Vidynn wrote:the X-File, cause we have one in our group - and no one from the other categories.

also, Id like to nominate the Weirdo. I once gmed Cthulhu with a guy who claimed to have some experience but didnt get the BASICS of roleplaying straight. He thought that he could just describe stuff and things automatically happen as he imagined them - not only to his character, but to all the NPCs.
so, he went something like "Okay, so my character climbs up to the 30th floor, hangs on the window and hears the mayor say to some other guy...". We were thunderstruck. I mean, if he wants to state that his character (an Average Joe, I think his role was a Jazz musician) tries to climb up a building, fine, he gets his (slim) chance, if he fails the results are applied, if he makes it I describe what he can see and hear - if he makes his roll(s) for that. By the way, the mayor wasnt even in the office and therefore the conversation the player described as happening never took place.

we never invited him back.

16 years later Im still awed by this weird act.

That's a great story.

lather wrote:That's a great story.

we always give newcomers a chance...but this guy (who said he was experienced too - wonder how those games were)...he was a once in a lifetime-experience for us.

the only other player we ever kicked out was a player in our new MERP campaign who actually cheated all the time. we couldnt believe it. he brought a pre-generated character with stats maxed out and all the magical stuff - as we are not used to cheating and think that cheating is actually against basic principles of the game [when the GM fixes secret rolls with a reason and on rare occasions, thats not cheating], we naively believed this was genuine luck - but when we saw that he was cheating at the table (eg rolling a 86 and saying, oh yeah, 01!) - and when the second character he brought had almost the same stats as the first super-hero we never invited him back.

Yeah, like I've said, the Two Fisted Coward is someone who was taught early on that the purpose is to "survive" So everything he does is geared toward surviving to the next adventure. He makes the baddest character he can, in case he is cornered, but then avoids all fights, because that is how you survive. He was probably traumatized by a killer GM in his early days, and has learned to keep his head down.

Brian

BillionSix wrote:Yeah, like I've said, the Two Fisted Coward is someone who was taught early on that the purpose is to "survive" So everything he does is geared toward surviving to the next adventure. He makes the baddest character he can, in case he is cornered, but then avoids all fights, because that is how you survive. He was probably traumatized by a killer GM in his early days, and has learned to keep his head down.

Brian

Not so much, I think.
He did weird stuff when he ran games as well.
You'd have to experience the fellow to understand...

I got one not mentioned Sidebar Sally's. They're not there for the game, though they say they are, they're there for the humorous/interesting sidebar conversations they can start up and Sidebar Sally's are almost always Wally What's/Last Minute Charlie's. They will never plan between their initiatives or listen to what's happening to others during others initiatives instead they will always start an extremely interesting/funny sidebar that will grab the attention of everyone who is not being directly engaged by the GM. What is worst of all Sidebar Sally is contagious which is what keeps the original Sidebar Sally coming be to consistently infect the others. Hey Sidebar Sally you want to play or socialize! Do you even know what is going on in the game!?

Imo the "unwashed" gamer so to speak. I can take all the others in small doses. A player with bad body odour is not welcome in my game.

I think that the most annoying type of player is the selfish player.

Any of the above I can stand in small doses and most of them seem to have a seed of selfishness to them. But when I player decides to be really selfish, that is when the worst of them comes out. That is when their irritating trait is exagerated to annoying proportions.

The great unclean one? If made aware of the problem and he persists, he selfishly doesn't care about those he plays with or how his odour offends them.

The Rules Lawyer? It's one thing to want to ensure that the rules are being followed fairly by all (it is a game afterall) but it's another to twist them so they serve only your selfish interests.

The X-file? Everyone has a life and sometimes committments can be hard to make. If there is something that prevents the player from joining at the same time as everyone else, and it's a known issue then there isn't much to be done. But if they don't care? That's selfish.

The Two-Fisted Coward? This one seems pretty obvious to me. They start out pretty selfish.

The Star? Definitely selfish.

The Perv? If you don't care how your actions offend others, then you're being pretty selfish in my books.

The Gender Bender? I don't see playing opposite genders as being selfish although it can make others uncomfortable. I've seen players use this role for the purpose of making other uncomfortable. That's selfish.

The Freak? Pretty much the same as the Star and wants all the attention for themselves. Just their methods vary. If they insist on their antics being center stage all the time, it's selfish, same as the Star.

The Loner? Refusing to work with the players is often a form of selfishness, especially if taken to extremes.

The Leader? I've seen selfish leaders in games. In a way, they can be similar to the star. Although I wouldn't say that all leaders are selfish. Some just have strong personalities. A few are actually good leaders. But I don't think we're discussing the good examples here.

The Sycphant? Why are they kissing the GM's butt? To get what they want. Starts out selfish and can only get worse.

The Powergamer/Munchkin? Well, I would consider a munchkin to be a selfish powergamer.

The Hack & Slasher? There's nothing wrong with someone who's there for the fighting. But when they interrupt the parts of play that are fun for others, that's selfish.

So yeah, it's selfishness that drives me batty with my players. I've had varying degrees of success with it. It's always frustrating though.

Delwugor wrote:...But he still kept insisting that my evil Enchantress get a war horse. ...

But your evil enchantress needs a war horse.

Delwugor wrote:

Captain Shiva wrote:There is at least one type of annoying player not mentioned: the Advisor. This is the guy who is always making out-of-character, and unwelcome suggestions to other players about how they should player their characters. This type is often combined with the Rules Lawyer.

So you are the one who sent him my way.
I reminded him that I have played for over 20 years and do not need his help. But he still kept insisting that my evil Enchantress get a war horse. Thankfully he is gone now.

I have successfully dealt with most of the types given because I tend to ignore the quirks in others since I have one or two myself.
But no one should tell another player how to play their character.

I was not the GM for this guy, I would have sent him on his way quickly, probably via the assistance of my foot. Sorry; can't take the blame for that one.

The Great Unclean One (a stinky slob): Spray him with deoderizer or flat out tell him to take a shower, use mine

The Rules Lawyer (easy to deal with as long as you know the rules and you are consistent): Thank you for your input and I will consider it

The X-File (always late or doesn't show). Most hated and annoying. Don't have an answer for this one

The Two-Fisted Coward (makes a combat character but then never DOES anything): doesn't bother me

The Star (always has the lime-light).: rotate histories

The Perv (makes passes at everything, and always uses his character to hit on the girls in the group): Consequences like harrassment charges, older brothers family ticked off etc

The Gender Bender (never plays his or her own gender, and usually plays the opposite badly).: Made a rule. No Gender Bending

The Freak (wants attention, and does disgusting things to get it): There are always consequences

The Loner (doesn't work and play well with others): They usually die

The Leader (always has to be in charge... ALWAYS). Haven't met him but I try to rotate games between player's histories

The Sycophant (kisses the GMs butt): Gets them nowhere

The Power Gamer/ Munchkin (looks for any loop-hole to make the most powerful character). I am GM I can make something that can kill him.

The Hack-n-Slasher: will get few points and suffer 3-4 levels behind everyone else

sounds like a good story with a lot of good RPing conflict between PCs.

farfairer wrote:

Captain Shiva wrote:There is at least one type of annoying player not mentioned: the Advisor. This is the guy who is always making out-of-character, and unwelcome suggestions to other players about how they should player their characters. This type is often combined with the Rules Lawyer.

I played in a game with someone like this ten years ago and he went so overly too far I still have issues about it.

I was playing in a Champions superhero game. My character Nightingale was a female martial artist (yes I know gender-bending) ala bat-girl but she could fly. I was forced by situation at one point (NOT the GM's fault, I just took a ton of body damage) to have her gain a minor regeneration power. The character was never meant to gain any powers other than her flight though, and the SLIGHTLY accelerated healing was a concession on my part because otherwise she would have be in a hospital for 3 months.

Well... when this whole thing happened one of the players started telling me that I should give Nightingale more powers. I kept telling him "no. she was never supposed to be able to do anything other than fly. I don't want her to have more powers. Period.", but he wouldn't get the clue.

So it happens that his character "Formula One" accidentally injures Nightingale (actual accident, player did not intend the action). Formula One goes a psycho-depressed over his actions, and the player looks at our GM and says "Formula One is going and finding a geneticist who knows about super-human genetics and physiology". He finds someone and proceeds to discuss FORCIBLY MUTATING MY PC with the guy in the hopes of making my character "tougher".

Long story short the geneticist was killed by Formula One's villain father before he had the chance to finish his research on my character, Formula One went and became a minion of the game equivilat of Dr. Doom in order to "get back at his father for ruining things for him", and Nightingale retired as a superhero after learning what was going on behind her back.

Tell me, what part of "IT'S NOT YOUR FREAKING CHARACTER!!" did this individual not understand?