DMs: What are your character pet peeves?

[Psychotic Jim]

Mhhh, mostly I just like characters to follow the generic universal rule of "don't be a dick". Can they contribute to the game and get involved without disrupting stuff? Do they give me something to work with? Can they work with the group? Yes to these questions, and for my group things'll probably work out. Unless you're a kender. Then you're prolly ending up in the next monster's meat pie.

 

[Corathon]

I think my second biggest issue is tangental to the first- the "problem race"- the guy who insists on playing a mind flayer, or a grippli, or a mongrelman, or even a drow... in a campaign setting that is relatively low-magic (and the environs the players start in are nearly 95% human). Now, if it's just one weirdo PC in a group of "normals", this can be okay... but the "cantina scene" party is something I'd rather avoid, because it generally makes my plots fall apart pretty fast- unless I'm playing in a setting where such a party is appropriate (like, say, Planescape or Oathbound, or even the Forgotten Realms under some circumstances). What makes it worse is that often the player who wants to play the most exotic race has the least exotic play-style... largely playing the character as a human with a set of special powers. Ironically, the deepest roleplayers most often play... humans.


What about your game?

I also dislike the "adventuring party as traveling freak show" thing.

 

[Corathon]

As to specific character types, I can't stand righteous paladin types, pure mercenaries who are just in it for the money, or cautious types who have to think about everything before they act. Those would be examples of "anti-fun" character concepts.

Righteous or self-righteous?

 

[kitsune9]

The subject says it all... as a DM, what kind of characters can't you stand. I'm not talking about distinct classes (though we all have a few we don't know what to do with- Monks, for me), but tropes that really drive you crazy.

Here's mine:

1. Mr. Anti-social, Lone Wolf MacQuade types. These characters are supposed to be part of the group, but they frequently tag along from a distance, go on their own, or refuse to be part of any group plan. The player in question expects you (as DM) to accommodate time and energy for them when they want go against the flow. At every opportunity, they go on their own and claim it's "being in character".

2. The Chaotic****head. This character may list LN as his alignment, but the player refuses to obey any social norms within the setting. The town law requires the character to peace bond their weapons upon entry. "I refuse and attack the guard." The noble expects proper deference when addressing him. "I refuse and demand more money for the mission or I'll attack him." The innkeeper presents a bill for the evening's fare. "I refuse and give him a good thrashing in front of everyone. Hey, who wants to start a bar fight?" These characters get extreme in which they steal from fellow party members or attack them when insulted.

3. Pippy Fuzzypinkbottoms, Gnomish Gnome of Kewl Stuff. There is always some player who creates this character for "laughs" when the game we're playing is Ravenloft or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Essentially, this is a character created solely to be completely against the mood and setting of the campaign in general.

4. Mr. Short-attention Span. These guys show up to play, but don't want to read handouts or get involved in the backstory of the adventure/ campaign. Their backgrounds often consist of, "I'm an orphan from that big town in the country I live in and I want to kill things." Every NPC is referred to as "that dude that wants us to do stuff." Their approach to playing the campaign is "Let's just kill everything we come across. That should solve the adventure."

5. Mr. No. Some players want sandbox games. Some players like railroad games. Most players like something in between. These players want to sit in their rowboat and paddle nowhere. The DM starts the adventure sandbox style and provides a map that shows three interesting locations for the players to go explore. Mr. No just wants to drink. The DM starts the adventure with a hook and says an NPC noble comes to their table with an offer to retrieve an relic from a nearby ruin. Mr. No just yawns and says, "Pass." The DM, frustrated, starts an encounter right in the tavern with assassins attacking some other patrons. Mr. No runs away, goes to the nearest tavern to start drinking again.

 

[drowdude]

I mostly just get annoyed when every character a particular player makes is played in nearly identical fashion (in terms of personality and bias; and even the items their characters use). It tends to get on my nerves after a while.

I think my second biggest issue is tangental to the first- the "problem race"- the guy who insists on playing a mind flayer, or a grippli, or a mongrelman, or even a drow... in a campaign setting that is relatively low-magic (and the environs the players start in are nearly 95% human).

I guess I am a bit old-skool in some regards... but I think one of the problems is players feeling that they can "insist" upon such things in the first place.

Just because a race appears with a level-adjustment (or a silly monster-class progression) in some book somewhere does not mean that a DM is required to let you play it.

Asking is fine of course. But the player needs to have a VERY solid back-story and character concept to make it worthwhile. And even then I would veto the idea if it was completely out-of-place in the campaign I was running.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Righteous or self-righteous?

Implicitly the latter. I know of very few self-professed champions of good, fictional or otherwise, who are not blind to their own shortcomings and hypocrisies.

I'm a believer in the idea that you do what you think is right and let history (or the DM) judge the merits of your actions. Attempts to adhere to a rigid code of conduct, proselytize one's beliefs, or judge the actions of your fellows are generally doomed to failure. I've seen campaigns ruined by it.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The left-handed character. There is something about them that is just so... sinister.

 

[Skyscraper]

I have the impression that many, if not all, replies in this thread apply more to the question "what are your player pet peeves" as opposed to "what are your character pet peeves".

Players acting like jerks, acting alone when we are playing a group game, playing the same character type over and over (the character might be fine once), the munckin, the griefer, etc... Those all relate more to player types, not character types. At least that's my opinion.

My contention is that some character types exacerbate some undesriable player traits. But it's more players that choose to act out their character in a certain way, it's not the character types that force themselves on the players.

Take the alignment-stupid example. Where does the problem lie, here? In the fact that this character type shouldn't exist? Where does it say that a lawful good paladin should be played stupidly? I believe it's the players that make it so. I believe that the problem is that there are some human traits that annoy others, and some of those traits come out more with some character traits than others. But it's the player whose the problem, not the character.

I take drama and improvisation courses. We learn, for one thing, how to (just about) never say "no" in an improv session. (Yes, like in the DMG!) We also learn that all our actions should result from the actions of other participants. When a player plays the associal PC-type and acts on his own, the problem is that his actions are not driven by what the other participants do. He's off apart from the group. And he gets tagged as a "loner-type character", but at the outset the problem is not the character, it's the player's approach to the game. I contend that an associal PC would be perfectly playable however, if a few group gaming guidelines were followed.

Playing a RPG and having the game lift off is hard. What I mean by "lift off" is that the game becomes very cool and everyone has fun playing it. Different playstyles, personal preferences and capacities are merged. I don't believe the "character types" have much to do about it; I think that people need to look hard into the mirror to realize that it's the players themselves that create problems. A lawful good paladin can be a really fun character, but not in the hands of a player who wishes to have that paladin be driven by a rigid, straightjacket ruleset that will frequently clash with the rest of the group's ideas.

I think that this thread names a lot of the problematic player behaviors around the table.

Here are a few positive behaviors than come to mind, so as to offer some thought on the topic:

- say yes to other player's proposals
- listen to what others say and propose
- have (almost) all your actions be in reaction to another player's actions (including the DM's)
- get PCs (and even NPCs) that are not interacting in a given situation, to do so, in character. E.g. ask the wizard standing silently how he thinks the party should handle a particular situation, etc...
- believe in your character, live through him or her
- allow other characters to be different than what your personal preferences are. Constrats make for great drama. And players that are destabilized by other players' decisions: that increases the intensity.

Sky

 

[DnD_Dad]

I'm really getting tired of people in my groups making tribal/nomad characters that have no real purpose than to wander. My group plays 2nd(pre DR1372) and they can't figure out a starting place other than, "they come from a nomadic tribe from somewhere..." I think they are just being lazy honestly and don't really like to research anything.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

- The guy who doesn't want to adventure. This generally comes about because the player is under the misconception that it is my job to motivate his character. My presumption is that you came to the game because you want to play - if you've created a character who doesn't want to adventure, it is up to you to create a different character!

I have one of these in my group. He likes to make sailors, smiths and other professionals who have no motivation to adventure. In his case, D&D isn't his game of choice.