Don't You Hate it When in an P&P RPG...

[LunarSage]

(Feel free to comment and/or add your own to the list)

...the GM puts the spotlight on his or her NPCs rather than the PCs?

...you're at a character creation get together for an upcoming game and there's only one book to go around (meaning only one person can make a character at a time)?

...the GM is obviously biased in favor of a best friend or an SO?  (One GM in a game I was in let his best friend play a level 20 PC loaded to the gills with magic items in a game where everyone else was level 5 with little to no magic items.  When I confronted the GM about it, he shrugged and said that "every group has to have a Gandalf".)

...one player claims to have rolled -really- well for his stats but he says "you know I don't cheat"?  (Like rolling four 18s for attributes in a D&D game)

...a player blatantly cheats in some way (usually involving dice)?  (Like rolling twice when he thinks no one is looking, rolling the die and snatching it up before anyone can see the result, or claiming to have "rolled beforehand to save time")

...a player plays a "lone wolf" character in a game based around a party working together?

...a player deliberately makes a character so useless that in game, the party has no justifiable reason to let them continue to adventure with them?

...the player with the useless character claims that playing a useless character makes them a better role-player than anyone else at the table?

...you get accused of powergaming or being a munchkin for making an effective character?  (There's a difference between min/maxing or optimizing and making a character who is good at what he or she is supposed to do for the party)

...no one wants to actually role-play?

...a player asks you, the GM if they can play something esoteric and obscure that will require loads of modifications to your adventure and generally end up being a pain in the butt or a severe imbalance... and then they argue with you when you say no?

...a fellow player grabs one of your dice to roll without asking?

I'm sure I'll have more to add to the list later, but that's a good start I think.

[Kathadon]

Oh I love this topic.

... You spend a couple days thinking up a scenario and are psychiced to play it and the rest of your group show up with the latest RPG find from the store and want to play that instead. Or just cancel at the last minute.

... Someone insists on playing a race that is known to be evil/unpopular in the setting. And then complain when the NPC's treat them as such. (I hate whiny drow players btw. No you are not Drit'z D'whateverhis nameis. The poor peasants don't know you from Adam, so yes they think you are one of the bandits).

... A player wants to be a archtypical good guy/bad guy class and then plays them the opposite. (No, no, no, I am a DARK jedi.... Not a sith.)

... That one guy, every group has, who never has money to chip in for the pizza and beer. Yet he has EVERY book for X system including the one that just came out yesterday... >:(

Just a few off the top of my head. :-)

[LunarSage]

... That one guy, every group has, who never has money to chip in for the pizza and beer. Yet he has EVERY book for X system including the one that just came out yesterday... >:(

Oh I hate that!  But that guy is always happy to take his share (or more) of the pizza and soda.  I mean, I understand that folks can't chip in everytime, but this guy -never- chips in, nor is he willing to give up gas money (even if it's just a buck or two) to those who give him rides to and from game. 

[TheGlyphstone]

-You try to run a game with a plot and the players whine about being railroaded, so you write a sandbox game instead and they sit around doing nothing and whine about not having any plot to follow?

[Vanity Evolved]

... when you try to emulate something shown in the setting, and you're constantly expected to be held to a standard of 'canon'. Cthulhutech is a prime example. PCs are expected to be by the rules, follow a strict set of of canon rules in what you can, or can't be, while the NPCs of the setting constantly flouts these rules (I tend to follow heavily by the rule of PCs being special; if anyone gets to be the Good Guy Drow, or That One Guy who was the Abyssal who came back and cleansed his Solar Shard? It should be the players, not a background NPC with heavy handed 'no PCs should ever do something this cool' warnings).

... when a game advertises itself as doing x, but really, it does it rather poorly or doesn't do it at all. (Iron Heroes advertises itself as a Conan-esque game of 'jumping on demons and tearing out their eyeballs and being an all-around badarse', but in the core book, unarmed combat is pretty much impossible, and unlike Conan, you end up playing hugely specialized characters; the Punchy Guy who's skills revolve around Punching, Punching and Punching. Or 7th Sea, which is based around swashbuckling action, and while being a good game, demands such high level characters to do standard swashbuckling moves, you'll always play conservatively and never use your special Cool Points (as they're also XP)).

...a player deliberately makes a character so useless that in game, the party has no justifiable reason to let them continue to adventure with them?

...the player with the useless character claims that playing a useless character makes them a better role-player than anyone else at the table?

...you get accused of powergaming or being a munchkin for making an effective character?  (There's a difference between min/maxing or optimizing and making a character who is good at what he or she is supposed to do for the party)

A hundred times this. I despise Stormwind Fallacy; I'm a huge advocate that 'min-maxing' is not a bad thing, as it isn't. Have you ever seen players complain about the Wizard having high Intelligence or Fighter having high Strength and high Constitution? No. It's min-maxing. But apparently, making a character based on charging, who's good at charging, using charging based prestige classes suddenly becomes min-maxing, and that's Bad(tm). Max-minning is a huge problem in some of the games I've played ('Well, I'm playing a Fighter with low Strength who can't do his job. This is so hugely unlikely and silly, it makes me a good roleplayer!').

[Aiden]

...a player deliberately makes a character so useless that in game, the party has no justifiable reason to let them continue to adventure with them?

I had a friend who could not lock pick for shit, when he failed three times in a row even when out of combat (hence no duress) he kept failing. I (the barbarian) asked the GM if I could make the rogue (my friend) a battering ram and what my strength check would be to knock the door down.

Well the rogue was prone, knelt down trying to pick. I passed his grapple check and swung him into the door, killing him and opening the door.

Hence the name of Kargoth the short tempered barbarian became legend that day.
(Friend rerolled a twin brother rogue and put the proper skills in lockpicking  XD )

[Oniya]

How about

...the GM decides that his/her sole goal in the campaign is to kill off as many characters as possible - in a non-Lovecraft-based game?

[LunarSage]

...a player deliberately makes a character so useless that in game, the party has no justifiable reason to let them continue to adventure with them?

I had a friend who could not lock pick for shit, when he failed three times in a row even when out of combat (hence no duress) he kept failing. I (the barbarian) asked the GM if I could make the rogue (my friend) a battering ram and what my strength check would be to knock the door down.

Well the rogue was prone, knelt down trying to pick. I passed his grapple check and swung him into the door, killing him and opening the door.

Hence the name of Kargoth the short tempered barbarian became legend that day.
(Friend rerolled a twin brother rogue and put the proper skills in lockpicking  XD )

Well that honestly stems from the fact that at level one, a Rogue in D&D 3.X tends to have greater than a 50% chance of failing a given check, whether it be opening a lock or disarming a trap.  That's the fault of the system.  What it does though is make the Rogue, who already feels like he's not as useful as say, a Wizard look like an incompetent idiot who sucks at his role in the party.  It got to the point where I refused to play a Rogue (or a Cleric) due to how the system was set up.

[TheGlyphstone]

Rogues are just the poor man's Barbarian anyways. Sneak attack < two-handed weapon with high strength, lockpicking < high strength on break checks, adamantine weapon optional, d8 hit die < d12 hit die. If you want to be a social rogue, play a Bard and get actual magic in addition to skills.

[Vanity Evolved]

How about

...the GM decides that his/her sole goal in the campaign is to kill off as many characters as possible - in a non-Lovecraft-based game?

Even Lovecraft's stories never really had mass murder of the people investigating the Mythos. Paranoia, on the other hand, where you're actively rewarded for needlessly killing and tricking your party members... :3 Silly Commie Mutants!

[Avis habilis]

... when you're GMing & the dice hate you for half the evening, letting the PCs run roughshod over the opposition, then turn around & hate the players so much they get TPK'd.

That's happened to me twice. Twice.

[Oniya]

Even Lovecraft's stories never really had mass murder of the people investigating the Mythos. Paranoia, on the other hand, where you're actively rewarded for needlessly killing and tricking your party members... :3 Silly Commie Mutants!

Much better example - and with Paranoia, you know what you're getting into! :D

[TheGlyphstone]

Much better example - and with Paranoia, you know what you're getting into! :D

Though if you get a GM who confuses Paranoia with CoC and thinks the point of the game is for him to murder the players six times each in an assembly-line efficiency fashion, it can be just as bad.

[Vanity Evolved]

Though if you get a GM who confuses Paranoia with CoC and thinks the point of the game is for him to murder the players six times each in an assembly-line efficiency fashion, it can be just as bad.

I blame Gygax holdovers; for the grandfather of tabletop roleplaying, the guy had a terrible ideas on running a game and roleplaying.

[LunarSage]

Oh Gygax was an awful GM.  No question.  GMs who try and emulate his style in the modern age will quickly find themselves without players.

[Moraline]

Interesting, I never knew this about Gygax. I thought he was just all about creating the dungeon crawl. (Which I don't' really like either.)

[TheGlyphstone]

Gygax wasn't really a murderous DM. People think he was because of things like the Tomb of Horrors, but they forget that was a Tournament module. It was designed to be excessively deadly, in order to be finished within a certain time limit of play. It's the people who try to emulate 'Gygaxian style gaming' who give him a bad name retroactively, because they're doing it wrong.

For evidence that he wasn't a Killer DM in his personal table games, just look at the Player's Handbook. Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion. Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.  Bigby's Crushing Hand. Mordekainen, Bigby, and Otiluke were PCs in some of the first campaigns he ran, wizards who got sufficiently high enough level to retire and were permanently enshrined in the game's metalore. That wouldn't have been possible if he was a butcher-DM.

[Vanity Evolved]

Interesting, I never knew this about Gygax. I thought he was just all about creating the dungeon crawl. (Which I don't' really like either.)

I've heard some of the stories from people who've played from him. His advice in the games is also suspect, too; the only way I can describe some of the rules in some of the 2e AD&D rules I've read is 'passive-aggressive'.

Gygax wasn't really a murderous DM. People think he was because of things like the Tomb of Horrors, but they forget that was a Tournament module. It was designed to be excessively deadly, in order to be finished within a certain time limit of play. It's the people who try to emulate 'Gygaxian style gaming' who give him a bad name retroactively, because they're doing it wrong.

For evidence that he wasn't a Killer DM in his personal table games, just look at the Player's Handbook. Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion. Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.  Bigby's Crushing Hand. Mordekainen, Bigby, and Otiluke were PCs in some of the first campaigns he ran, wizards who got sufficiently high enough level to retire and were permanently enshrined in the game's metalore. That wouldn't have been possible if he was a butcher-DM.

Because they're NPCs. ;D For me, it wasn't that Tomb of Horrors was deadly. It's that Tomb of Horrors was -dickish-. An entire thing set up to dick you over with unresistable death in which your character had no control, other than knowing everything in advance.

But yeah, I tend to associate Gygax more with terribly silly plots. Return to Castle Greyhawk is a prime example. I'm not sure if it was Gygax, but it might have been him who wrote the Alice in Wonderland scenarios, too, but Castle Greyhawk stands out in my mind as classic terribad Gygax.

[TheGlyphstone]

Because they're NPCs. ;D For me, it wasn't that Tomb of Horrors was deadly. It's that Tomb of Horrors was -dickish-. An entire thing set up to dick you over with unresistable death in which your character had no control, other than knowing everything in advance.

But yeah, I tend to associate Gygax more with terribly silly plots. Return to Castle Greyhawk is a prime example. I'm not sure if it was Gygax, but it might have been him who wrote the Alice in Wonderland scenarios, too, but Castle Greyhawk stands out in my mind as classic terribad Gygax.

Uhh...I think you misunderstood. Though I used the wrong names, but Melf - as in Melf's Acid Arrow, was a character created by one of his sons. Leomund, as in Leomund's Secure Shelter, was the character of one of the primary playtesters and game designers. They were the literal opposite of NPCs, they were PCs who survived his games and were enshrined in the lore as NPCs once they reached max level and retired. As for adventures...I dunno. He wrote Return To Castle Greyhawk(? I can't find any module by this name), but he also wrote all-time classics like Keep On The Borderlands, the well-rated Giants module series, Expedition to The Barrier Peaks (a very silly module if you actually know what's going on, but I love it).

There was an entire long thread about this on another forum I frequent - lots of interesting stuff there. It doesn't all make Gygax look good, but he was hardly the awful killer player-hating DM people sometimes imagine him as.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247033

[Vanity Evolved]

Mmm. Things do tend to get exaggerated, I agree. Most of what I've heard is that he was generally a great guy, with a penchant for his player death. Which ain't a hugely bad thing, but I tend to run my games somewhat care-bear-ish; characters being killed off due to bad luck tends to be more of an annoyance to me than a feature to enchance the story.

Also, my bad; Return to Castle Greyhawk was the 3.5 sequel to the more serious Castle Greyhawk. The one I'm thinking of is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Greyhawk_(module)

[TheGlyphstone]

There is that - in 30-odd years, the 'typical game' has evolved and changed significantly. Gygax and Gygaxian imitators may have been the type to wantonly kill off players, but it's important (as discussed in depth in that thread) to remember that character death wasn't nearly as much of a hassle then as it is now. In 3.5E, even in 4E, writing up a new character can be an arduous process, half an hour to hours depending on level and sourcebooks available, and whether or not you can use magic. Back in Basic, it was 5 minutes tops for most PCs, and they were designed to be fragile, so the culture at the time, such as it was, put far less emphasis on character survival.

[Vanity Evolved]

For me, it's not a matter of convienience; I can whip up a 3.5 character in about 10mins, if I really want just a character to play with. But even a game like LotW, where making an army-slaying kung fu genius from scratch takes about ten minutes, it's more the fact that it doesn't work well for story purposes. Nothing puts a damper on a long-running storyline than '... and then Roger the Elf randomly got shot in the face by a lucky crit from a goblin. Roll up Markus the Mage, so we can find you in the celler and get you back in the game'. But as you say, that's a large part of the evolution of the RPG; RPGs now, especially D&D now, are a completely different kettle of fish than they were thirty years ago.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yup. People make jokes about 'Derek the Fighter' being 'rolled up' to replace Alex, Bob, and Charlie the Fighter where someone just erased and re-wrote the name and said 'it's my last character's brother/sister/child', but that was part and parcel - it was almost expected that if your character died, your replacement would have some connection to the previous one...relative, friend, hireling, something. Bad luck could kill almost any character at any time, even the toughest fighters, because 'tough' was an extremely relative term. In the earliest versions of the game, you earned XP for collecting treasure, not killing monsters; treasure was usually guarded by monsters, so killing them was one way to do it, but it didn't matter how you got said treasure in the end, and combined with the high lethality rate of combat, it encouraged finding other ways to win or bypass fights.

[WindVoyager]

....players who whine when they are not allowed to play unproved or disproved classes\races\items\etc

...Players who do things to purposely annoy the DM

....Players who NEVER chip in for anything and leach off every one else

.....The Die Tower Builder, this player never does anything constructive, never pays attention, is bored all the time and uses every one's dice to build towers because they expect table top RPs to be just like video games

...Any player that blatantly cheats in some way, like re-rolling die when they think no one is looking, changing the scores on the character sheets to be higher then they should be and the like

...Power gamers

...Rules Lawyers

.....The player that won't role-play at all

...Any one who grabs my dice with out asking

[Chris Brady]

...Players who refuse to do any of the math.

...Players whose sole purpose is to intimidate and kill stuff.

...Players who whine about having to use their...  GASP!  Imagination!

All of which are currently at the table I play at every Tuesday, until 10PM EST.

[TheGlyphstone]

...Players who insist on playing EEEEEEVIL.

...Players who insist on playing EEEEEEVIL and kill every quest-giver rather than do quests.

...Players who insist on playing EEEEEEVIL and use it as a blank check to kick every puppy, eat every baby, and burn every town they meet for giggles.

...Players who insist on playing EEEEEEVIL and complain when their rampant town-burning gets people hunting them.

...Players who insist on playing EEEEEEVIL and think that means 'Rampant, non-stop PvP'.



Guess what alignment I don't allow in any game I run?

[Kunoichi]

Chaotic Neutral? :P

[Kathadon]

Ugh. I hate Chaotic Neutral. Just call them bat shit crazy and be done with it.

And that is a shame Glyph. One of the most entertaining games I ever played was one were we were all super villians. Not Dr. Doom or Darkseid class super villians, mind you. More like the rob a bank, take over the city's underworld, kill the guy that made you types. Another was a fantasy one in which we worked for the campaign's middle baddie, who was in turn at odds with the other bigger bads and the good kingdoms.

It was a blast. Evil played right can be more fun and thought provoking in a game than the "I am a paladin and will smite the demon who lives in this ruin because... I am a paladin" games. Lot of roleplaying moral conflicts in those games.

We had this scenario play out. How far is a thief willing to go when one of his partners, an evil cleric to an "unjustly" persecuted god, threatens to kill a priest of his god? Does he do something? Does the rebel bandit, who just wants to kill the dick lord who murdered his family, step up and stop his friend even though the same man just saved his life? What if he has to kill him, will he have to fight the whole team too keep it secret? What about the mercenary that just wants to get paid for sacking the temple as ordered?

Ah good times.

[Chris Brady]

It was a blast. Evil played right can be more fun and thought provoking in a game than the "I am a paladin and will smite the demon who lives in this ruin because... I am a paladin" games. Lot of roleplaying moral conflicts in those games.

Here's another:

...Players who can't think of any other way to play Paladins.

Please, those aren't 'Paladins', those are one dimensional cut outs.

[Kathadon]

True.

But the same goes for boy scouts and puppy kicker classes in every game. And someone always wants to play one or the other it seems in my games.

Another one I get all to often that is even better. The player, usually new, that wants to make a clone of their favorite character from books/movies/TV.

[Oniya]

Here's another:

...Players who can't think of any other way to play Paladins.

Please, those aren't 'Paladins', those are one dimensional cut outs.

We used to joke about those having a light-up belt buckle that flashed:  'L!' ...  'G!' ...  'LG!'

[Vanity Evolved]

Here's another:

...Players who can't think of any other way to play Paladins.

Please, those aren't 'Paladins', those are one dimensional cut outs.

Still, this is generally a product of the system, rather than the players; lots of problems with Paladins tends to be alignment systems, which in 3.0/3.5 particularly, you have ONE code of conduct in common. When you've got a seven bulletpoint list of 'Unless you act this way, you become less useful than the Fighter', people tend to play the character exactly how that list dictates.

Ugh. I hate Chaotic Neutral. Just call them bat shit crazy and be done with it.

And that is a shame Glyph. One of the most entertaining games I ever played was one were we were all super villians. Not Dr. Doom or Darkseid class super villians, mind you. More like the rob a bank, take over the city's underworld, kill the guy that made you types. Another was a fantasy one in which we worked for the campaign's middle baddie, who was in turn at odds with the other bigger bads and the good kingdoms.

It was a blast. Evil played right can be more fun and thought provoking in a game than the "I am a paladin and will smite the demon who lives in this ruin because... I am a paladin" games. Lot of roleplaying moral conflicts in those games.

We had this scenario play out. How far is a thief willing to go when one of his partners, an evil cleric to an "unjustly" persecuted god, threatens to kill a priest of his god? Does he do something? Does the rebel bandit, who just wants to kill the dick lord who murdered his family, step up and stop his friend even though the same man just saved his life? What if he has to kill him, will he have to fight the whole team too keep it secret? What about the mercenary that just wants to get paid for sacking the temple as ordered?

Ah good times.

Evil can be played right. Just like Good can. Problem is, most people don't. If you're playing a Paladin, you've got a code of conduct which forces you to act like a douchebag who drags down the group to keep your superpowers. And if you're playing Evil, most of the time, people are doing it so they can go 'Huckhuck, I stab the blacksmith and take all his stuff because I'm evil!'. Just like people playing Malkavians tend towards them to play something which'd make the Animaniacs blush.

Hate the game, not the player; if the game didn't punish you for not acting like a Lawful Stupid Paladin, less people would play Lawful Stupid Paladins.

Another one I get all to often that is even better. The player, usually new, that wants to make a clone of their favorite character from books/movies/TV.

Because God forbid that someone new, in a game they don't understand, clings to an archetype they find cool and enjoyable. ;D

[Tsenta]

What about the age old  "If there's women there I want to do them!" players?  Or better yet, the DMs!  I swear more than half the games I've played that had female players the male DMs tried to hook up with them out-game and dropped the game when they got turned down.

[Chris Brady]

Still, this is generally a product of the system, rather than the players; lots of problems with Paladins tends to be alignment systems, which in 3.0/3.5 particularly, you have ONE code of conduct in common. When you've got a seven bulletpoint list of 'Unless you act this way, you become less useful than the Fighter', people tend to play the character exactly how that list dictates.

See this is part of the issue, no one wants to look past the words, and the letter of the law, rather than go with the spirit.

3.x actually got Alignment right.  They said it was more of a personal thing, that in the end, how you played it was as important as following it.  Lawful Good didn't have to follow unjust law systems.  Hell, they could rebel against previously just law systems if the system does more harm than good.

Lawful Good is about Justice, not Law.  (The other way around would be Lawful Neutral, which what most of the horror stories about Paladins were.  They stuck with the Lawful aspect and completely forgot about the equally important part:  Good.)

Hate the game, not the player; if the game didn't punish you for not acting like a Lawful Stupid Paladin, less people would play Lawful Stupid Paladins.

No, in this case it IS the players.  Because they heard 'stories' of bad Paladins so they assume, automatically, that all Paladins will be played that way.  I spent a good three months destroying that archetype in my first 3e game, by making out at least three separate Gods/esses that had Orders of Paladins, and each had different focus, one was anti-undead, to the point where she commanded her soldiers to seek them out first, among all other evils.  Another was anti-Demon/Devil, so on and so forth.

It's kind a like 3.x and then 4e's halflings where everyone immediately assumed that because they weren't fat, useless, cowardly homebodies as per Tolkien that they automatically were 'Kender' and immediately associated the archetype of asshole players to an entire fictional race.  Which is ironic as it sounds like they were blaming the game, for player behaviour.  Yes, Dragonlance said they were kleptomaniacs, but YOU the player didn't have to play them that way...  Because it says so in the book has never been a valid excuse for dickery, no matter what class, race or gender you play.

Because God forbid that someone new, in a game they don't understand, clings to an archetype they find cool and enjoyable. ;D

If they keep playing the same character after several years of gaming, that's when I take issue.

[Teo Torriatte]

What about the age old  "If there's women there I want to do them!" players?  Or better yet, the DMs!  I swear more than half the games I've played that had female players the male DMs tried to hook up with them out-game and dropped the game when they got turned down.

Related to this... players who expect their irl relationships with the GM/other players to bleed into the game.

"Wtf, your guy just stood there there while mine got shot in the back! I thought we were going out!"

"Um, no... my guy was half way across the room, fighting off god knows what and you went off by your own expecting me to drop everything and follow you like a puppy dog, even though our characters just met."

"That's it, no ***** tonight."

"Whatever."  :P

[Oniya]

It's kind a like 3.x and then 4e's halflings where everyone immediately assumed that because they weren't fat, useless, cowardly homebodies as per Tolkien that they automatically were 'Kender' and immediately associated the archetype of asshole players to an entire fictional race.  Which is ironic as it sounds like they were blaming the game, for player behaviour.  Yes, Dragonlance said they were kleptomaniacs, but YOU the player didn't have to play them that way...  Because it says so in the book has never been a valid excuse for dickery, no matter what class, race or gender you play.
If they keep playing the same character after several years of gaming, that's when I take issue.

I particularly enjoyed showing kender-players that 'real thief > kleptomaniac'.  The player was shocked when (after they had 'acquired' things from almost every player except the thief) a ring of giant strength somehow found its way from their pocket to my finger. O:)

[LunarSage]

Lord almighty I loathe Kender because of those players...

[Teo Torriatte]

I used to play with someone who made me similarly hate gnomes, just because he was so freaking obnoxious with them. His favorite character type was a gnome illusionist, and every single one of them seemed designed to be more obnoxious than the last.

[gaggedLouise]

I used to play with someone who made me similarly hate gnomes, just because he was so freaking obnoxious with them. His favorite character type was a gnome illusionist, and every single one of them seemed designed to be more obnoxious than the last.

;D

"The Laughing Gnome" by DAVID BOWIE video [BEST QUALITY] (World of Warcraft)

[Teo Torriatte]

I actually like David Bowie... but that gnome has GOT to go...

*squashes gnome*

There... I feel sooo much better now.  :D

[gaggedLouise]

I actually like David Bowie... but that gnome has GOT to go...

*squashes gnome*

There... I feel sooo much better now.  :D

"Haven't you got a gnome to go to?"

When Bowie did a world tour around 1990, billing it as the burial of his old song catalogue, he promised he would sing a track voted by the audience each night. The NME then started a campaign to get an audience in some place to vote for The Laughing Gnome.  ;)

[LunarSage]

...the players are horrified to find that unpleasant aspects of real life society such as racism, prejudice, sexism and intolerance exist in the GM's game world.  Perish the thought!  So many players seem to want a world full of monsters and magic that's completely devoid of the things they dislike about the real world.  As if the existence of magic is going to somehow make everyone get along.  Note that no one seems to have a problem with an entire society where men are treated like dirt (Drow), but even try and introduce (as a minor adversarial role meant to be overcome, mind you) an NPC bar patron who's sexist towards women and players come uncorked.

[Oniya]

We once broke a GM who brought in a (well-written) sexist society.  The females in the party decided to cross-dress, and the males gave them tips on how to behave.  The GM lost it when his wife's character acted on the advice of 'Remember:  Every now and then, you gotta "shift".'

I think he gave her and the guy who gave her the advice extra XP for that.

[Vanity Evolved]

See this is part of the issue, no one wants to look past the words, and the letter of the law, rather than go with the spirit.

3.x actually got Alignment right.  They said it was more of a personal thing, that in the end, how you played it was as important as following it.  Lawful Good didn't have to follow unjust law systems.  Hell, they could rebel against previously just law systems if the system does more harm than good.

Lawful Good is about Justice, not Law.  (The other way around would be Lawful Neutral, which what most of the horror stories about Paladins were.  They stuck with the Lawful aspect and completely forgot about the equally important part:  Good.)

No, in this case it IS the players.  Because they heard 'stories' of bad Paladins so they assume, automatically, that all Paladins will be played that way.  I spent a good three months destroying that archetype in my first 3e game, by making out at least three separate Gods/esses that had Orders of Paladins, and each had different focus, one was anti-undead, to the point where she commanded her soldiers to seek them out first, among all other evils.  Another was anti-Demon/Devil, so on and so forth.

It's kind a like 3.x and then 4e's halflings where everyone immediately assumed that because they weren't fat, useless, cowardly homebodies as per Tolkien that they automatically were 'Kender' and immediately associated the archetype of asshole players to an entire fictional race.  Which is ironic as it sounds like they were blaming the game, for player behaviour.  Yes, Dragonlance said they were kleptomaniacs, but YOU the player didn't have to play them that way...  Because it says so in the book has never been a valid excuse for dickery, no matter what class, race or gender you play.
If they keep playing the same character after several years of gaming, that's when I take issue.

Remember, Paladins are a special case. It's not 'They act like Lawful Good characters, therefore they're idiots and are corrupt'. Paladins are Lawful Good, with an additional 'By the way, you have to act like these, and violating these rules make you lose your divine powers' clause. This is the reason Paladins douche it up, not Lawful Good characters in general. Lawful Good characters can party with Evil characters, for example, while Paladins can't without losing their powers, etc.

I think 4e did Paladins right. They were un/holy warriors of

• with no additional moral complications than any other class, which -severely- helps with not getting the 'I am Good! I am not partner with Evil!' mentality that 3.x encourages Paladins follow. Making 'Orders' of Paladins may certainly help, but then you get a similar issue; you've not made Paladin less cliche. You've made it so there's simply different groups of cliches. Same with the Paladin variants in Unearthed Arcana.
  
  As for the Halflings, there's a little difference there. The game does tend to assume all Halflings go towards being rogues (I've never found people go towards Kender, though. Lots of Rogues I've played with do tend to follow the STEAL ALL THE THINGS deal, though), but unlike Paladin, the game doesn't punish you for not stealing everything by getting rid of your 'Rogue powers' if you don't steal everything nailed down.
  
  

  
  ...the players are horrified to find that unpleasant aspects of real life society such as racism, prejudice, sexism and intolerance exist in the GM's game world.  Perish the thought!  So many players seem to want a world full of monsters and magic that's completely devoid of the things they dislike about the real world.  As if the existence of magic is going to somehow make everyone get along.  Note that no one seems to have a problem with an entire society where men are treated like dirt (Drow), but even try and introduce (as a minor adversarial role meant to be overcome, mind you) an NPC bar patron who's sexist towards women and players come uncorked.
  

  
  See, I tend to like dodging this'n, as well. At least, in the snazzy little way Legends of the Wulin handles it. Sexism still exists, considering it's setting (a mixture of Ming, Tang and Qin China) but it doesn't apply to the majority of characters. Women are inferiors in the eyes of men, and social class is heavily enforced, but amongst the Wulin, that's all for naught. Kung Fu and skill determines your worth, not your gender or status outside of the Jianghu (However, if you want, you can accept a Disadvantage or such in the Loresheets for sex, etc. that complicates your life because of your gender or whatever if you really want it to, for example, the classic cross-dressing women in wuxia trying to sneak into sword schools to learn Kung Fu...)

[Chris Brady]

Remember, Paladins are a special case. It's not 'They act like Lawful Good characters, therefore they're idiots and are corrupt'. Paladins are Lawful Good, with an additional 'By the way, you have to act like these, and violating these rules make you lose your divine powers' clause. This is the reason Paladins douche it up, not Lawful Good characters in general. Lawful Good characters can party with Evil characters, for example, while Paladins can't without losing their powers, etc.

No, that's only if your GM is a dick.  Anyone who forces you stick verbatim to the Code listed, without deviation, is making Lawful Good into Lawful Neutral.  A Good God is not going to be an ASS about it, if the Paladin is trying his/her best.  GOOD ALIGNED GODS (Who have Paladins, almost exclusively) WILL understand that mortals are not perfect, and some failure is accepted.  Any GM who decides otherwise hates Paladins and is actively contributing to the Lawful Stupid archetype that the Paladin, who's supposed to be an 'effin' HERO, is an unplayable class.

Yes, in 2e and before, it was a bit horrible in how restrictive it was, but the game gave them some powers that could have been overpowered (No, not when you have Magic Users that CAN STOP FREAKIN' TIME!) so they had to 'balance' it somehow.  And failed miserably.

Hell, if anyone should be forcing their Paladins to fail, it's the Evil D&D Gods.  They won't care if they have a Blackguard in their service, they don't need 'champions' of Evil.  Anyone who stabs a neighbour over a trifle, vandalizes or razes fields and farmlands are doing their work.  And you don't need special powers to do that.

[Vanity Evolved]

No, that's only if your GM is a dick.  Anyone who forces you stick verbatim to the Code listed, without deviation, is making Lawful Good into Lawful Neutral.  A Good God is not going to be an ASS about it, if the Paladin is trying his/her best.  GOOD ALIGNED GODS (Who have Paladins, almost exclusively) WILL understand that mortals are not perfect, and some failure is accepted.  Any GM who decides otherwise hates Paladins and is actively contributing to the Lawful Stupid archetype that the Paladin, who's supposed to be an 'effin' HERO, is an unplayable class.

Yes, in 2e and before, it was a bit horrible in how restrictive it was, but the game gave them some powers that could have been overpowered (No, not when you have Magic Users that CAN STOP FREAKIN' TIME!) so they had to 'balance' it somehow.  And failed miserably.

Hell, if anyone should be forcing their Paladins to fail, it's the Evil D&D Gods.  They won't care if they have a Blackguard in their service, they don't need 'champions' of Evil.  Anyone who stabs a neighbour over a trifle, vandalizes or razes fields and farmlands are doing their work.  And you don't need special powers to do that.

Just saying. I agree that ignoring the Code is the easiest way to do things (but then, I don't allow Paladins in my games - I just use Clerics for the Paladin role). But still, just pointing out that three and a half generations of games with rules which demand you act in

• way will make people act in
• way. Just like giving people with high Strength big bonuses with two-handed weapons will make people with high Strength more likely to pick up two-handed weapons. It's hard to criticize a player, or a GM for following the rules a game gives you; blame the person who decided 'you have to act like this or become useless', not the GM who doesn't houserule it away or the player who follows the rules.

[Chris Brady]

...when the NPCs are the center of the plot and the PCs are along for the ride. Not just the GM's pet NPC who's the center of the universe, but when the campaign revolves around them.

This happened to me in one of the games I mentioned above. The NPC love interest for my character? They were central to the plot to the point where they were more important and had more effect on it then my character did. One of the other PCs (A normal human) had a NPC love interest who turned out to be a super-powered android, capable of pretty much killing anything in the game instantly while the PC watched on. In fact, the entire plot pretty much amounted to NPCs doing things to each other while the PC's killed a few monsters along the way.

So like most oWoD games then?  Where the NPCs drove the metaplot and the Players were along for the ride?   Especially the Werewolf adventures.

Sadly, a lot of people who play Exalted, or at least argue about it online, still believe that, often attributing incidents to the game world, by accepting that the short stories, or comics (depending on which edition) as Canon.  Even when everyone else says "NO THEY AREN'T!", even if the writers themselves say it's not...

[Skynet]

I hate it when...

... the DM says what kind of game they're running to a group, they agree, but all make characters completely unsuited to the game.

... a DM who gimps a PC and/or make overpowered encounters/NPCs on the spot as a personal vendetta against a PC.

... players who chronically show up late but never tell the group.

[LunarSage]

...when a player shows up at an otherwise sober game blatantly drunk or high.  Such disrespect.

...when one player hogs all the RP and does not allow anyone else to speak.

[TheGlyphstone]

...When a player is obviously bored or otherwise not enjoying themselves, but insists they're having fun and won't admit otherwise.

[ForAlbion]

-When someone's significant other joins the campaign so that they can still spend time with them, but then fails to show any interest in the game at all, sometimes also distracting him by constantly mooching for attention.

-When people attempt to do something in-game without actually looking up the appropriate rules beforehand (Not as big of a deal with an experienced DM, at least concerning general game knowledge, but if someone tries to use one of their class skills without knowing how, and then spends five minutes looking up the rules, they've got to go.)

-People who go out of their way to create characters that are unique, not in terms of character or backstory, but in terms of mechanics. In short, someone who tries to invent a whole new class. I once played with someone who wanted to have a character whose entire fighting style revolved around garroting people with a piano-wire fishing rod.

[Oniya]

-People who go out of their way to create characters that are unique, not in terms of character or backstory, but in terms of mechanics. In short, someone who tries to invent a whole new class. I once played with someone who wanted to have a character whose entire fighting style revolved around garroting people with a piano-wire fishing rod.

If I were GMing (hah!) I'd handle that like a bow and arrow 'to hit', (I assume that they were flinging or dropping a noose) and then a strength roll for damage.

Oh, and I'd include an NPC that would cryptically tell people to keep their hand at the level of their eyes. [/Broadway]

[WindVoyager]

players that nerf their characters

players who do tings like yell out 'I kick it in the balls'

God modding

Carbon copies of popular characters from TV\Movies\Books

Characters that are card board cut outs

The player who had their thief steal certain body parts from corpses, put them in a bag, then get mad when the Spectral Lantern didn't reanimate the pile of manly body parts

When a players significant other joins the game and they spend the whole session doing nothing but distracting the other player

The food hog. We all know one, the moch who never brings snacks and never chips in for food but will stuff their face with as much as possible

Any one who yells 'I shoot the darkness!"

[Endorphin]

Every single character that a particular player creates is; a cardboard cut-out that is useless, inept, socially retarded, doesn't fill the role expected of their class and fails to contribute to the group in a meaningful way... and somehow manages to survive when other, more highly regarded characters die because of them.

[Endorphin]

Then there's the GM's pet... who can sneak like a ninja, leap wide chasms with a single bound, use all skills untrained, cast spells never heard of, fight armies of undead, outwit the sphinx, persuade angry mobs, locate otherworldly artifacts in the most obscure places, train ancient red dragons to do their bidding, ride the terrasque and has all the best items in the party, endless gold, impenetrable armour, godly stats, unlimited hit points and somehow manages to achieve all of this before level 3.

[LunarSage]

Then there's the GM's pet... who can sneak like a ninja, leap wide chasms with a single bound, use all skills untrained, cast spells never heard of, fight armies of undead, outwit the sphinx, persuade angry mobs, locate otherworldly artifacts in the most obscure places, train ancient red dragons to do their bidding, ride the terrasque and has all the best items in the party, endless gold, impenetrable armour, godly stats, unlimited hit points and somehow manages to achieve all of this before level 3.

Heh I feel for you on that one, I really do.  It goes hand in hand with this:

...the GM is obviously biased in favor of a best friend or an SO?  (One GM in a game I was in let his best friend play a level 20 PC loaded to the gills with magic items in a game where everyone else was level 5 with little to no magic items.  When I confronted the GM about it, he shrugged and said that "every group has to have a Gandalf".)

[Endorphin]

No! Every group DOESN'T have to have a Gandalf! What a cretinous GM.

Actually, that's one of the things that bugged me about LotR. Gandalf was so super-awesome at everything. I would've enjoyed it a whole lot more if he put away his horseback-mounted-enemy-ass-kicking-staff and, instead, dropped a couple of well-placed fireballs or flamestrikes on the battlefield.

[Oniya]

Besides, Gandalf was always haring off and leaving the party in the lurch.  The dwarves in The Hobbit had to make it through Mirkwood and defeat Smaug all on their own.  He left The Fellowship in Moria and didn't show up again until the battle where Eowyn killed the Nazgul (No man am I!).  Not to mention, when he did show up, it wasn't with the main quest (destroying the Ring) but with the rear guard.

You want to be the group's Gandalf?  Live up (or down) to those standards!

[TheGlyphstone]

Relevant Comic Is Relevant.

[LunarSage]

Heh.  That's funny.

[HairyHeretic]

Also an entertaining read. There's a similar one called Darths and Droids that does Star Wars.

[Moraline]

Relevant Comic Is Relevant.

That's bloody brilliant. Is it wrong that I mostly side with the GM on this one? I can't tell but I totally side with story over hack and slash. Honestly, those players are annoying me just reading the comic - but in a funny way.

[TheGlyphstone]

That's bloody brilliant. Is it wrong that I mostly side with the GM on this one? I can't tell but I totally side with story over hack and slash. Honestly, those players are annoying me just reading the comic - but in a funny way.

It's mean to be deliberately polarizing stereotypes from every direction, so no, you're not wrong. A group of uncreative and annoying hack-and-slash players teamed up with a ridiculously overbearing professional railroad GM, no one in that comic is supposed to look good. :D

Except Gimli's player, he's the only veteran and he's awesome for snarking at everyone else, GM and players alike.

[Inari]

When at a con, a GM you know knows you have always wanted to play a Maid and makes a point to assure the group he has been playing with over the weekend that you are perverse enough for the game. (Informed them I cosplayed a futa and was in charge of hentai panel at the previous con.) Then once you get your stats sorted and things start everyone suddenly has to go... and that was the last session they were playing that day... and it was the last day of the con. :(

[Lux12]

When people squabble over a piece of loot, throw caution to the wind and endanger the whole party, commit random acts of violence for no good reason, make ridiculous demands from people in game, and spend all their funds on the most useless crap.... It happens more than I would like.

[TheGlyphstone]

When people squabble over a piece of loot, throw caution to the wind and endanger the whole party, commit random acts of violence for no good reason, make ridiculous demands from people in game, and spend all their funds on the most useless crap.... It happens more than I would like.

There are groups that don't behave like this?

[Lux12]

There are groups that don't behave like this?

Believe it or not yes.

[Chris Brady]

That's bloody brilliant. Is it wrong that I mostly side with the GM on this one? I can't tell but I totally side with story over hack and slash. Honestly, those players are annoying me just reading the comic - but in a funny way.

Seeing as the GM Railroads his players, gets Super NPCs to do their job for them, and generally pretty much is the classic textbook bad GM...

I dunno.

[Lux12]

When you try your hardest to give the players a challenge and they still find easy ways around your traps or when you realize you've been a bit too generous.

[Tersius]

- When your DM's (and his wife who plays in the game) kitten jumps up on the table and begins batting around your dice, casting one across the room to be sucked into the sphere of annihilation that is underneath their fridge. Oh, and they think it's cute...

[Lux12]

When players, whether your gming or not, decide to rip their characters off from somewhere else or expect to be Gods at level one.

[Chris Brady]

..The game fights you.

Exalted, Palladium's Heroes Unlimited (more like extremely limited), D&D (3rd ed namely, but a little of 2nd and a LOT of 4th), as a GM I was expecting something else, especially with Exalted, OK, I was expecting what was written on the tin, what I got was...  Nearly unplayable.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, when a game (Exalted 2e) has an Official Errata that is a noticeable percentage of the actual rulebook in terms of relative size, you know you have a problem. The Ink Monkeys do their best, but still...

[Lux12]

When the DM goes out of their way to make your characters and their skills useless.

[Songbird]

Ohhh, I have a looong list, but I'll just start with one. ;D

Don't you hate it when a P&P RPG becomes all hack'n'slash without any actual roleplay? It drives me nuts, especially since my favorite class, Bard, is skilled at gleaning information from NPCs. I love talking to NPCs and learning just why the Duke is so hated before racing off to the castle to kill him. It feels as if adventuring is becoming more "kill now, ask questions later" than the other way around. As somewhat who appreciates a good plot, that irritates me to no end. >:(

[Tsenta]

On the opposite side, when a P&P becomes all about RP and to hell with the systems.  IT'S NOT D&D WITHOUT ROLLS GOSH DARNIT! >(

[Songbird]

On the opposite side, when a P&P becomes all about RP and to hell with the systems.  IT'S NOT D&D WITHOUT ROLLS GOSH DARNIT! >(

LOL, true, it's good to have balance. :-) One of the benefits of online roleplaying is that you rarely need to strictly follow the original game's mechanics. In a P&P game, though, following the rules is a must, and prevents players from being too invincible.

[TheGlyphstone]

LOL, true, it's good to have balance. :-) One of the benefits of online roleplaying is that you rarely need to strictly follow the original game's mechanics. In a P&P game, though, following the rules is a must, and prevents players from being too invincible.

Depends on what game you're playing, there. In D&D, for example, a highly skilled player with a sufficiently (9-11+) level Wizard can be all but invincible while holding strictly to the letter of the rules, and very, very well protected before that - so it's important to know when to stick with the rules, when to bend them for a good story, and how much of both you and your players can agree on to make everyone happy.

[Skynet]

Depends on what game you're playing, there. In D&D, for example, a highly skilled player with a sufficiently (9-11+) level Wizard can be all but invincible while holding strictly to the letter of the rules, and very, very well protected before that - so it's important to know when to stick with the rules, when to bend them for a good story, and how much of both you and your players can agree on to make everyone happy.

This last part is the most important.  I can't tell you how many bad and unintuitive rules I've encountered in RPGs that my group house-ruled.

[TheGlyphstone]

This last part is the most important.  I can't tell you how many bad and unintuitive rules I've encountered in RPGs that my group house-ruled.

Very much so. A lot of games have rules that'll crash everything if they're not handled properly...but on the flip side, very little ruins a game as a fast as poorly thought out or ill-considered houseruling. (Not sure which one you were talking about here).

Oh, and to add to the list, while being on-topic:
-When a GM makes spot-rulings against the rules (to varying degrees of sensibility/insanity) and justifies it with 'oh, that's a house-rule I made up', when such a rule was never explained beforehand to any of the players, and usually is never brought up again.

[Skynet]

Usually the best way for house rules is to discuss the problem with the players, see if anybody agrees and hear varying opinions.  A GM is like a referee: he's there to help make sense of bad rules by ruling a certain way, but if he makes too many arbitrary and ill-thought out house rules then he can lose his players.  Doubly so if he pulls a new house rule out of thin air to screw over a player.

[Songbird]

Depends on what game you're playing, there. In D&D, for example, a highly skilled player with a sufficiently (9-11+) level Wizard can be all but invincible while holding strictly to the letter of the rules, and very, very well protected before that - so it's important to know when to stick with the rules, when to bend them for a good story, and how much of both you and your players can agree on to make everyone happy.

Well said! :D

Usually the best way for house rules is to discuss the problem with the players, see if anybody agrees and hear varying opinions.  A GM is like a referee: he's there to help make sense of bad rules by ruling a certain way, but if he makes too many arbitrary and ill-thought out house rules then he can lose his players.  Doubly so if he pulls a new house rule out of thin air to screw over a player.

Equally well said! :D

That's why the inclusion of a DM/GM is so important in P&P Roleplaying. He (or she) can bend the rules enough to make the game a more enjoyable experience, but he also holds PCs accountable for their choices. It's become a cliche, but the DM really is a god when it comes to the direction of the game and its players. Unfortunately, DMs are human, and like the rest of us they have their flaws, so all too often one finds oneself stuck with a DM who is either tyrannical, biased, ignorant, or a poor storyteller. Having DMed a few times myself, I know that it can be frustrating keeping track of absolutely everything that happens during an adventure, or having the PCs take a route you hadn't prepared for. It's a full time job to keep an adventure cohesive, fun, detailed, and fair.

One thing I hate is when players are not honest about their rolls. It's just so immature and obvious. >:( If you make a bad roll, be an adult and admit it. I'd rather miss the troll than lie about about it.

[Slywyn]

I've been reading the comic you guys posted here a while back, and just... lol. It's awesome.

I've only ever played one DnD game(And it was over the internet here at E), and my only quibble that arose from it was someone rolling a needlessly bad character. They weren't useless, just... bad.

Also someone quit after the first turn and that both amused and confused me. xD

[TheGlyphstone]

Well said! :D

Equally well said! :D

That's why the inclusion of a DM/GM is so important in P&P Roleplaying. He (or she) can bend the rules enough to make the game a more enjoyable experience, but he also holds PCs accountable for their choices. It's become a cliche, but the DM really is a god when it comes to the direction of the game and its players. Unfortunately, DMs are human, and like the rest of us they have their flaws, so all too often one finds oneself stuck with a DM who is either tyrannical, biased, ignorant, or a poor storyteller. Having DMed a few times myself, I know that it can be frustrating keeping track of absolutely everything that happens during an adventure, or having the PCs take a route you hadn't prepared for. It's a full time job to keep an adventure cohesive, fun, detailed, and fair.

One thing I hate is when players are not honest about their rolls. It's just so immature and obvious. >:( If you make a bad roll, be an adult and admit it. I'd rather miss the troll than lie about about it.

Unless you're playing a game that's designed to have no GM, or no single GM. I've heard of them, though never played one.

[Songbird]

Unless you're playing a game that's designed to have no GM, or no single GM. I've heard of them, though never played one.

I've never played a P&P roleplaying game without a DM before. It's almost hard for me to imagine it! ;D

[TheGlyphstone]

I've never played a P&P roleplaying game without a DM before. It's almost hard for me to imagine it! ;D

They tend to also be very rules-light systems, and produced by indie RPG companies. Fiasco! is the most famous among them.

[Avis habilis]

They tend to also be very rules-light systems, and produced by indie RPG companies. Fiasco! is the most famous among them.

Also Polaris & its supplement Thou Art But A Warrior. I've played Fiasco & TABAW. Fiasco was a hoot & a half; we couldn't finish TABAW. Can't say whether it was just because we were struggling to grok the system or we took too long a break between sessions.

[Moraline]

From a GM's perspective...

When players insist that dice rolls are needed for everything and they insist on following the rulebooks to the letter instead of listening to their GM.

The GM is God with a capital G in the game. They are the essence and force of everything in the universe, just let them do their jobs and if they suck at it, then so bet it - get a new one.

Major pet peeve... When players lack enough creativity to think their way out a room with a unlocked door because they insist on using dice rolls to do it. (Wet paper bag metaphor)
- Stop trying to roll observations rolls or pick locks or whatever and just turn the bloody door knob you uncreative lack of imagination fools! You don't need dice rolls to resolve everything.

PS: Even if the door was locked, if it's made of thin wood, just kick the f@#ing thing in! Stop trying to make people roll dice for it! I'm pretty damn positive that your 290 lbs 6'6" tall Orc is capable of kicking in a tiny door with little to no effort... I won't make you roll dice for it.. don't make me roll them too.

Player's perspective...

On the same note.. Stupid GM's that ask you to make all those damn observation rolls and everything under the sun for obvious stuff like.. "It was sitting in the top drawer!"  Are you serious GM? When I said.. "I search the drawers" You as a GM could not have figured out that I most likely would have.. you know.. opened the damn drawer? Why the hell do I need to roll for that?!

GM's and Players that insist on rolling dice for every piece of combat....

If the players highly trained hand to hand combat operative gets into a bar fight with some untrained drunkard... please for the love of all things.. don't make me roll dice for it.. not as a GM.. and not as a player..

Is it god-modding for a player to respond to that combat by saying, "GM, can I handle this person easily enough?" Of course it is.. but if the GM says it's alright.. then guess what.. it is alright... DICE ROLLS AREN'T NEEDED ALL THE TIME!  The player should be allowed at this point to use one of his/her fancy kick ass hand to hand combat moves like it's a movie stunt scene if they want to. 

Player should be allowed to say, "Hey, GM.. When the guy takes a swing at me I'll just shove them over into the wall, jump up and doing a flying round house kick to that persons face and knock him out." 

GM should respond, "Hell yeah.. that'd be badass.. Alright.. no problem.. That person is down and out.... moving along then."


In closing...

Stupid ass dice rolls annoy me, both as a player and as a GM.

Lets just get on the with story and/or adventure and feel free to have a little fun and let loose with your fancy abilities once in awhile just for the sake of fun.

Not everything has to be about rules, dice and what the books tell you. If something doesn't make sense in the moment(or in the books) then defer to the GM's judgement and just enjoy the role playing.

[Slywyn]

Between reading these and reading that comic...

I really want to play DnD now. ><

[Songbird]

Between reading these and reading that comic...

I really want to play DnD now. ><

Oh, you must! :D It can be confusing to get the hang of it at first, but you'll become addicted in no time! ;D

[Slywyn]

I really want to. But I'd rather do it online(though IMs or ... a forum, or something) because I don't like doing things in person. ><

[Oniya]

Occasionally, you do see 'System' games listed.  I was in one a long time ago, but I know there are still a number of members who actually prefer that method of group RP.

[Chris Brady]

From a GM's perspective...

When players insist that dice rolls are needed for everything and they insist on following the rulebooks to the letter instead of listening to their GM.

The GM is God with a capital G in the game. They are the essence and force of everything in the universe, just let them do their jobs and if they suck at it, then so bet it - get a new one.

Major pet peeve... When players lack enough creativity to think their way out a room with a unlocked door because they insist on using dice rolls to do it. (Wet paper bag metaphor)
- Stop trying to roll observations rolls or pick locks or whatever and just turn the bloody door knob you uncreative lack of imagination fools! You don't need dice rolls to resolve everything.

PS: Even if the door was locked, if it's made of thin wood, just kick the f@#ing thing in! Stop trying to make people roll dice for it! I'm pretty damn positive that your 290 lbs 6'6" tall Orc is capable of kicking in a tiny door with little to no effort... I won't make you roll dice for it.. don't make me roll them too.

Player's perspective...

On the same note.. Stupid GM's that ask you to make all those damn observation rolls and everything under the sun for obvious stuff like.. "It was sitting in the top drawer!"  Are you serious GM? When I said.. "I search the drawers" You as a GM could not have figured out that I most likely would have.. you know.. opened the damn drawer? Why the hell do I need to roll for that?!

GM's and Players that insist on rolling dice for every piece of combat....

If the players highly trained hand to hand combat operative gets into a bar fight with some untrained drunkard... please for the love of all things.. don't make me roll dice for it.. not as a GM.. and not as a player..

Is it god-modding for a player to respond to that combat by saying, "GM, can I handle this person easily enough?" Of course it is.. but if the GM says it's alright.. then guess what.. it is alright... DICE ROLLS AREN'T NEEDED ALL THE TIME!  The player should be allowed at this point to use one of his/her fancy kick ass hand to hand combat moves like it's a movie stunt scene if they want to. 

Player should be allowed to say, "Hey, GM.. When the guy takes a swing at me I'll just shove them over into the wall, jump up and doing a flying round house kick to that persons face and knock him out." 

GM should respond, "Hell yeah.. that'd be badass.. Alright.. no problem.. That person is down and out.... moving along then."


In closing...

Stupid ass dice rolls annoy me, both as a player and as a GM.

Lets just get on the with story and/or adventure and feel free to have a little fun and let loose with your fancy abilities once in awhile just for the sake of fun.

Not everything has to be about rules, dice and what the books tell you. If something doesn't make sense in the moment(or in the books) then defer to the GM's judgement and just enjoy the role playing.

Training.  A lot of the early games have this 'issue', because they were based off war games/simulation.  A lot of the older generation teach the younger what they knew.  Patience and smiles can break it.  And sometimes players like to roll the dice for no other reason than to roll dice.

Also assumptions, human beings in general, will immediately assume that if it's not stated, then it isn't possible.  It is on the GM to make sure that all available details are there.  Which again trains the players into asking questions that you might want asked.

Finally, patience.  Not every one gets the same clues as you might.  What seems obvious to you might not be to everyone else, and as GMs we need to realize this.

Also I personally take exception to being God as a GM.  I am not.  I build the world in broad sweeping strokes, place towns, events (aka Dungeons and/or Adventures as the case may be), make some non player characters, and then I let the horde of cats (aka Players) loose.  And it is on them to do what they want.  I will provide guidance and adjudication as the situation merits, but I run games for people.  I do not run them for myself, I have my personal stories for that.

Besides, players will latch on the strangest NPCs.  I could be here all day telling you tales of how players became fascinated with no name characters that were there for colour, loving them for the weirdest of things.  I personally have learned to go with the flow of it.

In short, as a GM, I am a judge, rules arbiter and world builder, I may seem I have a lot of power, and thus wear the Viking Hat, but I am nothing without my horde, and it's up to me to be fair, impartial and if the case may be, on their side.

I apologize for this bit of a rant, but this is a bit of a pet peeve to me.  And yes, I am likely blowing it out of proportion, but it's to make my point, not to pick on you.  Apologies if it seems that way.

[TheGlyphstone]

It's not a terrible analogy, but the way I look at it, a GM is a God the way the players are the Priests. The two need each other to have any actual meaning to their titles - priests need something to be a priest of, and a god with no worshipers is a crappy and/or dead god (God Needs Prayer Badly might apply). Similarly, a GM has only the power that the players allow, which can include voting with their feet, so a GM who plays the tyrant guard one too many times or isn't willing to meet the players at some degree of compromise is going to find themselves without any game to run.

[Chris Brady]

At the same time, the term God, usually evokes an image of fire and brimstone, and unyielding mountain.  To me.  And various groups I've run with, which is totally and completely anecdotal.

[TheGlyphstone]

At the same time, the term God, usually evokes an image of fire and brimstone, and unyielding mountain.  To me.  And various groups I've run with, which is totally and completely anecdotal.

Maybe I'm too influenced by said RPGs, where the Gods actually do need their worshippers/priests, and can't be too arbitrary or unfair lest they lose out to a competing deity. Fire and brimstone are for the other guy's followers, you treat yours nicely if you want to keep them.

[Songbird]

At the same time, the term God, usually evokes an image of fire and brimstone, and unyielding mountain.  To me.  And various groups I've run with, which is totally and completely anecdotal.

As an ardent fan of Pelor, I like to think of a D&D "god/DM" as a friendly adviser and guardian. :-) Granted, not all of them are, but I'm a pretty optimistic person in general. ;D

[Moraline]

I said my piece on this subject earlier.. (on GM's) "They are the essence and force of everything in the universe, just let them do their jobs and if they suck at it (or you don't like them,) then so bet it - get a new one."

[TheGlyphstone]

As an ardent fan of Pelor, I like to think of a D&D "god/DM" as a friendly adviser and guardian. :-) Granted, not all of them are, but I'm a pretty optimistic person in general. ;D

You mean Pelor, the Burning Hate? ;D

I said my piece on this subject earlier.. (on GM's) "They are the essence and force of everything in the universe, just let them do their jobs and if they suck at it (or you don't like them,) then so bet it - get a new one."

And that's your right to feel that way, just as it is the player's right to wander off, as you said, and get a DM who's willing to work with them rather than over them. Cooperative DMs, in addition to having a larger player pool, can also end up with a lower total workload if the players are willing or even eager to shoulder some of the burden of things like world-generating, NPC ideas, and such things...plus, they tend to be more involved and/or interested in a game they feel they've personally contributed to.

[Songbird]

You mean Pelor, the Burning Hate? ;D

*Gasp* :o Blasphemer! May the Shining One smite thee! >:(

(Not really. ;) That is a scary theory though! Next thing you know, Nerull will be helping little old ladies cross the street! ;D)

[TheGlyphstone]

I love TBH, it's such a fun theory of total insanity with a suspiciously large amount of circumstantial 'proof'.

[Songbird]

I love TBH, it's such a fun theory of total insanity with a suspiciously large amount of circumstantial 'proof'.

It makes for an interesting plot! :D What if a cosmic catastrophe happened in which all of the deities' alignments were changed to the exact opposite? Heironeous would be Chaotic Evil, Erythnul would be Lawful Good... it would be a disaster! :o Boccob and his followers would probably be the only ones unscathed! ;D

[TheGlyphstone]

It makes for an interesting plot! :D What if a cosmic catastrophe happened in which all of the deities' alignments were changed to the exact opposite? Heironeous would be Chaotic Evil, Erythnul would be Lawful Good... it would be a disaster! :o Boccob and his followers would probably be the only ones unscathed! ;D

Or they'd go insane...the Helm of Opposite Alignment, when placed on a True Neutral character, causes them to become one of the four most polarized alignments at random. You think a Neutral Evil Pelor is scary, howbout a Chaotic Evil Boccob?

[Skynet]

Speaking of an Evil Pelor...

[Slywyn]

That was linked a few posts up. xD

[Skynet]

How did I miss that?!  I feel so embarassed. :-[

[Slywyn]

Happens to everyone. <3

[Songbird]

Or they'd go insane...the Helm of Opposite Alignment, when placed on a True Neutral character, causes them to become one of the four most polarized alignments at random. You think a Neutral Evil Pelor is scary, howbout a Chaotic Evil Boccob?

Eeek! Now THAT is scary! :o

Speaking of an Evil Pelor...

Blasphemer! *whips out my silver holy symbol of Pelor* In the name of the Shining One, I smite thee! >:(

*Grin* Just kidding! ;D As I said before, it's a scary theory! I'm not buying it, though. It's probably just an evil plot cooked up by Vecna, planted in an old tome to shake Pelor's church to the roots. ;)

[Oniya]

Probably the same old tome that gives you instructions on how to use the Head of Vecna.

[TheGlyphstone]

If it was a plot by Vecna, no one would know about it to begin with - he is the God of Secrets, after all, and it'd be against his interests to have another Neutral Evil god to compete against for worshipers. So he surely knows the truth, but isn't telling anyone - and if it is a slander, it's more likely to be perpetuated by a rival Good god.

[Moraline]

Just a personal annoyance here.

It drives me crazy when players insist on writing up overly convoluted back stories for their characters and hold up everyone else from playing because it's just soooo important that they get it finished before we begin.

You know the kind of back story I'm talking about. The one where it's like a soap opera and everyone is tied into everyone in some way, shape, or form. Where the player's personal history involves multiple interwoven relationships, schools, has lived all over the world and something different has happened to them to profoundly impact their lives at every location.

The back story becomes this land mine where no other player in the game dare says anything or do anything with this person because it will in someway trigger them to go on a 1 hour back story revealing spiel... That player expects the game master to bring in elements of that characters back story into every play session - because it's just soooo important.

[TheGlyphstone]

Ooh, that's a good one, and it reminds me of another of my peeves - GMs who require such lengthy backstories but don't use them, like they're some kind of mandatory writing assignment to prove you're dedicated to the game. I actually had a GM who mandated a two-page, double-spaced, 12-font backstory once with the qualifier 'must end in an accident involving planar travel', and the resultant campaign started with us being sent to another universe where none of those huge backstories were ever relevant, effectively wasting a few hours of everyone's time for no good reason.

[Songbird]

If it was a plot by Vecna, no one would know about it to begin with - he is the God of Secrets, after all, and it'd be against his interests to have another Neutral Evil god to compete against for worshipers. So he surely knows the truth, but isn't telling anyone - and if it is a slander, it's more likely to be perpetuated by a rival Good god.

Hmmm... I don't think it would have been a plot spread by another good-aligned god. After all, lying for one's own benefit at the expense of someone else could be considered an evil act, and a lie as big as this (assuming it is a lie) would be a major, major one. I just can't imagine Heironeous, Kord, Ehlonna, or any of the other good gods perpetrating such a scheme. On the other hand, perhaps a misguided cleric of another good god spreads the rumor in order to boost his own deity's number of worshipers. ;)

On reflection, I agree with you that Vecna wouldn't simply reveal so powerful a secret. He's be more likely to blackmail Pelor and force him to give up some of his divine power under the threat of revealing it to his clergy. Oh, Vecna, you devious boney blackmailer. ;D

Just a personal annoyance here.

It drives me crazy when players insist on writing up overly convoluted back stories for their characters and hold up everyone else from playing because it's just soooo important that they get it finished before we begin.

You know the kind of back story I'm talking about. The one where it's like a soap opera and everyone is tied into everyone in some way, shape, or form. Where the player's personal history involves multiple interwoven relationships, schools, has lived all over the world and something different has happened to them to profoundly impact their lives at every location.

The back story becomes this land mine where no other player in the game dare says anything or do anything with this person because it will in someway trigger them to go on a 1 hour back story revealing spiel... That player expects the game master to bring in elements of that characters back story into every play session - because it's just soooo important.

I like to create thorough back stories for my characters, but more for the DM's reference than my own glorification. I agree that having a character thrust his past into play at every opportunity can be super annoying. I think the only exception would be especially proud elves or dwarves, who might be prone to lecturing the younger races in a "When I was young, I..." kind of way. As a DM, having some background information on a character can be extremely useful plot-wise, as one can occasionally "hit them close to home" by having some menace threaten their hometown or loved ones. Dark revelations about a player's bloodline is always fun too. ;)

[Callie Del Noire]

Ooh, that's a good one, and it reminds me of another of my peeves - GMs who require such lengthy backstories but don't use them, like they're some kind of mandatory writing assignment to prove you're dedicated to the game. I actually had a GM who mandated a two-page, double-spaced, 12-font backstory once with the qualifier 'must end in an accident involving planar travel', and the resultant campaign started with us being sent to another universe where none of those huge backstories were ever relevant, effectively wasting a few hours of everyone's time for no good reason.

Ooooo.  That is just wrong!  I try to work the stories into what the GM plans but that would be evil!

[Slywyn]

I have a question. What does P&P mean in reference to games like DnD? Pickup and play? Pay and play? Putz and pull?

I've been thinking about it and nothing I think of seems to make sense.

[TheGlyphstone]

I have a question. What does P&P mean in reference to games like DnD? Pickup and play? Pay and play? Putz and pull?

I've been thinking about it and nothing I think of seems to make sense.

Pen & Paper or Pencil& Paper.

[Oniya]

Pen & Paper or Pencil& Paper.

Basically, table-top instead of online. (Or at least one with a human GM instead of an MMO program.)

[Slywyn]

Oh. Derp. And wait, there's ways to play with a computer DM?

[TheGlyphstone]

Oh. Derp. And wait, there's ways to play with a computer DM?

Computer RPG games, or MMOs. You'll never get a computer game that can accurately recreate the entire tabletop experience, which is why they're distinguished from the tabletop versions (which can be played over the computer via forums, emails, IM, or things, but are still considered P&P games because it's human-to-human interaction).

[Slywyn]

Oooh.

See, I understood it as being, like, DNd but played online. Like, gather a few friends and play through pre-created adventures, with the computer or site being the "dm".

Or something.

[TheGlyphstone]

Oooh.

See, I understood it as being, like, DNd but played online. Like, gather a few friends and play through pre-created adventures, with the computer or site being the "dm".

Or something.

That's what CRPGS like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, or Icewind Dale are - computer games that use the D&D setting and mechanics (of varying editions) with AI scripts directing the monsters/NPCs, pre-written dialogue options, and a pre-written adventure plot.

P&P refers to the actual books-and-character sheets game, with human players and a human DM. It can be played online through an electronic medium, but the key element is that the only involvement of a program is for stuff like dice-rolling.

[Slywyn]

Well I know what those are(I actually have NWN2 on my computer). What I thought it was was a DnD game except played online(text and character sheets and all), minimal graphics if anything at all.

Like... an actual DnD game, just online.

[Oniya]

Well, your standard MMO raid would be a 'few friends', a 'precreated adventure', and the server computer running all the NPCs.

[Slywyn]

Why is this difficult.

xD

[TheGlyphstone]

Why is this difficult.

xD

No, you've figured it out. P&P refers to actual RPG game, D&D or otherwise, whether it's played online or in person.

[Tsenta]

Oooh.

See, I understood it as being, like, DNd but played online. Like, gather a few friends and play through pre-created adventures, with the computer or site being the "dm".

Or something.

There are a handful of programs that allows people to play D&D and other P&P RPGs over the internet.  OpenRPG is a good one. They allow you to use maps, character sheets, dice rollers, etc.   So people can indeed get together and play a full D&D campaign online. :P

[Oniya]

I'd still 'count' that as P&P to some degree (although the guy who never brings munchies or similar contributions is seriously SOL in that case).  I'd also count 'System' games here as P&P to a similar degree.  Maybe I'm just strange that way.

[Slywyn]

There are a handful of programs that allows people to play D&D and other P&P RPGs over the internet.  OpenRPG is a good one. They allow you to use maps, character sheets, dice rollers, etc.   So people can indeed get together and play a full D&D campaign online. :P

I did some googling and found a few. :3

[Sasquatch421]

Way back when my group at NAS Pensacola had ended up mixing Vampire the Masquerade, D&D with some Battletech. To this day I'm still not sure how we pulled it off, but it was kind of fun. Though the one day our usual GM had duty, so one of the others tried their hand at the GM role.... I can stand some comedy in a game, but this guy... My big bad Brujah ended up facing off with like 15 fairies whose only goal seemed to be flying into every orifice my character had. My roles sucked that day as well so yeah...

I definitely was happy when the regular GM got off and could run a usual campaign which that night ended up being a LARP.

[TheGlyphstone]

Vampire + Battletech sounds like an awesome idea, actually.

[Moraline]

Vampire + Battletech sounds like an awesome idea, actually.

It is an awesome idea. They call it Palladium's RIFTS.


.. Here's another pet peeve.  When someone joins the game and only shows up about once every 2 or 3 times that you get together to play. It's soo frustrating. I know life does that to people but it doesn't stop it from being frustrating. Or even worse when a GM starts a mega campaign - gets a couple play sessions in then drops off the face of the Earth. Then suddenly pops back into the sessions unannounced expecting everyone to drop what they are doing and pick up the GM's game again.

Of course that is probably because usually when we adventured the stories had massive overarching plots that would often takes months to get through. That was just how we liked it.

[LunarSage]

RIFTS is every Genre you can think of stuffed into a blender and set to awesome.

It's an awesome setting but with about the shittiest system ever made.

[TheGlyphstone]

World of Synnibar and FATAL excluded, right?

[LunarSage]

You can't deny that the Palladium system is one of the worst, though.  This is from someone who started gaming with Heroes Unlimited and RIFTS.  Balance doesn't exist in RIFTS.

[Moraline]

This is the argument that I had previously. I love the Palladium system.

There isn't supposed to be class balance. That's the point. In real life when a guy with a hand gun faces off against a tank with a mounted machine gun on it, he doesn't stand a chance. He's not supposed to stand a chance!

The system in my opinion is balanced the way it should be. To me that is the real balance.

- A normal human can't fight a Vampire unless he can find a weapon to balance the odds.
- A normal human can't fight against a giant robot with missles and a massive energy cannon unless he can find a weapon to balance the odds.
- etc etc etc...

That's the fun in the system. You have to think, work and find ways to solve problems and do things to even the odds. Also, players need to use some common sense when playing. (ex: if someone takes an aimed shot with a sniper rifle and shoots a human through the head - they are dead. You don't need to roll damage.)

Also when grouping characters the GM isn't supposed to put tiny little human people together with massively super powered demi-gods unless it's meant to be some part of the story line.



Keep in mind here, I'm a story driven role player and GM. My role playing never involves battle simulation or turn based strategy.

Which leads to my next pet peeve when doing table top role playing.. players with no imagination.

All they see is the paper in front of them and the numbers on it. Another one is the miniatures that people obsess over - that's one of the many reasons I don't play with them and don't like miniatures - far too often all people can think about are the little statues and how many freaking blocks they can move next. It's a shame because I think the little things are cool but people get fixated on them and lose their imaginations.

[Chris Brady]

It's an awesome setting but with about the shittiest system ever made.

It is nothing more than AD&D 2e homebrewed, with lot's of odd rules.  Some of which are undefined or rewritten.  Like the recent (for its age compared to the system) -10 to Dodge bullets, lasers and other fast projectiles.  At one point you couldn't add anything other than your base stat bonus, if you had any.  Then you could add all your bonuses.  Then you could add none, then back to full bonuses.

Did you also know that until very recently there was no way to adjudicate perception?  And those very rules still aren't hammered down.

Here's a fun fact for you, and this happened regularly in my RIFTs game:  A five man crew with Coalition class (as in the MDC) armour, armed with old C-12 (or was it the C-14s?  I forget), could take down most North American mechs in ONE round.  Oh yes, they had missiles that could target out to miles, but if your radar couldn't track out past 1000ft, your not firing any of them at all.  According to the rules.  And the average rifle had an effective range of about 2000ft, if I remember correctly.  Waste of military funds to invest in a robot that a mere squad of soldiers or banditos can destroy in about 15 seconds.  Especially that for the same price you could house, feed and still pay four full squads for the price of one UAR-1 robot.  With added survivability.

The issue with the Palladium system is dependent on you the Player.  How much of it do you want ignore?  How much of it will you modify to 'make it work' for you?  And what's the limit of either before you throw your hands into the air and say "Fuck it" and go to another system that would work better for you.

Only one person can decide that.  And that is YOU.  And each persons limit is different.

[Shjade]

Guess what alignment I don't allow in any game I run?

Dis make sad. D:

Just started my first ever D&D game last week and, must admit, I was considering LE for my first character: monk, courtesan profession, figured she could come up with all manner of ways to manipulate clients and other folk into twisting situations to her unfair advantage with the proper leverage.

Decided to go neutral, though. Seemed a little ambitious to deal with that layer of possibly destructive self-interest on top of learning how gaem werk.

[Oniya]

Well, to be fair, Glyph said he didn't allow people to play EEEEEEVIL.

Looks to me like you've still got at least 5 more E's to go!  ;D

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah...by the standards of the people who caused me to make that rule, you've just described someone who could multiclass to Paladin and take Exalted feats.

[Shjade]

Yeah...by the standards of the people who caused me to make that rule, you've just described someone who could multiclass to Paladin and take Exalted feats.

I...I don't know what half of that means. D:

[LunarSage]

You have to be Lawful Good to be a Paladin and you have to pretty much be a saint to take Exalted feats.

[TheGlyphstone]

You have to be Lawful Good to be a Paladin and you have to pretty much be a saint to take Exalted feats.

Pretty much. So compared to the 'EEEEEVIL' that I'm used to, your manipulative twisty monk-courtesan is a candidate for sainthood.

[LunarSage]

...when the GM doesn't want to let his or her players use Detect Magic or Detect Evil? 

"Uh... you activate the spell and you're blinded by the awesome power of the magic/evil in the area.  Make a Fort save".

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah...there's so many trivial ways to foil Detect spells as plot-breakers, you should never need to resort to ham-handedness. If they turn on Detect X and are blasted by the overwhelming aura, that should be an important piece of information, not just arbitrarily shutting off their power.

[Oniya]

Occasionally, that's because the player should know better (for example, casting 'Detect Magic' in the town's magical item shop, or 'Detect Evil' in the Temple of Elemental Evil.)

[uncletuku]

When the GM gives a challenge that is easy in his mind because he is old enough to have played with gygax as a GM (And Has played with gygax) then scolds the players because they didn't think of the proper way to defeat the monster.

We had something happen in the desert....Long narrow (5 ft across) staircase down to a tomb where there was some mummy creature that put off a heat aurora. Combat took forever but we won with no casualties but after the fight was over the GM was like  "Come on guys how did you not see the obvious solution .....Go stand outside and attack from range, he could not leave the tomb anyway!"  It turned a fun hard fought battle agianst a seemingly insurmountable foe into an annoying memory of that scolding.

Its your first time GMing and your players throw things at you on purpose just to throw you for a loop.

[NotoriusBEN]

I've been guilty of that.

It was near the end of a campaign, and we had to storm a castle on a precarious cliff side. We stormed the gates with our NPC forces over a bridge that if spanned over nothingness. If you fell, it was pretty much a death sentence. Lo and behold, as we started hitting the gate, the giant golem statue animated and started wreaking house. The thing was pretty tough, since you couldnt crit them and any smart super villan put wards on it to keep em from being instagibed. In essence, it was supposed to be a fight on par with any of Kratos v. what god. You climb the thing, hit runes on it, trip it up or something.

I had a few beers so I wasn't thinking in my right state of mind, and I thought I had a brilliant idea. I said "Fuck this noise." and promptly cast a Disintegration Ray at ground around the golem's feet. The ground that was a bridge over nothingness. Huge boss fight that's supposed to take the rest of the night is over in like 10seconds and I got everyone looking at me like I'm bigger that Gandalf. Everyone just laughed the rest of the night thinking about where this golem fell to and how it probably dropped on a couple goblin guards pulling night shift.

[Oniya]

Yep.  Been there.  Evil mage was trying to control my scout character, and the GM went into the traditional 'Evil Overlord Monologue^TM' culminating in 'Come to me, my child.' with his hand stretched out.  We'd been told that we could only defeat this guy if we attacked him between two magic mirrors.  I made my saving throw and said 'M___?  Is his hand between the mirrors?'  The GM looked at his own outstretched hand, and promptly clapped it to his forehead.

[Atarn]

I'll add one of my own here:
When the GM expects the players to do everything by the book, but uses a truckload of weird homebrew stuff for NPCS.
In a DnD campaign I'm in the enemy uses Godly Magic or Technology, neither which can be affected by the players "arcane" magic. However they can affect the PC's just fine.
It's like you're playing DnD, but the GM is using BESM for his characters.

[Skynet]

I don't like it when I invest a lot of Character Points/effort to make my character good at social skills, only for the GM to negate it by saying that I have to come up with a sublimely excellent argument to convince other NPCs to do something.  I don't need to know how to pick a lock to play a Thief, or how to swing a sword to play a warrior; PCs are often more talented at stuff than the players, why not allow PCs to be more charming as well?

[LunarSage]

I don't like it when I invest a lot of Character Points/effort to make my character good at social skills, only for the GM to negate it by saying that I have to come up with a sublimely excellent argument to convince other NPCs to do something.  I don't need to know how to pick a lock to play a Thief, or how to swing a sword to play a warrior; PCs are often more talented at stuff than the players, why not allow PCs to be more charming as well?

+1

I hate that.  If I was that freaking charming in real life, I would have better things to do with my time than pretending to be someone charming in a role-playing-game!  >.<