ITT: Experiences with players you hate

>New player joins
>Plays as rogue
>Wears all black
>Dual wields

>Checks every room for traps
>Barters as much as he can

I mean DUAL WIELDING is pretty gay, but if you were living in a traditional dnd world you'd probably barter a lot too.

I dunno, those last two sound normal if you like living lavishly and being notstabbed by invisible spikes

>Party is bound together by pretty much nothing than genuinely caring for their fellow men and a yearning to understand the world

>New player genuinely cares for gold and yearn to do anything to earn it
>The party almost disband

>player makes a character that imposes a huge burden on the rest of the group, i.e. a paladin or monster race
>player deliberately and routinely tries to ruin other players' fun because "muh character/alignment"
>player doesn't even try to pay attention outside of combat, stutters through all dislogue, and does other shut like play hearthstone while playing
>player has no character beyond a stereotype/characrer from media they're ripping off (I just straight up ban dwarves these days)
>player expects the world to conform to video game logic, such as there being "dungeons" to loot
>player constantly talks about their stats, build, and abilities they might get in 10 levels

That sounds like a dumb thing to hate.

>Player joins
>Character Refuses to join the party and goes off to do his own thing.

Except that the merchant's would also most likely not want to lower the prices, and it ruins the price I set, which in return, ruins the balance.

As for the traps, I'd usually tell the players, when to roll, to see if they notice the traps.

How'd the party almost disband? What'd the new player do?
Why not have the party kick the new member out?

>Except that the merchant's would also most likely not want to lower the prices

A merchant would rather make a sale than make marginally more money an unknown amount of time from now.

>Except that the merchant's would also most likely not want to lower the prices
Yes. That's what barter is all about: convincing the other guy he got more than you out of it while it's actually the opposite. That's why it's a difficult skill to master, and why merchant probably have a lot of skillpoints in it.

>and it ruins the price I set, which in return, ruins the balance.
If the players get more gold one way or another, add more monsters. If your equation is any harder, you might be doing it wrong.

Yeah, you know, deception is used EXACTLY to make people do what they usually wouldn't.
Then again, is it too difficult to calculate something like a stupid 20% discount? Chances are that you're one of those boring, railroading GMs (>balance), or just baiting. I hope for the latter.
Then ugh, TELLING your players where the traps are, ruining their immersion. Wow.

>and it ruins the price I set, which in return, ruins the balance.
Your balance is so fine that a player getting a 10% discount on some purchases "ruins" it?

Please tell us you're not playing D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, or D&D fifth ed. Because if you're running any of those and you're worried about a martial character breaking the game with a clearance-sale 10 foot pole, then you've got your priorities fucked.

Basically, the party was a bunch of dysfunctional people holding together because they're less dangerous to themselves and the world around them together than alone. Think the Avengers, except way less powerful.

And honestly, for what was pretty much the first time in my life, I really felt like we were playing in a heroic, dramatic setting, not yet-another-smash-goblins-loot-weapons.

Then came this guy who's playing a mercenary, and whose only reason to stay with the PCs at all is that he's contractually bound to do so. The almost-disband was because the quality of the game significantly dropped since he joined, and we had either the option to disband or try and work together to make a better game.

We can't exactly kick him for two reasons; the first is that it'd create RL tension, and we definitely don't want that; the second is that our GM is still new at this and would all too quickly blame himself and decide to not GM ever again - which would be a damn shame because he has plenty of potential.

It's not 100% relevant but I hate the way that 95% of people haggle these days, both in game and in real life.

They just keep saying numbers and trust in the goodwill of the salesman to knock 20-30% off the price. It's not on, you should have to provide justifications why the product is not worth what it's being charged at or at least give some cheeky banter to justify mates rates. It just fucks me off no end that people respond to "It's 50$" with "40". Boring and shit.

I had a fellow player turn full That Guy literally overnight.

>Finish a PF session with characters retiring to high profile positions in our just-saved kingdom. Solid campaign, all was good.
>This Bro had been our party Cleric, was cool guy, a narrativist who RPed well.
>Start new 3.5 FR campaign very next night
>first thing is doing character gen
>DM says Good and Neutral characters only please
>This Bro says he wants to try CE
>DM says sorry, but no
>This Bro flips modes into That Guy
>argues with DM for 50 minutes.
>starts with reasoning
>ends up getting personal by insulting the DM's competance
>That Guy finally declares "Fine, I'll be CN instead then."
>we sigh in relief
>That Guy adds "I can play that exactly the same as CE anyway, so whatever"
>another twenty minutes arguing.
>That Guy is claiming "Well you can't tell me how to play my character, that's completely out of order"
>everyone discouraged and worn out
>DM ends session early, claiming he just remembered he needs to go to work early tomorrow
>nothing accomplished
>two players already suddenly saying they "might not be able to make the next session"

A lot of people are just really bad st haggling. If you're an ordinary clerk you can always just respond with "I'm sorry, I don't have the authority to give any discounts."

If the customer looks like someone who would disprove of having his manliness questioned you can always say "Sorry, $50. If you need to talk it over with your wife before making a purchase, I fully understand."

It also depends on what they're buying. But I'd never give a 20% discount on a $50 purchase out of the blue. That customer would have to be a really good one to be given that kind of offer.

I mean a merchant is usually willing to go below their original price if it will get them a sale. You can also complain that they are charging more than what the object is worth in an attempt to rip you off, although that probably wouldn't work if the vendor just posts his prices.

>player insists on playing an Evil character in an otherwise Good party
>also refuses to take any action to help the party or use his powers when the party is looking, as though he wanted us to think he's totally average and useless
>even when the situation is tailored to make it absolutely impossible to proceed without his powers, he pretends he can't do shit
>even when an opportunity to use his powers for personal gain is handed to him on a silver platter, he just stands there
>even when it's his turn and his next action will mean the difference between a clean victory and a certain death, all he does is ACTIVELY TAUNT THE ENEMY
>meanwhile other players aren't allowed to say anything about it because that would be metagaming
This happened twice, with two different players in two different groups, though the second one wasn't quite as bad. The second one was more "I'm only in this for myself and I'd leave you behind in a heartbeat" while the first was "I secretly want to murder all of you in your sleep" so I'll just give details on the first.
It was a superhero campaign where it just so happened the party composition had only one PC with an instant stun power, namely localized time control, which is as overpowered as it sounds, and that was the secretly evil PC whom no one else had met before or suspected had any powers.
The enemy was an immortal suicide bomber with around 20 hostages, rigged to explode if he released his grip on a switch, then he would disappear and come back a few days later. Negotiation had barely succeeded in buying a little time, which I admit was partly my fault, but regardless there were only two ways to beat him: either get the switch out of his hand without him noticing, or move him off the map without him noticing. Both would've been easy to do by freezing his time, if the secretly evil PC had told the rest of the party that it was an option and agreed to the bare minimum of teamwork.

This brings up an interesting question in my mind. If I wanted to play a character who's Lawful Evil because he wants to rule, but is willing to work with the group because helping them would further his own means and does nothing to actively sabotage their objectives, would I still be That Guy for trying to bring it up?

>Player joins
>Character Refuses to join the party and immediately retires to open up an inn/shop
>Is upset when he gets less screentime.

Well if the groups alignment is good then doing nothing to actively sabotage their objectives is out of character and could slowly push you out of the evil category.

In order to keep the Lawful Evil alignment you've got to keep doing Lawful Evil things. You could probably bullshit that you do those things on the side but depending on how much Good the group is doing it will likely offset your Alignment a significant amount.

Now, you could start as Lawful Evil, do good thing with the group up until your goal is in view, then switch into full betrayal mode and gain the Lawful Evil back, but without planning this out with the GM, you're just asking for trouble.

(cont)
At this point I was doing the best I could to stay in-character and make the best of a hopeless situation, because as far as my character knew, there was no course of action that didn't result in an explosion. I could only hope, as a player, that our evil time controller had a sense of self-preservation and would bail us out, since she had gone back in time to pose as a hostage and get right next to the bomber. Worst of all, due to the way her power works, no one even remembered in-character she was there at the start of the scene, even as a supposedly unremarkable bystander.
So what does she do? She taunts the bomber, dares him to blow everyone up including her. Then she explicitly ends her turn when she still has an action left. So of course the bomber explodes and lots of people die. The time controller escapes by GM fiat but is no longer a PC.
That was a long time ago and I'm not angry anymore, but it made me HATE players who keep their character's powers a secret from the other PCs for no good reason. Unless the point of the game is PVP and we don't know anything out-of-character, I insist you tell the party what you do and what you want.

But what if the LE character sees the group's actions' aftereffects as an opportunity to sweep in and take control of areas, therefore using them to expand his own influence privately?

I'm thinking the Leadership feat would be great for this.

>GM allowing time manipulation of any kind.

>Well if the groups alignment is good then doing nothing to actively sabotage their objectives is out of character and could slowly push you out of the evil category.
Why is that? I don't see why an evil person should really care that their allies are helping widows and orphans as long as their own evil plans are being advanced and protected. Its not like every evil character is dedicated to "Evil" as some kind of metaphysical concept.

Once again, this kind of thing should be planned with the GM privately to pull off without pissing off everyone else. And even then, the GM should be cool with it first. He might have a different direction for the story than what you have in mind.

Why is he still lawful evil if he gains nothing from it and he has to hide it from people he fights life-or-death battles with on a regular basis? Evil players are just retarded.

But why is that character evil? Why do you have to make someone who kind and women and sells them off as sex slaves when it adds nothing to the game besides more work for the non-stupid-evil members of the party.

Their alignment should be determined by their actions. They could have a final evil plan they keep in mind but if they are helping their allies with widows and orphans they will accrue some small amount of Good. They wont switch back to Evil until they start doing Evil shit again.

>ruins the balance.

If the integrity of your game is so fragile haggling a merchant down a few shekels for a sword will throw the whole thing into disarray then you have much bigger problems than players who like to lowball prices.

> dual-wielding is gay

Get the fuck outta here.

I don't know, ask someone who actually plays evil characters. I just don't think its inherently an awful idea with a mature party and in the right setting (ie not your standard D&D dungeon crawl)

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If someone fundamentally intends to commit an evil act and use the group of saints they're travelling with to provide cover, it doesn't matter how many orphans they help. They're still evil. I know things get tricky when Good and Evil exist as game mechanics and are intended to flux in play, but it doesn't make a lot of sense unless the character is actually changing their mind and becoming a better person.

There are plenty of historical examples of 'evil' people who performed acts that were pleasant and even charitable. It doesn't diminish whatever crimes they've commited.

Why does being evil mean, you gotta get you sex slave game going? You can be evil through other means

>some people are inherently evil

Good one.

Too many people who play Evil don't understand the concept of selective or pragmatic villainy. Which is why GMs who have shit experiences with shit Evil players just ban the Lower Three alignments all together.

Which is a shame; it's totally possible to play an Evil character in a game without actually stepping on the party's toes. You just need to know your character, and know your group.

That was my thought. As long as his ultimate motive is evil, anything he does can be considered evil, even if it's working with a good group with the same tasks.

Yes, that's true, but in a campaign like the ones I run (more open-world with a story they can take in any direction, but still has a story), it would work well.

He's gaining land and power from it, that's what he wants. He's evil because he's doing it for nothing but personal gain, possibly leaning toward LN, but still.

Why would he do that if it doesn't further his goals?

Actions? As I stated above, alignment is more motive than anything else. If a man saves a woman from a fire and gets rewarded for it, then another man saves her from a later fire only because he expects he'll get a reward, is he as good?

I didn't say that and I don't think I even implied it. Thats a bit rude. All I'm saying is that a characters alignment is more a matter of their visible actions, but also their intentions.

>Be new player
>Was actually encouraged by GM to TRIPLE WIELD
>Bullshit my way into some decent gear at an early level
>Everyone loved it
Is it because I wasn't edgy about it or just because of my group that it was all okay?

Both. People will excuse all sorts of otherwise cringey behavior as long as you make it enjoyable.

>players and GMs who get asshurt over nothing

triple wield you say?

That trap rolling technique makes sure that the players know every time there is a trap, it's a horrible habit and you need to stop. The player is better than the DM in this situation

You mean he performs an expected duty of class and has a visual idea of his character's theme? And on top of that be interacts with an npc?

Your hate is quite founded, OP. What an abominable new player.

Alternately, a DM could give the players a Perception/Spot check if they enter a room cautiously, and/or point out auto-spotted traps based on passive perception. Having them check for false positives based on whether they're cautious or not keeps them on their toes and makes the game more fair on both ends.

Apparently searching for traps and bartering with merchants makes the game imbalanced.

Yes, I played with a group of weebs so Solo/Zolo/Zorro/whatever the fuck his name is jokes were aplenty. I refused to put any swords in my mouth though.

Of course it does. They're very broken mechanics. On par with fighters using sword'n'board and standing in between the enemy and soft allies. And don't even get me started on wizards reading old languages or druids attempting to forage.
Absolutely disgusting gameplay today breaks my immersion, yanno?

Yopu know what I hate? When people play bards that sing or play instruments. This is an RPG, not rock band!

And what's with people putting beards on dwarves? Absolutely terrible. It's like they've never even played the game before.

Triple wielding is taking a concept commonly associated with edgy characters and taking it to a higher level so that it's ridiculous, almost parodical. Nothing edgy about that.

do all non thieves get a passive perception check to spot traps. if so why do you have rouges as pc class, if anybody can do it? just keep taking a class ability away from a class and give it to all the classes. good choice!

swordchucks, yo

Can you two believe I actually had an aspiring game group member, who after paying for his membership card, dared to suggest I let him play something that was not a human male fighter?

Threw him out, sterilized his coaster and let the dungeon master's guild know that the maniac was loose among the scene.

Ugh, charismatic bards telling tales are worse than poop-diaper changes.

Seriously, I don't know if I can continue to
DM if one more cleric acts as a mediator or tries to build good party relations with the village npcs by tending to their sick and wounded.

These players are trying to get under my skin.

It has been so long since I actually played any dnd but do barbarians also get trap sense?

>>player insists on playing an Evil character in an otherwise Good party
>after a 90 second argument he is punted from the game and we have a fun adventure
>porblem?

You did the right thing. Such debauchery is the gangrenous attitude that is rotting our hobby edition by edition.

You showed real moral courage in the amorphous face of a despotic cretin, and I'm proud of you.

ohhh, I get it- the sword in his mouth meant that to stay in character, the player could no longer talk. that's why they loved it.

Please help me understand this. What exactly is wrong with dual wielding? Is it an association with asshat players or something? If I've got two hands I'm failing to see what's wrong with using two (non-projectile) weapons if the system allows it.

Like, had I just run around with two swords in my hand rather than constantly magicking the shit out of three would it still have been okay so long as I wasn't casting magic missile at the darkness and killing things for the sake of sharpening my edge?

>Is it an association with asshat players or something?
Edgy try-hard characters, so yeah.

>Is it an association with asshat players or something?

This is exactly it. Dual wielding is "cool" so therefore the only people who like it are morons with superficial taste.

Some traps are better-hidden than others. A non-rogue could spot a lifted switch on the floor, for example, but not the subtleties of a well-laid trap that a rogue would notice through experience. Some traps can only be found by rogues for this reason.

Here here, I think that he made the right call and it's good to know you warned your peers of the vagrant. Who knows what damage he could do if he, say, wanted to play a fighter who used an AXE? I mean can you even imagine such a thing?

>Is it an association with asshat players or something?
Short answer: Yes 100%

Long answer: Still yes, but with some background information. There are a couple reasons why dual-wielding is accosiated with edgelords, THAT GUYs, weebs, and whatever other label you want to slap on to the general population of shitty players.
1) Drizzt Do'Urden. A popular character known for being a good Drow, kinda broody, dual-wielding, and having a panther pet. Unimaginative faggots always decide to rip off existing characters rather than make their own, and the popularity of Drizzt meant that a lot of people had to deal with his knockoffs. Shitters played broody dual-wielders
2) Drizzt Do'Urden Clones. Basically so many people copied the original character not only for RPGs but for books and 'toons that people started copying the copies without knowing the original. Every generation got worse, like xeroxing and xerox. The shittyness became distilled.
3) Obnoxious anime. For some reason or another, you also see dual-wielding in a lot of the cheaper anime; poorly-written angsty/hotheaded protags would dual-wield katana. Same issue as the first two entries but with a slice of weeb on the side.

All this is compounded by 3.PF, which dominated RPGs for a LOOOOOOOOOONG time and still affects the industry to this day, had horrendous rules for dual-wielding, so PCs that took that option were pretty shit at fighting. All this added up to lazy knockoff characters that sacrificed effectiveness for looking like Drizzt or Anime Protag #CT546-1. They were so prevalent that the imagery just sort of stuck.

Now it has passed into the realm of memery, with people saying dual-wielding is edgy just because they heard it from other people.

Rouge's cunning action is fairly usless if you're going to use the offhand bonus action every turn, but it does give you a second chance at sneak attack and gives you another melee option. 2 weapon fighting isn't terrible with a fighter if you're going dex. in 5e at least

Enlightening. Thanks for taking the time to either copy paste or type that out.

Ours used a scythe. It was a brutally effective character, but man if it wasn't cringey to hear how the dude played out his attacks.

I bet there was a lot of posing, twirling, and slamming on the ground.

More eviscerating than posing, but you're dead on for everything else.

player is 12 years ol

There is actually minimal to no proof of a barter economy ever existing.

>helping player make a character
>"I want to make a healer support dude!"
>k
>gives the character nothing but combat abilities and stats
>"don't wanna be useless in combat"

>player makes a lone wolf with no interest or motivation
>constantly brags about cool effective build

>different player chooses one out of three names for every single character he plays
>character is usually an anime or video game character insert anyways

>best roleplayer I've ever had
>usually paying attention
>never shows up

>is gf
>confuses rpg with erp too often

I need more experience with other groups, desu

Here's what you do:

meet up at a different groupie's house without telling the shitbird. never play with insufferable twat again.

>First time playing Pathfinder
>Start of game off a shipwreck, stumbling around on an island
>Ork Shaman, catfolk rogue, edgy samurai/ninja with the "Heh, I'll do it myself..." attitude, and jew

The guy literally made his character a personification of the "jew" joke
>greedly rubs hands together
>does aNYTHING for gold
>cares only for gold
>Cant fight
>No Motive, only to get gold.

We played about 3 sessions before i just got so fucking mad with the edgy "I'll go alone...." character, and the fucking joke character that each time i got a "hey wana play tonight" message, I just made an excuse or ignored it. Not worth playing a shit game.

Fucking Chaosfags.

Is there fire shooting out of his dick?

>Barters as much as he can
There is a special place in hell for people who waste 30+ minutes of the session time haggling for mundane goods, or doing something similarly inconsequential.


I plan to DM soon, and one of the first houserules I make will be that we do not roleplay haggling in-character. Players can say "my character haggles for it", roll if applicable, and then he either gets the discount or not. Either that or PCs sell for the normal price. Then we can all move on with our lives instead of blowing away our precious free time over some quantity of gold that no-one cares about.

The worst part is that most of the time you'd actually make more money spending that session-time on fun adventuring stuff instead of penny-pinching.

>i did this in my last session without even thinking about it
I'm sorry fampai

Your dm could have just set it in Damara and watched the order of paladins lead by a 35th level paladin who defeated the lich king if he just wanted a CE character.

Have fun sitting in prison for the rest of your life in a place named so ridiculous the gay space marines have to run it.

>There are plenty of historical examples of 'evil' people who performed acts that were pleasant and even charitable. It doesn't diminish whatever crimes they've commited.

If those "evil" people did a lot of good actions and then died before they put their evil plan into action are they good or evil?

A fighter with an axe? Barbaric. Though not nearly so much as a cavalier who fights from atop a steed and uses his status to secure above average amenities for his fellow party members. Bastards, every single one of them.

>implying that searching for traps is the only thing rogues are good for
>implying that the 3.5 method of dealing with traps is good gameplay

>it'd create RL tension
>ever playing in RL
Ha-ha-ha-ha... ha.

Things like cunning action are more about versatility than anything else, to me.

You don't have to use it every turn, but if you wanna break away or hide you still can, without giving up your action.

I feel like he might actually mean 'haggle' in this context...

>The worst part is that most of the time you'd actually make more money spending that session-time on fun adventuring stuff instead of penny-pinching.

This is why I don't understand people who visit 3+ grocery stores to save $10, just work a little more and save all the hassle in a third of the time

>Too much roleplay
>Get to the combat already
Please abandon any plans that put you in the GM seat.

The rest of the group doesn't want to hear you haggle for ten minutes over the price of a fucking rope, you mong.

A depressing majority of people don't understand the concept of opportunity cost. The phrase "penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.

Samefag who hit Post too soon:

You can see these same sort of people at work in any massively multiplayer game that involves crafting. I can't count the number of retards in EVE who would undercut me below cost because "the minerals are free if I mine them myself".

If he's regularly rolling to hide and stay hidden while sneaking wearing all black isn't a bad fucking thing.

It'd be way more obnoxious if he was dressed in edgelord garish colors and constantly bragged about being an elite assassin

If you don't wanna be seen in the dark l, wear black...

Dual wielding is fine you're dumb for caring

Barter and speech are skills that exist for a reason quit being a pussy and give them a few gold discount for the effort

You can solve this by rolling for traps automatically under the assumption that his character is on the look out for them. I bet you're the kind of faggot who gets pissed at people searching for hidden doors and traps and disbelief of illusions yet then throws these hazards at players later on.

Tl;dr have you tried taking the cock out of your mouth

I say just be a better DM.

>Tl;dr have you tried taking the cock out of your mouth
I don't think OP is flexible enough for that.

>create RL tension
I'm still upset one of my characters didn't get to murder party members which caused trouble to the party.
Like that one time where a cannibal joined us and almost ate us.
>no user, it's its not that guy making him do it, its the system, dont murder him violently

>What exactly is wrong with dual wielding?
Back in the ye olde days dual wielding was seen as a joke because if you're not ambidextrous, you couldn't do it properly. Also because your combat efficiency went down to 0 because you couldn't block any of the attacks.
Due to those reasons it was only used as a show in circus.

Autism. As a walmart cashier, it comes down to autism. I have idiots who come in and, despite knowing we will price match anything, will go to the store on the other side of town to buy the can of regular brand soup there rather than just telling me its 10 cents cheaper there and now it is here. Maybe its a hate for walmart, if it was, why do they spend $100? Why do I go on about this?


Autism. If someone does something completely pointless for hours on end, its Autism.

so? I fail to see the problem

> What is a companion weapon

Oh, look. It's an "OP is That Guy" thread.

Are there people who are worse than dual-wielders?
Short answer: Yes. People who hate dual-wielders.

Case in Point:
>rejects other players because their characters are dual-wielding
>calls them superficial
>superficial
Bwahahaha. You can't make this shit up.

You know what the worst people are?
Le polearm is superior people.

I love those threads.