Player Pet Peeve thread:

It's him. It's got all the little ticks that denote virt. is the dead giveaway though.

But he's complaining about the things his DM does.
>[my pet peeve is that my GM] uses generic Savage Worlds instead of specialized 5e

>Virt loves Savage Worlds, hates 5e.
I thought he eventually disavowed SW mainly due to bennies and bursty dice

B-b-b-b-b-but it's totes Virt! ;_;

Nah, he gave a review of it. He cuts out the +2 increments and runs without Bennies.

His previous comments were things like "roleplay social skills" and "gives up to four sentences of description." You know, the stuff that actually makes a game good.

>everything is grey
>there are no badguys

Haven't found a DM this lame but I constantly dread it because this is a real fun-killer.

>have character be good in thing, bad in another
>DM ALWAYS throws "things you are bad at, at you"

>never describes the general sense of the area
>miss large important thing any sane person would have noticed from walking into a room

>object you don't know what it is
>try every skill and spell from everyone including deity involvement
"you don't know what it is"
Ok. I guess it's not important then.
>it was an important clue of course

>encounters that take 3 hours because of bloated HP totals

I dread players like you because you're plebs who want everything to be corny and black-and-white.

This guy sounds like a good gm though

Name fag who got banned for either being super autistic or a very dedicated troll.

>regular xp farm enemiel like kobolds, gobbos and bandits never retreat or give up, fight to the last hp
THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE SCUM OF THE EARTH
EVEN IF THEY DEFEND THEIR LAND, RULE "It's not losing if you can win anoher day" EXISTS

What's wrong with corny in a play pretend swords and magic game?
If anything, shades of grey are less suited.

I once gave our DM the advice I use DMing. "Come up with the problem, not the solution"

Whilst I give leeway to problems solved through clever player input, he just adds new facets to the problem until it's unsolvable, play grinds to a halt and he gives us a deus ex machina to solve the fuckup he made.

He's getting better, but fuck me sideways does this grind my gears.

That bunny looks like mine.

>discussing kinds of fun

>still believing that fun can't be objectively judged

>Fun can be objectively judged
I don't even.

You should have black, white, and everything in between. Have Lord Skullraper the Bastard on one side, and Saint Peaches and Cream on the other. Have them be the extremes arund which events of the world pivot, with everyone in the middle just trying to nake it with varying levels of cuntiness.

Going multiple sessions where it's more like an episode of Survivor than an adventure. Yeah it can be neat to sometimes see what we can come up with the survive in a realistic harsh environment...but I'd really love to use my sword some time.

>Be Paladin, Oath of Devotion.
>Setting is DM's grimdark, edgeland.
>Party members include, red eye assassin looking for vengeance, literal faggot wizard looking for lost boyfriend's soul, and former Amazon slave turned gladiator barbarian.
>Every third NPC encounter is designed to make me fall.
>From option of refusing food to refugees, to bringing judgement onto war orphans.
>Got to the point where sitting in a tavern will bring out a bunch of goblins being beaten the crap out of.
>Where goblins are scummy rape machines if left unchecked in this setting.

He's still around, and he seems about as reasonable as most people on here honestly.

virtualoptim.tumblr.com/

>Campaign is grimdark
>I play noblebright hero
Maybe he's passive agressively saying roll up a more suitable character?

Actually we can talk about that if you like why not.

To define fun objectively we need to look at its purpose and then extrapolate relative to that purpose.

For the individual, fun has the main purpose of pleasure. That's simple, though there are other things that come into it. If we also think about right living and self-improvement as objectively good overarching goals then those factor into fun as well. So while mindless edgy fun might not be objectively bad, fun that has intellectual, moral or character-building aspects is objectively better. Objectively bad fun would be kinds that encourage ignorance, falsehood and immorality, and that pander to negative personality traits.

Next we have to look at fun in a group context, and we start with the premise that group fun is a social activity, and social activities have the purpose of creating social bonds. People do this by bringing pleasure to others in the group, learning about their personalities, and fostering a sense of communality by jointly creating something, even if it's creating something abstract. To that end, malicious individuals within a group who find pleasure in indulging their selfish and antisocial whims to the detriment of others are having objectively bad fun. People who inadvertendly thwart the group's goals though stupidity or laziness are also having objectively bad fun, though not as bad. In Veeky Forums-related situations, these are all objectively bad players, aka That Guy.

The same points about right living and self-improvement can also apply to group fun.

In conclusion, badwrongfun is that which causes the individual to stagnate or deteriorate as a person, and/or that works against communal group goals and priorities. Liking black-and-white uncreative settings is an example of an individual stagnating or deteriorating intellectually.

Too Autistic, didn't read.

>he seems about as reasonable as most people
That ain't saying much, still interesting to hear he's still around.

>too smart for me, couldn't understand it

It's OK user, but with your

>Haven't found a DM this lame but I constantly dread it because this is a real fun-killer.

>I dread players like you because you're plebs who want everything to be corny and black-and-white.
This is dumb.
You are dumb.
You should merely hope you don't get players like user because they're plebs who constantly live in fear of something they've never seen or experienced but are 100% certain that it's a huge problem because Veeky Forums says it happens sometimes.

Shit like this is why being familiar with Veeky Forums is a red flag.

It's entire premise was flawed.
And no, contrary to what Mommy told you, Autism =/= Smart.

Take your weak b8 agenda and leave, kid.

It's premise is sound and it's conclusions are correct.

And yet here you are reduced to merely shrieking "LE AUTISM, LE AUTISM" because that's such a super smart argument.

Stay rekt.

Your premise is built around the idea that "fun" can be quantified scientifically.

Autism speaks and nobody brought the ball gag this time.

>Fun can be objectively measured
That's a sound premise?
>"right living"
Weasel Words.
>Objectively bad fun is based on immorality
Morals are subjective.

You may not like it, but it reads like an autistic person wrote it. Grasping the concepts, but not truly understanding them.

I'm not even playing it straight noblebright, mate. But rather as a ptsd paladin looking for redemption through deeds and in the bottom of a bottle

But fun can be quantified.
You guys just sound like the asshole That Guys in my group when I tell them they're fun is bad on a social level

Everything after the words "Roll initiative."
Combat is so goddamn boring, especially if you have players who don't even plan their turns out and stall for five minutes. I thought 5e's combat was supposed to be faster, but so far nobody ever thinks of their options nor does anything creative happen.
Even worse is when my character fails a save and can't take their turn or any reactions, so I get to play the waiting game while everyone hems and haws for upwards of five minutes each. Something like that can be a harrowing effect, sure, but not when other players are so slow that you're fairly certain sloths can play faster.

Oh. Then maybe he wants to play up your quest for redemption mechanically? If it were me, I'd play your Paladin pre game fallen, trying to regain his Paladinhood.

>But fun can be quantified.

Fun is subjective by nature, meaning that it cannot be quantified in any scientific research.

If you believe otherwise then you obviously don't understand what "objective" actually means.

>That Guys
>Plural
To me it sounds like the group isn't That Guy, but one player lacking self awareness is.
But I hope this has passed into the point of " I was just pretending to be retarded/autistic".

Thog Edit:
>I like talk
>What fun?
>Fun is enjoyable. Good fun is enjoyable and make user better person. Bad fun is enjoyable and make user worse person.
>Group Fun is social and make bonds. Bad people in group who enjoy stopping others in group from having fun is bad fun.
>People who enjoy fun by being stupid or lazy is also bad fun.
>Group fun can be good fun.
>Badwrongfun is fun that not make user or group better

>Liking black-and-white uncreative settings is an example of an individual stagnating or deteriorating intellectually
[This part too dumb for Thog. Thog guess talky-man say if you like what he not like, then you bad.]

Which agenda would that be?
That fearing Grey Moral GMs you've never actually dealt with is dumb?

I once had a guy take over an hour every turn in a boardgame.

I wouldn't mind, except that every redemption is designed around the stupid 'kill one to save five or allow five to die instead of killing one'.

Maybe talk to him?
It's no fun to feel punished for your class.

As a martial he should be used to it.

I did. Hence, the gobbie dindu nuffin in the middle of the tavern.

>You talk to him
>He throws you a bone
>Still mad
Players...

No ability to improvise at all. I have to couch him and give him ideas. Half the time I feel like I'm the DM.

This. I hate silly cunts that go full imagined-Kasparov on the enemy and have trouble deciding if they're gonna use a 1d6 attack or a 1d4+2 attack at level fucking 10.
I also hate dual wielders/mutliple attackers on either side because I just know that the shitlord will take aeons to calculate the damages and hits.

>Throwing a bone with baby gobbies
>When party just went through last 2 sessions clearing a goblin fort filled with goblin raiders and kidnapped women and failed adventurers used as cattle and breeders.

Like the thread said, pet peeves stories, not 'That GM'.

Just proof the gm internet defense force is still alive and well.

>Fun can be objectively measured

As developed in my post, yes. You have failed to offer counterarguments other than to simply state the opposite.

>Weasel Words.

This isn't wikipedia, kid.

>Morals are subjective.

Nope. Trendy nihilism might be your cup of tea, but morality is objective. Certainly it can be relative, but that's not the same thing. But you probably don't yet grasp this.

>blah blah I'm so smart, I state things without proof and then call others stupid

You've got nothing. Your entire argument is one big "no u", extended high up into the wafflesphere.

You're not smart. You're not insightful. You're not philosophically articulate. You're just another shitposter, only slightly more verbose and a lot more pretentious.

a couple of my players complain that i make the bandits attempt to flee when more than half dies, it's only natural to flee when you're losing when the only reason why you fight is the next big cash grab

>morality is objective
Morality is a social construct.

Just tell us, oh master of thought, what do you and your divine grace find fun?

Which makes it an object, which makes it objective.

Keep up, dear.

Demolishing the puny intellects on this shit board, for one.

>Morality is objective
Thank you for confirming you are retarded or bait.

Well, you showed us.

Go to /pol/ and argue with the best of us. Never cast your divine light down upon us puny mortals again, oh great one.

>Social Construct is an Object
kek
But seriously, you're not trying any more.

>You're not smart. You're not insightful. You're not philosophically articulate. You're just another shitposter, only slightly more verbose and a lot more pretentious.

Wow, I was going to call you out on being a faggot but damn, you just took the words right outta my mouth.

I challenge your assertion that fun is bad if it doesn't improve the individual as well your assertion that games with simplistic morality are necessarily a.) "uncreative"; b.) stagnant; or c.) intellectual deterioration.

Simple fun can be good fun.

>"Turns are continuous and happen at the same time for every player, no time freeze shit"
>If you end your turn and you aren't over a surface you fall

>"Attack action is a series of swings and attacks, not a singular one"
>Every ranged weapon ever
>TWF gives you an extra attack with your off hand

>Intimidation depends on a stat that has nothing to do with how scary or dangerous you look, literally can be a 2 meter tall massive hulking creature that looks like comes from the abyss that you're less likely to intimidate people than a fluffy bunny

To sum up, D&D and PF in general

>Abstraction Bad
FTFY

>Rangers are deft skirmishers, either in melee or at range, capable of skillfully dancing in and out of battle.
>No acrobatics, no tumble, no perform: dance, no feature that allows you to skillfully dance in and out of battle
DnD/Paizo are so bad at descriptions.

>dm just keeps on describing a nonstop litany of NPC actions and events
>try to speak up loudly and state explicitly an action that my character will do
>DM pauses for a moment, looks at me like I interrupted him and goes back to NPC actions
>describes all of our characters mindlessly going along what the NPC was doing

I think in 4 hours not one PC actually performed an action that mattered

>Bad
>Implying isn't made on purpose to trick beginners
Ivory tower

>Demolishing the puny intellects on this shit board, for one.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This Guy right here!

This is never really a problem in our group, but our DM will set a time limit if we start discussing shit too much when things should be happening rapidly.

It makes me wish that FantasyCraft, 13th Age, or even Swords & Wizardry became the go-to fantasy game apart from D&D instead. At least then people would be playing a system that wasn't a clusterfuck of rules and trap options designed to encourage "system mastery".

how is a lead designer so unaware of the basics of the game they're working on

Because nobody at Paizo actually knows how their game works.

>critical failures and hits without confirms
>on a d20
>the strange ability to grossly misinterpret rules despite being a literal fucking lawyer
i don't understand it
other than that though, he's pretty chill, and despite throwing lethal as fuck encounters at us we've only lost one character (to a teamkill, at that)
part of why we've survived might be related to my ridiculous healing skills and critical-moment-20s but i won't take that for granted

anyway, there's another DM in the group (two more, actually, including myself on occasion) but he's super new to the concept so there's a lot of leeway while he learns. he did pick a SHIT system to start DMing though - mekton zeta is a fucking mess and i wouldn't wish its wacky tobaccy rules on anyone.

a faggot

>>critical failures and hits without confirms
I don't mind critical hits, but critical failures are retarded
>Experienced sniper fumbles in 1/20 shots and destroys his weapon

What pisses me off more are people who act like it is some core feature of dnd when it is an optional rule that those fuck heads do not even implement correctly.

yeah they fucking blow, and he applies them to skill checks too
only good thing i've got out of it was a robot arm that automatically punches the nearest thing on a natural 1 for 2d8 damage
>mfw i've nearly taken out two players with that thing

that's really fucking irritating, yeah

>"It will add fun to the game"
>It actually doesn't, slows things up because now everybody doens't want to try something that requires many rolls unless they know they're going to succeed always, they end going with casters because lol no rolls, etc
FUCK.THAT.OPTIONAL.RULE.

This is more that GM than a pet peeve
>If you spend resources or powers in useless crap that will never appear in the game, that's good. You spent a resource in something useful that is meant for your archetype and character concept? fuck no, fuck you munchkin, I don't care if it's something your class gets either your want it or not.
Which is basically
>You can only be good at useless crap and nothing else

>wastes the group's times with 'colourful' and 'interesting' descriptions that can be as many as four sentences
You are baiting, but I remember someone posting a link about some guy who talks about acording to him good role playing who actually claimed this is the only way way because since everyone has fantasy on their own it's not necessary to stimulate said with some good descriptions and only keep it at a minimum.

I dare say it's more that "less is more", in that it's generally better to be able to describe something evocatively with one line than four.
That said, taking four lines to describe something well is better than using one line to describe it poorly, which is about equally bad as taking four lines to describe something poorly.

However, it's one of those things that takes practice, so it's hard to fault inexperienced GMs from waxing a little lyrical

>Precon chars when everybody knows how to play
Nightmare tier
>He levels them up, you can't choose shit ever
Eldritch horrors beyond the realms of the imagination tier
>He tells you how to act and what your character will say in any situation

That's not a peeve, that's a bunny.
Unless it's a bunny named Peeve - in which case, well played.

>gm never ever gives us levels
I never broke level 10 in any d20 (be it PF, FC, DnD) game I played, and I played A LOT of games.
Every GM in this group does it. I like them but fuck man, I want to play at level 20 once in five years. Campaigns end by the time we are 8/10.

Eventually, you'll do it. And eventually, you'll learn that high level 3.5/PF is an absolute shitshow beyond 12 and that capping the level is the easiest way to keep things reasonable.

>Good fun is enjoyable and make user better person
why?

Many thanks, Thog.

>I dare say it's more that "less is more"
That dude literally said it's enough for the gm just say "that's a forest" and the players imagine the rest.

>multiple consecutive sessions with nothing but random encounters
>doesn't actually know the rules, makes them up as he goes along, assumes no one will notice
>lets players do stupid shit like murder random civilians for no reason, there's never any consequences

>Hey, I know the fantasy convetion of race X is like [this]
>But MY race X is something completely different!
>Then he gets annoyed because players react like they're the stereotype.

I refuse to believe there're GMs that do 2 and 3

...

I like to have variants so players can choose if they want the stereotype or not.
>Hey in my setting you've got your typical scottish dwarves, slavic cyka blyat gopnik dwarves, and not-dwarves that are really just dogmen created to guard a long dead wizard's tomb. They all have the same racial bonuses so pick what you want.

As for player peeves:
>Ask what other players are playing as so I can have an idea om what to make that will fit in with the party
>Everyone lists off race, class, and character build info without so much as a hint to personality
>They look at me like I grew a second head if I ask about their personality