That guy

>the Orc who raped his city

Would they not already be dead from exhaustion?

I see nothing wrong with this.

>CN
>"No guys, I'm totally with the party, I'll always be at your aid!"
>At the first chance of danger he flees
>At the first damage he gets he wastes turns drinking potions till he's full healt again
>Rolles damage dealers
>Gets angry when another player rolls a damage dealer because that guy doesn't deal damage

>user never raped a city before

Puh-lease! Raping a city is just a light workout.

>Player spends more time arguing for argument's sake than actually playing the game.
>Sulks like a bitch when everyone tells him to shut the hell up.

>Group takes a break to order food.
>THAT GUY orders food but doesn't pay his share or help with the tip.

>THAT GUY obnoxiously goes on about how powerful/invincible/fast/etc. his character is.
>Goes nuclear if the GM exploits his weaknesses or hits him with something that reduces his strengths.

>Makes a new character on a whim.
>Doesn't wait for the GM to introduce the new character to us.
>Gets pissy when nobody in the party trusts them when they just walk up to the group and start blurting out OoC information.

>Same player as above distracts from game and interrupts the GM when he's busy helping another player with an important action for the mission.
>Interruptions cause every action to take twice as long.
>Later, the mission is complete but we're halfway through campaign.
>Gets pissy and claims that we took too long.

Sounds like a person I play with. Plus:

>verbal diarrhea IC. Literally can't shut up while giving all our secrets and being rude to every single sapient being, including other players
>makes combat oriented characters, but prefer to hide behind other players
>hogging the spot just to make somebody else solve the problem, and claim it as his own as loud as possible
>You did all job, but it was MY idea, I deserve extra xp, not you!

A short one:

>GM: "So why don't you go ahead and describe your player to the group."
>TG: "Weeeeell he looks like a Charisma 5."

>makes combat oriented characters, but prefer to hide behind other players

Tolerable with ranged fighters or certain fragile builds. What happens if you throw him into combat alone?

You should be gassed. If somebody waits for his turn to speak and is doing so, you don't shout over in your retard voice the exact same thing another character is doing.

Sorry, I didn't interpret the post like that, I interpreted it as player B being racist to elves. It wasn't readily apparent that the complaint here was interruption, at least not to me. Maybe if there was a line like

>Alright player A, what do you say to the elf?

Then yeah, I can see the anger is justified. Here, though, it's just a bit confused.

>He rolls up a Barbarian
>"I attempt a backstab"
>Buddy, that's a THIEF. You'd be better off taking them on from the front with your axe.
>"Oh, ok."
>He dual-classes into Thief at 3rd level
>Now charges head on at enemies with his axe

>"I attempt a bAXEtab"
You misheard him.

>be DMing
>our group's 4th campaign together since we started.
>Throw a troll encounter at them. Similiar to our first campaign.
>that guy says "I attack the troll with my torch"
>I point out that he is metagaming and using player knowledge to do something his character wouldn't normally do.
>he shrugs and continues with the fight, sulks the rest of the evening.

That guys am I right?

On the face of it he is metagaming.

However it might be common folklore in the setting that trolls are vulnerable to fire. Same as how everyone knows Vampires hate crucifixes and garlic IRL. You could have made him roll a knowledge skill or mental stat, or just let it slide as using common knowledge.

Metagamers are usually sulkers. Faced with trolls, metagamers will say passive-aggressive things like "so how many spell slots do I waste on non-fire spells so it doesn't count as metagaming, huh DM?" as if you're vindictively denying them something they're entitled to do. Metagamers have a mindset of wanting to 'beat' DnD, that's why they do it.

IMO the best way around this kind of thing is to use rare or original monsters with weaknesses the players can't metagame even if they want to, because they don't know them.

Then I apologize, I shall make all efforts to prevent you from being gassed. But yes, racism is going to crop up in games with problems between races, that I do not mind.

Parmesan. They meant parmesan. The guy is just hungry.

Wow, what a bunch of fags.

If he was a bitch maybe.

>he never joined in on a weekly city rape session

Hell yeah.

Personally I get put off if the DM wants me to pretend to be stupid in a troll fight but like you said "the best way around this kind of thing is to use rare or original monsters with weaknesses the players can't metagame even if they want to, because they don't know them."

We can never solve the troll fight again like when we were first played. But we can have new monsters and encounters to solve.

To go further with what you said the best way to help curb metagaming (the detrimental kind) is to reinforce immersion.

>Have new players joining my game
>Bard and a druid
>Players walk into a caravan
>Have new players work as guards
>Describe the job as dead end
>Druid wild shapes into a wolf and attacks the caravan leader
>Everyone tries to stop her and fights her off
>Argues about it for a few hours as I try to clean up the mess and move the story along

The bard just wanted to find his family

You really can't complain about metagaming in D&D. It's always been a system dominated by odd mechanics, nonsensical settings, and DM screwjobs. I think D&D is at its best when you just turn it into a high-lethality dungeon crawl boardgame and just restart with new characters if someone dies.

Honestly, I think the best way to run an immersive real role-playing campaign is to first settle on a realistic, loose system (you want impartiality from the dice, so there's real uncertainty about the outcomes of chancy actions like getting in a fight, while you need the freedom to interpret the outcome so it makes sense in the situation) and don't let the players see any numbers. Do have them keep character sheets to track inventory and plain-English descriptions of attributes and conditions between sessions (like when you've got a wound). It's not a bad idea to start from a Narnia-type concept, where the PCs are from the real world, or have them come from especially ignorant or sheltered backgrounds, so there's a reason for them to ask people how the world works.

Things that make a good immersive system:
- natural decision-making, rather than mechanical considerations like hit points
- strict separation of player and GM roles: the players decide nothing but the choices of their characters
- characters living very unusual lives have very unusual motivations (i.e. trying to get out of the world, rather than trying to live in it)
- ecology and society that make sense
- serious hostile encounters are rare and exciting in the lives of the characters, and even more rarely best solved by fighting to the death (realistic predators will retreat when their intended prey puts up more of a fight than expected, intelligent attackers will typically accept surrender to avoid the risk of combat, primitive territory defenders will often escalate hostilities cautiously starting with intimidation and parlay and will pursue and harry to chase away rather than to actually catch)

Plot twist: fire makes these trolls grow to twice their size

Obvious player response: set the DM on fire.

>Dm is a actually a troll in disguise

*partition.

If my players are going to try and cheat by using meta knowledge in encounters I'm going to fuck them in holes they didn't know they had

>Hey GM can my next character be a gryphon?
>>You mean like a beast tamer or a Ranger with a gryphon as an animal companion.
>No. An actual gryphon and I'll fly around shooting sorcerer spells or some shit.

I loved this in my most resent game I left.
> Totally normal Forgotten Realms world
> Finds a door with a tentacle face on it
> Get back to town and an NPC starts talking about how it must be related to the mind flayers and Cthulhu like it's totally normal
>Players say they know exactly what he's talking about and then has a normal conversation about the Great Old Ones and aliens.
>I describe my character as incredibly confused by the nonsense that they're speaking
>The're all confused by my confusion and try to explain the Great Old Ones to me/my character

That was my last session. Earlier in that session, they also got really on my case about not wanting to go into a pit that we really had no incentive to go into that many creatures have died in.

I did this once, or at least something close. I just played an animal companion (dire ferret) with its owner missing, and had the missing 'owner' only take feats and class options that made the companion better.

It turned out pretty well; Spaz Weasel was the party mascot. 8/10 would recommend for trying something new.

Tis true, though. How are we supposed to avoid something we already know? I suggest a knowledge check for things they MIGHT know, but otherwise, it's a little wierd to deal with. Best thing to do is use custom varients of these creatures; in this world, trolls are weak to acid.

I would definitely do knowledge checks on monsters but it's when the power gamer thinks they've outsmarted me and just assumed they know everything about my world that I make things hard on them

Eh, I'd allow it. I like games with weird PCs. Better not get salty when the party stops at a tavern and the owner doesn't let the large gryphon inside, though, expect downsides to playing a beast.

It's stupid, though. What kind of game are you playing if you tell the players not to apply tactically-relevant knowledge they have?

If you want to do amateur theater, do amateur theater. If you want to do collaborative storytelling, don't use a system where you're constantly rolling dice to see whether the players win or everyone's good time is ruined instead.

D&D was designed around players using their knowledge of the game that their characters wouldn't have. It's too crazy for them not to. You can't get anywhere in this game without the knowledge that you need a quiver full of arrows to kill an unarmored ogre (even though in the real world, you can kill an elephant with a single one), any exceptionally ugly people are inherently evil monsters, if you piss off a world-class wizard he can just cast one spell to find out where you are and another to be there, there are whole worlds full of beings with comparable power, ridiculously elaborate traps exist and work flawlessly after centuries without maintenance, and literally anything -- the floor, the ceiling, a wall, the slime on the wall, the stalactites, the air, the ground, the water, a tree, a statue, an item of clothing, the furniture, the farmer's daughter -- can actually be something waiting with insane patience in a place that makes no sense, to murder you when you're not looking.

> WHAT ARE YOU ADVOCATING BEING RUDE??

> :/ Naw i was just tryina be racist..

> Oh...well..then carry on!

God I love Veeky Forums

>racist
>to an imaginary elf

>Gets pissy when nobody in the party trusts them when they just walk up to the group and start blurting out OoC information.

This sounds less like dedicated roleplaying and more like dedication to the idea of dedicated roleplaying. But really you're just being jackasses. Unless there are a bunch of details I don't know that would change it, like how long the game's been going, or something.

It's the difference between being racist IC, and being a dick IRL.

The thing is, as much as it is condoned, pretending to be stupid is only fun if it's for laughs. It's not so fun to be in peril and be told to fuck your shit up because "your character doesn't know that". I'll do it, but with a fucking sigh. It's not clever, it's not dramatic irony, it's annoying. AVOID that situation, don't glorify it.

> 14 yrold trying to be contradictory for the sake of being contradictory.
I said "racist" because I was using a direct quote from TWO of the three comments I was replying to.

Im just singing the praises of Veeky Forums stop trying to piss on the fire.

desu I love the chaotic neutral party leech-type character.

you know you can just kill them, right?

That's not cheating, you fuck. Choose, it is a game you wish them to play or mechanics you wish them to use to resolve roleplay. You can have both, but if you're playing a game, it's your job not to put them in situations they know how to deal with. It's not cheating to just choose what you want your character to do.

So here's the context
>Play SR and one of the players decides to retire his character.
>Another player (who I'll call Snowflake) decides to introduce another character as well.
>Okay, whatever, not that big a deal.
>Meanwhile, me and two other players are busy with a mission, which was basically burn down some mobster's restaurant.
>I'm a mage and I'm armed with fire spirits.
>Another guy is an adept whose there for protection.
>Last guy is playing a technomancer for the first time and is busy trying to disable cameras and security and shit like that.
>During the mission, he has his new character enter the restaurant on a whim and walk towards us.
>Never met Snowflake's new character in person.
>First thing she says boils down to "so I know your friend is a technomancer."
>Snowflake then gets pissy when we act rude and tell their new character to GTFO.
IIRC, this was during the third session.

If you're playing because you like RP, then you absolutely made the right choice. If your group just likes rolling dice and having enemies die, you may want to shop around for a group that fits with your playstyle a bit more.

I feel your pain, friend.

1: your fault for throwing repetitive challenges at them
2: it's reasonable that someone might know that trolls are weak to fire in-game. has nobody in civilization ever defeated a troll? do a knowledge check.

My personal peeve is when a player describes what they want to happen and then gets pissy when the dice/rules don't cooperate.

>Player makes a strong melee character
>Goes on and on about how strong and muscular and imposing he is
>One time, interacting with mob enforcer, almost as big as the PC
>Player fails intimidation, can't intimidate mob enforcer
>Player goes: "Alright, I shove him and send him flying across the room"
>Ok, roll for it
>Roll dice, do math, turns out he only managed to shove the enforcer a step back
>Player throws a shitfit about how his character is so strong and should be able to send everyone flying and how this is bullshit and no-fun-allowed
>Sulks the rest of the session

This shit get on my nerves. Players don't get to decide the consequences of their actions.

Agreed. He rolled badly, he doesn't push him back very far. Fair is fair.

Our That Guy happens to be the GM
>have side convo with buddy who I haven't seen in a while during down time at a session while something on the side I'm not involved in is happening
>DM makes us roll a reflex save
>Says we got struck by lightning for talking about a board game not related to what we were playing

Fucking why? He's made this campaign last far longer than it should have because of his shitty story telling and really bad railroading.
>went into a shop to get a better weapon after he and buddy recommended I get a better weapon since mine were really outlevelled
>get inside and tell him I what I'm looking for
>forced outside, didn't get to buy that double barrel that I wanted, and if thats not the worst part, he lets his grill walk all over him during session.

I'd weigh it against how common trolls are in the setting.
Them and ogres are kinda the staple large threatening humanoids.

Have you tried not playing a game with that much role importance?

...

>but its WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO

That Guy spotted

>GM: "So why don't you go ahead and describe your player to the group."
>TG: "Weeeeell she looks like a HB7, maybe a HB9 if you're drunk"

Are you actually trying to claim that roleplaying makes you a That Guy? Acting in character is what you're supposed to do, it's just that Those Guys often use it as an excuse for really dumb shit. Acting in irrational, less than optimal ways is not bad or disruptive behavior, especially if you don't do it consistently but in some specific situation where it makes sense for our character.

I mean, when you have the power to blast someone into their component atoms with powerful magic, pulling out a sword you're totally incompetent with actually doesn't seem justifiable.

I don't care how mad I am at Muhammad Ali, I'm not going to try to win a fistfight with him if I'm already holding a loaded gun.

>bard
>blast someone into their component atoms

They've got damaging spells. He also didn't specify edition or level, so for all I know his bard could very well have high-level wizard spells of fuck-your-shit-up on his spell list.

You can assume through context that he probably didn't.

They've got fucking cantrips that deal damage. Your argument is shit.

Doing something disruptive is absolutely That Guy.

This situation is no different to the party rogue trying to steal from the king, or the barbarian killing random NPCs.

A cantrip that does a bit of damage is never going to compare to shoving a sword in his gut. I'd agree with you if he could immolate the orc with a fireball or something, but in his rage, the sword would seem like a better option.

To borrow your Muhammad Ali example, if you had a knife and a bb gun, I don't think you'd sit there plinking away with 6mm plastic pellets.

It really depends on the temperature of the group toward the action.

It is a role play point, but it does disrupt somewhat.

Though, with my group and my GMing style, I'd actually give him a one time access to the rage class feature for the fight.

Had a similar thing going in a different game. Character had a murdered parent backstory and was playing a monk/druid. The barbarian had died helping them try to kill her backstory nemesis. (They had some debate beforehand on if even attempting was a good idea, and left it to a roll.)

They were defeated, the party captured. Everyone got some boon during the downtime. (Winged kobold boltslinger got a full fly speed, sorcerer who's rp was a random appearance change one bad rolls got a floating +2 bonus.) This monk/druid got a +2, and would eventually get access to the rage class power at HD progression because that barbarian was going to basically become her spirit animal.

Of course it is different. We're not talking about making enemies or starting unnecessary fights, we're talking about attacking someone who already is an enemy in a suboptimal way. It is completely different. And no, doing something as "disruptive" as this is not being a That Guy. If PCs always act like perfectly logical automatons, it's safe to asume your group is shit. Hell, even conflict withing the party has its place - some of the best role-playing experiences I've had have been related tensions with other party members.

Some people want to play the game as an optimization puzzle, but yeah I'd say at that point the roleplay aspects are pretty light. Different strokes.

>Doing something disruptive is absolutely That Guy.
It certainly can be.

>This situation is no different to the party rogue trying to steal from the king, or the barbarian killing random NPCs.
So you actually believe this, or are you just arguing?

To put it another way, is there a justifiable reason for a PC to ever take an action counter to the needs of the group, perhaps because it's what their character would do?

Fair enough, people play role-playing games for different reasons, and it was an exaggeration to call a group focused on effectively and efficiently winning encounters shit. It might just be that the tastes of the user who posted that story are different from his group, in which case neither side is necessarily in the wrong.

I can get that type of play, but would then prefer the fiction to match it i.e. the characters are a band of brothers fighting for the greater good or something like that.

It sounds like you deserved it, talking about something not related to the game when something is happening that doesn't involve your character is rude and disruptive desu.
GM shouldn't have thrown a lightning bolt at you but you're partially to blame

your bard charged an orc who raped an entire city on his own?

>'That Guy' GM
>Party has an extended dick around gab-session or forgets the plot
>an NPC materializes regardless of our location
>Is 100% up to date with who we are and the plot so far
>starts trying to very unsubtley shove us back into main story
>If we ignore he starts following us and trying to chauffeur us back
>becomes louder and more insistent
>He's also unkillable

The GM also raises DCs challenge whatever the strongest player in the group in that particular stat, making it impossible for any other players

>talking about something not related to the game when something is happening that doesn't involve your character is rude and disruptive desu.
Like hell it is. If you can talk without shouting, it's perfectly fine to have conversations on the side. If your character is witnessing whatever happens, you shold pay attention, but if your character isn't even present, there is nothing wrong with talking about something else.

>that guy who joins the thieves guild in a wood elf town that specializes in stealing the freshest produce
>gets all pouty when we join the guards
>he starts conspiring with the thieves guild in the middle of the bandit dungeon
>wants to keep weapon crates we're retrieving for the quest
>rolls 1 on deception when we're turning in stolen weapons to the guard captain
>since he was keeping track of the loot he decides to keep it all after he gets sent to jail for two weeks
>"Lol it's because I'm CN"
>mfw

How do I discreetly kill another player's character?

poison, hire an assassin, hire Tucker's Kobolds

user he said he wanted him discreetly killed, not ripped to shreds, don't refer him to the kobolds

>"Hey GM do you allow third party?"
>"Sure thing, just let me see it first"
>"Hey GM can I get improved familiar with my wizard?"
>"If you have the feats for it then why not?"
>Approaches me after the game with a book
>He wants to get a unicorn form my little pony as his new familiar
>Not only is it out of place its also OP as fuck
>He essentially gets to play two wizards with their own set of prepped spells per day

Maybe it IS an actual wizard, it just decided to use the "Find familiar" spell to travel to the surface. Turns out it some aboleth or alien that doesn't really know that much about the surface world and is color blind.

>That guy that literally needs to loot EVERY SINGLE thing even though he can't use 90% of it.
>Said guy wants it all "just because'"

I hate that guy

>Steals from the party
>Sulks when he's caught

I GMed for #3. It was pretty annoying but I gotta say, the satisfaction of wiping that smug look off his face was worth it.

>tip

Hungry for information.

Yeah. Nah. You're a dumb asshole.

Because it's far better to let him finish his sentence and THEN tell GM that my character interrupted his character mid-sentence.

Your GM is bad. Good GMs will force you onto the tracks without you even noticing.

>even though in the real world, you can kill an elephant with a single one
>killing elephant with a single projectile
>an arrow at that

nigger you fucking what
do you have ANY idea how tough it is to kill an elephant?
do you know what an elephant gun is?

Not the entire population residing there.

The city.

Let that sink in

Elephants, like most other animals, are easy as fuck to kill. They're just difficult to kill in a timely fashion.

I have a problem with a sort of that guy, but it's forgivable since its his first time in a full campaign, but i still want to teach him its wrong.( I've played a few full campaigns and know mostly what table etiquette is and stuff)
He just has a problem of always taking his turn outside of combat and never really letting anyone else do things, and inside combat he tells people what they should do and shit.
>In a fight with a bugbear and a few goblins
>Our barbarian who is an absolute madman cleaves 4 goblins in half but is now vulnerable to the bug bear.
>That guy who is a ranger tells me that I should run and shield the barb and then heal him as well as telling other people what they should do on their turns as well.
>Tell him I'll play my character and he kind of looks annoyed.
He is even worse outside of combat as every npc or event he immediately speaks up and lets no one else get a chance to talk, it also doesn't help he is a retard when it comes to npc dialogue and makes everyone hate him.
The party I'm with is a bunch of beginners and our DM is pretty new as well, so I was wondering what I should do about it. I'm going to talk to him before our next session but i was hoping maybe some of you have had this experience and could give some advice.

Also he says we a lot like he is speaking for everyone else and will speak for the DM sometimes, not on rules and things, but describing what our party does when the DM should be.

Irritating behaviors I've noticed:

>Quick to talk shit when someone else fucks up, but gets defensive when other players hold him accountable for a dumb move he made
>Thinks it's funny for his character to deliberately antagonize the other PCs when bored but tries to bullshit his way out of it when one of them tries to smack him for it
>Wants subplots for his character that inevitably split the party, but gets impatient quickly whenever something that isn't about him is going on, even when it's considerably more important to the campaign

What is it with players that roll CN characters?