ITT: general pet peevees and stuff that makes you fucking mad

>Players that treat the game as "wacky funny game time" and put zero effort into character creation. These are the guys that will roll what class they get, what race they play, and what stats go where. Then they read 2 sentences of the race description and their character's entire personality is a characature of that race.
>Players who don't make a backstory
>Players who roll for a skill and look at you like you have three heads when you ask them "What for/How?"
>Players that bitch whenever they take ANY damage
>The Neutral evil rogue character that is as bad as it sounds.
>People who think that joining up with the party is the death of their character's roleplaying career and try to lone wolf it as long as possible.
>Katanas in non-Chinese inspired settings. No exceptions. It's really a mark against that player's creativity and roleplaying skills rather than character archetype hatred.
>Characters that are built to do simple combat tricks (I.E. Barbarian built for full-attacking every round) but the player takes twice or thrice as long as he needs to decide on what he does anyways.
>Players that try to "break the game" by exploiting a poorly worded skill or feat and get salty when I stonewall their built via GM fiat.
>Players that never grew out of their edgy middle schooler phase. Like the people who say "I was trying to hide my emotions" when you ask them why were they staring at a wall.
>Players who have that ugly-ass shaved head+pony tail sticking off the back of the head combo. It looks fucking hideous like why would you do that?
>Players who eat greasy/dusty snacks while playing MTG.
>Players who store all their valuable cards in plastic bags unsleeved.
>Players who have years of playing experience but have never GM'd once, to the point of encouraging a newbie to GM a game for them.
>Players who assume that the GM will let them buy literally any magic item during down time.

>Players who are rolling randomly and if they get a high roll they'll "save it" for the next time they need to roll. Motherfucker that is not how this works. You can't just roll until you get a high roll and save that one.

>Players that try to "break the game" by exploiting a poorly worded skill or feat and get salty when I stonewall their built via GM fiat.
These are the fucking worst.

There is nothing wrong with trying to make a strong or powerful character. But if you're trying to do it by cheesing the rules and using shoddily made feats/powers/poorly written shit I will put my foot down.

>>Players who have that ugly-ass shaved head+pony tail sticking off the back of the head combo. It looks fucking hideous like why would you do that?
You mean like this except only with hair on the back of the head?

>bad guy has personally killed hundreds, and caused the deaths of thousands
>have to kill what he throws in our way
>GM doesn't say a word
>corner the bad guy
>NO! YOU CAN'T KILL HIM OR YOU'LL BE JUST LIKE HIM!

>all these gaps for no reason
pls stop doing this

>arbitary notion of sci-fi and fantasy
>guns kill everything always forever
>anti-weebs as well as weebaboos
>/pol/ memery

At least it's not coming out the side.

We have a guy in our group who for some reason feels the need to preface basically every joke he makes with "Humor: ", and it kind of annoys me.

>not recognizing that the classical DnD morality is build around being able to be good and lawful while still smashing some heads into the ground

This one always kinds of bugs me. Going by how Veeky Forums talks, if you're a Paladin you have to dump every bad guy you meet on the local magistrate's doorstep then fill out the proper criminality forms in triplicate then testify in a lengthy trial or else you're not a Paladin anymore.

We're talking about a medieval fantasy game here. The world around you is brutal and unforgiving. It's not a downgrade in alignment to throw some of that harshness back.

Bump.

That being said, you can totally play that character if you want. The DM just shouldn't force you too.

Are you playing with an assassin droid or something?
Are you from a different universe? All the paladin characters I've dealt with were smitebots that would Detect/Smite Evil/Chaos on a butterfly if it got too close to them.

I don't know if you're still playing with the DM these are from, but if you are you may just want to assume his fights are weaker than they look.

As for me, it's when the DM lets players use social skills on each other. Especially when he rules that you roll to resist with the exact same skill. There are few things less fun than being told "your character agrees with him now," especially when it's a stupid fucking plan or something that benefits the other guy far more than you.

What's even more annoying is when a party member asks another for a roll then refuses to follow that roll.

>people discouraging others from creating new material and pushing them towards redoing old concepts with minimal deviation endlessly
>critical lack of imagination when playing fantasy and acting as if fantasy were a single codified setting

>I use [insert classical/cliched fantasy race] in my setting but they are different in x aspects

Oh come on, how about you show some courage and think about an original name for it or something

That one is a catch 22.
>"Oh, so those are just [cliched fantasy race] with x."

>Humanizing a gook

I experienced it mostly as something where the GM wants to do something new but is afraid of breaking tropes and conventions that he always put stuff under the guise of just-slightly altered conventional stuff

How is the dm supposed to play that out? I'm actually curious. What's the justification for player characters not be subject to skill checks when it comes to social interactions?
Like let's say you're playing a really unwise character. Sure maybe YOU know it's a bad plan but how do you translate that into your characters actions and thoughts without a skill check or playing along? Same with a charismatic character if you're not actually charismatic. How do you do shit without a skill check?

we usualy ask the smart guy who plays a low-INT character for help OOC.

With my group, at least, we can get away with expecting people to roleplay their characters pretty closely, so if one player gives a convincing argument that the other player's character would likely be swayed by they just play along.

Also, usually smart people playing dumb characters (or unwise, or whatever) either just roleplaying not noticing the obvious solution or give themselves a roll to see if they figure it out.

For charisma stuff, we know how good each other player is at that stuff and cut them some slack as appropriate.

Theoretically if we got a new player who couldn't be relied upon to handle that stuff themselves we might step in and codify some sort of highly streamlined stat check to quickly figure things out, but I don't like requiring stuff like that.

Also, for charisma checks between players, I'd make it be opposed by something all players are likely to have (I'm my group Sense Motive or equivalent is usually pretty popular and fits ... somewhat well), or just make it a straight die roll / level based / etc.

tl;dr it's better when people can be relied upon to get relatively close on their own, so you don't need rules for it.

By expecting people to roleplay their characters sensibly and according to their strengths, weaknesses and inclinations.
Further, people actually forget, or simply do not realive, how incredible the narrative power a good social character can wield. It easily outstrips any combative force the pc party can bring to bear, and can massively and irrevocably twist a game in a bad way.
It's why GMs will often put harsher limits on social rolls than other types, the power is outsized.

>players who start pvp for no good reasons
>players who kill theirs characters if anything bad happened to them to make new ones
>players not wanting to help each other even if situation is deadly
>players who act like it's GM's fault they roll was bad.

Maybe he's a disguised assassin droid IRL or something, I dunno.

>you can totally play that character if you want.

That's true, but at the same time most people I see going for this kind of character wind up being the most obnoxious kind of busybody. There's a difference between trying to act as a moral compass and deciding that little "LG" on your character sheet automatically makes you the party's own one-man Internal Affairs office.

>As for me, it's when the DM lets players use social skills on each other
It can be pretty dumb. My campaign had a character die. New character shows up next session. To set the stage, we had just rescued the high priest of the local village from an evil cult we believed to be controlled by the lord of the keep. Political intrigue, trust no one, etc. Dude was in pretty bad shape after being kidnapped. Our cleric had, for the entire campaign, been very mistrustful of others, and it had only been amplified by the situation. So when new character (a Bard) shows up pretty much out of nowhere asking to see the priest, the Cleric says no. It pretty much went exactly like this:
>B: Take me to the priest
>C: No.
>B: I need to see him, I'm here to help
>C: Who are you? What's your name?
>B: Don't worry about my name, I need to see the priest
>C: No.
>B: I roll to persuade him
>C: No.
>B: 28!
>C: No.
A little more back and forth like that, but they ended up dropping it. It really was something the character would realistically not have been persuaded by as evidenced by his behavior the entirety of the campaign.

That isn't to say PCs should be immune to that, though. Way earlier in our campaign we had a player who had to leave the campaign because of work schedules fucking him over. IC, nobody had liked him much anyway, so when he left camp during the night nobody was too broken up about it, and most of us were pretty glad he was gone. Rogue, real weasley type, cowardly. Well played by his player honestly. Later on he ends up as an NPC that attacks the party and we end up capturing him. Most of us wanted to kill him, but he tries talking his way out. Rolls persuasion, our barbarian rolls to counter, barbarian fails. Ends up saying something like, "fuck it, just let him go, I don't want to see his stupid face anymore." So there's definitely ways to do it, but it has to be something that could realistically occur.

">Katanas in non-Chinese inspired settings. No exceptions. It's really a mark against that player's creativity and roleplaying skills rather than character archetype hatred."

But what about Japanese inspired settings user :V

I would rule that certain skills just cannot be used on a party member at all. Bluff could, because there is an opposing role, sense motive. Diplomacy would never work. Intimidate? I wouldn't want to be in a game where party members are intimidating each other, unless there was a session zero about acceptable behaviors.

Whoops, wrong person.

why. it's just a type of sword..

Why do you hate Koreans, OP?

That's fucking stupid. I've never seen this being done. If there is an impasse, we usually settle differends with 2 out of 3 matches.

>So there's definitely ways to do it, but it has to be something that could realistically occur.

user gets it. Hell, the bard could've convinced the cleric if he actually attempted to use deceit, he's a bard after all, he can wear disguises and the like.