Things you hate

>players who don't have any patience

>impatient assholes that ruin a peaceful negotiation just as it is about to be solved in maximum benefit for everybody
>players that react to puzzles like muslims react to synagogues
>players that discard a system as bullshit because their characters receive an amount of damage of 1 or greater

Jesus fucking christ. You're both ass hats. Fuck off.

>DMs who think players should be patient for his masturbatory fantasy monologue instead of real things like actual world building or character development

> Hey user, I know you're doing your own setting and hate ripping shit directly from stuff, but X in Supernatural acts and is like X

> Hey user, that demon wouldn't do that, in Constantine that demon would

> Hey user, why won't you use the character art for the red headed scottish shortstack halfling waifu I wanted? Also, halflings being French in your campaign doesn't make sense, they'd be more Irish or Scottish.

> Hey user, I know you said this campaign will focus on more crafting and gathering resources, but I want more characters and NPCs to interact with! No, the merchants, hunters, trappers, fishermen, ferrymen, road wardens, forest wardens, druids, farmers, pilgrims, elven rangers, and friendly goblins don't count!

> Hey user, why isn't the halfling waifu I wanted open to me having fuck any woman I want? You know monogamy is a backwards and ain't natural right?

> Hey user, why is it when I rolled a 20 on my Cha check, the guard won't let me fuck his wife and daughter? I rolled extremely high!

> Why am I getting yelled at by the townsfolk! I'm just taking my loli waifu who is actually much older then she looks around town while once in a while making out with her? You know in medieval time they'd allow it! They'd marry as soon as they began puberty and that means they're ready to fuck!

> user, why won't you let me have a DFC devil loli waifu who acts like a stereotypical anime character complete with emotes and what not?

> user, why are gnolls, minotaurs, and other beast folk always CE in your campaigns? I thought you said you didn't like having to rip stuff from games you like? I don't care if their evil god is controlling them via a hive mind, it doesn't make sense since at least 1 would be good and willing to join us. And most likely female as well and is willing to fuck me.

> user, I want Charmcaster from Ben 10 to be my wife!

>I want to make a pirate town and be in charge of all of them in the world!

All this just from 2 players.

Could you go be faggot somewhere else please?
>BBEG wants to talk to the party means BBEG wants to start a monologue
No it doesn't. It means BBEG wants to talk to the fucking party.
And monologues are good if done right. If anything you must always respect what the GM does or GTFO of the game or you are That Guy.

Why do you equate the villain wanting to say anything with monologue? Shit he wants to talk to you, it's probably a back and forth discussion. Jesus christ go fuck yourself.

>I want to make a pirate town and be in charge of all of them in the world!
I imagine that was a "I want this to be preexisting fact" not a "My character's goal!".

The guy has a point about marriage. Granted today it isn't necessary since we don't have a high chance of dying before middle age, but back then when you got puberty you fucked off and got married. Same for a son.

But it's dumb to put it in game either way.

Because 99% of the time it's the DM jerking himself off and not good at all. And I see I triggered two faggot DMs who wanna sit there splooging dialogue at us. Learn how to build character without all that. Or make me give a shit about your one dimensional cardboard cutout villain and make him have more depth so I want to listen to him. Otherwise, fuck off.

No, it's one of his goals.

He wants to make a pirate town in his viking home land, become immortal, and rule all vikings and pirates all the while being a harem protag from an anime.

You can tell I'm ready to fucking smite his ass should he cross the line in my campaign since he knows I hate it when you act like an anime character more then being a CN jerk off or doing shit for the sake of science.

If it lets his characters have sex, he'll want to argue about letting his character do it even though he also knows I don't really focus on it. He actually got offended when I started DMing for the first time saying I'm a horrible DM and need to improve on stuff like that.

I wasn't defending him. I agree with you that it's a shit thing to insert into a game that isn't an erotic roleplay, just saying he'd technically be right about it being fine in the past.

So the GM should build the villain up as a character without ever having them talk to the players, because talking to the players should never occur because it immediately begins a monologue?

You're basically saying a villain should never directly interact with PCs unless it's through combat.

Sure, seeing his actions and the result of his actions second hand can give you an idea about him, but it is far and away less personable.

You're a fucking retard.

Aside from the "harem anime weebshit" part, what's wrong with that?

I have no issue with a monologue if it's done well. Most of the time it isn't. I don't need to directly talk to him to get to know his character.There are other ways to do it.

I'm not saying a DM needs to be a professional writer and have all this complex shit just to appease me, but I'm not all that interested in your moustache twirling cardboard cutout villain explain his whole plan to me. I save that for comedic games or well thought out games, not hear a rip off and shitty cliffnotes of Ayn Rand or Nietzsche philosophy games. It isn't funny nor is it interesting.

You're making a lot of assumptions from the initial statement being that the villain wanted to talk and the player response just being 'fug u'.

>the idea that players have to play perfectly
>meaning they have to be able to kill anything they want, never drop a character, and receive any magical item in the books

Why would anyone listen to someone who has been trying to kill them?

Threads like these.

Since every campaign whenever he has a long term goal like that, he goes to the DM and says something like "I go and talk to Duke X of Sealand to join me in making a council of kingdoms." and expects that's all to it. No real roll, no plan, just I do that.

He once wanted to basically create the UN but for aquatic races so he told our GM that he goes and does that. Not taking any steps to making it happen, just that. Any and all goals he does that unless it involves immediate poon, he just says he does it and expects it to happen in the next session or so. If he can fuck something to add to his harem, he will pull off some shit from an anime along with expecting the GM to even talk, emote, or sound like he's the chick.

That and when negotiating, he'll expect them to automatically give in when he gives his terms and will argue for hours on why it's a fair.

Example, he told a king to surrender his kingdom and become a governor or else his pirate fleet will invade him. All the while the king has in his army, several liches, vampires, flesh golems, and is on an island crawling with CR10 monsters. All the while the PC's fleet is comprised up of nothing but pirates.

When the king refused, he went into a rant saying his is giving him a fair deal, the king basically just has to report to him, and if he refuses he dies.

When negotiating fails but before war or something happens, he falls back on rolling Diplomacy or Intimidate which he always stacks and expects anything over 20 to automatically sway anyone and anything, including gods, to agree with him.

Had my players actually attack the villain before he could reveal he had the city hostage and the trigger was rigged to his heart.

The city died because they decided not to listen for three sentences.

>Party immediately overwhelms NPCs with questions from everybody, mostly about things the NPC can't reasonably know

So did the guy just walk out in front of people that wanted to kill him without a way to prevent them from immediately killing him?

...

>But what about realism?

What about it? You haven't been complaining about that though. You've been ranting and raving about how he should be monologuing with his Saturday morning cartoon villains, and that he should be a good enough writer that the villain will be so compelling before he even speaks that you'll be able to metagame if he's worth talking to.

How about instead of that, we just acknowledge that while monologuing is shirty due to it being railroading, it's conversely annoying for the DM who puts that work into making an interesting villain and even goes for a dialogue rather than a monologue, only for the players to shut it down.

Not even a 'why would we want to talk to you? You tried to kill us!' Just a 'fuck off'
And you're accusing him of shitty storytelling/roleplaying?

The heart trigger was meant to be the way because he assumed the party wasn't going to attack him mid first sentence. If he had another way that would defeat the purpose of the heart trigger.

That and he was being broadcasted on television during this. It was supposed to be a "Oh big reveal" moment with the villain having broken into a talk show to do this. The PCs broke through a window and attacked him as he was starting.

Buddy that was my first post in this thread.

I'd imagine it went like this

>Players bust in door, find villain unarmed and calmly seated
>Raise their weapons
>'I wouldn't do that, I have-'
>"REEEE! Fucking monologues!"
>Kill him

Okay. Then consider that directed towards the other guy who doesn't get why you might want to take to a villain.

And then see for an example

Yeah things like heart bomb triggers only really work in scenarios where you can guarantee a conversation will occur or you can get the information to the PCs ahead of time in some other way.
Plus from it looks like the PCs got the drop on the guy.

So it's not an issue with the goal, it's an issue with the execution.

Yep. Worst part is how smug he gets about his plans.

Did he die in one hit? Cause talking during combat is a pretty fucking common thing in fiction.

So just fucking have him fail. At some point he either gets that he needs to put more thought into his plans or he reeees and bitches so hard everyone else in the group starts hating him and you kick him out.

That's the problem, the other PCs in the group don't mind it and just laughs at him which causes him to ree harder.

All the while the DM just says he'll have to keep trying. He literally refuses to change since in his head, he's doing all that's needed to be done.

>The guy who's Marty Stu secret agent/doctor android character in Traveller turns out to secretly have been the split personality of another OC donut steel edgelord mob boss

He got about 15 IRL minutes after suddenly remembering who he was before 3 of us gunned him down and tried to reboot him back to the way he was (bearing in mind this alter ego had been talked up earlier in the campaign like a potential BBEG).

> Players who try to derail the campaign as soon as the game begins.
> Players who, upon seeing that there are no rails, make up rails do they can derail them.

>Well, HISTORICALLY everyone would have been fine with slavery and marrying 12-year-olds! Also, female soldiers are so implausible I can't play in any game which features them. A transition to a democratic government is doomed because peasants are stupid, and monarchies are great anyway. And the armor is unrealistic REEEEEEE

The commonality of this stuff on Veeky Forums has put me off of running games with medieval settings. Ee-yup, industrialized everything from here on out.

Skub

Literally the worst thing mankind has ever made.

Fuck you, Skub is an incredible advancement of mankind and you're ignorant for not seeing its benefits.

Historically, in the period(s) of European Medieval history most fantasy games try to ape, marriage was a thing that happened later in life. You wanted to be successful and financially secure before marriage. But betrothals could last years, were just as legally binding as marriages, and in general the bride's family would "accidently" leave a window unlocked so the betrothed could start making some new laborers/children right away.

That picture reminds me of this.

I haven't read the the thread. I'm just stopping by to say that I really like that OP pic.

Selfish players are the worst kind I've played with. They want to always be the center of attention and the leader of the party, and bitch constantly if they are not given total obedience from the other characters. If anyone refuses to do what they say, they complain, sometimes threaten violence in-game, and sometimes even attack and try to kill other characters just for not blindly obeying them. They are absolutely intolerable. I've met a couple and they created the most unpleasant experiences I've had in gaming.

Second worst are rules lawyers of either variety. You have the arguers who will spend two hours fighting about the interpretation of a rule that makes no fucking difference, and then you have the hidebound computer brain types who are incapable of thinking outside the box in any way. The former will ruin any game they are in. The later are sometimes fine as players, but they make the worst GMs imaginable. They always want to play games with a thousand rules and spend more time consulting charts to determine how many fractions of a second something takes than they do running the game. Plus, they run pure railroads, and punish any effort at creativity, but it's worse than normal railroaders, because most guys who railroad hard are doing it to tell a story. These guys can't tell a stroy because their machine minds don't understand motivation or emotion or human behavior. Everything has one solution which is never clear or explained, and nothing else works, and their NPCs are all emotionless androids devoid of personality, who are utterly unmemorable and impossible to tell apart from each other.

Again, I've played with a couple, and they are fucking awful. I'd rather play with furries than rules lawyers, I shit you not.

>players that discard a system as bullshit because their characters receive an amount of damage of 1 or greater

>Player makes a Two-Hand Weapon Fighter
>Sprints in the opposite direction the instant any conflict breaks out
>if he can't run away, he simply takes cover and hides until it stops
>Vocally refuses to do anything beyond running and hiding, and actively avoiding combat when combat is literally the only thing he built his character to do
>The instant he took HP damage from a stray arrow, he declares that he commits suicide and that I'm a Killer DM and I should feel bad
>tries to turn the group against me by insisting I just want them all dead and I'll GM fiat some way of murdering them like I did him
>Storms out ranting about what a shit DM I am when nobody buys it

I will never understand people like this.

Vet your players better, dude.

I'm going to call you a liar, if for no reason other than refusal to believe such a person exists.

Good riddance.

It only happened later if you were royalty or an aristocrat. Everyone else had to shit out kids as early as possible since many wouldn't make it to adulthood and somebody had to help make money or work the farm once pops got hit with the plague at 30 and died or became half crippled due to the massive amount of manual labor.

Players that avoid plot hooks like the plague, but fixate on one completely fucking random thing and assume it's extremely important for no reason than because....reasons. Like the time I described a vase in the king's throne room as red when the party asked for more detail about what the king's throne room looked like.

Since I described the vase in any detail beyond "It's a vase that exists" they assumed it was super important and spent the next 4 hours(in-game, about 20 minutes out of game) attempting to steal it. They didn't even bother asking for it(when they just stopped a potential threat of an undead outbreak and the king basically owed them one) or trying to buy it, they just skipped right to stealing it.

They did feel pretty silly when they found out it was just a completely normal vase that was just decoration. Cue more rolls sneaking back into the palace to put it back before anyone noticed it was gone.

Literally never said that and you're strawmanning. I don't care if shit is realistic or not as long as it's fun.

Poor Adrian Rubinsky.

I mean you could have just said "it's an ordinary red vase" when they started to become obsessed with it instead of waiting until after they stole it if it was a problem.

I kind wanted to, but at the same time I wanted to see where they were going with this.

It wasn't a total loss though, they needed to break into the palace later for something anyways, and since they didn't get caught during either vase robbery/return attempt, they already knew the quickest way to get in unseen, so that helped. The Barbarian stole the vase again on the way out to everyone's amusement.

Not him, but I have a player in my game who is DEX based, has the highest AC and second-highest HP in the game, and yet constantly agonises over whether they should make a move and potentially get hit for a D6's worth of damage, even if it means getting into an incredibly advantageous position for their turn

> hey [character], pls come assist
> [character] pls
> i'm dying
> i'm getting focused by three enemies
> [character] pls help
> you're on full HP
> they'd barely be able to hit you
> you're...going to just stay away in case they hit you
> ok

They've been getting better though, and actively trying to improve their combat roll. That being said...
> on 3HP
> alright, whatcha gonna do
> I'M GONNA HEAD INTO THIS PLACE THAT'S HIDDEN BY FOG OF WAR EVEN THOUGH WE'RE MID COMBAT AND I KNOW ENEMIES ARE EVERYWHERE
> OH SHIT, THERE'S ENEMIES HERE, HOW COULD I HAVE KNOWN

Cheating and fetish fuel are my top two. Only things I'll kill characters or kick players for without some sort of discussion.

I think that's pasta. I know I've seen the same story on Veeky Forums a few times before.

Either way, I could see it happening. I've known some really shit players.

I've posted the story once before. It was the one where we gave the player's Fighter the nickname "Sir Robin" that made him assblasted to no end.

I do love me some anal agony, so I hope it's true.
Fuck that guy.

I hate it when people make references in games. Subtle references can be fine when they're used sparingly. But then you often have players that lift characters wholesale from another setting, or just constantly meme all the time.

I sincerely hope you fail all your invulnerable saves in the future.

May all your paint spill and your dice get lost under your bed.

Skub is beyond shit tier.

Apropos the topic at hand.
>You subtract good points if you do evil, and subtract evil points if you do good. It should be pretty trivial to keep yourself in the black even if you're doing good actions though, just destroy someone's property.
This attitude is something I hate, I can understand why people have it, but I hate it.

I'd prefer to do away with alignment altogether when it comes to game mechanic and only use it as a fluff piece. I can understand why some classes (Paladin) require a moral code, but for the rest of them you just end up in a situation where you have quotas to meet.
>I am sorry Kronar, but you haven't raped enough virgins to make up for your dragon slaying, looks like I'll have to bump you from a Chaotic Good to a Neutral Good.

I'd much rather prefer to keep it as a fluff piece, then if the character goes through development (e.g an evil character who changes their ways) you can talk with the player about it.

End yourself.

Get out.

Liberal use of GM fiat.
If you feel extra dickish, make an NPC with a through the roof diplomacy and/or intimidate who has a "small job" for your character to do.
What is that, you refuse? Sorry, but his arbitrary number is higher than your arbitrary number. He is bending reality to his will just to have you do this "small job".
Rest of the group? Nah, he isn't interested in them, only you.
Expect a table-flip and friendships to be ruined if he does not realise what you are doing.

Alternatively talk it out with them. But I suspect you've already tried that.

I have a similar problem with my GM. Dan?
We have a local idiom here to describe what happens "You ask in east, they responds in west", English must have a similar one. Essentially you ask one question and get the answer to a different question.

For example during a combat encounter, we had been ambushed and I was hiding in a ditch, ahead of me was an enemy behind some shrubbery. I asked the GM if I could possibly shoot the enemy without standing up (and thus exposing myself)
>"You can see the enemy's hat behind the shrubbery."
"Without standing up?"
>"Yeah, if you stand up you get a better view of him."
"But I can still shoot at him without standing up?"
>"...Yes?"
"Great, then that is what I'm doing, no point in exposing myself.

We are occasionally butting heads over it, he claims I am not paying attention, which I am not denying. I claim he answers different questions than the ones I ask. A bit more on the rant side: I mentioned not denying that I need to pay more attention, which is true. However unlike the rest of the group, when I am not in the spotlight I keep quiet; the session before the last it was my combat turn, I knew what to do, I only had to pick a target. However when GM began describing which enemies I could see the group chatted so loudly I had to ask the GM to clarify thrice.

But all of that being said, I both agree and disagree with , when you ask the GM something you expect the most important (not-meta gaming) information being given first. However, players are prone to fall for red herrings, and GMs can exploit that for some glorious pointless shenanigans. Which - if I may add - you did beautifully, well done.

>that payer who hates any non D&D game that works off using modifiers for attacks (gurps, warham rpg) because D&D has made his brain into mush and he is unable to thibk outside full attack

Fuck I wanna play that shit!

If I suddenly yell "I ATTACK" as soon as the DM mentions any normally hostile creature, I'll get a surprise round!

>Players who throw a hissy fit any time they fail a roll

Had one of them at the table no more than 3 weeks ago. But at least he didn't complain or sperged out when he took some damage

>bung hole
>need TP for my bung hole
>the Great Cornholio

"And monologues are good if done right"
Dumbass everything "if done right" is by definition good, its a redundant sentence.

And on the 5th day the lord said. Let their be skub

>Playing with cis men
>incapable of grasping the setting
>who only want magical realm in an apparently non-fetishfule game

found your mistake

fa/tg/uys who are oversensitive to the point that they get triggered the moment they sense something they can associate with a bad stereotype

When I first started getting into TTRPGs, I would play with my grandfather, father, and my father's brother. All 3 of them were scientists or engineers. So we'd regularly have situations like
>"I fly diagonally upwards."
>'But what angle do you fly at?'
>"I dunno... 45 degrees?"
>one of them constructs a triangle to solve for the actual horizontal and vertical distance traveled
Or
>"I break the pipe to start flooding the room"
>cue some minutes of calculations and arguments to solve the rate of water coming from the pipe, the volume of the room, and the amount of time it would take to flood the room as intended

It's not /wrong/ to do that, but fuck me it's annoying and adds nothing to the game. Whenever I'm playing with people trying to start that kind of shit I get mad as fuck.

Players who expect me to tell them why their edgy loner character should join or follow the party.

>female soldiers are s
For future reference you should know these are A-Ok in medivial settings.

>Session 1
>Enter first combat
>"my character hides because he's a pacifist and doesn't want to hurt anything"

WHY THE FUCK DID YOU ROLL A PACIFIST CHARACTER FOR A GAME THAT'S ABOUT KILLING THINGS 99% OF THE TIME

Yes, we call such people politicians.

>player makes slight variations of the same character for every game you play, even if the setting or the game itself are completely different

Unless the character itself is shit why is that a bad thing?

Asking for a friend

If I wanted to hear about the many exploits of Samefag Everygameson I would read his autobiography.

Imagine if Ian McKellen played every single role of his like he was Gandalf, beard and everything. You just get sick of it the immediate 3rd time.

>players who take damage then act as though the games over as a result.

>DM's who railroad, fudge dice and quantum ogre in any form

>Players who expect their classes to work the same as in X MMO despite the contrary being explained.

>Players who complain an encounter isn't 'balanced'.

The fuck is quantum ogre

There's a fork in the road. Do you go left, or right?
>Left
You encounter an ogre
>Right
You encounter an ogre
In my opinion it's not actually a bad practice, necessarily. The players will never know what, exactly, was down the other fork of the road, so it's mostly just saves on prep time for the DM. No point in preparing a million encounters for every possibility if the players aren't going to perform the actions that lead to nine tenths of them.

Why does something so benign have a name? When would you encounter this? When you double back on your path and go down the opposite fork in the road simply to test your GM for this?

Seems autistic.

>I go back
You encounter an ogre
>My character's tired. I'll sleep here.
You encounter an ogre
>Say, I think I'll use my Teleport to go back home
You encounter an ogre
>Actually, my character commits suicide because of his crippling depression.
You encounter St Peter. He is an ogre

Quantum ogre a shit and if you do it, you have no respect for your game.

If the player goes back and tries the other path and the exact same ogre is there, you are indeed a shit DM.
However, most people have something called a brain in their skull, and going back and taking the other path need not actually result in any encounter whatsoever. The "quantum ogre" has already been slain.