saw a tale of a of a session zero, where the rogue was playing up his lone wolf backstory. partway through the bartender set some drinks down and said his son was lying about losing his parents as a kid. Turns out the rogue was the son of the innkeeper and bartender couple that ran the tavern, and started complaining to his father about how he keeps ruining his chance to go adventuring like he wants to. From what I heard the rogue player had intended the edgelord routine to be a fakeout, though the DM portraying his character being the son of the tavern owners was a twist he hadn't seen coming but enjoyed. Sometimes using a trope or trait can still be good, if you plan for it to be a little twist. Personally I think if the 'edgelord' opens up partway through and starts being genuine, it's a good way to go.
Players who harrass others for optimizing their characters. I have seen a lot of hate for people making a character built to do their job well. Claiming "yOu cAn'T rOlEplAy And bE oPtImIzED!" Buuuuullllshit! You can make a fighter who is very good at archery and have a backstory about how they managed to be a good shot. I hate the false dichotomy of good rp or good character build. I also hate people who do go the other way around. If their character isn't minmaxed to fuck and back but isn't a drag on the party, who cares. Let them play that character if they arent hindering progression in the story.
This is a good point. Especially for me because i was thinking the same way as those people you mention. Then i saw opposite examples like min-maxed character with an actual goal and reasons to be strong, good at their job. But also i have seen people min max and use their player knowledge as if their -1 intelligence 3 level character is a professor. Unfortunately i have seen more bad examples than good ones so i still approach min-maxing players with some suspicion
As someone who is like the exact opposite of a min-maxer. Someone who makes my character worse for the added challenge and flavour. I can’t really relate to the min-maxers headspace, but I have nothing against them. As long as they don’t pester me on how I play my character 😅
My cousin accidentally made Batman as a rogue for his first d&d char and didn't realize it until I as the DM pointed it out. He was a brooding, lone wolf and the greatest assassin of all time (as a level 1 rogue) and it did not mesh with his dice rolls or the rest of the party. Despite giving him multiple chances to rebrand his character as a hopeful robin hood type rogue that was doing his best portrayal of what he thought was valuable, he insisted on being a really shitty Batman that nobody liked and he was consistently the butt of every joke. It was a close friends and family game so I let some stuff slide that I normally wouldn't for a typical game between acquaintances.
Ive played in games where there were potentials for some of these issues, and the difference between it going well and being awful really is communication, being willing to compromise, and knowing how to develop the issue into something interesting rather than just keeping it static. For instance: one of my favorite campaigns series ever has been a Starfinder campaign where I played a neutral evil Ysoki engineer. He was a viscous little bastard, but the key part was after about the second firefight, after fighting and bleeding and protecting and being protected by these people, he decided that the party were HIS people. He didnt get along with all of them, and it was a running bit that he and one of the other members just didnt like each other and would verbally spar when appropriate, but that was something I had talked with that player ooc about and he was on board, and it NEVER prevented them from actually working together when needed.
1:34 Paladins in 3.5 *always* had to be Lawful Good, and you could see why that was bad. There's a reason Paladins are the poster child for the "It's what my Character would do" kind of Horror Stories.
A friend of mine has successfully played two different passivists who were/are assets to the team. They don't inflict HP damage but they buff, they heal, they sometimes debuff the enemy, they put their HP on the line to help make sure all partymembers get out alive. If these characters have an IRL inspiration, it'd be someone like Desmond Doss. They're heroic even without weapons or damaging spells.
A trait that I find potentially annoying is the "instigator". The PC is the one who would poke the hornets nest or cause some chaos. This can be done well and creates interesting situations but can also get annoying and disruptive if done too often and in inopportune times. The question is, is it because the PC is like it (boundary testing and such) or the player does it out if boredom/ tomfoolery.
I will say there is a “better” way to do this, which includes you, as a player, speaking to the others, as a player, saying “hey I wanna do some tension, what are y’all’s boundaries” and then respecting those boundaries If it’s “I say dumb sh// and then get defensive out of character when what I say upsets others” then that’s total malarkey
The pacifism thing feels dumb, like yeah your character would avoid violence but when necessary they should fight to defend themselves. And they should avoid killing people, just knocking them unconscious. And when they do kill someone (be it accidentally or by necessity) it should be a big deal for them
What I like to do is Batman’s no kill rule . “ oh using mind control to get the guard to abandon his pistol to buy flowers for his lover is evil cuz mind control is evil? Yeah you’re right , let’s go with your way, the merciful decision of shattering his skull and leaving his mangled corpse in the town square for his family to find “ has the whole party laughing
The problem I have with pacifist characters is that unless you talk with the party beforehand about trying to all be pacifists, you are associated with and actively helping other characters who have no issues with killing. You’re not any better than them for refusing to do so yourself when you’re assisting or enabling murder, and as a result you’re basically just as guilty of murder as the ones that actually did the killing, you might as well just join in. A pacifist would not want to interact with characters that have no issues with killing anything that gets in their way. Sure, you could play a character that dislikes violence, but that’s not the same thing as a pacifist, a pacifist wouldn’t try to hurt anyone unless they absolutely had no choice, as in they or someone dear to them would die if they didn’t fight, which doesn’t really fit most D&D games, you need a specific type of game to pull that off.
Thinking they need to be involved in every bit of RP or social situation so they basically smash into it like the Koolaid Man and make themselves a part of it. In my Avernus campaign, we spent about 8 months alluding to an NPC who was a vital part of my character's backstory and how he was now likely a devil in Avernus. After meeting him and confirming he had become a devil, our first encounter wasn't even an encounter per se: we were there to see his boss, so he just loomed nearby silently and did nothing when we left. The second time we saw him, the party's Artificer shoehorned herself into the conversation my character was having with him to force the discussion to be about his boss and how he was holding her father hostage. The third time we talked to that devil, the artificer started hatching a plan with him to double cross his boss to get her father back, despite me having told her multiple times that this devil was not to be trusted and had a grudge against my character. Nevertheless, Artificer insisted that we should launch a suicide mission built upon the assumption that this devil would not stab us all in the back to save her dad. When I told her that it was a stupid idea and that she was endangering my character for her own gain with no consent from me, she shut me down and dismissed any attempt I made to convince her not to go through with it. TL:DR, beware any person who thinks they're the main character in a RPG and the other characters are just AI controlled companions.
God. Half these issues could just be remedied if you sit down and talk to them. I feel like none of these people have ever lifted a finger to try. So yea, grow a spine talk with them, speak up, please. So tired of hearing all these stories that could be remedied if you just used the talk action in real life.
Imma be honest, that's not the case as often as i would like. If they're such pricks to start, they won't be any more polite after you tell them they're doing something wrong
I think this is true for novice players who are still finding their feet, especially if they come from a computer gaming background and haven’t yet understood the differences in approach and attitude required to participate in RPGs. Experienced players who still exhibit toxic behaviour are generally lost causes. It is almost impossible to negotiate with someone who has deep-seated character flaws in real life.
@MaindexOmega it is most of the time thoughm and if it doesn't work? You know to cut them out. But if you don't try, then imo, you are being just as much of an asshole as them. Talking doesn't hurt: it let's you know if you can come to an agreement or if you need to snip some excess from your friend network.
It's so funny, because anytime I tell people to just talk things out, I get met with so much pushback that I started doubting people even knew how tonhave a mature conversation anymore.
I mean I will say that Frieza’s most defining trait, his racism directed at other characters and his genocidal tendencies, would be preeeeetty annoying to play with
Yea, a lot of my character Ideas would tend to work better as NPC's than player characters. Granted sometimes they might work as a temporary pc, but yea, Hermit Witch who wants to collect exotic and rare plants/herbs to brew and craft with would rather hire the adventurers to do the stuffs rather than actually join them and potentially point out what she wants, and supports with the magick and potions she has brewed along the way. She has the means to be a capable adventurer, but what would the character do? She'd rather stay at home surrounded by her plants and books and brewing setup at home.
I have a player whose PC has been hired as a bodyguard, only cares about the employer in terms of a paycheck (while trying to bang her fellow bodyguard), and according to the player, does not care if she LOSES the job if she's fired for not only doing a piss-poor performance AT the job but also having a completely unlikable personality
Note that true pacifism is not the act of condemning violence, but doing your best to avoid conflict. If your going to play a pacifist you should be prepared to play the face of the party so you can diffuse situations before they escalate. Even then, if a pacifist from Street Fighter can throw hands when diplomacy fails, then a P.C. should be willing to do the same.
Sometimes the "character not meshing with the rest of the party" problem might not be entirely the player's fault. Many years ago I joined a high-level group without knowing much about them. I brought several of my old characters to the game, which the DM looked over and picked one that he said would be suitable (turned out he wasn't). My character, Kazzoren, was built as a basic human fighter, who wanted to be a paladin but simply didn't make the grade. I had always played him as I imagine a paladin (always doing what was morally right and attempting to help others in need at every oportunity). During the first game session with the new group, it was obvious that I had the wrong character for the game. At one point, we met a solo NPC (a female centaur paladin), and I remember thinking as our ways parted that I should be going off with her instead. Of course that would have taken me out of the group so I said nothing. It wasn't a bad group to be in, so I just rewrote my character background to fit the game. I always felt like I had betrayed Kazzoren, but the alternatives were to leave the group or get him killed off so that I could create a new character.
Luckily, this one rarely passes the laugh test. Backstory for my newly minted level 1 character is that they were a highly regarded and decorated general in the army and favourite of the king for saving his daughter from the lich king and his vampire swarm. The best way I’ve seen this handled is by a GM who accepted the player’s nonsense as written, except every time the character interacted with elements of their back story the situation/personnel had changed and/or nobody knew who the hell they were or what the hell they were talking about. Took the player a while to catch on but apparently their character was delusional. “Delusions of adequacy” was the phrase used. When the player protested the GM pointed out that one of the symptoms of being delusional is that you don’t know you’re delusional. Checkmate.
@@DavidAndrews-eb7gm Honestly ive never been a fan of DM's Doing this, it is literally the same as rewriting a characters entire backstory without asking the player which is a dick move. As a DM if you dont want someone to have this backstory in your game then you should be an adult actually talk to your players and ask them to change it.
Agree completely that almost all of the time player agency should be sacrosanct. If you’re going to insist on a back story where both of your parents are demi-gods and you spent your youth taking down ancient dragons with your pet beholders and a hunting knife then, in the context of the game, you are power gaming extreme main character syndrome and your character is delusional.
@@DavidAndrews-eb7gm I will say that if they refuse to change the backstory after being asked then the DM is completely in their right to do this. I am 100% fine with it in that scenario
The actual player in question was a work colleague of one of the other players. New to town. Usual story. Claimed to prefer maining Paladins so he’d played enough DnD to talk the talk. And now to the ‘you couldn’t make this up if you tried’ part of the story. Character’s back story at session zero was that his level 1 human Paladin of noble background was the prince and heir to the throne, captain of the king’s guard and renowned for leading a small band of soldiers that defeated a red dragon that had been terrorising the countryside. For his valour the Arch-Bishop had personally fast tracked his entry into Paladin training. As a result of his previous experiences he had, among other things, been granted by royal decree a suffix/nickname (Dragonscourge?) in addition to his royal title, chest armour made of red dragon scale, a plus one magic sword from the dragon’s hoard, two NPC men-at -arms as his royal retinue and had added the three (?) hit die from his Guard Captain role to his initial Paladin hit die because “it doesn’t make any sense to have less hit points than before”. The GM managed to negotiate some changes that were less certifiably insane but this wombat still played his character like his original list of demands was accurate. I thought he got off way too lightly.
Had a female GM shut down a player who persisted with this behaviour by pointing out that neither he in real life nor his character in the game were proficient in Personal Hygiene or Locate Clitoris. Brutal but effective.
Have them get their way, but have it be increasingly horrific. Like, they decide to go to the local brothel, but it's actually, I dunno, a mummy brothel. Or they successfully seduce the dragon... and she proceeds to add him to her pile of treasure and refuses to let him leave. Or it turns out the orc barbarian woman is VERY much a top and loves to whip out a two foot strap-on for use.
We had the same reaction. It was like a T.B. ward with all the coughing and spluttering trying not to laugh. We all became very interested in our character sheets for the next minute or so to avoid eye contact with anyone else and risk uncontrollable giggling.
I tried once doing a character who was neutral evil (going along the lines of true neutral or chaotic neutral) in an all goodie party, my reason to be with them? Money My reason to not betray or even protect them? the more we are the more chances to survive and getting paid, and no one has offered him money to betray them. The only times the party had to convince him to do a quest was when the reward was "being able to join a noble organization that fights for justice" or because it was "the right thing to do", and it's not like it was hard to convince him anyway, just give an extra of the loot and he was fine going along. On his own words: "sorry lad but charity doesn't pay rent"
I did something similar with a lawful evil character. Wanted the pay, and the strength in numbers and was willing to bend to the whims of the others, just to play nice. The party wants to save someone they just met for no pay? Well, the character doesn't want kicked out of the group, needing to find another. So they grumble, roll their eyes push their perspective gently, while already getting ready to just get it over with
@silvertail7131 nice, my character was an ex bandit turned into a mercenary, criminal background so his trust issues where about showing his face, akways whore a helmet or dined after the party alone, but tried to make him as involved and cooperative as posible
RE: Trying to be cool - Maybe emphasize the "trying" part, tailoring the delivery of their "quips" to the prevailing mood (i.e. shaky and noticeably strained after tense or gut-punching moments)?
I once play the pacifist PC but I had to do as much research as possible to make sure I wasn't a party hinderance so all my spells went into buffing debuffing and Battlefield control but I never physically did damage
Main Character Syndrome. Which begets rules lawyering, moody loner separate adventuring, chaotic stupid “that’s what my character would do”, inappropriate metagaming, inappropriate power gaming, bullying, sulking.and unwarranted outbursts of anger. Pretty much the same strategies these people use when negotiating real life.
I once played a character with a scholarly background. I was always looking for any sort of notebook, journal, diary, letters, or just notebooks on the local plants and animals.
I had a player who pitched me their character. A helpful Paladin who knew that sometimes the law had to bend for the sake for greater order. Everything went well until they decided to micromanage how the other players SHOULD play and act. They backseat gamed in both OOC and IC and it drove everyone nuts. They only lasted two sessions before they got the boot.
I played a pacifist once. An Evil Human Cleric that didn't like getting his hands dirty. During combat, he focused on Positioning allies, but never directly pitched into the damage. This was in 4e where Pacifist Healer was a feat. Gain 1d6 + CHA on heals that spent a surge (A daily resource that determined how many times you could be healed. Spells worked differently then) But get stunned if you hit an enemy that was below half health. Not that it mattered since he was a dedicated healer. He worshipped Bane and aspired to be a tactician, leading from the back. (At lvl 1, his healing word would heal for 2d6 + 7 + 1/4 of the targets HP.)
A pacifist that actively assisted and enabled people that killed and worships Bane doesn’t really sound like a pacifist. There’s a BIG difference between being a pacifist and just being someone who prefers not to get violent.
@@MayHugger We did have a lot of arguments over the letter and spirit of being a pacifist. He didn't like putting the hurt in himself. He felt it was a failure of his tactical ability if he needed to be directly involved. But it ended up being very grey when it came to enabling others. The same philosophy as "Thou shalt not draw blood" being foggy on the subject of bruises and broken bones.
Okay but that’s still a really awful idea in theory and is still going to put a buffer on the progression of the game if you make your party members drag you around
The story at 2:30 doesn't make any sense. Why didn't the DM just tell the player; "Hey, sorry, but no. The whole party just spent a while figuring out what to do and I don't feel comfortable letting you mess that up right now since you were away." Or something along those lines?
Hol' up. "A paladin can look the other way", a Paladin who willingly ignores evil or chaotic acts by a party is no longer a Paladin. They know what's about to happen, and not doing anything to stop it compromises their oath to hold up Law and Good. It's a willing choice to allow something evil and/or chaotic to happen in their presence.
Depends on the oath. Devotion, Redemption and (usually) Crown? Definitely. Conquest or Vengeance? Depending on who's on the receiving end and/or why, they might even be allowed to join the fun.
That is true for Paladins that fall on the Good end of the spectrum, but not all paladins are necessarily good. It all depends on the god they follow, which can be an evil god just as much as a good one. Also, i have to point out that Paladins with the exact opposite trait ("tries to stop every act they perceive as being evil/chaotic") can be just as awful. "Lawful Stupid" Paladins are received just as poorly as Paladins who fail to uphold their oath. Also, Chaos isn't always evil, so a Paladin reacting to it as such may themselves be in the wrong. Paladins who perceive the world in black and white tend not to last very long.
The player knowing it and the Paladin knowing it are two different things. When somebody in the party suggests the Paladin go down to the market and find a fine meal for their prisoner in order to bribe them to answer questions why would the Paladin not trust his beloved friends and allies? And, of course, take his time in selecting something truly exquisite for said bribe, because what is average food but a poor bribe indeed?
If someone doesn't know why their character would want to go adventuring, that's a failure at the point of character creation. The PHB literally tells you to think about why your character would want to go adventuring. I also have a bit of a connection with the "too eager" character. I often find myself worrying if I'm doing that in one of my campaigns, but to be perfectly honest, in that particular campaign, it tends to feel like if I don't speak up, we often end up sitting around with no one saying anything. I don't *want* to be the one talking to most of the NPCs and doing most of the rolls, but sometimes if I don't, no one will, and I struggle to find a balance between giving everyone else the room to say something and not letting the session screech to a standstill because none of the players are saying anything.
Characters who are direct avatars of their players, that is the player is roleplaying themselves. Then they die or face some sort of humiliation then the player becomes very resentful. You have to have some degree of separation from your character. Kooky Amoral Scientist - I just don’t like type. Kooky Prankster who pulls the King’s pants down while he’s trying to hand the party a quest. Then the player gets offended when his character is publicly flogged. Snarky Jaded types who break the fourth wall constantly because the player spent too much time in TV Tropes.
Players that think just because they choose royalty or a noble background means that all other players must kiss the ground they walk on. You are basically saying My character is perfect and all other characters in this party are side characters, and I have mechanical proof. Also (and this might be more of a players thing) being mean to another character because of their last character. It is just petty.
Less a character trait but more a player trait but i really dislike people who use character alignment as a justification for their pc to act a certain way (usually evil) This mostly comes from the fact that (as i am told by my friend) i usually am lawful evil or neutral, that does not mean i wont be good because its the right thing its just that i act in service to our group first, but I've seen a lot of people who take that and just make pure evil leas because they feel like its an action their character would take but more because its what they think the alignment would do
People may not like pacifists, and I can see that with true pacifists, but conscientious objectors to violence are very fun. Can always just play life domain and buff the party. I played a character who would only fight in active defense of others. Was a lot of fun.
For me these 2 probably, the typical "Lone wolf edgelord" the edgelord part is optional. Playing with lone wolf pc's is like pulling teeth and at times a detriment to the party. And on a more RP or social side the "ultra shy or silent type" pc often just seem like a tourist along for the ride or like a combat robot. I'm not saying new players that may be shy or apprehensive to RP/play are bad, that's normal and the table has to help them feel at ease, learn the game and have fun. Bonus most Annoying Class Alignment combinations: Cleric/Paladin + Lawful Stupid (LG). I had problems to no end with players going way too hard on their "character principles". Especially annoying if you play a wizard and dabble in necromancy.
Lone wolves, those with main character syndrome (though I think we’ve all been guilty of this at one point, often with our first character), or those who metagame deliberately. Sometimes metagaming is unavoidable, and sometimes you happen to just have a really optimal build; it’s those who do it constantly to the point they’re borderline cheating that irritates me
You know team player 4 life, sometimes a player just wanna do tavern shenanigans instead of trudging out into the deep dark forest to pound a wolf into submission and then sing Kumbaya, My Lord around a camp fire. Keep forcing people to do and play the game as you want them too and you'll soon find yourself labeled as "that guy" of the group.
a lot of these aren't even issues. for example, there is literally nothing bad about doing voices for your characters. saying "good luck finding another table" is just mean-spirited and implies that giving your character extra depth is a bad thing.
I have tried pacisfist characters in the past, cuz well honestly.. I hate D&D combat and the less I have to do during combat the better. But I’ve kinda just realized it’s faster and makes everyone feel better if I just play a simple class where I can just shoot an arrow or two and end my turn.
Once I kinda played a asshole PC but it kinda worked given context. Was a Pathfinder game and I was a lashy (plant person) summoner (demon). I was "born" 3 years ago and was basically a young child eating everything I could fit in mouth including Weird shit like poison but had the in-game cuteness factor saving him from trouble as much as he was eating himself into it problems as a child plant being the vessel of the demonic embodiment of hunger.
Not accepting consequences to your actions... This wasn't a DnD session but a WoW RP session. We just had a new member in the guild me, being the military officer of the guild, tasked the new member to spar against another member. The spar went well, we had the normal 3-hit rule. So the new member won the spar and their opponent -just- gratulated them for the win. Yet for some reason, the new member tried to EXECUTE our member. And I asked in the OOC chat, 'are you really going for that' to which they said, yes. So, their opponent was mortally wounded and I as officer stepped in while the rest of the guild members present applied medical care to the struck down member. Since this person was just new to the guild and therefore had no substantial rank, I saw no alternative but to fire them immediately. They joined, and not even 2 hours later got fired. And then they throw a hissyfit that it was meant as joke, and that they didn't want to have their character be perceived as a bad guy. Needless to say, it delivered us a lot of headache, especially me, since I am the one who recruited and had to fire their character...
Players that tell you what your character should be like. I had a fighter player keep telling me that my character (A barbarian) should be acting like an idiot. *Me:* **Has a Normal Conversation** *Fighter:* Why are you talking normally, you're a barbarian, you should be a drooling idiot. *Me:* First of all, that's a ridiculous notion. Second, my character has an *Int* of 14, he's literally smarter than your character.
PCs who treat the game as if it were Skyrim or the like. It's not a single player game, try to play it like one and you'll end up fighting alone. It's not got any bugs or exploits where you can burglarhobo your way through a town, your crime will get us all in trouble and if the guards come looking for you I *will* turn you over to avoid jail time myself. You're *not* the protagonist of the story and no one has to give you anything, stealing from other PCs because they didn't hand over [item] to you is a great way to lose characters in PvP fights. Also the "Rutting Bard" trope. Just because you play an instrument doesn't mean you have to try and bed every NPC you lock eyes with.
the Pc not wanting be an adventurer is a fun background thing but its just that your background. The simple farmer whose farm and village was burned down by the cult of the dragon while he was out can be a fun character. I played a character that was a pacifist PC. He was a cleric of love and one of his class abilitie was the ability to haver anything written or spoken in his presence be absolute legally binding. He would stay out of combat but either side could call on him for healing however there was a sign that all could read (tongues is a epic spell) basically if you asked for healing you were agreeing to remove yourself from all further instances of that conflict. So bug sweeping battle outsid ethe town gate any bad guy that wanted heals imediately was unable to continue fighting the terms would be considered as accepted as soon as I healed you. Oh also the gods themselves were witness to the bargain and would seek retribution.
Taking things personally and cheating for me. For the first, fucking relax it's a game, for the second it ruins the game for everyone else. Don't do either.
To be fair, a chaotic evil character should die in 2 sessions unless it's an npc that was so powerful at birth (or magical spawning probably) that they couldn't kill it. Being a chaotic evil character and making everything you can to disrupt the party isn't a bad roleplay, it's what it is and why you shouldn't be a chaotic evil character in 99.9% of settings
@@darioschottlender Because being chaotic isn’t just actively disobeying the law whenever possible, nor is it “teehee lol random”, and evil doesn’t mean serial killer or muahahaha evil, a chaotic evil character can just be someone who is inherently selfish but obeys laws so long as it suits them. They could be sadistic but not necessarily someone who will actively go out of their way to hurt people unless they believe they could get away with it. Think something like a sociopath, we don’t see every single sociopath being arrested for murder, despite the fact most of them hate a lot of laws and might enjoy seeing others being hurt, because they aren’t stupid.
The Lawful-Good / True-Neutral things are why i just do away with that stupid alignment chart. It's only good for mapping magics and realms (even, then, you really dont need it) and not having it allows players to simply make "real" people and avoids all of these dumb hangups. The alignment chart is very dumb and causes more issues than it solves.
When a player makes their character with some sort of gimmick then uses *every single opportunity* to use this gimmick. Like in one game where a players character had paint powers to create things. Every minute or so you’d hear “I paint an (x object) so I can be funny in this scene”
Sorry,, i have to say it. Almost all of these were whining for the sake of whining. Almost all of them, if not literallh all of them, could be resolved with talking. And people need to stop thinking that bitching to the internet is somehow more productive than talking to your friends on how to play pretend with rules.
I hope all of you who actually *play* the game know to make characters who are *actually **_serious_* . We,as consumers,grew too attached to the *"sarcastic jerk"* archetype found in Deadpool & Peter Griffin. As a result,creators sell products like _"Dragon Age Veilguard"_ ,where EVERY character is "sarcastic jerk" with X trait. As Tvtropes points out with Freeman's mibd & RvB Chorus,whoever makes puns after murdering people is EITHER: a sociopath who's trying to cope with the situation,or a sociopath that's manipulating you for enjoyment. If your PC is a 50YO merc being payed to fight for some rich noble,he is NOT going to talk like a millenial on Twitter. Please do not make the same mistake as leftie movie directors,& think that millenials/gen X humor is actually funny. Plus,there IS some humor found in being the serious dude among morons (IE Batman gardening).
I mean, alternatively and just as bad is the guy who has the biggest personality IRL, so they always speak first, despite their character's dump stat being charisma.
ive had a game with someone like the first trait, that mix of not wanting to adventure + being an asshole to the other characters. the dude was like almost 40. it was so stereotypical edgelord that we actually thought it was like a bit and lets just say shortly there after he was so bad 2 people quit (followed by him quitting for the group 'dying'). i hope he never found another campaign.
"The Boring Player"; "I hit him, .... I hit him, I hit him twice.... I cast firbolt." **Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz** Come on, please add some dynamo and flavour!!!! (Okay, not inherently "annoying, but still makes a session dull and the PC of said player uninteresting =p)
I kind of disagree. Characters that are incompetent at the exspense of the party are annoying . But when it’s only at the expense of the character? It’s often Hilarious
Had someone who wanted to play a paladin of Mercy in a one shot where they are heading out into a war zone area and are likely going to get engaged in a lot of fighting or they need to infiltrate secretly inside to get to where they need to go. The guy literally played the passive pussy, you are an enemy territory they are going to kill you why are you choosing to play a paladin that is a pacifist in a war zone. This isn't like that one field medic who refused to use firearms, unless you can prove otherwise it is not viable. On top of that same one shot I have an overbearing but actually type of player and they both were equally annoying. I ended my game preemptively because the two were being all huffy and want things done their way and this is my world my story as well as my experimentation. It also didn't help that the guy who was playing the Paladin also wanted to play a unique race and a class that is not common core I threw a little temper tantrum because he didn't get his way. Just follow the rules of my world or don't play at all
11:42 I don't think there is anything wrong with being abrasive or an arsehole as a PC as long as you're doing it to be unlikeable. You can still get along with the rest of the group, but much like in real life if you are abrasive or an arsehole from time to time you will rub people the wrong way. The trick is not doing it all the time and generally acting in their interest but not being able to put it in a likeable way, like back handed compliments are a must for this type of thing.
You know, even a good Paladin can play out in a group of thieves. I hate how people treat this "you no always good-you loose powers" as a 100% true rule. First of all, there's no such rule. It's flavour text, so you are FREE to ignore it. Second, loosing your powers is just a POSSIBLE outcome for the WORST cases. If you're a good Paladin who swore to keep innocent people from harm and actively take part in a genocide, yes, fine, make them loose their powers or become an oath breaker. But please, please, PLEASE, stop taking Paladin's powers away just because they don't report their fellow player's thief character to the authorities. That's not how this is supposed to work AT ALL. Honestly, one of the best things that could happen to the DnD community is that suddenly everyone forgot that part. It's just frustrating to see how it's only used to the detriment of the players fun, be it making a Paladin loose their powers or forcing the group to deal with a Paladin who cannot be convinced because they know their powers depend on not being swayed. I think I've just seen a single case where this was enjoyed by the whole group, and the fun part is that it wasn't really that the Paladin broke their oath, it was due to other story reasons that weren't known at that time.
Pacifist can be workable. If you have a large enough, well functioning party and you make a Healer build. But if you're on a four man team it's just not going to fly, too much is lost with pacifism.
No there isn't. There's plenty of ways to be useful in a 4 man team that doesn't require doing HP damage. Buffing Billy, Debuffing Daedra, being the utility spell master of the group for identify and cross continent/world communication with friendly NPCs or even cross dungeon for the party. Healer Build pacifist doesn't work in a 4 man team because healer as a build is A) kind of boring, B) not really necessary at low levels because potions will cover most of your needed healing at low levels, C) kind of boring, D) only really actually comes into it's own at the later levels anyway (like EVERY spell casting build that doesn't just instant solve the game) and E) is REALLY BORING. At least that's how it is in my experience, yours will vary.
@@morgantaylor84 You seem to miss the definition of Pacifist. A pacifist doesn't kill, maim, hurt, or harm if they can help it. That includes contributing to activities that help do those things. Buffing/debuffing are out, trip builds are out, grappling builds are out, summoning builds are out. You can't even tank if that's a means to let your friends harm others even if those others are hostile. Hell, if you get really into the knock-on effects even being a combat healer could be considered contributing to violence but most people aren't that uptight. As for boring, that's literally your opinion and it honestly sounds like you're not big on RP because I could rock a very interesting and fun healer build with little effort. Saving the party a fortune in healing potions at low levels and coming into my own at higher levels is... pretty much exactly the point.
"It's not anyone else's job to convince you to play." Sorry, I respectfully disagree with the context after this. My group runs 3.5. Pathfinder, OD&D, 1E, and my DM's favorite... *Shudders* 2E at different times. He doesn't care if it's a dungeon crawl or yammering with mages for an entire session to agree on the price of materials needed to forge a legendary sword. D&D is the storytelling process more than the rules. And we agree that if we have to spend an entire session after making our characters, to convince the wizard to step out of his tower by enticing him not with gold but with the promise of rare spells, then we still had a good night. Hell, the frumpy wizard got to spend half an hour arguing in character It was fun. Okay, I should concede, if this shit is going on because someone wants to slow the game down, it's wrong. Find better players... sorry it's hard to do.
There’s a lot. Though I think the worst is Main Character Syndrome. I’ve watched enough videos and spoken with enough people to know that a party doesn’t just have one main character. Everyone in the party is a fraction of a big hero/villain. Even in the Dnd Movie, there’s no shoving way for a main character. Everyone gets a chance to shine. Other than that I personally dislike the “I’m a strong warrior who had my parents die and I’m emo and bisexual”
How about the hired bodyguard who pays zero attention to her employer's health during combat and doesn't even care about the pay, but is more concerned with trying to bang the other bodyguard, in whom she's shown no prior interest as a person?
…..the one who acts stupid and claims to be an intellectual, don’t get me wrong it can be funny. But I hate when people use this as an excuse to act completely out of character unnaturally as a sign of their “innate genius” can be VERY inconvenient and inconsiderate of the rest of the party
Less of a character trait, and more of a roleplaying issue. Inconsistent character behavior. Its really hard to keep up with someone else's character when they don't behave the way they say they're meant to behave. I don't mean the one and done OOC moments for character development, I mean when the character is consistently played in a way that contradicts who they were established to be in the campaign. If you aren't going to play the role you've given yourself, or at least give a good reason why your character is acting in such an odd manner, what was the point of making the character? It feels more like you're doing what you yourself would do instead of what your character would do. And at that point, just make a self-insert.
I'm personally so annoyed with people trying to 'subvert' tropes with a 'quirky' spin on the class/race/etc stereotype *and nothing more*. For example, we get it. Bard is/n't a flirt. Do something new with that, I beg.
Yeah its hella annoying and also pointless because its literally the same thing. The Person just went from one extreme to the other. If the character is just there to be a statement or a Stereotype or a joke orjust about only one thing in general,then they will never be anything more than a statement,joke or Stereotype.
A specific stupid can be fun and interesting with the right storytelling but a “what’s the most stupid thing I can do right now I’ll do that” stupid annoys me in fiction and would be annoying for a PC to deal with.
hands down the lone wolf emo edgelord trait that everyone seems to want to be. Over the start of our campagin journies my half eld trusted no one but now he's learned the only people he can trust is his party as they have become his friends. THat is how that is done people. I do detest people who love to be racists in game against characte races for the sake of "Its what my chatacter would do" >.>
Characters that, almost intentionally flub social cues to the point of nearly initiating a party-wipe by doing something immensely stupid and ignoring DM hints that "You should not do this, I am giving you a chance to not do the thing you just told me you were going to do, please stop trying to do this" such as, at my one sci-fi game, Traveller, notorious for the lack of survivability, we were on a mining station, not allowed to wear armor and only allowed one or two handgun sized weapons and only because we were investigating a stolen ship that turned into a murder investigation, plus some terrorist attacks. We encountered the man who hired us, the President of the mining station we were on, angry that we had "failed" to solve the problem (we hadn't failed but he intended to weasel out of the contract to avoid paying us), and he was surrounded by heavily armored guards, with shotguns and assault rifles. The, very weak, very flimsy, very unintelligent, very un-imposing Psionic in our group, insisted that he was going to walk up to the owner of the Mining Station and put the point of his cane (disguised stun baton) up to his head like a gun, and had started reciting some threat he had written down, when the Referee (DM) said the guards were barring his way and stopping him. He went through a whole laundry list of "Oh well I slip between the guards. No? Okay can I weave around the guards? Push them out of the way? Jump over them. Can I make a strength check? Athletics? Oh I don't have anything in Athletics (Strength) or any of the other Athletics, and my normal is -1 sooooo, alright I'll roll, and that's a minus four, I got a negative one on my strength check. Okay. Nevermind." and frankly is was DM "railroading" that prevented him from instantly dying to a hail of gunfire that would have probably killed us too as we were right behind him. He's lucky all he got was 2 points of damage from getting clocked with the buttstock of a rifle. 2 points of damage doesn't sound like a lot, of course, but the absolute maximum hitpoints you can have without cybernetics or highly illegal genetic modification in Traveller is 30. Mind you, that requires your character to have incredibly high ability scores, to the point of being beyond Peak Human. My character, rolling incredibly well, had 29 hitpoints until very recently where I finally got him to 30. His character had closer to, I believe, 12 or maybe as high as 16 hitpoints. He had zero reason to believe he would survive attempting to threaten the mine-boss, and he endangered the entire party attempting to do so. We were outnumbered, outgunned, and he was out of his mind.
saw a tale of a of a session zero, where the rogue was playing up his lone wolf backstory. partway through the bartender set some drinks down and said his son was lying about losing his parents as a kid. Turns out the rogue was the son of the innkeeper and bartender couple that ran the tavern, and started complaining to his father about how he keeps ruining his chance to go adventuring like he wants to. From what I heard the rogue player had intended the edgelord routine to be a fakeout, though the DM portraying his character being the son of the tavern owners was a twist he hadn't seen coming but enjoyed.
Sometimes using a trope or trait can still be good, if you plan for it to be a little twist. Personally I think if the 'edgelord' opens up partway through and starts being genuine, it's a good way to go.
For a moment I thought freeza was in the thumbnail
Well I imagine being a genocidal galactic tyrant would be rather annoying to the party.
I WILL NOT LET A SINGLE SAIYAN LIVE
“Is that freeza?”
"Give me your character sheet monkey"
😂😂😂 Unfortunately there is no Goku around
Players who harrass others for optimizing their characters. I have seen a lot of hate for people making a character built to do their job well. Claiming "yOu cAn'T rOlEplAy And bE oPtImIzED!" Buuuuullllshit! You can make a fighter who is very good at archery and have a backstory about how they managed to be a good shot. I hate the false dichotomy of good rp or good character build.
I also hate people who do go the other way around. If their character isn't minmaxed to fuck and back but isn't a drag on the party, who cares. Let them play that character if they arent hindering progression in the story.
This is a good point. Especially for me because i was thinking the same way as those people you mention. Then i saw opposite examples like min-maxed character with an actual goal and reasons to be strong, good at their job. But also i have seen people min max and use their player knowledge as if their -1 intelligence 3 level character is a professor. Unfortunately i have seen more bad examples than good ones so i still approach min-maxing players with some suspicion
As someone who is like the exact opposite of a min-maxer. Someone who makes my character worse for the added challenge and flavour. I can’t really relate to the min-maxers headspace, but I have nothing against them. As long as they don’t pester me on how I play my character 😅
My cousin accidentally made Batman as a rogue for his first d&d char and didn't realize it until I as the DM pointed it out. He was a brooding, lone wolf and the greatest assassin of all time (as a level 1 rogue) and it did not mesh with his dice rolls or the rest of the party.
Despite giving him multiple chances to rebrand his character as a hopeful robin hood type rogue that was doing his best portrayal of what he thought was valuable, he insisted on being a really shitty Batman that nobody liked and he was consistently the butt of every joke. It was a close friends and family game so I let some stuff slide that I normally wouldn't for a typical game between acquaintances.
Ive played in games where there were potentials for some of these issues, and the difference between it going well and being awful really is communication, being willing to compromise, and knowing how to develop the issue into something interesting rather than just keeping it static. For instance: one of my favorite campaigns series ever has been a Starfinder campaign where I played a neutral evil Ysoki engineer. He was a viscous little bastard, but the key part was after about the second firefight, after fighting and bleeding and protecting and being protected by these people, he decided that the party were HIS people. He didnt get along with all of them, and it was a running bit that he and one of the other members just didnt like each other and would verbally spar when appropriate, but that was something I had talked with that player ooc about and he was on board, and it NEVER prevented them from actually working together when needed.
1:34 Paladins in 3.5 *always* had to be Lawful Good, and you could see why that was bad. There's a reason Paladins are the poster child for the "It's what my Character would do" kind of Horror Stories.
A friend of mine has successfully played two different passivists who were/are assets to the team.
They don't inflict HP damage but they buff, they heal, they sometimes debuff the enemy, they put their HP on the line to help make sure all partymembers get out alive.
If these characters have an IRL inspiration, it'd be someone like Desmond Doss. They're heroic even without weapons or damaging spells.
Desmond Doss is a good one.
So, they enable murder. How exactly is that any better, and why would a pacifist do that?
A trait that I find potentially annoying is the "instigator". The PC is the one who would poke the hornets nest or cause some chaos. This can be done well and creates interesting situations but can also get annoying and disruptive if done too often and in inopportune times.
The question is, is it because the PC is like it (boundary testing and such) or the player does it out if boredom/ tomfoolery.
I will say there is a “better” way to do this, which includes you, as a player, speaking to the others, as a player, saying “hey I wanna do some tension, what are y’all’s boundaries” and then respecting those boundaries
If it’s “I say dumb sh// and then get defensive out of character when what I say upsets others” then that’s total malarkey
The pacifism thing feels dumb, like yeah your character would avoid violence but when necessary they should fight to defend themselves. And they should avoid killing people, just knocking them unconscious. And when they do kill someone (be it accidentally or by necessity) it should be a big deal for them
What I like to do is Batman’s no kill rule . “ oh using mind control to get the guard to abandon his pistol to buy flowers for his lover is evil cuz mind control is evil? Yeah you’re right , let’s go with your way, the merciful decision of shattering his skull and leaving his mangled corpse in the town square for his family to find “ has the whole party laughing
The problem I have with pacifist characters is that unless you talk with the party beforehand about trying to all be pacifists, you are associated with and actively helping other characters who have no issues with killing.
You’re not any better than them for refusing to do so yourself when you’re assisting or enabling murder, and as a result you’re basically just as guilty of murder as the ones that actually did the killing, you might as well just join in.
A pacifist would not want to interact with characters that have no issues with killing anything that gets in their way.
Sure, you could play a character that dislikes violence, but that’s not the same thing as a pacifist, a pacifist wouldn’t try to hurt anyone unless they absolutely had no choice, as in they or someone dear to them would die if they didn’t fight, which doesn’t really fit most D&D games, you need a specific type of game to pull that off.
Thinking they need to be involved in every bit of RP or social situation so they basically smash into it like the Koolaid Man and make themselves a part of it. In my Avernus campaign, we spent about 8 months alluding to an NPC who was a vital part of my character's backstory and how he was now likely a devil in Avernus. After meeting him and confirming he had become a devil, our first encounter wasn't even an encounter per se: we were there to see his boss, so he just loomed nearby silently and did nothing when we left. The second time we saw him, the party's Artificer shoehorned herself into the conversation my character was having with him to force the discussion to be about his boss and how he was holding her father hostage. The third time we talked to that devil, the artificer started hatching a plan with him to double cross his boss to get her father back, despite me having told her multiple times that this devil was not to be trusted and had a grudge against my character. Nevertheless, Artificer insisted that we should launch a suicide mission built upon the assumption that this devil would not stab us all in the back to save her dad. When I told her that it was a stupid idea and that she was endangering my character for her own gain with no consent from me, she shut me down and dismissed any attempt I made to convince her not to go through with it. TL:DR, beware any person who thinks they're the main character in a RPG and the other characters are just AI controlled companions.
I solved alignment problem by slightly tweaking the alignment structure. I use Lawful, True and Lawless with Moral Neutral and Immoral.
God. Half these issues could just be remedied if you sit down and talk to them. I feel like none of these people have ever lifted a finger to try. So yea, grow a spine talk with them, speak up, please. So tired of hearing all these stories that could be remedied if you just used the talk action in real life.
Imma be honest, that's not the case as often as i would like. If they're such pricks to start, they won't be any more polite after you tell them they're doing something wrong
@@MaindexOmega Not every problem player has malicious intend. Some just need communication more direct than a disapproving eyerolling.
I think this is true for novice players who are still finding their feet, especially if they come from a computer gaming background and haven’t yet understood the differences in approach and attitude required to participate in RPGs.
Experienced players who still exhibit toxic behaviour are generally lost causes. It is almost impossible to negotiate with someone who has deep-seated character flaws in real life.
@MaindexOmega it is most of the time thoughm and if it doesn't work? You know to cut them out. But if you don't try, then imo, you are being just as much of an asshole as them. Talking doesn't hurt: it let's you know if you can come to an agreement or if you need to snip some excess from your friend network.
It's so funny, because anytime I tell people to just talk things out, I get met with so much pushback that I started doubting people even knew how tonhave a mature conversation anymore.
Guys...is that Frieza in the thumbnail?????
HOLY SHIT IT IS
I mean I will say that Frieza’s most defining trait, his racism directed at other characters and his genocidal tendencies, would be preeeeetty annoying to play with
Yea, a lot of my character Ideas would tend to work better as NPC's than player characters. Granted sometimes they might work as a temporary pc, but yea, Hermit Witch who wants to collect exotic and rare plants/herbs to brew and craft with would rather hire the adventurers to do the stuffs rather than actually join them and potentially point out what she wants, and supports with the magick and potions she has brewed along the way. She has the means to be a capable adventurer, but what would the character do? She'd rather stay at home surrounded by her plants and books and brewing setup at home.
I don't understand why players make characters that wouldn't engage with the game
I have a player whose PC has been hired as a bodyguard, only cares about the employer in terms of a paycheck (while trying to bang her fellow bodyguard), and according to the player, does not care if she LOSES the job if she's fired for not only doing a piss-poor performance AT the job but also having a completely unlikable personality
Half of these aren’t annoying if it’s properly communicated and agreed upon during session zero
Is that frieza
12:34 my dude, youre playing D&D, pot calling kettle black situation
Lol
I WONT LET A SINGLE SAIYAN LIVE
Note that true pacifism is not the act of condemning violence, but doing your best to avoid conflict. If your going to play a pacifist you should be prepared to play the face of the party so you can diffuse situations before they escalate. Even then, if a pacifist from Street Fighter can throw hands when diplomacy fails, then a P.C. should be willing to do the same.
Sometimes the "character not meshing with the rest of the party" problem might not be entirely the player's fault. Many years ago I joined a high-level group without knowing much about them. I brought several of my old characters to the game, which the DM looked over and picked one that he said would be suitable (turned out he wasn't). My character, Kazzoren, was built as a basic human fighter, who wanted to be a paladin but simply didn't make the grade. I had always played him as I imagine a paladin (always doing what was morally right and attempting to help others in need at every oportunity). During the first game session with the new group, it was obvious that I had the wrong character for the game. At one point, we met a solo NPC (a female centaur paladin), and I remember thinking as our ways parted that I should be going off with her instead. Of course that would have taken me out of the group so I said nothing. It wasn't a bad group to be in, so I just rewrote my character background to fit the game. I always felt like I had betrayed Kazzoren, but the alternatives were to leave the group or get him killed off so that I could create a new character.
You could have openly said that your character would have followed her instead and created a new character. Nothing wrong with that.
The last person(Not Brian's outro) gives off beeg grognard energy.
Characters that know everything and/or they have connections to multiple extremely powerful npcs in the world.
Luckily, this one rarely passes the laugh test.
Backstory for my newly minted level 1 character is that they were a highly regarded and decorated general in the army and favourite of the king for saving his daughter from the lich king and his vampire swarm.
The best way I’ve seen this handled is by a GM who accepted the player’s nonsense as written, except every time the character interacted with elements of their back story the situation/personnel had changed and/or nobody knew who the hell they were or what the hell they were talking about.
Took the player a while to catch on but apparently their character was delusional. “Delusions of adequacy” was the phrase used. When the player protested the GM pointed out that one of the symptoms of being delusional is that you don’t know you’re delusional.
Checkmate.
@@DavidAndrews-eb7gm Honestly ive never been a fan of DM's Doing this, it is literally the same as rewriting a characters entire backstory without asking the player which is a dick move. As a DM if you dont want someone to have this backstory in your game then you should be an adult actually talk to your players and ask them to change it.
Agree completely that almost all of the time player agency should be sacrosanct.
If you’re going to insist on a back story where both of your parents are demi-gods and you spent your youth taking down ancient dragons with your pet beholders and a hunting knife then, in the context of the game, you are power gaming extreme main character syndrome and your character is delusional.
@@DavidAndrews-eb7gm I will say that if they refuse to change the backstory after being asked then the DM is completely in their right to do this. I am 100% fine with it in that scenario
The actual player in question was a work colleague of one of the other players. New to town. Usual story. Claimed to prefer maining Paladins so he’d played enough DnD to talk the talk.
And now to the ‘you couldn’t make this up if you tried’ part of the story. Character’s back story at session zero was that his level 1 human Paladin of noble background was the prince and heir to the throne, captain of the king’s guard and renowned for leading a small band of soldiers that defeated a red dragon that had been terrorising the countryside. For his valour the Arch-Bishop had personally fast tracked his entry into Paladin training.
As a result of his previous experiences he had, among other things, been granted by royal decree a suffix/nickname (Dragonscourge?) in addition to his royal title, chest armour made of red dragon scale, a plus one magic sword from the dragon’s hoard, two NPC men-at -arms as his royal retinue and had added the three (?) hit die from his Guard Captain role to his initial Paladin hit die because “it doesn’t make any sense to have less hit points than before”.
The GM managed to negotiate some changes that were less certifiably insane but this wombat still played his character like his original list of demands was accurate.
I thought he got off way too lightly.
"If there are any girls there I want to DO them!"
Once or twice, this could be funny.
At every bar/tavern/anywhere, on the other hand...
Had a female GM shut down a player who persisted with this behaviour by pointing out that neither he in real life nor his character in the game were proficient in Personal Hygiene or Locate Clitoris.
Brutal but effective.
Have them get their way, but have it be increasingly horrific. Like, they decide to go to the local brothel, but it's actually, I dunno, a mummy brothel. Or they successfully seduce the dragon... and she proceeds to add him to her pile of treasure and refuses to let him leave. Or it turns out the orc barbarian woman is VERY much a top and loves to whip out a two foot strap-on for use.
@@DavidAndrews-eb7gm If I'd been drinking my tea, I'd have just spat it out! Thank you for the much-needed laugh.
We had the same reaction. It was like a T.B. ward with all the coughing and spluttering trying not to laugh. We all became very interested in our character sheets for the next minute or so to avoid eye contact with anyone else and risk uncontrollable giggling.
I tried once doing a character who was neutral evil (going along the lines of true neutral or chaotic neutral) in an all goodie party, my reason to be with them? Money
My reason to not betray or even protect them? the more we are the more chances to survive and getting paid, and no one has offered him money to betray them.
The only times the party had to convince him to do a quest was when the reward was "being able to join a noble organization that fights for justice" or because it was "the right thing to do", and it's not like it was hard to convince him anyway, just give an extra of the loot and he was fine going along.
On his own words: "sorry lad but charity doesn't pay rent"
I did something similar with a lawful evil character. Wanted the pay, and the strength in numbers and was willing to bend to the whims of the others, just to play nice. The party wants to save someone they just met for no pay? Well, the character doesn't want kicked out of the group, needing to find another. So they grumble, roll their eyes push their perspective gently, while already getting ready to just get it over with
@silvertail7131 nice, my character was an ex bandit turned into a mercenary, criminal background so his trust issues where about showing his face, akways whore a helmet or dined after the party alone, but tried to make him as involved and cooperative as posible
RE: Trying to be cool - Maybe emphasize the "trying" part, tailoring the delivery of their "quips" to the prevailing mood (i.e. shaky and noticeably strained after tense or gut-punching moments)?
I once play the pacifist PC but I had to do as much research as possible to make sure I wasn't a party hinderance so all my spells went into buffing debuffing and Battlefield control but I never physically did damage
Main Character Syndrome.
Which begets rules lawyering, moody loner separate adventuring, chaotic stupid “that’s what my character would do”, inappropriate metagaming, inappropriate power gaming, bullying, sulking.and unwarranted outbursts of anger.
Pretty much the same strategies these people use when negotiating real life.
I once played a character with a scholarly background. I was always looking for any sort of notebook, journal, diary, letters, or just notebooks on the local plants and animals.
I had a player who pitched me their character. A helpful Paladin who knew that sometimes the law had to bend for the sake for greater order. Everything went well until they decided to micromanage how the other players SHOULD play and act. They backseat gamed in both OOC and IC and it drove everyone nuts. They only lasted two sessions before they got the boot.
I played a pacifist once. An Evil Human Cleric that didn't like getting his hands dirty. During combat, he focused on Positioning allies, but never directly pitched into the damage. This was in 4e where Pacifist Healer was a feat. Gain 1d6 + CHA on heals that spent a surge (A daily resource that determined how many times you could be healed. Spells worked differently then) But get stunned if you hit an enemy that was below half health. Not that it mattered since he was a dedicated healer. He worshipped Bane and aspired to be a tactician, leading from the back. (At lvl 1, his healing word would heal for 2d6 + 7 + 1/4 of the targets HP.)
A pacifist that actively assisted and enabled people that killed and worships Bane doesn’t really sound like a pacifist. There’s a BIG difference between being a pacifist and just being someone who prefers not to get violent.
@@MayHugger We did have a lot of arguments over the letter and spirit of being a pacifist. He didn't like putting the hurt in himself. He felt it was a failure of his tactical ability if he needed to be directly involved. But it ended up being very grey when it came to enabling others. The same philosophy as "Thou shalt not draw blood" being foggy on the subject of bruises and broken bones.
Character Idea: Character that doesn't wanna go on the adventure because the PC isn't a lone wolf, just really depressed.
I have played that character.
Okay but that’s still a really awful idea in theory and is still going to put a buffer on the progression of the game if you make your party members drag you around
@@freezeburn9875 The secret is to give yourself a reason to go. I didn't wanna go on the adventure but I had to pay for my alcoholism.
@freezeburn9875 I just imagine dragging them off by the collar lack a sack of potatoes.
I *AM* that character
The story at 2:30 doesn't make any sense. Why didn't the DM just tell the player; "Hey, sorry, but no. The whole party just spent a while figuring out what to do and I don't feel comfortable letting you mess that up right now since you were away." Or something along those lines?
Hol' up. "A paladin can look the other way", a Paladin who willingly ignores evil or chaotic acts by a party is no longer a Paladin. They know what's about to happen, and not doing anything to stop it compromises their oath to hold up Law and Good. It's a willing choice to allow something evil and/or chaotic to happen in their presence.
Depends on the oath. Devotion, Redemption and (usually) Crown? Definitely. Conquest or Vengeance? Depending on who's on the receiving end and/or why, they might even be allowed to join the fun.
@@DragonKingZero My Vengeance Paladin taking great joy in kneecapping an NPC he's Interrogating.
I think it’s more telling of everyone else that a paladin can literally never find a table. I’d love to play one but I know better
That is true for Paladins that fall on the Good end of the spectrum, but not all paladins are necessarily good. It all depends on the god they follow, which can be an evil god just as much as a good one.
Also, i have to point out that Paladins with the exact opposite trait ("tries to stop every act they perceive as being evil/chaotic") can be just as awful. "Lawful Stupid" Paladins are received just as poorly as Paladins who fail to uphold their oath.
Also, Chaos isn't always evil, so a Paladin reacting to it as such may themselves be in the wrong. Paladins who perceive the world in black and white tend not to last very long.
The player knowing it and the Paladin knowing it are two different things. When somebody in the party suggests the Paladin go down to the market and find a fine meal for their prisoner in order to bribe them to answer questions why would the Paladin not trust his beloved friends and allies? And, of course, take his time in selecting something truly exquisite for said bribe, because what is average food but a poor bribe indeed?
If someone doesn't know why their character would want to go adventuring, that's a failure at the point of character creation. The PHB literally tells you to think about why your character would want to go adventuring.
I also have a bit of a connection with the "too eager" character. I often find myself worrying if I'm doing that in one of my campaigns, but to be perfectly honest, in that particular campaign, it tends to feel like if I don't speak up, we often end up sitting around with no one saying anything. I don't *want* to be the one talking to most of the NPCs and doing most of the rolls, but sometimes if I don't, no one will, and I struggle to find a balance between giving everyone else the room to say something and not letting the session screech to a standstill because none of the players are saying anything.
Hello Mr. ripper team, thanks for the video!
Characters who are direct avatars of their players, that is the player is roleplaying themselves. Then they die or face some sort of humiliation then the player becomes very resentful. You have to have some degree of separation from your character.
Kooky Amoral Scientist - I just don’t like type.
Kooky Prankster who pulls the King’s pants down while he’s trying to hand the party a quest. Then the player gets offended when his character is publicly flogged.
Snarky Jaded types who break the fourth wall constantly because the player spent too much time in TV Tropes.
Players that think just because they choose royalty or a noble background means that all other players must kiss the ground they walk on. You are basically saying My character is perfect and all other characters in this party are side characters, and I have mechanical proof. Also (and this might be more of a players thing) being mean to another character because of their last character. It is just petty.
Less a character trait but more a player trait but i really dislike people who use character alignment as a justification for their pc to act a certain way (usually evil)
This mostly comes from the fact that (as i am told by my friend) i usually am lawful evil or neutral, that does not mean i wont be good because its the right thing its just that i act in service to our group first, but I've seen a lot of people who take that and just make pure evil leas because they feel like its an action their character would take but more because its what they think the alignment would do
Calling it right now before I even start the video, Lone Wolf is gonna be a lot of answers in the video and the comments.
Is that Frieza
Am I the only one who thought the thumbnail was Frieza from DBZ instead of a woman with pinkish/purple hair?
People may not like pacifists, and I can see that with true pacifists, but conscientious objectors to violence are very fun. Can always just play life domain and buff the party. I played a character who would only fight in active defense of others. Was a lot of fun.
Is that Frieza?
For me these 2 probably, the typical "Lone wolf edgelord" the edgelord part is optional. Playing with lone wolf pc's is like pulling teeth and at times a detriment to the party. And on a more RP or social side the "ultra shy or silent type" pc often just seem like a tourist along for the ride or like a combat robot.
I'm not saying new players that may be shy or apprehensive to RP/play are bad, that's normal and the table has to help them feel at ease, learn the game and have fun.
Bonus most Annoying Class Alignment combinations: Cleric/Paladin + Lawful Stupid (LG). I had problems to no end with players going way too hard on their "character principles". Especially annoying if you play a wizard and dabble in necromancy.
Lone wolves, those with main character syndrome (though I think we’ve all been guilty of this at one point, often with our first character), or those who metagame deliberately.
Sometimes metagaming is unavoidable, and sometimes you happen to just have a really optimal build; it’s those who do it constantly to the point they’re borderline cheating that irritates me
You know team player 4 life, sometimes a player just wanna do tavern shenanigans instead of trudging out into the deep dark forest to pound a wolf into submission and then sing Kumbaya, My Lord around a camp fire.
Keep forcing people to do and play the game as you want them too and you'll soon find yourself labeled as "that guy" of the group.
....I have a player/PC combo that checks a LOT of these boxes.... 🙃
a lot of these aren't even issues. for example, there is literally nothing bad about doing voices for your characters. saying "good luck finding another table" is just mean-spirited and implies that giving your character extra depth is a bad thing.
I have tried pacisfist characters in the past, cuz well honestly.. I hate D&D combat and the less I have to do during combat the better. But I’ve kinda just realized it’s faster and makes everyone feel better if I just play a simple class where I can just shoot an arrow or two and end my turn.
Once I kinda played a asshole PC but it kinda worked given context.
Was a Pathfinder game and I was a lashy (plant person) summoner (demon). I was "born" 3 years ago and was basically a young child eating everything I could fit in mouth including Weird shit like poison but had the in-game cuteness factor saving him from trouble as much as he was eating himself into it problems as a child plant being the vessel of the demonic embodiment of hunger.
Not accepting consequences to your actions...
This wasn't a DnD session but a WoW RP session. We just had a new member in the guild me, being the military officer of the guild, tasked the new member to spar against another member. The spar went well, we had the normal 3-hit rule. So the new member won the spar and their opponent -just- gratulated them for the win. Yet for some reason, the new member tried to EXECUTE our member. And I asked in the OOC chat, 'are you really going for that' to which they said, yes. So, their opponent was mortally wounded and I as officer stepped in while the rest of the guild members present applied medical care to the struck down member.
Since this person was just new to the guild and therefore had no substantial rank, I saw no alternative but to fire them immediately. They joined, and not even 2 hours later got fired. And then they throw a hissyfit that it was meant as joke, and that they didn't want to have their character be perceived as a bad guy.
Needless to say, it delivered us a lot of headache, especially me, since I am the one who recruited and had to fire their character...
Players that tell you what your character should be like.
I had a fighter player keep telling me that my character (A barbarian) should be acting like an idiot.
*Me:* **Has a Normal Conversation**
*Fighter:* Why are you talking normally, you're a barbarian, you should be a drooling idiot.
*Me:* First of all, that's a ridiculous notion. Second, my character has an *Int* of 14, he's literally smarter than your character.
PCs who treat the game as if it were Skyrim or the like. It's not a single player game, try to play it like one and you'll end up fighting alone. It's not got any bugs or exploits where you can burglarhobo your way through a town, your crime will get us all in trouble and if the guards come looking for you I *will* turn you over to avoid jail time myself. You're *not* the protagonist of the story and no one has to give you anything, stealing from other PCs because they didn't hand over [item] to you is a great way to lose characters in PvP fights.
Also the "Rutting Bard" trope. Just because you play an instrument doesn't mean you have to try and bed every NPC you lock eyes with.
the Pc not wanting be an adventurer is a fun background thing but its just that your background. The simple farmer whose farm and village was burned down by the cult of the dragon while he was out can be a fun character. I played a character that was a pacifist PC. He was a cleric of love and one of his class abilitie was the ability to haver anything written or spoken in his presence be absolute legally binding. He would stay out of combat but either side could call on him for healing however there was a sign that all could read (tongues is a epic spell) basically if you asked for healing you were agreeing to remove yourself from all further instances of that conflict. So bug sweeping battle outsid ethe town gate any bad guy that wanted heals imediately was unable to continue fighting the terms would be considered as accepted as soon as I healed you. Oh also the gods themselves were witness to the bargain and would seek retribution.
Taking things personally and cheating for me. For the first, fucking relax it's a game, for the second it ruins the game for everyone else. Don't do either.
This would be useful to know if I ever dm a game or something. Maybe I should start researching soon?
Lawful "good" characters and then go a kill people for perceived slights
To be fair, a chaotic evil character should die in 2 sessions unless it's an npc that was so powerful at birth (or magical spawning probably) that they couldn't kill it. Being a chaotic evil character and making everything you can to disrupt the party isn't a bad roleplay, it's what it is and why you shouldn't be a chaotic evil character in 99.9% of settings
Completely untrue unless you view each alignment as just their stereotype.
@MayHugger How can a chaotic evil character fit in a party?
@@darioschottlender Because being chaotic isn’t just actively disobeying the law whenever possible, nor is it “teehee lol random”, and evil doesn’t mean serial killer or muahahaha evil, a chaotic evil character can just be someone who is inherently selfish but obeys laws so long as it suits them. They could be sadistic but not necessarily someone who will actively go out of their way to hurt people unless they believe they could get away with it.
Think something like a sociopath, we don’t see every single sociopath being arrested for murder, despite the fact most of them hate a lot of laws and might enjoy seeing others being hurt, because they aren’t stupid.
@MayHugger No wait. You are thinking of evil, I'm saying specifically chaotic evil.
@@darioschottlender I literally addressed both.
The Lawful-Good / True-Neutral things are why i just do away with that stupid alignment chart. It's only good for mapping magics and realms (even, then, you really dont need it) and not having it allows players to simply make "real" people and avoids all of these dumb hangups. The alignment chart is very dumb and causes more issues than it solves.
When a player makes their character with some sort of gimmick then uses *every single opportunity* to use this gimmick. Like in one game where a players character had paint powers to create things. Every minute or so you’d hear “I paint an (x object) so I can be funny in this scene”
Sorry,, i have to say it. Almost all of these were whining for the sake of whining. Almost all of them, if not literallh all of them, could be resolved with talking. And people need to stop thinking that bitching to the internet is somehow more productive than talking to your friends on how to play pretend with rules.
Nah I all out pvp as you are dming is crazy
I hope all of you who actually *play* the game know to make characters who are *actually **_serious_* .
We,as consumers,grew too attached to the *"sarcastic jerk"* archetype found in Deadpool & Peter Griffin.
As a result,creators sell products like _"Dragon Age Veilguard"_ ,where EVERY character is "sarcastic jerk" with X trait.
As Tvtropes points out with Freeman's mibd & RvB Chorus,whoever makes puns after murdering people is EITHER: a sociopath who's trying to cope with the situation,or a sociopath that's manipulating you for enjoyment.
If your PC is a 50YO merc being payed to fight for some rich noble,he is NOT going to talk like a millenial on Twitter.
Please do not make the same mistake as leftie movie directors,& think that millenials/gen X humor is actually funny.
Plus,there IS some humor found in being the serious dude among morons (IE Batman gardening).
Guy who leans in too hard on stats. "I'm the best at talking, only I can speak!" Buzz off.
I mean, alternatively and just as bad is the guy who has the biggest personality IRL, so they always speak first, despite their character's dump stat being charisma.
1:42 - yes it does, it says so in every PHB published before 4e.
does it actually? i don't remember that being a rule when i played second edition.
ive had a game with someone like the first trait, that mix of not wanting to adventure + being an asshole to the other characters. the dude was like almost 40. it was so stereotypical edgelord that we actually thought it was like a bit and lets just say shortly there after he was so bad 2 people quit (followed by him quitting for the group 'dying'). i hope he never found another campaign.
"The Boring Player"; "I hit him, .... I hit him, I hit him twice.... I cast firbolt." **Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz** Come on, please add some dynamo and flavour!!!!
(Okay, not inherently "annoying, but still makes a session dull and the PC of said player uninteresting =p)
I kind of disagree. Characters that are incompetent at the exspense of the party are annoying . But when it’s only at the expense of the character? It’s often Hilarious
Had someone who wanted to play a paladin of Mercy in a one shot where they are heading out into a war zone area and are likely going to get engaged in a lot of fighting or they need to infiltrate secretly inside to get to where they need to go. The guy literally played the passive pussy, you are an enemy territory they are going to kill you why are you choosing to play a paladin that is a pacifist in a war zone. This isn't like that one field medic who refused to use firearms, unless you can prove otherwise it is not viable. On top of that same one shot I have an overbearing but actually type of player and they both were equally annoying. I ended my game preemptively because the two were being all huffy and want things done their way and this is my world my story as well as my experimentation. It also didn't help that the guy who was playing the Paladin also wanted to play a unique race and a class that is not common core I threw a little temper tantrum because he didn't get his way. Just follow the rules of my world or don't play at all
Dm who bych like that usualy drop DM noc thatbis much worse
11:42 I don't think there is anything wrong with being abrasive or an arsehole as a PC as long as you're doing it to be unlikeable. You can still get along with the rest of the group, but much like in real life if you are abrasive or an arsehole from time to time you will rub people the wrong way. The trick is not doing it all the time and generally acting in their interest but not being able to put it in a likeable way, like back handed compliments are a must for this type of thing.
You know, even a good Paladin can play out in a group of thieves. I hate how people treat this "you no always good-you loose powers" as a 100% true rule. First of all, there's no such rule. It's flavour text, so you are FREE to ignore it. Second, loosing your powers is just a POSSIBLE outcome for the WORST cases. If you're a good Paladin who swore to keep innocent people from harm and actively take part in a genocide, yes, fine, make them loose their powers or become an oath breaker. But please, please, PLEASE, stop taking Paladin's powers away just because they don't report their fellow player's thief character to the authorities. That's not how this is supposed to work AT ALL.
Honestly, one of the best things that could happen to the DnD community is that suddenly everyone forgot that part. It's just frustrating to see how it's only used to the detriment of the players fun, be it making a Paladin loose their powers or forcing the group to deal with a Paladin who cannot be convinced because they know their powers depend on not being swayed. I think I've just seen a single case where this was enjoyed by the whole group, and the fun part is that it wasn't really that the Paladin broke their oath, it was due to other story reasons that weren't known at that time.
Pacifist can be workable. If you have a large enough, well functioning party and you make a Healer build. But if you're on a four man team it's just not going to fly, too much is lost with pacifism.
No there isn't. There's plenty of ways to be useful in a 4 man team that doesn't require doing HP damage. Buffing Billy, Debuffing Daedra, being the utility spell master of the group for identify and cross continent/world communication with friendly NPCs or even cross dungeon for the party. Healer Build pacifist doesn't work in a 4 man team because healer as a build is A) kind of boring, B) not really necessary at low levels because potions will cover most of your needed healing at low levels, C) kind of boring, D) only really actually comes into it's own at the later levels anyway (like EVERY spell casting build that doesn't just instant solve the game) and E) is REALLY BORING. At least that's how it is in my experience, yours will vary.
@@morgantaylor84 You seem to miss the definition of Pacifist. A pacifist doesn't kill, maim, hurt, or harm if they can help it. That includes contributing to activities that help do those things. Buffing/debuffing are out, trip builds are out, grappling builds are out, summoning builds are out. You can't even tank if that's a means to let your friends harm others even if those others are hostile. Hell, if you get really into the knock-on effects even being a combat healer could be considered contributing to violence but most people aren't that uptight.
As for boring, that's literally your opinion and it honestly sounds like you're not big on RP because I could rock a very interesting and fun healer build with little effort. Saving the party a fortune in healing potions at low levels and coming into my own at higher levels is... pretty much exactly the point.
"It's not anyone else's job to convince you to play."
Sorry, I respectfully disagree with the context after this. My group runs 3.5. Pathfinder, OD&D, 1E, and my DM's favorite... *Shudders* 2E at different times. He doesn't care if it's a dungeon crawl or yammering with mages for an entire session to agree on the price of materials needed to forge a legendary sword. D&D is the storytelling process more than the rules. And we agree that if we have to spend an entire session after making our characters, to convince the wizard to step out of his tower by enticing him not with gold but with the promise of rare spells, then we still had a good night. Hell, the frumpy wizard got to spend half an hour arguing in character It was fun.
Okay, I should concede, if this shit is going on because someone wants to slow the game down, it's wrong. Find better players... sorry it's hard to do.
That's convincing NPCs to parley and barter, not convincing PCs to interact with the game
There’s a lot.
Though I think the worst is Main Character Syndrome.
I’ve watched enough videos and spoken with enough people to know that a party doesn’t just have one main character. Everyone in the party is a fraction of a big hero/villain.
Even in the Dnd Movie, there’s no shoving way for a main character. Everyone gets a chance to shine.
Other than that I personally dislike the “I’m a strong warrior who had my parents die and I’m emo and bisexual”
The lone wolf is the most annoying character trait.
How about the hired bodyguard who pays zero attention to her employer's health during combat and doesn't even care about the pay, but is more concerned with trying to bang the other bodyguard, in whom she's shown no prior interest as a person?
Sounds perfectly like he's describing the woke folks
…..the one who acts stupid and claims to be an intellectual, don’t get me wrong it can be funny. But I hate when people use this as an excuse to act completely out of character unnaturally as a sign of their “innate genius” can be VERY inconvenient and inconsiderate of the rest of the party
Less of a character trait, and more of a roleplaying issue. Inconsistent character behavior. Its really hard to keep up with someone else's character when they don't behave the way they say they're meant to behave. I don't mean the one and done OOC moments for character development, I mean when the character is consistently played in a way that contradicts who they were established to be in the campaign.
If you aren't going to play the role you've given yourself, or at least give a good reason why your character is acting in such an odd manner, what was the point of making the character? It feels more like you're doing what you yourself would do instead of what your character would do. And at that point, just make a self-insert.
Alright, new challenge for all of you: Find the absolute worst character trope. The one you absolutely loathe the most.
Now make it work.
I'm personally so annoyed with people trying to 'subvert' tropes with a 'quirky' spin on the class/race/etc stereotype *and nothing more*. For example, we get it. Bard is/n't a flirt. Do something new with that, I beg.
Yeah its hella annoying and also pointless because its literally the same thing. The Person just went from one extreme to the other. If the character is just there to be a statement or a Stereotype or a joke orjust about only one thing in general,then they will never be anything more than a statement,joke or Stereotype.
@@BorisderBankwarmeryou said it so much better than I did
As a forever dm of over a decade these just sound like winy DM's.
A specific stupid can be fun and interesting with the right storytelling but a “what’s the most stupid thing I can do right now I’ll do that” stupid annoys me in fiction and would be annoying for a PC to deal with.
When the first thing a character tells the rest of the party are their pronouns.
DM's response should be "leave now slur."
Me when a person has the sheer audacity to use a basic function of written and spoken language:
hands down the lone wolf emo edgelord trait that everyone seems to want to be. Over the start of our campagin journies my half eld trusted no one but now he's learned the only people he can trust is his party as they have become his friends. THat is how that is done people. I do detest people who love to be racists in game against characte races for the sake of "Its what my chatacter would do" >.>
31 second no comments fell off
"They're kind of like this character from this anime called-"
*NO.*
I’m playing true neutral. My goal is: always do what I think is best for the party. Not just myself, not the world.
Characters that, almost intentionally flub social cues to the point of nearly initiating a party-wipe by doing something immensely stupid and ignoring DM hints that "You should not do this, I am giving you a chance to not do the thing you just told me you were going to do, please stop trying to do this" such as, at my one sci-fi game, Traveller, notorious for the lack of survivability, we were on a mining station, not allowed to wear armor and only allowed one or two handgun sized weapons and only because we were investigating a stolen ship that turned into a murder investigation, plus some terrorist attacks. We encountered the man who hired us, the President of the mining station we were on, angry that we had "failed" to solve the problem (we hadn't failed but he intended to weasel out of the contract to avoid paying us), and he was surrounded by heavily armored guards, with shotguns and assault rifles. The, very weak, very flimsy, very unintelligent, very un-imposing Psionic in our group, insisted that he was going to walk up to the owner of the Mining Station and put the point of his cane (disguised stun baton) up to his head like a gun, and had started reciting some threat he had written down, when the Referee (DM) said the guards were barring his way and stopping him. He went through a whole laundry list of "Oh well I slip between the guards. No? Okay can I weave around the guards? Push them out of the way? Jump over them. Can I make a strength check? Athletics? Oh I don't have anything in Athletics (Strength) or any of the other Athletics, and my normal is -1 sooooo, alright I'll roll, and that's a minus four, I got a negative one on my strength check. Okay. Nevermind." and frankly is was DM "railroading" that prevented him from instantly dying to a hail of gunfire that would have probably killed us too as we were right behind him. He's lucky all he got was 2 points of damage from getting clocked with the buttstock of a rifle. 2 points of damage doesn't sound like a lot, of course, but the absolute maximum hitpoints you can have without cybernetics or highly illegal genetic modification in Traveller is 30. Mind you, that requires your character to have incredibly high ability scores, to the point of being beyond Peak Human. My character, rolling incredibly well, had 29 hitpoints until very recently where I finally got him to 30. His character had closer to, I believe, 12 or maybe as high as 16 hitpoints. He had zero reason to believe he would survive attempting to threaten the mine-boss, and he endangered the entire party attempting to do so. We were outnumbered, outgunned, and he was out of his mind.
Edgy loner, chaotic stupid, pacifist, coward that runs away from every fight, joke characters, uncooperative pcs.
6 minutes 2 comments, fell off
*Is that Frieza*
Is that Frieza?