Quote from: J ArcaneIn one of my LARP groups, the main leader was a Changeling fan who had misread the age category table as meaning absolute age instead of age since awakening as a changeling.

So they, and everyone else in the group, were convinced that you couldn't play a Changeling older than about 6 years old.

But they still insisted on playing them regardless.

Weird. I can understand people misreading the rules, but wanting to carry on like that after it's been explained is just baffling. I've come across the odd individual who somehow thinks playing children is fun, but a whole roomful of people as toddlers? Fucking forget it.

Quote from: DrewWeird. I can understand people misreading the rules, but wanting to carry on like that after it's been explained is just baffling. I've come across the odd individual who somehow thinks playing children is fun, but a whole roomful of people as toddlers? Fucking forget it.

Especially because Changeling LARPs used to be infamous, even by the standards of WW LARPs, for players hooking up. There's a fair bit of an ick factor there.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineEspecially because Changeling LARPs used to be infamous, even by the standards of WW LARPs, for players hooking up. There's a fair bit of an ick factor there.

Definitely. You wouldn't see me for dust.

Oh, I just realised no one had brought up pixelbitching yet. We still all hate that, right?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOh, I just realised no one had brought up pixelbitching yet. We still all hate that, right?

What's pixelbitching?

Pixel-what? What's wrong with faery whorehouses?

Quote from: jeff37923What's pixelbitching?

Pixel-bitching is a term that comes from point-and-click adventure games, where it refers to puzzles that require you to click on some precise, tiny section of pixels to proceed.

In tabletop RPGs, it is frequently rather innacurately used as a term to describe railroading, where the GM offers only one solution to a given scenario, and anything else is a waste of time.  


One of my pet hates?  Players who insist on trampling all over the other player's party roles.  When I've put a bunch of effort into making sure I have the right skilsl to be the sneaky rogue with all the lockpicking and trap breaking skill, I get really fucking pissed off when my skills get rendered fucking useless because the idiot fighter just walks up to ever door and smashes the fucking thing down.

Though, in D&D, at least you get some satisfaction occasionally, in that not listening to the rogue and letting him do his thing is an exceedingly bad idea.  One game, the monk actually lost an arm because she insisted on sticking her arm in the chest . . .

You guys don't get out much?

PB = tabletop equivalent of a CRPG forcing you to scan the screen for that pixel-sized object you need to click on in order to solve the riddle and move on.

Example from my gaming experience: Early D&D module (When A Star Falls IIRC): In order to get into this monastery our heroes need to tell the guardian the password. We knew it but had forgotten it--it was one of those 8+ hours sessions. So he didn't let us in. Adventure over.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou guys don't get out much?

Harumph, back in the days we were _happy_ when the solution to a puzzle was clicking a specific pixel. If we had pixels at all, they were huge! Most adventures consisted of seven pixels. If your monitor was big enough for that!

But to be honest, I've never encountered this much from the DMs side. What I saw quite often is _players_ who thought that there was only one possible solution and spent the rest of the evening following that one thread -- badly.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou guys don't get out much?

Only to go to work or the pub.

But I'm working on starting a game of D&D&D (Dungeons & Dragons & Drinking).

Removed - I realized I was dumping on a thread...

-clash

Players who relish the spotlight but then leave to check the internet/grab a snack/make a phonecall whenever their character isn't directly involved.

GMs with very specific ideas about the type of character I should play, or how I should play him, to the point that char-gen takes multiple hours or he feels the need to 'coach' me during the game.

Oh, here's one of my pet peeves: GMs who wreck their games because they try too hard to avoid railroading. Most GMs don't like to railroad their players, but they tend to accidentally do it anyway. Sometimes, I as a player can end up feeling unduly railroaded precisely because of the effort the GM goes to in order to avoid railroading. The worst example of this is what I like to call "the lever in the room" scenario.

The lever in the room scenario is simple. In the gameworld, there's a room with a lever in it. The GM alerts the PCs to the existence of this room. The PCs decide not to go inside and pull the lever, instead opting to explore the rest of the world. They find a static wasteland in which not much is happening. Eventually, they give in and pull the lever, because it's obvious that nothing is going to happen until they do. (In the most egregious examples of this style of GMing, pulling the lever automatically ruins the PCs' lives forever.)

This is the sort of railroading which happens when a GM has only really prepared one adventure or scenario for the players, but doesn't want to be a railroader, and so doesn't force the PCs to go on it. However, the freedom the PCs have not to hop on the railroad is meaningless, because there's nothing to do until they actually give in and take up the plot hook the GM dangled in front of them in the first place. For example, rather than beginning the adventure with "the characters approach the entrance to the dungeon", a GM suffering from lever-in-a-room syndrome will idly mention that there's a dungeon somewhere to the PCs if they fancy going, and then wait while they meander about bored until they decide to go to the dungeon. The most frustrating version of this is where the GM does go to some effort to populate the rest of the gameworld with vaguely interesting stuff. "There must be a plot hook associated with this, that, and this other feature of the campaign world somehow, right? I'd quite like my character to get involved in that part of the gameworld." Nope. Behind the facade, nothing is happening and nothing will happen until you hop onto the railroad. The supposed freedom the GM has promised is just the freedom to wait around in the station until you decide to get on the train.

The irritating thing is that for my part I'll happily take the plot hook in the first place if the GM just says "hey guys, I've only really got one scenario for you, so please make sure your characters take the bait", or gives off signals to that effect. The GMs responsble for the Lever In A Room scenario tend not to do that, though - in fact, too frequently they go too far in the opposite direction, claiming that they are willing and prepared for players to go off the beaten track and zoot off in obvious directions, when in fact that isn't the case at all. It is the false advertising and lack of self-awareness that grates, not the railroading.

The lesson to take away from this one is if you have a railroad, let me know, and I'll gladly buy the ticket. Don't pretend you don't have a railroad, because I can see the trains whooshing past.

Warthur, what you describe is pretty much railroading in my book.

And yes, it's annoying.

So far, I have to agree with all of the posts but I am surprised no one mentioned personal hygiene or people who go out of their way to make the environment uncomfortable.  I only mention it because there have been times where I have tried to counteract RPGs player stereotypes to newbies only to find my efforts thwarted when people do stuff like invite Stinky Pete and Crazy Casey.  (My apologies to those named Pete and Casey who aren't stinky or crazy.)