• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Things you hate that GMs do in RPGs (pet peeves)

Reynard

Registered User
Validated User
I had a freind who was otherwise a pretty good GM, except that almost every NPC was a jerk to the PCs. They were almost always hostile, obstructionist or unreasonabley suspicious.

This was regardless of your PC's level of charisma or similar social aptitudes.
I used to be guilty of this by accident. I did not even realize I was doing it until a player said something along the lines of, "I pick up an extra 50' of rope. I ignore whatever jerk thing the shopkeep says." Ultimately, I had not realized in trying to give my NPCs personality, I was always sort of defaulting to the "suspicious stranger" archetype and its variants. Once I realized that, I have made a strong effort to vary up my NPCs and their reactions to the party.
 

ESkemp

Registered User
Validated User
"If you don't like it, run your own game."

Dude. I run games all the time. I know they're a lot of work, and it's easy to feel underappreciated. But if you basically invoke a hostage situation when faced with criticism, that does not exactly fill me with confidence that you appreciate your players as anything other than an audience.
 

TheMouse

garmonbozia
Validated User
"If you don't like it, run your own game."

Dude. I run games all the time. I know they're a lot of work, and it's easy to feel underappreciated. But if you basically invoke a hostage situation when faced with criticism, that does not exactly fill me with confidence that you appreciate your players as anything other than an audience.
I'd love it if someone said that to me, because my reaction to such things is to take them literally and seriously. So my response would be like, "Okay. How's everyone feel about Atomic Robo instead of this game? I don't have sheets printed up, but it's simple enough to do on blank paper. Do you want to do a default game, or something a bit weirder like a group that investigates incursions from strange dimensions that regular people think are demons coming from a magical world?"

Those who use "my way or the highway" tactics typically have no clue what to do when someone says, "Highway, please!"
 

Mike McCall

Registered User
Validated User
Reasons why don't matter. I don't do vanilla. you may be able to work with that and be okay with that, but I can't. and if they disallow what I want to play, it simply won't work.
...or you could lend them the books and give them the time to catch up with what you want to play. "Don't have all the books" is different from "only allows certain books". In both directions. I have access to all the 5th ed. Shadowrun books, for example, but I don't want to have to deal with a lot of the optional rules, so I've restricted the list of what we use. I've read more of the books than my group, though.

None of this is saying that you're wrong to prefer open access to things. But not allowing certain things is not the same as not being invested.
 

Knight of Ravens

Registered User
Validated User
Antagonistic authority figures.

Like, I get that in some (even many?) genres of fiction and gaming, the PCs are going to be some variation on the theme of scofflaws and scoundrels, and in that situation it's fine to cast authority figures as low-key antagonistic to the PCs and the sort of things they're getting up to. But outside of that, if you want to introduce antagonistic authority figures please make sure there's a reason for doing so. If there's some other primary antagonist of the session, the chapter, the story arc, the campaign, whatever - having the authority figures be antagonistic on top of that just breeds an exhausted, exhausting, "trust no-one," sort of attitude in me. I don't know that in, say, a D&D game, the intiail setup and early sessions are harmed in any way by having the sheriff and/or mayor or equivalents be basically earnest and generally well-intentioned folks.
 

Malidar

Registered User
Validated User
Having to play 20 questions to 'set the scene' before playing 40 questions to get information during 'the scene'.
 

Octiron

Pariah
Validated User
Having to play 20 questions to 'set the scene' before playing 40 questions to get information during 'the scene'.
OMG yes. And rolling to "see what you see" for each of those questions." It's like playing with a blindfold.
 

Cerulean Lion

Social Justice Christian
Validated User
GMs who assume you know things and get mad at you when you complain about not having the information you need.
 

DavetheLost

Registered User
Validated User
7) Letting me make a character that invests heavily in a particular subsystem, then never actually using said subsystem, making my choice irrelevant.
.
Writing a scenario and pre-generated characters for use in that scenario, but making characters that are useless for the scenario they are supposed to be used in. I actually had this happen to me at a convention game. the pre-gen I was given had not ability or skill relevant to the adventure.
 

Wickus

Mirthless Gummy Bear
Validated User
A GM that by the second session put impossible foes against the party to prove a point about how dangerous the world is... That whole adversarial GM type makes my teeth itch.
 
Top Bottom