Our characters have classes, but did you know that players do as well? 40+ years of GM’ing, seen them all, thought I’d share this. It’s a combination of personal experience and a few articles I’ve read (thank you Aaron Alston) that try to outline them all. I’m sure you’ve met some, we all have. They're not "bad" or "good", they're just "different". Oh, and many of us aren't just one. I'm a Plumber/Builder with a touch of Romantic, personally.
G.I.Dunno – Their character has 8 Cha/Wis/Int, 18 Str/Dex/Con but no social skills, basically a piece of meat with a sword. Completely useless in non-combat situations, essentially a “lump” that was created only for combat. How to deal with them: You have to catch them early and “encourage” them to build a more rounded character. If you don’t, then they’re basically a hole in your group during social situations.
The Combat Monster – “I haven’t killed anything in an hour, this is boring!” Allergic to the “Mercer-Renaissance” of gaming, this player dislikes RP and just wants to beat things up. You create a great NPC that the players will meet? This player will kill it, then wonder why everyone is upset. Isn’t that what DnD is about? How to deal with them: Set expectations clearly up front, make sure the player knows what they’re getting into. “We will have sessions that have no combat.” Let them decide if your game is a fit, in advance.
The Min/Maxer – This player chooses their feats, class, race, and gear based upon what the forums say is the FOTM (flavor of the month), the best dps/hps available based upon the latest existing rules errata. It doesn’t matter what the campaign is about or what the party might need, if the Drow rogue is the best dps, then they make a drow rogue. How to deal with them: Be ready for a fight, they will find any/every way to justify their decisions and passive aggressively complain about how ineffective they are if you force them into a role that isn't optimized.
The Loot Hog - "I totally need that 2-handed sword" says the mage. They have an argument for why every single loot drop is essential for them. 5e has done a bit to reduce this with attunement, but I still run into them. They're rough when you have a mix of them and quieter players who don't want to appear selfish and don't speak up for themselves. How to deal with them: Step on them and "recommend" the loot distribution. Deliberately drop loot that they can't use, often, if they continue.
The Pro From Dover – They stack feats and stats to have a passive perception of 25 at 4th level, they want a 24 AC at lvl 1, etc, they are the absolute best at something. Best in the party, best in the world, best. 5e has gone a long way to kill this, it’s hard to be “the best”, but in 3.5 the Pros From Dover were everywhere. If they’re not the best at something, they’re miserable. How to deal with them: Depending upon what they want, if it’s within the rules, let them. If you don’t, they’ll just keep trying until they are. Feel free to make what they are the best of irrelevant in your game to keep them off balanced.
Genre Fiend (also known as the Meta Fiend) – “I’ve read every Faerun book there is, that shop is absolutely not there, it’s over here! Drizzt is my personal friend and he totally would not do it that way!” The enemy of any franchise-based campaign, they know more than you and don’t mind showing you, interrupting your session over and over to correct you. This is less common in DnD than it is in Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. As the Meta Fiend, they’ve read the DMG, all of the Monster Manuals, know everything about the monsters so it’s nearly impossible to surprise them, or the party because they happily tell everyone “Oh, this is a Black Pudding, don’t use slashing or lightning on it.” How to deal with it: Hit them with a mallet. Seriously. Pull out a roll of duct tape and threaten them with it. I tend to end up chasing these folks out of my games because they are so frustrating.
The Rules Lawyer – “According to rule 7, subset 3, section 11 of the guide, I am indeed allowed to do that thing that you say I can’t do.” In 5e they are also "According to this twitter from Jeremy Crawford..." They hit the book a dozen times a night and are in a constant state of arguing with the GM. They will argue on behalf of other players just to get their argument fix in. How to deal with them: Set boundaries, take their books away, and make it clear that, if they disrupt the game, it will have consequences. I had one in a campaign that lasted for years, I gave him 3 “challenges” a game, like football. And if he was wrong, he lost all remaining challenges. It took a bit to get him to follow it, but then he took it very seriously and only challenged if it was really important (to him).
The Plumber – This player has a 30 page back story for their character, has interviewed all of the other players and established relationships with not only the other characters but their backstories as well. They pepper the GM regularly with questions about NPCs and how they might connect to their backstory, tell long involved tales about their backstory and how integrated they are in the world. How to deal with them: Be patient, they love your world and want to be a part of it. Scan their stuff, make sure they’re not secretly the king of Waterdeep or something, pull some strings from it now and again to throw them a bone and keep them interested and they’ll be happy. The villain turns out to be their half-brother, lost for decades, that is also secretly their uncle? They'll squee with joy.
The Builder – The Builder wants to build, wants to change the world, wants to create an impact. They don’t want to just kill the goblins, they want to build a keep, attract settlers, tithe people, build an army, civilize the area, build a kingdom, etc. This is the player who wants six weeks of downtime to craft things and is constantly trying to change the world. If you let them, they’ll end up mayor of the city or ruler of the kingdom. How to deal with them: Be ready for permanent changes to your campaign if you let this player have their way. But remember, the player can’t be everywhere so nothing says that, after he builds that castle and then goes on an adventure, something can’t happen to tear it down or take it over.
The Clown – It’s not real, it’s just a game, right? So I can fireball the party, for laughs, pickpocket party members, attack the big NPC quest giver that’s 3x our level, just to see what happens. Serious scene where the dragon is telling us what we need to do? Cast an Ice Storm on his head because this is boring. How to deal with them: Throw them out, this one’s a loser.
The Buddy – One player’s girlfriend, or room mate, the person who is only there because someone else is. They barely know how to play, they don’t role play, their friend made their character for them, and they’ve no real interest in learning. They’re there to hang out with their friend. How to deal with them: Not much to deal with, honestly. I try to encourage them to participate, “lure” them into the game, and I’ve managed to succeed a few times, but they’re not terribly disruptive, they’re just another “hole” in the game.
The Tragedian – Peter Parker, Scott Summers, etc. These players aren’t enjoying themselves unless something horrible is happening to their character. Their backstory involves them being the lost prince of a fallen kingdom, their spouse is in an Iron Flask, owned by a demon that the character sold their soul to try to acquire and now they’re on a quest, only to find out the demon will betray…you get the idea. How to deal with them: Hurt them, betray them, mangle them, they love it. Don’t coddle them, bring the pain. They like an NPC? Murder it, brutally, in front of them, where they failed to save it. Etc, you get the drill. They live for the day you kill their character in a tragic, dramatic manner that advances the campaign.
The Romantic – Not specifically about romance, this player isn’t having fun unless they’re actively interacting, with the other players, NPCs, etc. They want to strike up meaningful conversations with everything they meet that is capable of speech. Every encounter you throw at them, they want to talk first, so you better have a personality determined for that goblin shaman because this guy is going to want to talk to it. How to deal with them: Be ready to chat it up and make sure you have things to talk about. Every NPC that can talk will be a target for this player, be ready. What is that shaman’s motivations? What flavor of blood does that vampire prefer? This one will keep you on your toes.
The Ultimate Roleplayer – They’re the opposite of the Combat Monster, they want to use persuade on every creature, speak in accents, use props and in every way consider the game their personal improv stage. They don’t care about the dice or the combat, it’s all about the show. How to deal with this one: If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile, so make sure to regulate this one. Persuade is not charm person, that charging Minotaur can not be persuaded to stop, etc. If you let them they’ll charm an entire town into their thrall. Their energy is a joy to have in the game, if that is the game you’re trying to run, but if you prefer a more laid back game they can be quite distracting. They tend to fill all available space/time with their role playing, squeezing out more passive players.
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
There is no shame in self-reflection. There are a couple of types that I shun because they don't fit in my games, but we are who we are :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
I like the idea behind this but a lot of these I feel it into the negative stereotype, I play in a group with a few of these and they're not AS bad as the type they fall into.
A rules lawyer partly fits into to two categories. Roles hagglers and roles traditionalists, traditionalists just want to follow the rules as they find that the best way to have fun, they believe the rules are there for reason, they may argue a rule to keep a game fair but usually just talking with them about it should fix it, then, hagglers. These people WANT something out of the rules, so they will argue endless over something like a loop hole or TECHNICALLY the rules say I can do this even if it doesn't make any sense, people like this you can try talking with them but they may need to get the boot if they don't stop.
Min/Maxer. I actually play with a min maxer but they're not that bad. The character has an optimal build made to be extremely powerful, but they've made a full back story, do a good job role playing. It gets really bad with alpha games, they're the type of min maxer that doesn't just want a good build, they want to be the best and will wine if they don't get there way.
The Clown, again I'm in a game with "a clown" they're not the type to completely derail the story or do something stupid but they mostly stick to being comic relief, which is nice when the fate of the world hinges on are every action. In all honestly they do a good job of being comic relief IN character and when the serious moment comes they usually get serious or stay quiet
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Marvarax andSora (Dragonborn) The retired fighter and WIP scholar - Glory
Brythel(Dwarf), The dwarf with a gun - survival at sea
Jaylin(Human), Paladin of Lathander's Ancient ways - The Seven Saints (Azura Claw)
Urselles(Goblin), Cleric of Eldath- The Wizard's challenge
Viclas Tyrin(Half Elf), Student of the Elven arts- Indrafatmoko's Defiance in Phlan
Different strokes. My play style is not for everyone, so I'm not compatible with a lot of people. Combat monsters and min/maxers tend to hate my games.
I posted this mostly as a joke, of course :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
Pretty accurate assessment of player types, I bet I could fit each of my players into one of those categories. A couple of others I have run across that I'm not sure would fit into these.
The Skill Check That Guy: This is the guy who thinks everything is verifiable, solvable or otherwise finds a way to apply skills to every situation, more so he makes an argument for how any skill he has can apply to every situation. He demands constant skill checks and often makes skill checks for himself to make RP decisions. I sometimes like to call him the GURPS guy because I think that is where this sort of "skills are your character" mentality comes from.
The "Then I don't do that" guy: This is the guy who tells you what he wants to do and when you give him the results comes back with "Oh ok well then I don't do that". Its also commonly the guy who said "what if I do this?". Always testing the waters, trying to figure out what will happen if he did X or Y and only accepts the narrative if it meets his expectation. This can also be a DM, aka the DM who says "if you do that, this will happen", always giving you an opportunity to change your mind about actions he doesn't want you to take.
I like these :)
The "Then I don't do that" guy tends to be miserable at my table. My gamers will often say "What will happen if I..." and I respond with "Who are you asking? The sky?" It's like the chess player who tentatively does things and keeps his finger on the piece for 15 min, staring at the board. My groups tend to be 6-7 folks, I don't have that kind of time. I put an egg timer on the table when that player starts and when the timer is up, they are where they are, and if they've done nothing, then their character suffered from analysis paralysis and did nothing, lost their turn, and maybe will think of something for the next turn.
Obviously this isn't with new players, those games just run much slower. I'm talking a table full of vets with a "Then I don't do that" guy :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
I've also done RPGs almost as long as there have been RPGs so I understand some of these in myself as well as my players. However, as with many things in life, there are shades or gray in people as well.
Like the guy who has a stressful job and sometimes brings work stress to the gaming table. On a typical day he might be a great player but once in a while he's a combat monster, just out to wreck stuff to vent. If possible (and I see this coming) then I might change up the order of my plans for the night if. Say I had planned on a bit of RP to get a new plotline started followed by some combat later. If it doesn't completely ruin my story line, I might START with a fight of some kind, something of little consequence (that might turn into something later) to let off some steam and THEN get into the RP side of things.
Or the player who is normally a great RPer but is just not feeling motivated (here comes real-life stress again). Don't force them into anything because it's no fun for them. Toss them a bone just aimed at THEM and then give them some time. They'll warm up and bounce back and in the meantime everyone else can have some extra face-time.
One of my faves is one that I suffer from. I'm a Builder/Plumber when it comes to my background but there are times when I suffer from Min/Maxing and Pro from Dover syndrome. This is mainly because I like to build my character around a focal point and then add the details to that. The one Skill that I'm really good at is often that cornerstone. However, I make it a habit to never make that something that is even more important to another character. Example: If I'm running an Investigation Rogue then I have a reason to have Thieve's Tools but being the best lockpick in the world isn't important to my character. However, it might be to the Rogue/Thief who prides herself on being able to break into anything. We're the same class and we both want to be good at what we do but there's no need to step all over each other.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be good in combat. The problem stems from wanting to always be the best (because that's relative) or by gaining your pinnacle of perfection through a clever means of Feats and traits that don't always work, then whining about it. If you built that Polearm Master/Sentinel Fighter who is just a beast in a doorway, understand that you're going to HAVE to fight in the woods sometimes. The Ranger or Scout who can track anything might be terrible in a city with paved streets. Or the urban thief/Mastermind who spends most of his time Persuading and Intimidating people in town is going to feel a bit out of place in a lost tomb filled with undead monsters.
Every player HAS to accept that there are going to be times when their character is not going to be terribly helpful. That's the whole point of having a group to adventure with. The trick is to turn even a bad situation into a good RP opportunity so that even if you're the ONLY guy who can't help lift the heavy thing, you can STILL be the guy checking the hallway to make sure nobody is coming or cheering on the rest of the team (because those scenes are always funny in the movies).
I think you are being unfair to the "then I don't do that guy" - probably because you misunderstand what he is doing.
Very rarely in life are there situations where you would think "I have a 60% chance of success if I attempt that." I approach a corner at a particular speed, in my car, my motorbike, or a pushbike, and I don't think "At this speed I have a 75% chance of making the corner." What I do think, is "I need to slow down because my tyres will not grip at this speed." I reduce my speed until I am certain of taking the corner. 100% chance. Even on computer games, pushing the limit, I can generally judge speed well enough to take 95-99% of corners without spinning off or crashing. I can look at a beam and decide if I can walk across it without falling off. I can look at a wall and fairly quickly form an opinion of whether it is climbable by me. I can judge my chances of leaping between two rocks on a rocky shoreline - I have been dashing across "difficult terrain" for years, at a speed that would be considered reckless to most people, and yet I have never sustained an injury, because I never attempt something without being damn certain it is within my ability. And I can make that determination in a split second almost every time. People who perform parkour, or BMX stunts, often injure themselves because they are pushing beyond what they can comfortably do, trying to achieve the unlikely. I can respect that, but I will not be sending any flowers to their widows...
If the "then I don't do that guy" asks "What will happen if I..." and you respond with "Who are you asking? The sky?" then I think you have misunderstood either the question or your role as GM. Who is he asking? The player is asking his character. The player is fully entitled to a sensible answer from his GM.
Most of the time, you could probably let players roll for success/failure before deciding whether they are going to attempt something...sounds counter intuitive? Let me explain.
The rocky floor is slightly damp, and the approach to a jump is slightly curved, but the landing point is about a foot lower than the takeoff point. The GM decides it is a DC 15 athletics/acrobatics check.
Jim the player rolls a d20, adds his chosen bonus and gets a fail. Chongo, Jim's PC, has looked at the jump and shaken his head. He knows it is unlikely. Very unlikely. If Jim decides to have Chongo make the leap anyway, the chance of success is now 5%. No bonuses or penalties, just 5%. Chongo knows he is unlikely to make this jump, but for reasons unknown to us (but probably armed and angry), has to try. Even if he makes the roll, the landing is unlikely to be graceful, probably calling for further checks which he can't easily assess, and so can't roll prior to any decisions. A true leap into the unknown.
Had Jim succeeded on the initial roll, he would now know that the chances of failure were low - let's call it 5% again.
Some people may claim this reduces the tension and/or immersion in the game. I would argue otherwise. From a roleplaying point of view, knowing that mechanically you have a 55% chance of success tells you almost nothing about a situation. The GM might as well say - there is a chasm, do you want to jump it? Flip a coin to see how you do....
In a social situation, you don't just ask someone to marry you - you wait until you're fairly sure the answer is going to be the one you want to hear. You don't just make someone an offer on a second hand car, you feel your way towards a figure. If you just jumped in and rolled the die, you risk being swindled or beaten up! Regardless of how charming I am, I have a fairly good idea of how the boss is going to react to me asking for a pay rise. Having my mate tell him I am an asset to the firm may give me advantage on my persuade roll, but slim to bugger off is still slim to bugger off even when doubled. In a roleplaying situation, I might roll my persuade check to see how receptive I think someone is going to be to a suggestion; in real life most of us have a good idea of what the answer to a request is going to be, even if we have to wait to until after tea break to see if their hangover has improved.... And sometimes, even knowing the answer, we decide to ask anyway.
TL:DR in real life, things are rarely 50-50. This is because we get vastly more information than even Matt Mercer is going to dish out. The "Then I don't do that" guy may be trying to compensate for that lack.
Or maybe he is just being a dick.
Wow - That was a lot of words. Maybe if I had known I was going to write that much, I wouldn't have bothered! ;)
Most of the time, you could probably let players roll for success/failure before deciding whether they are going to attempt something...sounds counter intuitive? Let me explain.
The rocky floor is slightly damp, and the approach to a jump is slightly curved, but the landing point is about a foot lower than the takeoff point. The GM decides it is a DC 15 athletics/acrobatics check.
Jim the player rolls a d20, adds his chosen bonus and gets a fail. Chongo, Jim's PC, has looked at the jump and shaken his head. He knows it is unlikely. Very unlikely. If Jim decides to have Chongo make the leap anyway, the chance of success is now 5%. No bonuses or penalties, just 5%. Chongo knows he is unlikely to make this jump, but for reasons unknown to us (but probably armed and angry), has to try. Even if he makes the roll, the landing is unlikely to be graceful, probably calling for further checks which he can't easily assess, and so can't roll prior to any decisions. A true leap into the unknown.
Had Jim succeeded on the initial roll, he would now know that the chances of failure were low - let's call it 5% again.
This is way more complicated (and requires learning new rules) than the player just asking "Can I make the jump?" and the DM answering "you're sure you'll make it", "there's a small chance of failure" or "it's risky."
I'm running a game with 7 players right now. If each person takes 10 min to do their turn, that's 1 hour/round, which means it takes 6 months to clear a single dungeon. Life is unfair, a round is 6 seconds long and, in real life, people balk in pressure situations and fail to act, so I have no issue with making someone skip a round for being indecisive, it just means their character is.
It's an egg timer, it's 60 seconds long. The person has had 6 other people's turns of watching the board and planning an action, it should not take longer than 60 seconds to explain it. And honestly, I don't pull out the egg timer until they appear to be suffering from analysis paralysis, haven't been paying attention, etc. It's not like I'm running my game like this (https://youtu.be/zP0sqRMzkwo?t=70), 99% of the time it's free flowing and people are moving through their turns easily. All I ask is that all players watch the table, pay attention, and plan ahead. Also, everyone at my table is a vet, no new players. I absolutely don't treat new players this way :)
I happily accept questions like "can I make that jump" by telling them a SWAG % based upon the DC and their athletics skill. I do not answer questions like "What happens if I jump across?" because there's no one they can ask that question to, they need to jump and find out. What should I answer? "The giant hippo hiding on the other side of that wall that you can't see will eat you, of course!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
"so I have no issue with making someone skip a round for being indecisive, it just means their character is."
Agreed.
You mean it might teach them to act a bit quicker next time? Damn right.
Is it punishing the player? Damn right. But only a bit, and not as much as they are punishing everyone else around the table with their analysis paralysis.
As long as the player has enough information to make an informed decision, then it shouldn't take more than 10 seconds to come up with a decent move. And if it's wrong? Who cares? There's always next turn. The DM is making far more decisions, and normally in far less time; that's a big advantage for the players. Sometimes a player may need to ask for a time out, and if this is a rarity, then fair enough. Give the players the ability to halt the flow of sand for a few moments/minutes/whatever. But only if the decision is critical, life or death stuff. Such moments are rare, and should be cherished.
@InquisitiveCoder "This is way more complicated (and requires learning new rules) than the player just asking "Can I make the jump?" and the DM answering "you're sure you'll make it", "there's a small chance of failure" or "it's risky.""
Very true, but some people just like to watch the world burn roll dice. Give it a try sometime - your players might just like it. As I play more in this second coming of D&D (for me - I stopped playing in the 4th E years), I rely less on dice for stuff like jumping and researching and stuff that isn't opposed. I try to save dice for when it matters and combat.
Again, I only do this with vets. I run newbie games where the entire night is 3 rounds of combat. I'm quite fine with that, I teach people how to play all of the time.
But in the 7th month of our ongoing campaign, please know how to play your character :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
If a player wants to size up a situation, I'll have them make a roll based on their skill level and the circumstances. The entertainer with 20 Acrobatics who has time to study the situation has a MUCH better chance to assess things than the Rogue with 15 Acrobatics sprinting down the hallway to escape a monster. I would let the former make their check in order to determine if there was a reason why they might NOT make it (loose stones, slippery footing, whatever). If the latter player asked if they could make it I'd ask 'Are you going to take a pause to round to try and figure it out? You'll get a bonus if you just jump because you've got momentum from sprinting.'
We have to remember that the CHARACTER likely has a lot more knowledge than the PLAYER does and that's where the skills come in. I couldn't pick a lock to save my life but my Rogue sure can.
The closest is probably "rules lawyer" but not in the way put here, more of a "rules reminder", maybe. I'm usually pretty good at remembering the rules and understanding them so when somebody (player or DM) seems to break the rules I advise on the ruling. However, that's the extent of it. I do not ever "argue" the point. I have made it clear to everyone I do this as a way to be helpful but I can misremember things and even if I do remember rightly the DM has final say. I have made sure every player knows this and to let me know if it ever bothers them. I also discussed with my DM about it to make sure he was OK with me doing this and he is and actually appreciates it. His campaign features a custom world and a lot of homebrewed things so his job can be difficult as is so he finds it helpful. I never argue the point - I remind about rules and the DM then makes the decision about whether that ruling applies in the current circumstance or for his campaign. Once the decision is made I don't argue it. I also make sure my reminder is small, if it's going to be a longer explanation or something I send it to the DM in private instead in order to not disrupt the game.
I do frequently go to the PHB sometimes because I make a lot of homebrew stuff for my own amusement and because I participate in multiple forums where rules and PHB are being discussed. My glances into the MM and DMG have been significantly less due to not needing to. These have mostly just been for understanding classes better and inspiration on homebrew. The Sorcerer class in particular involves the class powers coming from things like Dragons and different Planes of Existence (Feywild for Wild Magic and Shadowfell for Shadow Magic) so understanding characters that have been trying to understand their powers will require some knowledge and reading on these things found in the MM and DMG. The DMG also has guides on homebirewing stuff and the MM is a good place for inspiration on summoning spells. These books aren't just for rules-lawyers they're good for the players too.
Beyond that, I don't fit into any of these. I am not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing.
It means you're a normal player that's great to have in a game :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
Our characters have classes, but did you know that players do as well? 40+ years of GM’ing, seen them all, thought I’d share this. It’s a combination of personal experience and a few articles I’ve read (thank you Aaron Alston) that try to outline them all. I’m sure you’ve met some, we all have. They're not "bad" or "good", they're just "different". Oh, and many of us aren't just one. I'm a Plumber/Builder with a touch of Romantic, personally.
G.I.Dunno – Their character has 8 Cha/Wis/Int, 18 Str/Dex/Con but no social skills, basically a piece of meat with a sword. Completely useless in non-combat situations, essentially a “lump” that was created only for combat. How to deal with them: You have to catch them early and “encourage” them to build a more rounded character. If you don’t, then they’re basically a hole in your group during social situations.
The Combat Monster – “I haven’t killed anything in an hour, this is boring!” Allergic to the “Mercer-Renaissance” of gaming, this player dislikes RP and just wants to beat things up. You create a great NPC that the players will meet? This player will kill it, then wonder why everyone is upset. Isn’t that what DnD is about? How to deal with them: Set expectations clearly up front, make sure the player knows what they’re getting into. “We will have sessions that have no combat.” Let them decide if your game is a fit, in advance.
The Min/Maxer – This player chooses their feats, class, race, and gear based upon what the forums say is the FOTM (flavor of the month), the best dps/hps available based upon the latest existing rules errata. It doesn’t matter what the campaign is about or what the party might need, if the Drow rogue is the best dps, then they make a drow rogue. How to deal with them: Be ready for a fight, they will find any/every way to justify their decisions and passive aggressively complain about how ineffective they are if you force them into a role that isn't optimized.
The Loot Hog - "I totally need that 2-handed sword" says the mage. They have an argument for why every single loot drop is essential for them. 5e has done a bit to reduce this with attunement, but I still run into them. They're rough when you have a mix of them and quieter players who don't want to appear selfish and don't speak up for themselves. How to deal with them: Step on them and "recommend" the loot distribution. Deliberately drop loot that they can't use, often, if they continue.
The Pro From Dover – They stack feats and stats to have a passive perception of 25 at 4th level, they want a 24 AC at lvl 1, etc, they are the absolute best at something. Best in the party, best in the world, best. 5e has gone a long way to kill this, it’s hard to be “the best”, but in 3.5 the Pros From Dover were everywhere. If they’re not the best at something, they’re miserable. How to deal with them: Depending upon what they want, if it’s within the rules, let them. If you don’t, they’ll just keep trying until they are. Feel free to make what they are the best of irrelevant in your game to keep them off balanced.
Genre Fiend (also known as the Meta Fiend) – “I’ve read every Faerun book there is, that shop is absolutely not there, it’s over here! Drizzt is my personal friend and he totally would not do it that way!” The enemy of any franchise-based campaign, they know more than you and don’t mind showing you, interrupting your session over and over to correct you. This is less common in DnD than it is in Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. As the Meta Fiend, they’ve read the DMG, all of the Monster Manuals, know everything about the monsters so it’s nearly impossible to surprise them, or the party because they happily tell everyone “Oh, this is a Black Pudding, don’t use slashing or lightning on it.” How to deal with it: Hit them with a mallet. Seriously. Pull out a roll of duct tape and threaten them with it. I tend to end up chasing these folks out of my games because they are so frustrating.
The Rules Lawyer – “According to rule 7, subset 3, section 11 of the guide, I am indeed allowed to do that thing that you say I can’t do.” In 5e they are also "According to this twitter from Jeremy Crawford..." They hit the book a dozen times a night and are in a constant state of arguing with the GM. They will argue on behalf of other players just to get their argument fix in. How to deal with them: Set boundaries, take their books away, and make it clear that, if they disrupt the game, it will have consequences. I had one in a campaign that lasted for years, I gave him 3 “challenges” a game, like football. And if he was wrong, he lost all remaining challenges. It took a bit to get him to follow it, but then he took it very seriously and only challenged if it was really important (to him).
The Plumber – This player has a 30 page back story for their character, has interviewed all of the other players and established relationships with not only the other characters but their backstories as well. They pepper the GM regularly with questions about NPCs and how they might connect to their backstory, tell long involved tales about their backstory and how integrated they are in the world. How to deal with them: Be patient, they love your world and want to be a part of it. Scan their stuff, make sure they’re not secretly the king of Waterdeep or something, pull some strings from it now and again to throw them a bone and keep them interested and they’ll be happy. The villain turns out to be their half-brother, lost for decades, that is also secretly their uncle? They'll squee with joy.
The Builder – The Builder wants to build, wants to change the world, wants to create an impact. They don’t want to just kill the goblins, they want to build a keep, attract settlers, tithe people, build an army, civilize the area, build a kingdom, etc. This is the player who wants six weeks of downtime to craft things and is constantly trying to change the world. If you let them, they’ll end up mayor of the city or ruler of the kingdom. How to deal with them: Be ready for permanent changes to your campaign if you let this player have their way. But remember, the player can’t be everywhere so nothing says that, after he builds that castle and then goes on an adventure, something can’t happen to tear it down or take it over.
The Clown – It’s not real, it’s just a game, right? So I can fireball the party, for laughs, pickpocket party members, attack the big NPC quest giver that’s 3x our level, just to see what happens. Serious scene where the dragon is telling us what we need to do? Cast an Ice Storm on his head because this is boring. How to deal with them: Throw them out, this one’s a loser.
The Buddy – One player’s girlfriend, or room mate, the person who is only there because someone else is. They barely know how to play, they don’t role play, their friend made their character for them, and they’ve no real interest in learning. They’re there to hang out with their friend. How to deal with them: Not much to deal with, honestly. I try to encourage them to participate, “lure” them into the game, and I’ve managed to succeed a few times, but they’re not terribly disruptive, they’re just another “hole” in the game.
The Tragedian – Peter Parker, Scott Summers, etc. These players aren’t enjoying themselves unless something horrible is happening to their character. Their backstory involves them being the lost prince of a fallen kingdom, their spouse is in an Iron Flask, owned by a demon that the character sold their soul to try to acquire and now they’re on a quest, only to find out the demon will betray…you get the idea. How to deal with them: Hurt them, betray them, mangle them, they love it. Don’t coddle them, bring the pain. They like an NPC? Murder it, brutally, in front of them, where they failed to save it. Etc, you get the drill. They live for the day you kill their character in a tragic, dramatic manner that advances the campaign.
The Romantic – Not specifically about romance, this player isn’t having fun unless they’re actively interacting, with the other players, NPCs, etc. They want to strike up meaningful conversations with everything they meet that is capable of speech. Every encounter you throw at them, they want to talk first, so you better have a personality determined for that goblin shaman because this guy is going to want to talk to it. How to deal with them: Be ready to chat it up and make sure you have things to talk about. Every NPC that can talk will be a target for this player, be ready. What is that shaman’s motivations? What flavor of blood does that vampire prefer? This one will keep you on your toes.
The Ultimate Roleplayer – They’re the opposite of the Combat Monster, they want to use persuade on every creature, speak in accents, use props and in every way consider the game their personal improv stage. They don’t care about the dice or the combat, it’s all about the show. How to deal with this one: If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile, so make sure to regulate this one. Persuade is not charm person, that charging Minotaur can not be persuaded to stop, etc. If you let them they’ll charm an entire town into their thrall. Their energy is a joy to have in the game, if that is the game you’re trying to run, but if you prefer a more laid back game they can be quite distracting. They tend to fill all available space/time with their role playing, squeezing out more passive players.
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
Self-reflection is awful! Apparently I'm a Combat Monster/Rules Lawyer who does Plumbing on the side when I'm not Romancing.
There is no shame in self-reflection. There are a couple of types that I shun because they don't fit in my games, but we are who we are :)
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
Proud builder.
I like the idea behind this but a lot of these I feel it into the negative stereotype, I play in a group with a few of these and they're not AS bad as the type they fall into.
A rules lawyer partly fits into to two categories. Roles hagglers and roles traditionalists, traditionalists just want to follow the rules as they find that the best way to have fun, they believe the rules are there for reason, they may argue a rule to keep a game fair but usually just talking with them about it should fix it, then, hagglers. These people WANT something out of the rules, so they will argue endless over something like a loop hole or TECHNICALLY the rules say I can do this even if it doesn't make any sense, people like this you can try talking with them but they may need to get the boot if they don't stop.
Min/Maxer. I actually play with a min maxer but they're not that bad. The character has an optimal build made to be extremely powerful, but they've made a full back story, do a good job role playing. It gets really bad with alpha games, they're the type of min maxer that doesn't just want a good build, they want to be the best and will wine if they don't get there way.
The Clown, again I'm in a game with "a clown" they're not the type to completely derail the story or do something stupid but they mostly stick to being comic relief, which is nice when the fate of the world hinges on are every action. In all honestly they do a good job of being comic relief IN character and when the serious moment comes they usually get serious or stay quiet
Marvarax and Sora (Dragonborn) The retired fighter and WIP scholar - Glory
Brythel(Dwarf), The dwarf with a gun - survival at sea
Jaylin(Human), Paladin of Lathander's Ancient ways - The Seven Saints (Azura Claw)
Urselles(Goblin), Cleric of Eldath- The Wizard's challenge
Viclas Tyrin(Half Elf), Student of the Elven arts- Indrafatmoko's Defiance in Phlan
Different strokes. My play style is not for everyone, so I'm not compatible with a lot of people. Combat monsters and min/maxers tend to hate my games.
I posted this mostly as a joke, of course :)
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
So whatever type of player sits at your table, you have a way to suck the joy out of the game for them?
Obviously I posted this as a joke.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
I've also done RPGs almost as long as there have been RPGs so I understand some of these in myself as well as my players. However, as with many things in life, there are shades or gray in people as well.
Like the guy who has a stressful job and sometimes brings work stress to the gaming table. On a typical day he might be a great player but once in a while he's a combat monster, just out to wreck stuff to vent. If possible (and I see this coming) then I might change up the order of my plans for the night if. Say I had planned on a bit of RP to get a new plotline started followed by some combat later. If it doesn't completely ruin my story line, I might START with a fight of some kind, something of little consequence (that might turn into something later) to let off some steam and THEN get into the RP side of things.
Or the player who is normally a great RPer but is just not feeling motivated (here comes real-life stress again). Don't force them into anything because it's no fun for them. Toss them a bone just aimed at THEM and then give them some time. They'll warm up and bounce back and in the meantime everyone else can have some extra face-time.
One of my faves is one that I suffer from. I'm a Builder/Plumber when it comes to my background but there are times when I suffer from Min/Maxing and Pro from Dover syndrome. This is mainly because I like to build my character around a focal point and then add the details to that. The one Skill that I'm really good at is often that cornerstone. However, I make it a habit to never make that something that is even more important to another character. Example: If I'm running an Investigation Rogue then I have a reason to have Thieve's Tools but being the best lockpick in the world isn't important to my character. However, it might be to the Rogue/Thief who prides herself on being able to break into anything. We're the same class and we both want to be good at what we do but there's no need to step all over each other.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be good in combat. The problem stems from wanting to always be the best (because that's relative) or by gaining your pinnacle of perfection through a clever means of Feats and traits that don't always work, then whining about it. If you built that Polearm Master/Sentinel Fighter who is just a beast in a doorway, understand that you're going to HAVE to fight in the woods sometimes. The Ranger or Scout who can track anything might be terrible in a city with paved streets. Or the urban thief/Mastermind who spends most of his time Persuading and Intimidating people in town is going to feel a bit out of place in a lost tomb filled with undead monsters.
Every player HAS to accept that there are going to be times when their character is not going to be terribly helpful. That's the whole point of having a group to adventure with. The trick is to turn even a bad situation into a good RP opportunity so that even if you're the ONLY guy who can't help lift the heavy thing, you can STILL be the guy checking the hallway to make sure nobody is coming or cheering on the rest of the team (because those scenes are always funny in the movies).
I think you are being unfair to the "then I don't do that guy" - probably because you misunderstand what he is doing.
Very rarely in life are there situations where you would think "I have a 60% chance of success if I attempt that."
I approach a corner at a particular speed, in my car, my motorbike, or a pushbike, and I don't think "At this speed I have a 75% chance of making the corner."
What I do think, is "I need to slow down because my tyres will not grip at this speed." I reduce my speed until I am certain of taking the corner. 100% chance. Even on computer games, pushing the limit, I can generally judge speed well enough to take 95-99% of corners without spinning off or crashing.
I can look at a beam and decide if I can walk across it without falling off. I can look at a wall and fairly quickly form an opinion of whether it is climbable by me. I can judge my chances of leaping between two rocks on a rocky shoreline - I have been dashing across "difficult terrain" for years, at a speed that would be considered reckless to most people, and yet I have never sustained an injury, because I never attempt something without being damn certain it is within my ability. And I can make that determination in a split second almost every time.
People who perform parkour, or BMX stunts, often injure themselves because they are pushing beyond what they can comfortably do, trying to achieve the unlikely. I can respect that, but I will not be sending any flowers to their widows...
If the "then I don't do that guy" asks "What will happen if I..." and you respond with "Who are you asking? The sky?" then I think you have misunderstood either the question or your role as GM. Who is he asking? The player is asking his character. The player is fully entitled to a sensible answer from his GM.
Most of the time, you could probably let players roll for success/failure before deciding whether they are going to attempt something...sounds counter intuitive? Let me explain.
The rocky floor is slightly damp, and the approach to a jump is slightly curved, but the landing point is about a foot lower than the takeoff point. The GM decides it is a DC 15 athletics/acrobatics check.
Jim the player rolls a d20, adds his chosen bonus and gets a fail. Chongo, Jim's PC, has looked at the jump and shaken his head. He knows it is unlikely. Very unlikely.
If Jim decides to have Chongo make the leap anyway, the chance of success is now 5%. No bonuses or penalties, just 5%. Chongo knows he is unlikely to make this jump, but for reasons unknown to us (but probably armed and angry), has to try. Even if he makes the roll, the landing is unlikely to be graceful, probably calling for further checks which he can't easily assess, and so can't roll prior to any decisions. A true leap into the unknown.
Had Jim succeeded on the initial roll, he would now know that the chances of failure were low - let's call it 5% again.
Some people may claim this reduces the tension and/or immersion in the game. I would argue otherwise. From a roleplaying point of view, knowing that mechanically you have a 55% chance of success tells you almost nothing about a situation. The GM might as well say - there is a chasm, do you want to jump it? Flip a coin to see how you do....
In a social situation, you don't just ask someone to marry you - you wait until you're fairly sure the answer is going to be the one you want to hear. You don't just make someone an offer on a second hand car, you feel your way towards a figure. If you just jumped in and rolled the die, you risk being swindled or beaten up!
Regardless of how charming I am, I have a fairly good idea of how the boss is going to react to me asking for a pay rise. Having my mate tell him I am an asset to the firm may give me advantage on my persuade roll, but slim to bugger off is still slim to bugger off even when doubled. In a roleplaying situation, I might roll my persuade check to see how receptive I think someone is going to be to a suggestion; in real life most of us have a good idea of what the answer to a request is going to be, even if we have to wait to until after tea break to see if their hangover has improved....
And sometimes, even knowing the answer, we decide to ask anyway.
TL:DR in real life, things are rarely 50-50. This is because we get vastly more information than even Matt Mercer is going to dish out. The "Then I don't do that" guy may be trying to compensate for that lack.
Or maybe he is just being a dick.
Wow - That was a lot of words. Maybe if I had known I was going to write that much, I wouldn't have bothered! ;)
Roleplaying since Runequest.
This is way more complicated (and requires learning new rules) than the player just asking "Can I make the jump?" and the DM answering "you're sure you'll make it", "there's a small chance of failure" or "it's risky."
I'm running a game with 7 players right now. If each person takes 10 min to do their turn, that's 1 hour/round, which means it takes 6 months to clear a single dungeon. Life is unfair, a round is 6 seconds long and, in real life, people balk in pressure situations and fail to act, so I have no issue with making someone skip a round for being indecisive, it just means their character is.
It's an egg timer, it's 60 seconds long. The person has had 6 other people's turns of watching the board and planning an action, it should not take longer than 60 seconds to explain it. And honestly, I don't pull out the egg timer until they appear to be suffering from analysis paralysis, haven't been paying attention, etc. It's not like I'm running my game like this (https://youtu.be/zP0sqRMzkwo?t=70), 99% of the time it's free flowing and people are moving through their turns easily. All I ask is that all players watch the table, pay attention, and plan ahead. Also, everyone at my table is a vet, no new players. I absolutely don't treat new players this way :)
I happily accept questions like "can I make that jump" by telling them a SWAG % based upon the DC and their athletics skill. I do not answer questions like "What happens if I jump across?" because there's no one they can ask that question to, they need to jump and find out. What should I answer? "The giant hippo hiding on the other side of that wall that you can't see will eat you, of course!"
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
"so I have no issue with making someone skip a round for being indecisive, it just means their character is."
Agreed.
You mean it might teach them to act a bit quicker next time? Damn right.
Is it punishing the player? Damn right. But only a bit, and not as much as they are punishing everyone else around the table with their analysis paralysis.
As long as the player has enough information to make an informed decision, then it shouldn't take more than 10 seconds to come up with a decent move. And if it's wrong? Who cares? There's always next turn. The DM is making far more decisions, and normally in far less time; that's a big advantage for the players. Sometimes a player may need to ask for a time out, and if this is a rarity, then fair enough. Give the players the ability to halt the flow of sand for a few moments/minutes/whatever. But only if the decision is critical, life or death stuff.
Such moments are rare, and should be cherished.
@InquisitiveCoder "This is way more complicated (and requires learning new rules) than the player just asking "Can I make the jump?" and the DM answering "you're sure you'll make it", "there's a small chance of failure" or "it's risky.""
Very true, but some people just like to
watch the world burnroll dice. Give it a try sometime - your players might just like it.As I play more in this second coming of D&D (for me - I stopped playing in the 4th E years), I rely less on dice for stuff like jumping and researching and stuff that isn't opposed. I try to save dice for when it matters and combat.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Again, I only do this with vets. I run newbie games where the entire night is 3 rounds of combat. I'm quite fine with that, I teach people how to play all of the time.
But in the 7th month of our ongoing campaign, please know how to play your character :)
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
If a player wants to size up a situation, I'll have them make a roll based on their skill level and the circumstances. The entertainer with 20 Acrobatics who has time to study the situation has a MUCH better chance to assess things than the Rogue with 15 Acrobatics sprinting down the hallway to escape a monster. I would let the former make their check in order to determine if there was a reason why they might NOT make it (loose stones, slippery footing, whatever). If the latter player asked if they could make it I'd ask 'Are you going to take a pause to round to try and figure it out? You'll get a bonus if you just jump because you've got momentum from sprinting.'
We have to remember that the CHARACTER likely has a lot more knowledge than the PLAYER does and that's where the skills come in. I couldn't pick a lock to save my life but my Rogue sure can.
Interesting... I don't fit into any of these.
The closest is probably "rules lawyer" but not in the way put here, more of a "rules reminder", maybe. I'm usually pretty good at remembering the rules and understanding them so when somebody (player or DM) seems to break the rules I advise on the ruling. However, that's the extent of it. I do not ever "argue" the point. I have made it clear to everyone I do this as a way to be helpful but I can misremember things and even if I do remember rightly the DM has final say. I have made sure every player knows this and to let me know if it ever bothers them. I also discussed with my DM about it to make sure he was OK with me doing this and he is and actually appreciates it. His campaign features a custom world and a lot of homebrewed things so his job can be difficult as is so he finds it helpful. I never argue the point - I remind about rules and the DM then makes the decision about whether that ruling applies in the current circumstance or for his campaign. Once the decision is made I don't argue it. I also make sure my reminder is small, if it's going to be a longer explanation or something I send it to the DM in private instead in order to not disrupt the game.
I do frequently go to the PHB sometimes because I make a lot of homebrew stuff for my own amusement and because I participate in multiple forums where rules and PHB are being discussed. My glances into the MM and DMG have been significantly less due to not needing to. These have mostly just been for understanding classes better and inspiration on homebrew. The Sorcerer class in particular involves the class powers coming from things like Dragons and different Planes of Existence (Feywild for Wild Magic and Shadowfell for Shadow Magic) so understanding characters that have been trying to understand their powers will require some knowledge and reading on these things found in the MM and DMG. The DMG also has guides on homebirewing stuff and the MM is a good place for inspiration on summoning spells. These books aren't just for rules-lawyers they're good for the players too.
Beyond that, I don't fit into any of these. I am not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
It means you're a normal player that's great to have in a game :)
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
* I'm really not normal...
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond