[Fallen]

Hello again,

I'm interested to know if any of you have any pet peeves regarding Shadowrun gaming -- stuff that really gets to you or annoys you to no end.

I don't mean as relating to the setting or the system(s) per say so much as what people say or do during a gaming session, or at a convention, or here on the forums, and the like.

If I have one pet peeve, other than Rule Lawyers, I think it would be people who build up a character for no reason other than the stats, without any depth or personality.

NOTE: The goal of this thread is not to start a flame war, or to encourage trolling, or take this as an opportunity to attack any individual or group of persons.  In that respect, please be mindful to keep the discussion civil.  Thank you. 

[Chrona]

Players who won't even read the basics for their characters.

5 weeks into a campaign
One week: "How do i cast again?"
Next week: I can summon!?"

arrgghh

[Fallen]

Players who won't even read the basics for their characters.

5 weeks into a campaign
One week: "How do i cast again?"
Next week: I can summon!?"

arrgghh

Ouch.  That's even painful to read.

[Shadowstarr]

I agree with stat based characters, have no personality and good for nothing but combat.  As a GM i passes on those right away. 

I hate fear.  I got no problem with playing smart and avoiding a fight when you can, but if your midrun and corpsec is closing in you got to be willing to throw down.  Can't have the players all froze up trying to figure out what to do and re plan the whole op when they encounter some resistance.  Slows everything up.

non-participation.  (Play by post games)   I hate it when a player just doesn't do (post) anything under the excuse i don't think my character would be able to help.  Awhile back  doing the 1st run on season 2, I had a player veg out in the runner's van from near half the run. (after the big street firefight with the triads and yaks) he just was gone till the run was over.  My game moves quick it was a few days real time, for the rest to get finished up with the run with the non poster sleeping in the van for the rest of the trip.     

[Crash_00]

Non-group characters. Not necessarily loner types (they can work in a group, just keep to themselves), but characters specifically created to work alone and not be willing to work as a group.

I mean seriously, do you really think I'm going to go through the time to run a game just for you and let the other five players twiddle their thumbs?

And its always justified by saying "well that's my character, I'm just roleplaying", but why in the hell would you make a character for a group game that will not work with the group?

[Fallen]

Non-group characters. Not necessarily loner types (they can work in a group, just keep to themselves), but characters specifically created to work alone and not be willing to work as a group.

I mean seriously, do you really think I'm going to go through the time to run a game just for you and let the other five players twiddle their thumbs?

And its always justified by saying "well that's my character, I'm just roleplaying", but why in the hell would you make a character for a group game that will not work with the group?

I had never encountered this problem before the game I am currently running with three players, two of which fit in this category.  It's not precisely bothersome to me, nor does it hitherto slow down the game in any which way but I just don't get it.  I suppose it's a matter of different strokes for different folks.

For now, I'm not having any immediate problems in regulating the game in such a way as to get everyone operating within a group mindset.  Yet, it's not rare for one of the two aforementioned characters to sort of go off and do their thing.

[Bane]

Aside from rules lawyers, what really irks me is when someone new comes into play just for the night. Like one of our runners brings a friend along for one ride. Said friend wasn't even in our main group, just someone we(my group and I) occasionally hung out with, and he brings his friend (whom none of us knew) and who didn't know the game... So he tried to explain things to his friend, and we were just..... No...

It's annoying when people do things uninvited that mess with the Mojo of the whole group.




The building a character for mainly stats... I find it acceptable to an extent. You have to make a backstory. I made a character (2nd edition... All I play now, I have 4th ed core book, reading it...) who was a beast with a bow. I'm talking long range shot, slotting a troll in heavy armor. A beast, but he had a backstory....

[Fallen]

It's annoying when people do things uninvited that mess with the Mojo of the whole group.

No doubt!

The building a character for mainly stats... I find it acceptable to an extent. You have to make a backstory. I made a character (2nd edition... All I play now, I have 4th ed core book, reading it...) who was a beast with a bow. I'm talking long range shot, slotting a troll in heavy armor. A beast, but he had a backstory....

Hmm... yeah.  I suppose that, to me, it's perfectly acceptable to make a really efficient character, maximizing their traits, gear and all, as long as the character's player works up some top-notch RP.   What I refer to is mostly empty shells, with players just waiting for an opportunity to roll some dice and get the big results.  As long as people role-play, participate in the story, and contribute to the enjoyment of everyone present, then I really have no qualms regarding anything. 

[Crash_00]

Oh, another one. The army of clones. The player continues to always make the same character (different name and BG fluff, but exact same stats down to qualities) every time they play. I can understand remaking a character you enjoyed playing for a new campaign, but playing Mage Stats A for all of your three characters in one campaign is a little ridiculous.

[Bane]

It's annoying when people do things uninvited that mess with the Mojo of the whole group.

No doubt!

The building a character for mainly stats... I find it acceptable to an extent. You have to make a backstory. I made a character (2nd edition... All I play now, I have 4th ed core book, reading it...) who was a beast with a bow. I'm talking long range shot, slotting a troll in heavy armor. A beast, but he had a backstory....

Hmm... yeah.  I suppose that, to me, it's perfectly acceptable to make a really efficient character, maximizing their traits, gear and all, as long as the character's player works up some top-notch RP.   What I refer to is mostly empty shells, with players just waiting for an opportunity to roll some dice and get the big results.  As long as people role-play, participate in the story, and contribute to the enjoyment of everyone present, then I really have no qualms regarding anything. 

I had a buddy who always played mages, and had no background. Maximized his stats and such. Cool guy, and useful in a run, but no fun...

On the otherhand, one of my best friends I played with based a character off of Teddy Rosevelt. Walk softly and carry a big stick and whatnot... Even though his character was of limited use in combat(No cyberization) he was a hoot.

[Crash_00]

Reminds me of my favorite D&D 3.5 character. Jellian Lee Floustan the Third. He was a Fighter/Rogue specialized in fighting with an Inkpen. He carried a shield and constantly jotted down notes on monsters for his book in the making: Jellian Lee Floustan's Guide to Things of the Darkness and Orcs.

Favorite bit from that campaign.

Stabs orc A with inkpen for minimal damage and jots down, "well developed muscle mass and intimidating battlefield presence."
Sidesteps BBEG Orc of Bad Assery and stabs him with an inkpen. Gets triple 20s for an instant kill (popular house rule where I was from), "hardiness is overly exaggerated."
GM = "I spent three days on that character and you one shot him with a damn inkpen!"

[Fallen]

Reminds me of my favorite D&D 3.5 character. Jellian Lee Floustan the Third. He was a Fighter/Rogue specialized in fighting with an Inkpen. He carried a shield and constantly jotted down notes on monsters for his book in the making: Jellian Lee Floustan's Guide to Things of the Darkness and Orcs.

Favorite bit from that campaign.

Stabs orc A with inkpen for minimal damage and jots down, "well developed muscle mass and intimidating battlefield presence."
Sidesteps BBEG Orc of Bad Assery and stabs him with an inkpen. Gets triple 20s for an instant kill (popular house rule where I was from), "hardiness is overly exaggerated."
GM = "I spent three days on that character and you one shot him with a damn inkpen!"

roflmao

[Fallen]

I had a buddy who always played mages, and had no background. Maximized his stats and such. Cool guy, and useful in a run, but no fun...

On the otherhand, one of my best friends I played with based a character off of Teddy Rosevelt. Walk softly and carry a big stick and whatnot... Even though his character was of limited use in combat(No cyberization) he was a hoot.

You know, one of the things I thought I'd be encountering after such a long absence away from RPGs was "Roll Players" -- the type that write up a character, and seemingly perceive the game like it's an offshoot or extension of a boardgame.  Admittedly, when I started out in the hobby (at the tender age of 11) that's very much how I viewed a pen and paper game to be.

And while discussing with friends who also game currently, it seems the ratio of roll-player to role-player is about even.  Makes me wonder how that type of game works out, not having participated in or seen the like in over twenty years.  Still, so long as people are having fun, that's really the only thing that matters.

[Crash_00]

I've found that it really depends on the system. I haven't played SR4A with enough people to get a feel yet, but I've played several others.
D&D 4E = Rollplayers > Roleplayers
Pathfinder = Rollplayers > Roleplayers
D&D 3.5= Rollplayers > Roleplayers
SR3= Rollplayers < Roleplayers
Deadlands = Rollplayers < Roleplayers
7th Sea= Rollplayers < Roleplayers
Hunter = Rollplayers < Roleplayers

These are of course just my observations from playing, but it seems to me that for the most part, classless and level less systems tend to get in more roleplaying while the other are more about the Rollplaying. Given D&D 3.5/Pathfinder/D&D4 are all pretty much a level based miniature wargame so it makes sense to value stats over role and fluff.

[Fallen]

I've found that it really depends on the system. I haven't played SR4A with enough people to get a feel yet, but I've played several others.
D&D 4E = Rollplayers > Roleplayers
Pathfinder = Rollplayers > Roleplayers
D&D 3.5= Rollplayers > Roleplayers
SR3= Rollplayers < Roleplayers
Deadlands = Rollplayers < Roleplayers
7th Sea= Rollplayers < Roleplayers
Hunter = Rollplayers < Roleplayers

These are of course just my observations from playing, but it seems to me that for the most part, classless and level less systems tend to get in more roleplaying while the other are more about the Rollplaying. Given D&D 3.5/Pathfinder/D&D4 are all pretty much a level based miniature wargame so it makes sense to value stats over role and fluff.

That's a very good observation, I think.  Anecdotal, obviously, but it kind of makes sense to me.