What are common mistakes that less-skilled roleplayers make when playing a roleplaying game?
(This question is directed on the player aspect of roleplaying, not the game master aspect)

Possible Examples:
- Too combat oriented, treats roleplaying like a video game where everyone must be killed
- Overzealous rules lawyer, thinks the book runs the game not the game master
- The sidetracker, keeps getting the group focused on non-roleplaying issues rather than the game
- Rambo syndrome, runs into every scenario as if life has no meaning

- Borrows anything & everything, but does not return said items at the end of the session. (Basis for the game-ruling of: Bring your own, no on-site game item leaves the premises).

- Gripes & complains when anything & everything doesn't favor him & his character.

- Gets bored too quickly & leaves mid-session.

Uses player knowledge.

Plays D&D...
... and in a hack&slash way.

Not bathing.

- Stop showing up for sessions without so much as an email
- Assume they're better than LoneStar
- Fail to do necessary legwork
- Assume legwork and information gathering can only be done by a hacker

IC/OOC divide. This is the key to good roleplay. All other issues are also social/gameplay issues.

-Has no sense of tactics and commits fratricide by stupidity as a result.

-Does not think before he/she acts. Becomes a dumb bunny.

-Borrows everything

-Mooches off the snacks/drinks instead of adding to the pot luck

-Doesn't develop his own character's life. The PC "exists" in the game only during combat.

-Doesn't track their character's in game money and either can't buy anything or will buy everything with a side of munchkin.

-Uses out of game knowledge as PC's knowlege

-Does not get into the cooperative mindset. Competitive gaming is fun - but rarely in roleplaying.
-Does either hog the spotlight or tries to avoid it. If you don´t tell your story, noone benefits from your creativity. Or attendance.

But that's what a good chunk of the rules cover. Also, what if that's the game that you want to play? Playing a high-combat game doesn't make someone a bad roleplayer, any more than playing a face adept makes someone a good roleplayer.

The gamemaster should be as subject to the rules as the players are, and the players should be able to call the GM out if he's not playing by the rules.

Unless he's playing a character who sees his life as meaningless. This is ultimately the fault of the group not accounting for the game that everyone wants to play.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on what you mean.

Here's some additions to the list.

*Keeping secrets. If your character has a super-secret past, it should come out in play, and it should happen quickly. Secrets aren't interesting if nobody knows what they are.

*Not being connected. Usually this results from not talking to the other players. Characters should have a reasons to be together, and reasons to be in whatever situation they're in. This doesn't mean writing a novella as a background.

*Not talking to the other players. It's everyone's game, take everyone's ideas and priorities into consideration. Everyone is responsible for everyone else's fun.

*Turtleing. Being passive. Don't rely on the GM to feed you a game. Take some responsibility and push the game forward in new and interesting directions. Turtleing also covers being passive as a player. Don't let the loudest players run the game if they're doing stuff that isn't fun for you.

*Not knowing the rules. Excusable when you start a new game. If you've been playing for a while, you should at least know the basic dice mechanics, and how to find specific rules in the books.

Edited for readability

* Having your character be only a collection of statistics on a sheet, refusing to roleplay and just throwing dice instead.
* Having an attitude that you are playing "against" the gamemaster

Being passive is one of the most common things I've seen newbies do. It's perfectly understandable, but causes a lot of problems if a lot of the group is like this. Story kinda lies there, characters don't get developed, and the more active players may push them off to the sidelines.

-Not learning the basics of the rules.
It's perfectly fine if you're new, or don't learn the more obscure bits about the game (the exact stats of the great dragons for example), but you really should know after a few months what your total dice pool is for your most common rolls. This goes double for matrix and magic people.

-Failing to reach equilibrium with the group
This can make or break even the best games. People like to play different kinds of games, and that's just fine. It simply makes for a better game when everyone consents to a certain type of game. That's why I'm a big fan of group character creation. It prevents characters feeling left out when they realize that their specialty or mode of having fun is inappropriate or otherwise needless.

Personally, I'd go with stopping the game/session being entertaining for everyone...

I've seen whole groups be Rambo's, Rules Lawyers, and more.
...They think they're mature players and don't see anything wrong with what they're doing.

I leave groups like that alone.

There's enough people on these forums that think having the biggest guns and doing the maxxest damage is what roleplaying is all about...
...But they'd not think themselves "less skilled".


Peter

If everyone is having fun, then it's fine. But that isn't what most people really think of role-playing.

What do most people think of role-playing?

The use of player knowledage (aka meta gaming) would be my biggest complaint.

Also, there is a flipside to this and that is when the PC would know something that the players don't. This is especially important for handling new players. The GM should let the player know a particular piece of information and let the new player make a decision from there. (If they still do something stupid well.... )

Metagaming is considering the world outside the game. It can also be using mastery of the mechanics to gain advantage in the game. Neither of these are necessarily bad things.

These are very good points, especially the first one. It's really tough to get a player into the game if they're being aggressively targeted by another player.

The second point is more about the comfort level and social ability of the players. I know I was very quiet in my first few games, simply because I didn't know the people I was playing with, and wasn't a very outgoing person. Once I got comfortable, though, I got to be one of the stronger roleplayers in my group. It's not really a question of roleplaying skill, or a mistake made by the player, it's a question of comfort.

Gothfather, I think they're referring to using Player knowledge to alter how your character would react in game. Such as knowing that NPC A is the Lead Bad Guy for the adventure, though the character doesn't know yet, and yet still treating NPC A with more suspicion/attitude/etc than the character normally would.

Or the reverse. Knowing that Jerkoff B is actually a Good Guy, but that doesn't come out until later, and yet still trusting him implicitly because you (the player) know he's on your side in the end.

In all instances of this, it's bad.

Metagaming is actually, put simply, using out-of-game knowledge or resources to affect in-game decisions, & is the single worst thing for roleplaying games.

Most of those already listed in this thread should not have been, as although they can be problems, they are not directly related to roleplaying, but rather group dynamics or character/player stupidity.

I don't think this can be stressed enough.

That may be what's meant, but the blanket statement that "metagaming is bad" simply isn't true. Especially in a thread that's about mistakes that "less-skilled" (whatever that means) roleplayers make.

Except that you have to in order to play the game well. Like in combat. You have to rely on your tactical ability as a player in order to be truly effective in combat. That is using out-of-game knowledge and resources to affect in-game decisions. Unless you have a double-standard when it comes to non-combat related conflicts.

I'd truly love it if this thread could be collated and stickied. Seriously.

Have I ever mentioned that I think Stickies suck?

The only mistake is letting whatever you want to do trample all over everyone elses fun. I've done it before!

I think a common mistake made by a fair number of supposedly 'good' role-players is the tendency toward elitism.

Use peoples responses on a bulletin board as fodder for your blog? Seems like this one is getting more common...

The only thing written in my blog are the lyrics to Fortune Faded.

I think he was referring to the OP, who runs this blog.

Whilst I agree with most of your suggestions Gothfather, I think you're off the mark with this one. All too often this kind of thinking leads to characters with dark pasts who hog the spotlight, or else it just ruins the mystery. Take a look at Cowboy Bebop as a great example of a mysterious past that has a big effect on the plot, but the other characters never really figure out much of it.
One of the best games I ever played in featured a character who was a priest with some kind of shady past (it was a Fading Suns game). It was about three months of real time before we even realised there was anything dodgy going on with the guy. Then we started getting curious. The player handled it beautifully, every now and then letting slip a tiny detail that gave us another piece of the puzzle, but never just laying it all out for us. The GM worked to let his history affect the story, but not in ways that were immediately obvious. Outside of the game all the players had great fun taking guesses at just what was up with the guy, and the player of the priest remained steadfastly tight lipped, maintaining the suspense.



Couldn't agree more with this one. There is nothing more annoying, as a GM, than players who steadfastly refuse to just learn the rules that apply to their character, despite having access to the books. If I'm running the game I have to learn pretty much every single mechanic; the least you can do is read up on the stuff that you'll be using, and for the love of god actually be able to roll initiative when I ask for it instead of looking dumb and saying "how does that work again?" If you need to make notes, fine, just don't rely on me to hold your hand all the time.

OK, rant over. Angry dragon goes back in the box now.

I didn't really think he was actually referring to me, but thanks to you I now have a greater understanding of his post.

Fortune is obviously not one of us good roleplayers.

Can't we all just get along?

I'd have to say my biggest peeve here are players who don't know what they're talking about. I'm all about metagaming if you've got the right Edges/Flaws and/or spells, but for Dog's sake if you're gonna play the game, get to know it a bit. I was never a real big fan of Earthdawn, but AH's articles on the crossovers really opened my eyes to just HOW rich this game is. At LEAST read "...It came to pass".
PS: This goes by an order of magnitude for GMs. If you don't know the world, you don't know drek.

Rules Lawyers. As a GM, I'm trying to tell a damn story. I know this isn't a White Wolf game, but it's still a staged event... and I'M the director. Let me tell my story. If I fudge a roll (or let you get away with an abysmal failure), don't criticize... you came to my table willingly.

Yeah, that wouldn't fly in my games, but then, I don't really build a plot. I'm a "story now" kind of player, even when it comes to traditional RPGs. In my experience, keeping secrets at the table leads to a lack of fun nine times out of ten. Still, ymmv with this one. If it works for you, great.

Gothfather, Metagaming should not ever come up in combat, any more than other areas of the game. The mechanics are there to resolve the encounter - there is no way to avoid this. That does not make using them Metagaming. Metagaming in combat is using silver weapons against Shapeshifters when the player is aware of their vulnerabilities, but the character has either no reason to know they are shifters, or no reason to know shifters are vulnerable to silver.


And that's fine - as long as you make it clear you are not following RAW. If you deviate from the Rules as Written without informing the players, or fail to maintain consistency on your ruling, there is going to be problems - the kind that will frequently cause people to stop playing (especially those like me - aka "Rules Lawyers").

<seethes@Muspellsheimr>

I don't generally have to deal with lawyers. I weed them out quickly. Players come to me for good story telling. I'm STILL running a game that started in 1988... though we only play that campaign once or twice a year. Old age ain't for sissies folks.

What really bugs me is that people think that adventures wouldn't know this stuff. How much stuff do you know about the vulnerabilities or otherwise of non existent monsters?

A metric buttload.

I imagine that the majority of people who live in a world in which they are professional monster hunters, and monsters actually exist, and are actually vulnerable to this stuff would all know, and often much better than the players.

Heck, Joe Sixpack today knows vampires are vulnerable to fires, sunlight, stakes and religious symbols. The peasants in the realm of D&D are all going to know its cold iron to take on faeries, but if its a shape shifter, you need silver. You were probably told bedtime stories about it.

Yet a group of the population want to call it metagaming. Its a different box of dice in conspiracy games like call of cthulhu, yet people apply it to D&D all the time.

You started your campaign before Shadowrun was actually released? Wow!

I have seen campaigns without lawyers fall apart because the GM was using a house-rule without telling the players. I have seen the same thing happen because house-rules were inconsistent & constantly changing.

I was not always a rules lawyer. Part of the reason I picked up this attitude is probably because I have seen (& played in) groups without such individuals. Such groups are always far more likely to suffer from a lack of someone knowledgeable to enforce the rules than they would from the enforcement of rules by such an individual.


If the GM is new to the system, I will give them one (or maybe two) chances. If they continue to adjust rules without informing the players, I will leave the group, & in my experience, the vast majority of players will do the same, regardless if they are rules lawyers, pure storytellers, or anywhere inbetween.

Not addressing that the character may not even know they are combating a shifter, while the player does (as I pointed out), do you have any idea what the weakness of a Rakshasa are? Do you know how to identify one? Assuming D&D is not accurate (reasonable assumption), I have no fucking idea, & I like & occasionally study mythology.

Sure, if you grew up in a culture with such creatures in their mythos, you may have a basic idea of it - if your knowledge is accurate or not is a different matter. If it is a creature from another region, unlikely.

GMs who railroad because their players go out of their way to destroy the campaign/world.

Players who go out of the way to destroy the campaign/world or want to do something like sit in an alchemist shop all day and expect to be catered for.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. For a couple of reasons although one isn't really in contradiction with what you said. There's a myriad number of rules, stipulations, or adendums on various mechanical and conceptual things in the book that explcitly state the GM ought to have the decision making power over them. So its true that the GM woud be as subject to the rules as player but in thise case the rules under which the GM would be operating are self-contrived.
Secondly, yes the players should be able to call out the GM for screwing something up, cheating or whatever but there's a myriad of instances in which the GM should cheat whether he or she is fudging rolls to save a player who just got pwned by dumb luck, or to give another pass to his epic villain who you screwed up in placement with but who given his crazy intellect wouldn't have done the dumb thing you had him do. The GM has to be fair obviously and shouldn't be rooting for his guys over the players, he also shouldn't let the players think they're invulnerable and be willing to cap them when they screw up or when its important.

But that just opens the door to bad GMing and a lack of fun. How can the rest of the players trust the one whom the rules don't apply to? That's a fucked up social dynamic right there. No one player - and the GM is a player - should have the power to unilaterally change the rules at a whim.

It's not unilateral usually if it's an operational thing. But if you throw a pool that would cap a player, IE they die due to dumb luck you fudge the roll sometimes, especially in a fight where they do everything right in terms of tactics, preparedness and the like. There's also the issue of doing the prep time for a crapton of potential characters and the like sometimes you do approximations and that's certainly not by the RAW. I'm not saying the GM should become a tyrant, ignore rules, or not discuss rules problems or discrepency with the players. What I'm saying is that sometimes its precisel in the best interest of fun to fudge or ignore some of the rules. Obviously this approach would require your players to trust you as a DM to know that you're not out to get them or out to make sure they survive. I tend to run stats for success rates given pools and use that as a basis for analysis on difficulty but with dice sometimes statiscally improbably things happen. You could try rolling everything in front of the players and vice versa but that ruins some mystery for the players and I've found can really take players out of the game.

It's not as bad as you make it out to be. If you can trust the GM as a person not to abuse his power, then being able to fudge dice rolls to make for a more tense atmosphere is a good thing. If you don't trust the GM to make a good game for you, then you're straying into the Players vs. GM mentality, which is fairly widely accepted as a Bad Thing.

So what happens if two PCs go at it with each other? Do you fudge rolls then? Do they get to roll behind screens? No. You let the dice stand, regardless of whether or not either players are playing optimally. If the GM has to resort to fudging rolls, either in favor or against the rest of the players, then its a system problem. Games exist where such things aren't required.

Also, I do roll everything out in the open. I also negotiate failure before the dice hit. My players always know what's at stake. It does a damn good job of keeping the scene tense. And, again, if you make the game character rather than plot driven, there's no way to lose any of the mystery, because the GM doesn't know what's going to happen either.

It sounds like you end up in volatile groups, Goth. Seriously, if PC's are going at it, the dice stand, so that it's impartial. If my NPC goes after your PC and splatters him, I might fudge the roll to keep you alive. Unless you *like* making a new character every time the dice decide to hate you.

Giving the players a small amount of script immunity to allow a long running campaign to be exactly that is not a bad thing. I'm sorry your gaming experience have been so bad that you can't trust your GM's to do their job and run a fair game.

What game system are you talking about exactly? I've played in games where everything is thrown out in the open and that doesn't help intensity unless you have the results. Yeah its intense when that one roll comes up that you really need to have fail or succeed and you're right there's mystery there but generally its better to have some control over fluke things that could fuck the party up or fuck the story up or any other of a variety of things, IMO. My players know damn well what's at stake too, and yeah they fail but haven't you had ever had those strings of crap rolls that got your main villain capped without a fight? Haven't you ever been in a position where a player is just having a terrible night on the dice and suddenly he's worthless due to luck? Nothing ruins a player's fun faster than feeling like their character is absolutely worthless due to dumb luck. Now that's not to say I fudge the dice often but I want to have that option to help abet the game a little bit.

Not really volatile. I like for the characters in my games to have really good motivations. Sometimes those motivations butt up against each other. All the other players know those motivations and bait them. Keeps the game lively and interesting. That's all character stuff. If there's player stuff going on, we stop the game and go out for pie so that we can discuss it like adults.

My gaming experiences haven't been that bad, though. I've never had rocks fall, or been on the receiving end of orbital bovine bombardment. I've just seen how well constructed games work. I'm the primary GM in my group. My players have been coming back to my games for the last 4 years or so, the first two were back-to-back SR4 campaigns. I fudged a lot of rolls in the first one. Not in the second one. The second was a much better game.

I've run a bunch of indie games, and played in a lot of really different games at cons in the meantime. So, I'm not talking out of my ass. I've been the dude giving my players a little bit of plot immunity, for the sake of The Story™ . The problem is, that was ultimately unsatisfying, and I felt that I was short-changing the players. Just because that's the way that it's always been done doesn't mean that it's the best way. Not that my way is necessarily the best. I'm not suggesting anything super radical. Just that the GM should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. YMMV, as with anything on the Internet.