Roleplay Pet Peeves

[FlyingDemon]

Obssession about romance is something i forgot to mention in my petpeevee,

most of the time, i would love action or adventure, i like exploring other worlds, cooperating with familiar or unknow canon characters,
so, when i made some requests, i was amazed (not in the good way) that romantic (or smut..) requests had more attention, while i, bah... i could wait forever for an answer, imagine, i come into a community with a huge motivation,ideas of plot, but seeing only this kind of requests demotivates me so much that there are many.

 

[Kaerri]

FYI, the simple/casual/detailed prefixes were dropped deliberately, because they fostered prejudice, elitism, and cliques. We figured if someone had a preference as to the writing style of potential partners, they could specify in the interest check itself rather than assuming everyone would define the prefixes the same way. (You might be surprised how many people didn't bother to read the stickied explanations in each section...)

Anyway, some of my pet peeves:
- Poor grammar. Yes, I can tell the difference between someone who's doing their best and just can't write perfectly, and someone who can't be bothered. Also, it pulls me right out of what they're saying, because my grammatically-oriented brain tries to rewrite it for them and I can't finish reading until I've mentally revised it to where it makes sense to me.
- Planned romances. I much prefer to let them develop naturally - or not, as the case may be.
- Characters who don't fit into the story setting, like Japanese samurai in medieval Europe. The GM set their story there for a reason! Make the effort to fit in with what's established instead of insisting on your own way.
- Evil PCs. I know lots of people enjoy that, and that's fine for them. I don't, and that's fine for me.

Edit: Also, autocorrect. >.<

 

[Vince_Werewolf]

So due to some recent issues that have popped up in this thread I'm re-defining the purpose of this thread to prevent further arguments and unnecessary tangents.


Please only post your own pet peeves or comments relating to other users peeves.


No posts calling out other people's opinions/peeves.


No giving unnecessary feedback on "improving" other people's roleplay styles


Keep debates on topic and civilized please.


No calling out other players specifically based on their opinions or contribution to pet peeves.


And as a disclaimer none of the pet peeves listed in this thread are meant to be taken as ironclad laws of "proper" roleplaying. People might dislike something but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily an incorrect or bad habit to have.


For everyone who dislikes a pet peeve there are plenty of people who don't care one way or the other or who actively enjoy using it.

- When you worked so hard in your paragraph or two and they reply with a one-liner.
- Writers' block. ME
- When the one you're RPing with has a... "cryptic grammar use." :^)
- Metagaming (well, recently I kinda fell for that myself, but hey)
- God-modders. I sweaaaar. Especially in fantasy combat moments!

 

[Umbrie]

there are some good cases of metagaming in a tabletop roleplay. working together to make a party of characters that won't try to kill each other, such as making the assassin a reformed agent seeking redemption by the paladins hands or making the necromancer a white necromancer focused on healing the living, are one example, and another is not opting to take in character actions that would cripple companions that are not just yourself. there is a difference between trying to assassinate the king and getting the whole party involved in an assassination plot that is guaranteed to fail, and there is a bad idea for turning in a party member for bounty. not that you can't collect the bounty after they die to somebody else. but don't sell out your living companions.

 

[Lina Inverse]

there are some good cases of metagaming in a tabletop roleplay. working together to make a party of characters that won't try to kill each other,

Right, but that's less meta gaming and more common sense.

nd another is not opting to take in character actions that would cripple companions that are not just yourself.

Don't really see how that's metagaming either. I mean, surely the character themselves have half the braincell required to realize that doing shit that hurts other players isn't the best idea in the world.

 

[Umbrie]

Right, but that's less meta gaming and more common sense.

Don't really see how that's metagaming either. I mean, surely the character themselves have half the braincell required to realize that doing shit that hurts other players isn't the best idea in the world.

metagaming is the act of making an action or decision that is informed on the player level rather than the character level. such as having a social contract as players. not everybody has common sense, and some characters are intentionally designed to be monkey wrenches intended to derail a game. in fact, the fact that you can justify a player informed decision in character doesn't change the fact it was a player informed decision. in fact, choosing not to use a silver weapon for fear of metagaming when it is common knowledge that lycanthropes don't regenerate wounds caused by silver weapons is a bad example of metagaming to make it not look like you are using the rules to your advantage, because your decision was affected at the meta level.

when you choose to build a barbarian with high strength, dexterity and constitution with a poor charisma and a huge weapon, you are acting on the meta level and building a front liner for a game that may need one. that huge sword and chainmail hauberk your barbarian is wearing are conscious choices you made as a player to maximize the damage output and survivability of your barbarian character.

 

[cosowarrior]

metagaming is the act of making an action or decision that is informed on the player level rather than the character level.

I'm really glad you defined that. I've never heard the term and was getting lost. XD

 

[BlakeBella]

So due to some recent issues that have popped up in this thread I'm re-defining the purpose of this thread to prevent further arguments and unnecessary tangents.


Please only post your own pet peeves or comments relating to other users peeves.


No posts calling out other people's opinions/peeves.


No giving unnecessary feedback on "improving" other people's roleplay styles


Keep debates on topic and civilized please.


No calling out other players specifically based on their opinions or contribution to pet peeves.


And as a disclaimer none of the pet peeves listed in this thread are meant to be taken as ironclad laws of "proper" roleplaying. People might dislike something but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily an incorrect or bad habit to have.


For everyone who dislikes a pet peeve there are plenty of people who don't care one way or the other or who actively enjoy using it.

I hate Mary sue characters

 

[Lina Inverse]

in fact, the fact that you can justify a player informed decision in character doesn't change the fact it was a player informed decision

And here's where we have to disagree. Metagaming is using knowledge your character don't have to give yourself an advantage/disadvantage. Hence, if your able to justify your characters actions as in character it's no longer metagaming.

Also, by that logic, isn't everything metagaming? I mean, technically every decision is a player informed decision.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I have to agree with Lina Inverse her definition is the one I was always given for metagaming.

Basically it's like breaking the fourth wall or mind reading.

So if Geek says in the OOC - My character sally has a psychic aunt.
And PlayerX's character Jan says in the IC - Hey Sally let's go visit your psychic aunt.
​

That's metagaming via breaking the fourth wall. Jan can't read the OOC. She has no way of knowing what Geek said. So therefore she shouldn't know that Sally has a psychic aunt.

Another example is what I call mind reading. Now this does not count obviously if a character is stated to have the actual ability to read minds. But if the character is not psychic than they should never do something like this.

Sally thinks idly about the really delicious cinnamon bread she ate last night. She wonders if Jan would like a piece.

Jan - "Hey sally that cinamon bread you had last night was delicious. I'd love a piece!"
​

Yeah Jan can't read Sally's mind. And if she creates dialogue on something that Sally was idly thinking than that is exactly what she's doing.

 

[Umbrie]

And here's where we have to disagree. Metagaming is using knowledge your character don't have to give yourself an advantage/disadvantage. Hence, if your able to justify your characters actions as in character it's no longer metagaming.

Also, by that logic, isn't everything metagaming? I mean, technically every decision is a player informed decision.

using out of character knowledge to give yourself a disadvantage is just as metagamey as using it to give yourself an advantage. in fact, every player informed decision has to be agreed upon on a meta level. if you design a barbarian character because the group needs a tank. it is still a metagame decision. i mean, if you look at meta knowledge as a whole. acting on player knowledge isn't always a bad thing. some tabletop RPGs have abilities that only work on a meta level.

 

[Lina Inverse]

using out of character knowledge to give yourself a disadvantage is just as metagamey as using it to give yourself an advantage.

If you'd read my post, you'd see that I said the same thing.

in fact, every player informed decision has to be agreed upon on a meta level.

But a player informed decision isn't necessarily the same thing as metagaming, regardless if it was agreed upon on a meta level or not.

 

[Umbrie]

If you'd read my post, you'd see that I said the same thing.


But a player informed decision isn't necessarily the same thing as metagaming, regardless if it was agreed upon on a meta level or not.

i guess i come from a different circle and was taught a different definition,

 

[rae2nerdy]

i guess i come from a different circle and was taught a different definition,

Think of it like this.

Say your having a conversation with someone online. You have two tabs open on your computer screen.

TAB 1 is RPNation and the thread where your chatting with Person A.

TAB 2 is youtube where your watching a cute cat video. As you watch the video you think to yourself "Aww what a cute cat video."


Metagaming is when Person A says in the middle of your conversation on TAB1 in RPNation.

"Yeah those cats are super cute. My favorite video is Cute Kitties Taking A Bath."

This would be EXTREMELY off putting because there is no way for Player A to see TAB2. There is also no way for them to read your thoughts.

 

[Umbrie]

Think of it like this.

Say your having a conversation with someone online. You have two tabs open on your computer screen.

TAB 1 is RPNation and the thread where your chatting with Person A.

TAB 2 is youtube where your watching a cute cat video. As you watch the video you think to yourself "Aww what a cute cat video."


Metagaming is when Person A says in the middle of your conversation on TAB1 in RPNation.

"Yeah those cats are super cute. My favorite video is Cute Kitties Taking A Bath."

This would be EXTREMELY off putting because there is no way for Player A to see TAB2. There is also no way for them to read your thoughts.

that would be annoying. but roleplay is the only activity where game masters discourage players from becoming familiar with the mechanics. many games expect you to grow in familiarity with the mechanics and use the mechanics of the game to leverage the best possible mechanical advantage. only in roleplay does it seem to be a bad thing to exploit familiarity with the mechanics of a game.

 

[rae2nerdy]

that would be annoying. but roleplay is the only activity where game masters discourage players from becoming familiar with the mechanics. many games expect you to grow in familiarity with the mechanics and use the mechanics of the game to leverage the best possible mechanical advantage. only in roleplay does it seem to be a bad thing to exploit familiarity with the mechanics of a game.

Roleplaying isn't meant to be viewed as a game where you are leveraging mechanics for an advantage. Instead it's like writing a book where everyone agrees on certain writing mechanics to make sure the narrative flows smoothly.

I mean you wouldn't cheat at a game by exploiting loopholes in it's rules would you? No because that would make you an ass. Well metagaming is basically like cheating at the rules of roleplaying.

 

[Umbrie]

Roleplaying isn't meant to be viewed as a game where you are leveraging mechanics for an advantage. Instead it's like writing a book where everyone agrees on certain writing mechanics to make sure the narrative flows smoothly.

I mean you wouldn't cheat at a game by exploiting loopholes in it's rules would you? No because that would make you an ass. Well metagaming is basically like cheating at the rules of roleplaying.

using a silver weapon against a werewolf is not cheating. and it isn't exploiting a loophole. using fire against a hydra or troll also isn't cheating. roleplaying is writing a story, acting and playing a game at the same time. the game aspect of dice rollers balances encounters around the fact that players are going to know and exploit monstrous weaknesses. players adapt to the game masters game mastering habits. if a game master includes lots of lycanthropes and a lot of encounters in rivers. expect players to make characters who know how to swim and have access to silver weapons.

shooting a zombie in the head isn't cheating either. there is a difference between common sense precautions for the setting and and abusing a power to gain infinite power. if a threat has existed for a while, people will adapt to them.

 

[Lina Inverse]

I hate having to include pointless shit like "likes & dislikes" on character sheets. They're just pointless filler stuff that adds nothing to a character and only exist so that characters seem like they more fleshed out than they actually are.

 

[rae2nerdy]

using a silver weapon against a werewolf is not cheating. and it isn't exploiting a loophole. using fire against a hydra or troll also isn't cheating. roleplaying is writing a story, acting and playing a game at the same time. the game aspect of dice rollers balances encounters around the fact that players are going to know and exploit monstrous weaknesses. players adapt to the game masters game mastering habits. if a game master includes lots of lycanthropes and a lot of encounters in rivers. expect players to make characters who know how to swim and have access to silver weapons.

shooting a zombie in the head isn't cheating either. there is a difference between common sense precautions for the setting and and abusing a power to gain infinite power. if a threat has existed for a while, people will adapt to them.

honey i don't think we are at all talking about the same thing. so i'm going to end the conversation here.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I hate having to include pointless shit like "likes & dislikes" on character sheets. They're just pointless filler stuff that adds nothing to a character and only exist so that characters seem like they more fleshed out than they actually are.

do you know i've had people who refused to accept a CS without a like/dislike section. Their reasoning? They wanted their character to know what mine liked/disliked to come up with interactions.

I'm like...you do know your character isn't reading this right? Like even if I put it in the CS there is no reason your character will know that information. Needless to say that RP went nowhere.

 

[Warrior Solar]

TIE LOCKS!


If you don't know what that is, it's when you tie in your character with someone else's for a little while (like they have an encounter, or date, and start living together.) and then they leave in the middle of something, and the rest of the group continues playing, but you can't cause you're locked with this player till they come back. I just call it a "tie lock." Cause you tie in, and get locked in place. I'm not sure if there's a better word with it. But these are like the worst. Part of the reason, I've pulled away from group RPs, and am hesitant to jump back into any. The game of catch up, after a tie lock is always the worst. Or if you have a big Tie Lock that halts everyone's play, because one person won't respond, at the most climactic part of the RP.... the worst...

XD Or when you go to sleep and wake up the next day and found out that you got a whole lot of reading to do reasons why I don't do group rps

 

[Sleek]

Thread mods that force their preferences on you and act snarky (i.e. 'It's not like it's my thread...oh wait, it is.').
Favoritism (i.e. not being allowed to have X, but this person has X in addtion to Y and Z)

 

[DisneyGirl]

When a new potential partner messages you for a 1x1 and you share all your ideas for storylines and characters and ask them what they think, and they say, "Cool/sounds good/let's do your idea" without adding anything to the plot or their OCs whatsoever.

Or my personal favorite, when you work 2-4 hours on a detailed reply and your partner ghosts all of a sudden without explanation. I want my 2-4 hours back plz (((((:

 

[rae2nerdy]

Thread mods that force their preferences on you and act snarky (i.e. 'It's not like it's my thread...oh wait, it is.').
Favoritism (i.e. not being allowed to have X, but this person has X in addtion to Y and Z)

See Favoritism is ultimately what killed my desire to roleplay groups. Not that I think all groups have it but I was on a site where like 1 in every 4 roleplays I joined did. After awhile it just wore me down and I’m like , nope don’t want the hassle.

 

[Lina Inverse]

It annoys me when the gm suddenly restricts what gender people can play in order to keep the guy-girl ratio somewhat even. I can sort of get it when romance is a big part of it (though it tends to annoy me more in those cases), but I've seen it plenty of time in roleplays that had nothing to do with romance what so ever.