"What bothers you the most?" Topic

I recently started umpiring games, For the most part my friends have helped set me up for success . Right now I am picking your collective minds. What bothers you the most in a game? Is it the rules lawyer,the over competitive jerk, the guy who just tried to scrape all your beautifully painted figures from the center of the board with a clipboard? Or is it playing against a child in an otherwise adult game (where the parents just walked away). What bugs you the most and how did you handle it. I am going to assume that grabbing someone by the lapels in a jujitsu hold and applying the rear-naked -strangle or burying a K-bar in the wall by their head ( Yes I have seen this done in the Marines) isn't really acceptable.

Rules lawyer – I just want to have fun

Rule 1. Don't allow twunts to play.
Rule 2. If twunts manage to sneak in, apply a firm, resounding ' off!'
Rule 3. See Rules 1 & 2.

The over competitive person. I don't like using the word "jerk" becasue each is to their own.

I have no problems with the above type in fantasy or Scifi games because anything goes.

However it pigs me off when one ends up matching say a 1943 force list against a 1944 force list becasue the other guy has gone for the heavy hitters instead of utilising what was actually used.

I tend to avoid playing this type in fact I would rather play solo .

I agree also with Cherrypicker as regards rules lawyers as they tend to argue about rules ie their interpretation and spoil the fun in a game.

I think we often forget that this a a game of toy soldiers and not a competitive sport. The enjoyment or fun should be shared by both player whether one wins or looses.

I know someone is going to throw back into my face by saying "surely you play games to win" . Well yes but I havn't yet seen anyone get serious over Snakes and Ladders or Ludo as yet. The same should be for wargaming

The rules lawyer is usually so because they're over competitive.
I prefer to steer clear of both.

One tip I have may be useful: as with a role-playing game- master, establish (at the beginning of the game) that you will make rulings during the game to settle questions and disputes quickly so the game can proceed. These rulings are final and are not personal. If you present this without sounding like a pompous jerk I think most gamers will accept it. Take charge and be fair.

Oh…rules lawyers are BAD, but it's the foul-mouthed know-it-alls who burn game time by belittling the other gamers for their lack of knowledge of a historic period, uniforms, tactics, etc. that get my blood boiling.

Mmmmmm'

There are more tinsoldiers than players….

As collecting tin soldier and playing with them is a very special hobby, it attracts very special people. You have to be open minded and without Dogma (cultural/historical or rules)and you have to accept and befriend all of them as the share the same passion for the hobby. They also show it in they specific way and this has to be tolerated. The main problem is that collecting and painting is a hobby for individualists which demands a period were you are alone in a productive mode. This part targets more the creative/productive introvert Type. The other part of the hobby is the sportive competitive challenge or the simulating of historic situations bases on a set of rules.
The persons who excel here are more the sportive/ communicative/ extrovert guys.

So if you find a person who has the money to buy a lots of figures, can paint that they look OK, is clever enough to understand the rules, and has enough background in history and an interest in Military tactics/strategy and operation and is available and willing to share with you his free time away from his family you have found someone very rare; a so called "serious collector."
The risk that a serious collector has some or multiple shortcomings in his social skills is rather high due to the high demands and special skills which have to be trained or studied of many years. All this is forgiven and accepted if he shares the passion of the hobby.

So the only thing which bother me is the following..
You have someone who pretends to a serious collector and than he puts other priorities above the hobby. Or shows no passion at all in the painting or execution of the game… This is mostly linked to sloppy deployment of troop, careless handling of figures not painted by him, or leaving the game/table before the game is concluded. Someone who loves the hobby and respects the figures of your fellow player and his time invested in the preparation will not do this.

Therefore….every one who shares the passion for the hobby is always welcome…

Greetings and have FUN

PS: don't forget it is a long-term commitment.. You need 10-20 years and maybe more to buy and paint a serious collection. A person can change/ listen/ learn and adept in a second….the TINSOLDERS ARE STEADFAST. :))

A most insightful and interesting post Rudi

I think Rudi is basically saying we are a load of Anoraks:)

Anyway, I have usually weeded out the rules lawyers, ultra competitive types and smelly wierdos before play starts when I am umpiring. Which leaves the main annoyances as:

1) people who don't pay attention, wander off for a fag, have a chat with their mates, make lengthy phone calls etc.

2) put their drinks on the table.

First of all, rude players. Players who are abusive of other's efforts (your painting is , that was a stupid move, you're a gamer) and who are insulting (not the same as teasing or mocking with humour) are the worst. It's a social hobby, no need to bring a bad attitude to it.

Second is the guy who thinks he's a rules lawyer, but knows nothing. The guy who holds up a game, arguing a point and forcing everyone else to consult rulebooks because they insist the rule is one way when in fact it's not. They just slow the game down and don't realise that they're in a minority of 1 vs everyone else. I've seen arguments with this kind of player spiral out of control to the point that new members of the club have never returned.

Charles great question and discussion by all. Rudi, wonderful analysis well stated. For me the person that can just ruin the experience is the competitive rules lawyer with an overly high opinion of his military prowess as demonstrated on the table.

It's JUST ME but people who take forever to take their turn.

People who blatantly cheat, those who become angry at losing, and those who insist on virtually re-designing the game table-side or constantly complaining about the game in progress.

I haven't had the misfortune of playing with many of these types but there are a few who stand out in my mind.

One fellow in our regular group back in DC drove me to explore grid gaming with his cheating. He would place his ruler to measure a move and then, before moving the troops, remove the ruler completely from the table and simply move his troops pretty much wherever he wanted to. Of course, at that point you couldn't challenge the move because he'd object saying you can't tell where they started. But if he objected to one of your moves he'd simply pick up your troops and reposition them as he saw fit.

To handle a fellow here in Atlanta I simply team up with him every chance I get so I don't have to play across the table from him. He'll do things such as take back moves well after he realizes they were a mistake. And after moving a unit to its limit he'll repeatedly readjust their position sans ruler until they've moved a lot farther than allowed.

I'd much rather have a rules lawyer than a rules scofflaw. With a rules scofflaw there's no reason to play since you know you've going to lose no matter what you do.

I've also played with a few guys who take games so seriously they'll throw dice across the room or yell at opponents. I have zero interest in playing with people like that.

Finally, I love rules tinkering and don't mind making my opinion known on various rules. I've garnered lots of stifles here on TMP from angry fan-bois and wear them as a badge of honor! But, love a game or not, let the GM do his job and leave him alone before, during, and after a game. And let the players enjoy the game at hand instead of halting play to offer a critique of the game. It just seems rude to pontificate on game theory while everyone is trying to have fun.

I had a guy at a recent event who deliberately kept his forces disengaged from combat as long as possible, allowing his team to be defeated in detail while he sat there reading a book at the gaming table and snarking about how outmatched his side's forces were and how dull the game was. His side still racked up a pyrrhic victory thanks to the sterling efforts of the other commanders in his fleet to distract the enemy from key seceret objectives, but it sure as hell wasn't any of his doing – not that it stopped him from bragging about his military genius after the fact, mind you.

Found out he ruined three other events for people that weekend. A real prize, that one.

Whats a rules "scofflaw" ?

Not heard of that term before

A person who ignores rules/laws for their own benefit.

Thanks Wartopia

Ok it appears none of you like games lawyers but what about the person who always loses.

I suppose people like me who are rubbish at gaming becasue I spend most of my time modelling and painting , I don't have much time for reading rules to the nth degree.. Surely you wouldn't get much fun from playing the likes of me because it wouldn't be challenging enough. Is that a fair comment?

I'm with Inari7. We only have so much time to game so MOVE ALREADY!

I dare say time wasting could also be tactical as in some sports especially in an hopeless situation in a limited time game .

Cunning use of Overwatch type rules often helps

not having anyone to game with….

Or is it playing against a child in an otherwise adult game (where the parents just walked away)

This happend to me at a con last year. I had been looking forward to the game for months as the GM always puts on great spectacle games. It started ot fine there were 16 players inlcuding a dad and his young son. By young I mean no more than 10. By the second or third turn in the game Dad walks of and leaves his son to play unsupervised. By turn four the son lost interest in the game. Not enough to leave the game and go find his dad. Instead he starts pulling toys out of his pockets and started playing with them on the game table. He was also taking figures that were involved in the game to use in his own private game. He was whining to the GM about wanting to use his Heroclix in the game.

I give huge props to the GM for being patient until dad finnally came back a couple of hours later.

Mostly, not having enough time to finish a game. Our club games at a comic/game store except on special occasions and it can be hard to squeeze games in to satisfying completion many nights.

Other than that, rules lawyers and power gamers.

Rules lawyers are a pain.

I had to bite my tongue during a game where "the kid" – ten, maybe twelve – kept sticking his pen into the foam hills. I wanted to tick him off, but I didn't. I was only a player, and the umpire (who was standing by us) said nothing to him so I assummed they'd decided to write off all the scenery after the show. Very irritating though.

Dear Charles

Incivility. It's the common thread in all of the above. But don't get too hot under the collar about it because we live in an age where "civility" is mocked and considered a sign of weakness. People are "civilitously" brutalized at work by psychotic bosses, in schools by arrogant teachers, on the street by the feral underclass, and insulted by megalomanical politicians, so what can one expect?

But to restrict the thread to games, there is, I feel a conde of conduct in any game. That is, one joins the game under a set of agreements, the most important of which is "When I'm at your house, I play by your rules." That is, even if the game is at a con, or a club meeting, I am under the strictures as if I was in another's "house." Therefore I agree to accept the rules as given, and play in the spirit of the game. Questions about the play of the rules are allowed, comments about the efficacy, realism or appropriatenss of the rules are to be kept till after the game. Second-- when you join a game you agree to play the game in the spirit of the game and with a spirit of friendshiup and cameraderie, even if it is with people you violently detest. If you can't stand them that much then you should excuse yourself before the game.

Outrageous and frenetic behaviour is simply not to be engaged in unless it is purely for humor's sake, and to add to the game.

As a GM there are certain things that trigger my swift and unforgiving ire.

1. RAPING THE VIRGINS= A player who is expert at the rules uses his knowledge on a person who has never played them before to extract every advantage, every benefit, no matter how cheesy and who gloats over his triumph. The aim here is not to win but self aggrandisment. I remember one time at a convention where this happend and one player smugly announced that all he had to do, because the other player through ignorance had badly misplayed his maneuver, was roll anything above a 2 and he would eliminate the other side. He Rolled, but I said "Ooops- dice are cocked! And I turned the two of them to read 1,1."

2. MUTILATING THE MUNCHKINS- This is similar where an older player bullies a younger player, often on the same side and marginalizes him by telling him what to do and even pushing him aside and moving his troops. This turns young people off on games and takes from them the joy and passion they have for the game. After all, it's just like life with parents, shool, and adults bossing them around. I had this happen in several games where the guy next to the 12 year old was simply moving his troops and making decisions for him. I admonished him on this and he said "he was showing the kid what to do." I replied "The Young Gentleman must learn for himself what to do. Please let him move his own troops. Well the guy let him do it for one turn, making faces and snide comments all the while. Then he went back to do it. I always have a 48" 1/2" wide maple dowel to use as a pointer, and the third time he did it brought it down hard on his knuckles. "Let the young gentleman move his own troops I said."

3. MONSTROUS MUNCHKINISM- I am very tolerant of younger gamers, even if hyper-active. So were we all and I remember older gamers dealing with me in an tolerant but not over-indulgent way. When the Munchkins start to exhibit the infelicitious behaviours of adults that's the time to take a hand. I emember one game I had several younger players playing with the adults. The adults were all fine, but one of the boys was strutting around and attempting to browbeat and intimidate a little girl player on the other side. He would puff up his chest and use belligerant and obscene words to her. I informed him "Young Gentlemen do not act in such a manner around young ladies." He toned it down for a while but started up again. I drew him aside and told him that I wasn't his mother or father, and if he didn't stop I'd drag him over to the chair and give him a spanking in front of everyone. Or I'll take you outside and beat the crap out of you. Now we will return to the table and have no more of this." He was fine for the rest of the game. later, when dad retrieved him, I told his father what had done. The father was not happy with him.

3. THE ARROGANCE OF PAINT- Players paint as best they can, or are moved to do so. It is THEIR hobby and just as in the "When I'm at your House I play by your rules" in spite of how much I might dislike it, comments on a pesons lack of painting skills or desire is verboten. Among friends who have known each other a long time, good nature joshing is OK for a little bit, but I've found that offers to help with painting will be far more effective in encouraging the inexpert than criticism.

4.I1I1I1I1I1I1!!!! Persons who have to win at any cost and at any price, and will lay waste the entire world to do so. There is a time to realize that the joy of victory may not be worth the bad feelings of defeat. Usually, when a gamer, when faced with such people I will simply let them win, in fact contriving in my own defeat to make their victory bigger and thus end the misery sooner. But this is rare. When I am a GM and I meet one of these people I make it known by subtle inattention and non-applause that he's simply tiresome.

5. YASHUDS- The Yashuds are not some obscure Hebrew sect, but people who say during a game "Ya should do it like they do in Vehement Vexillions" and allow…" I simply say that that is an interesting idea dn I will take it under advicement. Could you please write me a two or three page synopsis of the rule you are speaking of as I am unfamiliar with it and how you think it could be applied." This usually shuts them up cold.

6. VANDALS WITH THE HANDLES- These are people who misuse or abuse your figures and terrain. The aforementioned people who use a clipboard to move figures like chips with a croupier stick, but also people who do other things similarly. You have to accept a certain amount of this in any game. My method is that each time I see that a player does this I say that "orders have come down from the all-highest transferring this command to another (who is more careful). They get the message..

What about the person who is determined to launch his forces into a rabid attack, regardless of situation or victory conditions, just because he "likes to kill things"?

I think what might bother me most is a situation in which a player uses the 'correct' rule to gain an unhistorical or unlikely advantage – the best example I can give is a hexed boardgame and you inflict a 'retreat' result on the enemy unit but the player then 'retreats' that unit in such a way that they actually end up in a more advantageous position – in some cases you would have to call the blatantly questionable manoeuvre an advance! I know this can be the result of sloppy rule writing – but even so.

@The Editor

Ahhhhhh. The "Leroy Jenkins" syndrome.

Many great comments above!

I fortunately haven't had many of them happen in my games over the years. The one I would say bothers me the most is the guy who asks or worse complains vociferously about an issue with the game or rules and as GM I make a ruling. Then the guy continues to rant and rave about it until I have to pull the "I'M the GM and what I say goes!" routine. That always bugs me to have to resort to that. The ruling should be enough and the game should be able to continue without interruption.

Rudi's post is brilliant!

I guess as a player I want to know what the objectives are, I want to know that the umpire will be consistent in his rulings, I want to know what the chain of command is (ie, who, if anyone, can give orders to whom) and I want to have some chance to influence the outcome of the game. As far as personalities in a game go, provided no one is unduly interfering in another person's moves, damaging figures or terrain, being abusive or cheating, there's no problem.

Cheers,
Aaron

"Surely you wouldn't get much fun from playing the likes of me because it wouldn't be challenging enough. Is that a fair comment?"

No, I would not say it was fair. If you are a mushroom (i.e. a fun guy) then it doesn't matter if you are a "good" player, unlucky as hell, or just slightly wonky in your approach to tactics.

We have a guy in our group who has the worst luck I have ever seen. This has made him a bit timid in his playing style. But he is always happy as hell to simply be gaming and is so damn much fun to play with that his lack of winning just doesn't matter. And when he DOES win (maybe 3-4 times over the last 10+ years) we all celebrate like it was the 4th of July. It's all in how you approach things, and having a really super gaming group sure doesn't hurt!

Players and refs who make you look like a rules lawyer because they are to lazy to be bothered to actually read and understand the rules and so they rely on the word of their friends, or just make up their own rules as we play. Then of course they come online and complain about you being a rules lawyer and ruined THEIR fun.

Yes, some great comments above.

My pet peeve, is a rules lawyer who cheats. We had one a couple of years ago. The kind of guy who wears a Napoleonic uniform to the convention and questions every rule, because it is not Napoleonic enough. Or he has to bring it up because he thinks he knows the rules better than the umpires. Then he proceeds to cheat by moving his figures illegally or move them too far. Quoting the rules which are incorrect.

There is also the phenomenon of the Anti-Rules-Lawyer, who will come out with the line "Well that's the way we play it" every couple of minutes, leading to enquiries as to whether they'd actually bothered reading the effing rulebook.

All the above examples are worthy instances. Luckily I haven't come across those players that often.

One other type of player is the one who belittles the rule set and scenario you have chosen. I had one guy complain all 2 1/2 hours that we played a game. Every time he moved or shot or engaged in combat, he had a snarky comment on how bad the rules were, how unrealistic the mechanisms of play were, etc., etc. He finally said, "This game doesn't reward tactical thinking!!" Ya, OK Duke Wellington.

At the end of the game (his side lost) he stomped out while everyone else thanked me for lugging all my men and terrain to the game.

So what do we call him, the "baby"?

By the way, I ran a few big Wings of War WW2 at Origins a few years back. Out of the 8 people playing I had about 4 kids each game. They were great. One kid, flying a Zero, strafed the hospital at Henderson Airbase and blew it up (it was early Guadalcanal). I told him that we should have him up on a war crimes tribunal for that. He thought that was great!

At one Historicon we had a bunch of kids playing in our Frogs vs Turtles "Pond Scum" game. They were great kids too. Their Dad was close by and kept an eye on them. They were well behaved and enjoyed themselves.

I've had more trouble with the adults.

Probably the creepy weirdo who stares at your girlfriend/wife when she comes by to say hello and see if we need tea.

What do you want from me?! She was cute.

Off the top of my head I dislike:

Rules lawyers

People who have to win

People who charge everything on the last turn because it's the last turn

Constant complainers

People who don't pay attention to the game

People who take forever to move their troops

Edit to add that I dislike GMs who run massive, slow moving games or design scenarios that over tax the rules that are being used. Waiting an hour for your five minute turn just sucks. I will stick it out out of respect but I don't blame people who just give up and walk away.

As far as younkers go I've had both experiences. Two years ago I was playing in a friends game. A group of fellows decided to play together leaving just me on the other side. A father and his 10-12 year old son came up and dad asked if his son could play while he shopped the vendors. I told him fine, he could play on my side. He was attentive to my explanation of the rules, my description of our battle plan,asked advice and called me Mr. Hall. He, unlike the adult opponents, was a joy to game with and I made sure to complement him in front of his father and tell him he could play on my side any time. The next year a father who was undoubtedly trying to get his younker interested in gaming had himself a handful. The boy payed no attention to the game, playing a handheld game in which he was more interested, and drove his poor dad to distraction. It didn't bother me that much but I did feel for his father.

Rule 1: Never argue with the GM; it achieves nothing and annoys the GM.

Very timely thread here in the US with Cold Wars just over a week away!

I had an experience years ago in a small game shop with a guy who was so annoying he would qualify as "All of the Above" The GM, normally very even tempered, finally had enough and said "that's it I am taking my toys home" (a la Cartman). Fortunately we all returned the next week and the offender never did.

Here's to not running into any of the above offenders at Cold Wars!

My personal pet peeve is analysis paralysis. Pay attention to the bloody game and MOVE already!!!!

Rules lawyers are annoying, but I can deal with them for a game or a tournament.

Nazi Glorification.

They lost, and deserved to. Cue the Red Army Chorus….

(OK, they did have some cool equipment)

Also, I seem to be schizophrenic about the unlicenced day care issue; Some kids are OK, but every game?

Sometimes these faults work to your advantage. Played a game against the 'Rules lawyer who personally put an end to Napoleons's Battles in St. Louis, MO'. Early Eastern Front, he had a German armored column with a PG platoon with tracks, we had a Russian engineer detachment tasked to destroy a bridge with a KV1, an ATG and not much else. Battle rages, the PG platton has reached the riverbank next to the bridge when we take out his last tank with our ATG. He loses it. Disputes that we were able to shoot, totally ignores the fact that all he has to do to win is dismount the grenadiers and mow down the engineers on the bridge. As he continues to rant, my friends and I say nothing but were all thinking 'OK, major morale failure here. Will he quit?' Yes, he did, so we won by default. I had to deal with him in a game I was putting on, it got intense quickly and he stormed off again. He seemed stunned when I was not upset, telling him 'You've got quite a reputation for this stuff.'

The done thing down the club is to play teaching games with players who don't know the rules.
The idea is you go easy on the guy and explain tactics, coach options and whatnot.
Some members see the game with the newbie as their chance to WIN.

Over competitive jerk. It's a game of toy soldiers, lighten up.

Also, mimes. I hate mimes.

I can't stand the "fudger" 6" turns into 8 and they always just seem to have the range.
Next would have to be the "expert" who knows everything about the period and what color under wear they had and feels the need to share his wealth of knowledge.
I think the Brits call them "train watchers" which cracks me up.

The "As long as i win" gamer.fear them!

All of the above.

DM

1. The guy who wanders off whenever it's your turn.

2. The guy whose not playing but is constantly interrupting game play and is often trying to favour one opponent with tactical and rules advice.

3. The people (often kids) who come to your table and pick up your miniatures without asking. Also the fidgeter who will sit there tapping or folding bits of terrain.

4. The guy who will deliberately pull out an army designed just to defeat yours.

I remember once having a game of Germans v Brits. My Germans were new and had next to no all AT capability. My opponent knew this and brought a Sherman company as opposed to the infantry he usually played.

Or another er who asked me whether he could proxy and I said yes. Turned out he was only proxing so he could take bare minimum number of required troops and load up on tanks (which my Orks were notoriously bad at handling. He also did this against a guy that played a Tyranid army that at the time also had limited AT capability). I don't allow proxies since then.

Didn't Rick Priestly once say that wargaming was contract between two people to have?

Rules lawyers don't bother me so long as they're input is valid and based on a sound knowledge of rules and not because they're trying to gain dodgy advantage.

The person who sits there, perpetually rolling dice for no reason. Then, when you ask them to roll dice, they will quickly check the roll they have just made and if it's a good one, will claim that's their roll. If not, they'll pick up the dice and roll as you asked.

I've met a surprising number of these individuals.