Heh... Nice... Any more jerky playstyles to add to the list?
Players that drive you nuts
Jake yet again said:
I have a player who always plays a kill-the-monsters character. Now, don't get me wrong, there is a place for monster-whacking, but often it's just as important to dive down a gate with five clues and get a seals on the board. Furthermore, if everyone devotes themselves purely to monster clobbering, you will lose as a team.
Don't bother looking for decent Allies - once he has the trophies, he'll nip off to Ma's and grab The Messenger, even when Professor Rice would be more effective by refreshing all the clues on the boards. If you're sitting downstream from him on one Stamina and he has a healthy character who can either fight a Cthonian or a Migo, he'll go for that treasure-on-a-stick every time, even though the Cthonian will kill if it moves. Need a weapon, in case you jumped by something nasty in the Outer Worlds. Forget it, he needs that Magic Sword, that .38 and that .45! Does your rumour call for some kind of sacrifice. Well I hope you've got the materials to do so, cos he's never going to. Cursed and hanging around a Ry'leh gate with an Explored Token hoping you roll a six so you can trade in your five clues before the inevitable monster surge. Don't expect him to burn his precious trophies praying for your soul.
No monsters in town. Fine, he'll camp out the Newspaper for a Retainer, so he can buy more gear for himself. If he does get five Clues, he'll happily burn those on a small chance to win a Common Item before he ever thinks about diving down a gate to seal it. If he does dive down a gate, it's usually because he wants the gate trophy to grab an Ally, bless himself or become the Deputy, not because he wants to seal it and win the game.
Need a coordinated effort to win the game by seals before the Doom Track runs out. He'll be the one preparing for the final battle. It doesn't matter if there is a character that calls for a different playstyle, if he can't chop up monsters, he doesn't want to play that character and will hapilly suicide them so he can get a Joe or a Tommy or a Hank. In short, in a team game, he's not a team-player. He always take actions which improves his "Hero", regardless of the cost to the rest of the team.
So why do you play with him?
I was wondering that too ;')
I usually play Arkham Horror with my wife; well when I say usually I mean not very often because Talisman tends to hit the carpet - I need a bigger table - more often these days. Both of us understand the games mechanics pretty well and can generally come to an agreement on best strategy to take in order to have a chance of a win. I have a very casual group of gaming friends who I also run roleplaying games with, and because we so infrequently play AH I do tend to have to explain (or re-explain) a lot about the game mechanics when we do. Basically I keep hold of the instructions. I don't find it annoying as such; as they are all close friends who I enjoy hanging out with, but it sadly means that sometimes attention can wane a bit before a game ends.
Well, there is also that player who wants to tell everybody what they should do. Not a group effort, suggesting what we should do, or what is best for the team, but that guys who narrates to each player "Move here, do this, spend that." In AH it's not quite that common, but we've played other games where somebody really thinks they know what the best option in every situatio is, and gets upset when a plyer decides to "play their own game," and not his.
JerusalemJones said:
Well, there is also that player who wants to tell everybody what they should do. Not a group effort, suggesting what we should do, or what is best for the team, but that guys who narrates to each player "Move here, do this, spend that." In AH it's not quite that common, but we've played other games where somebody really thinks they know what the best option in every situatio is, and gets upset when a plyer decides to "play their own game," and not his.
Occasionally I find myself doing this to newer players, so I'm really really conscious not to. It's hard when you realize that certain moves help everyone, and not just the new player.
I have a problem with one friend I play with who is always asking me what he should do next. I try to give only vague and general answers though. If I wanted to control his investigators I would be playing solo! 
JerusalemJones said:
Well, there is also that player who wants to tell everybody what they should do. Not a group effort, suggesting what we should do, or what is best for the team, but that guys who narrates to each player "Move here, do this, spend that." In AH it's not quite that common, but we've played other games where somebody really thinks they know what the best option in every situatio is, and gets upset when a plyer decides to "play their own game," and not his.
I've been told I do this but the people who said this hadn't played with me for over a year (general gaming group, Not AH exclusive) for this reason (though they only told me recently). I can sorta understand why they think this because when the situation is serious I can get carried away and start dictating stuff but I think they were exagerating how bad it I do it (though I've had a year to change so maybe I was that bad back then). Usually if there's nothing really dire I'll try to advise people on good or bad moves and point out things in the game they might not realize but rather than give them the best option mention lots of good options and let them decide what to do.
I think part of my problem is I don't play Arkham nearly as often as I'd like to (BTW if there are any Arkham groups that meet up in New York City I'd love to hear about them) so mostly the co-op game I play is Pandemic on BSW. There the people I play with will usually dictate every move you make but since everyone does it and usually everyone is in agreement it doesn't feel like one person is controling the game. However sometimes when I'm playing with other people (not the usual people I play with) they have gotten annoyed by this when I inadvertantly did it.
The people I used to play Arkham with were very experienced and normally would do this too (everyone shouting ideas if there's something big that needs to get done) . This worked for us because it usually felt like everyone was contributing but you ultimatley judged when it was your turn what the best move to make would be.
I cannot say we had anyone really bad in our group in terms of solo vs team play. The veterans all had a good idea what was a good way to win and had played virtually all the characters so usually could tell the best course of action to take with them. The new players were very interested in learning how to win and asked a lot of questions regarding if something wa sa good idea or not and why and were interested in playing many different characters.
The biggest culprit we had was in BSG. He's a good friend, but has this habit of saying "On your turn, move here, do this, play this card, then on your turn next do this, this and this." Finally, my wife told him that if he was just going to tell us how to play, we weren't going to play with him anymore (she's pretty adamant of making her own decisions, and I love her for it). So he's cooled off since then. Besides, in BSG the player being "advised" might be a cylon, and not want to take that sort of action.
In Arkham, it IS harder not to tell players what to do, just because of the nature of the game. But we do tend to offer suggestions to newer players, or if someone wants help we'll tell them what are possibly the best actions. And we'll try to convince people to take certain actions. But we really don't like being told what, exactly, we should be doing each turn.
I can think of one more type of player that has not been mentioned here: the corrupt lawyer.
We had a problem with a guy that had this (corrupt) rule lawyer mentality during the first few months of us playing in regular groups. He loved the game ALOT and always wanted to be included in as many sessions as possible.
The game tended to drag with him around though since he always had to argue over the mecanics, anything that didnt seem in his favor had to be proven (via stopping the game and browsing online or re-reading and arguing about rules sections). The bothersome bit is that it his that his acceptance of whatever ruling (FAQ or unnoficial) really depended on if it benefited him.
If a ruling was not to his liking, he would generally hold up the game for as long as possible, demanding to re-read various rules, check other cards or simply continune to argue in an attempt try to recruit people to his side (for a vote on it). Also he wasnt above reversing his opinion if it later suited him.
Bleh, the memories. Glad anyway that he doesnt play with us these days.
North_Wolf said:
I can think of one more type of player that has not been mentioned here: the corrupt lawyer.
We had a problem with a guy that had this (corrupt) rule lawyer mentality during the first few months of us playing in regular groups. He loved the game ALOT and always wanted to be included in as many sessions as possible.
The game tended to drag with him around though since he always had to argue over the mecanics, anything that didnt seem in his favor had to be proven (via stopping the game and browsing online or re-reading and arguing about rules sections). The bothersome bit is that it his that his acceptance of whatever ruling (FAQ or unnoficial) really depended on if it benefited him.
If a ruling was not to his liking, he would generally hold up the game for as long as possible, demanding to re-read various rules, check other cards or simply continune to argue in an attempt try to recruit people to his side (for a vote on it). Also he wasnt above reversing his opinion if it later suited him.
Bleh, the memories. Glad anyway that he doesnt play with us these days.
Hah... I find that the best way to deal with players like that is authoritarianism. I.e. give them a chance to familiarize themselves with the rules prior to the game but make it clear that you have the final word on rulings and say that if he wants to check something, he can check it after the game at home.
P.S. Do not describe your policy as authoritarianism ;'D
P.P.S. Bye for a week, everybody.
North_Wolf said:
I can think of one more type of player that has not been mentioned here: the corrupt lawyer.
We had a problem with a guy that had this (corrupt) rule lawyer mentality during the first few months of us playing in regular groups. He loved the game ALOT and always wanted to be included in as many sessions as possible.
The game tended to drag with him around though since he always had to argue over the mecanics, anything that didnt seem in his favor had to be proven (via stopping the game and browsing online or re-reading and arguing about rules sections). The bothersome bit is that it his that his acceptance of whatever ruling (FAQ or unnoficial) really depended on if it benefited him.
If a ruling was not to his liking, he would generally hold up the game for as long as possible, demanding to re-read various rules, check other cards or simply continune to argue in an attempt try to recruit people to his side (for a vote on it). Also he wasnt above reversing his opinion if it later suited him.
Bleh, the memories. Glad anyway that he doesnt play with us these days.
We had a player like that for Warhammer Fantasy Battle. THAT was a nightmare. He demanded that we prove that our troops (but not his) could even make melee attacks. We showed him where it said that hobgoblins could be infantry, and that infantry could make melee attacks, but this was unacceptable because nowhere did it say that hobgoblin infantry could make melee attacks. Unfortunately, he's also my brother.
avec said:
Unfortunately, he's also my brother.
That just means you're allowed to dunk his head in the toilet when he annoys you.
Veet said:
avec said:
That just means you're allowed to dunk his head in the toilet when he annoys you.
If he's not your bigger brother, of course.
DoomTurtle said:
If he's not your bigger brother, of course.
Nothing a bit of chloroform and rope wont fix.
Younger, but bigger. Next time I'll bring choloform, or maybe I'll distract him with a computer game.
North_Wolf said:
I can think of one more type of player that has not been mentioned here: the corrupt lawyer.
We had a problem with a guy that had this (corrupt) rule lawyer mentality during the first few months of us playing in regular groups. He loved the game ALOT and always wanted to be included in as many sessions as possible.
The game tended to drag with him around though since he always had to argue over the mecanics, anything that didnt seem in his favor had to be proven (via stopping the game and browsing online or re-reading and arguing about rules sections). The bothersome bit is that it his that his acceptance of whatever ruling (FAQ or unnoficial) really depended on if it benefited him.
If a ruling was not to his liking, he would generally hold up the game for as long as possible, demanding to re-read various rules, check other cards or simply continune to argue in an attempt try to recruit people to his side (for a vote on it). Also he wasnt above reversing his opinion if it later suited him.
Bleh, the memories. Glad anyway that he doesnt play with us these days.
This guy sounds just like my old roomie.