That Fucking Guy

[Kuja]

Blame 4chan for this one.

-

That Guy. He's like the real-flesh incarnation of Scumbag Steve, but with dice. You don't want him at your table. But there he is, perched there like a dingleberry on the asshole of the universe, just taunting you by his very existence. The bastard was late, like always, giving you just enough time for hope to rise before shattering it with the sound of his fist against the door, and that distinctive hoarse breath.

There's a weird smell in the room. Kind of like cheese mixed with old socks. It wasn't there ten minutes ago. Its presence definately coincides with the arrival of That Guy. Maybe it's something under that giant dusty coat he wears. Maybe he skipped his monthly washing of the hair. It looks greasier than normal under that ratburger he calls a hat.

He hands you his character sheet. You stare at it for a split second, wishing you could wake up, but the ring of the alarm clock never comes. The paper is stained with some manner of substance. Even though you carefully avoid it when you slowly, timidly reach out to take the paper from him, you can feel some manner of residue sticking to your fingers. Don't ask, you remind yourself. It'll just make an already bad situation worse.

Your hand trembles a little bit as you steel yourself and look down at the sheet. What new cosmic horror has That Guy laid upon you this time? A 12-year-old half-fae catboy? Another chaotic evil Sephiroth clone? Maybe this time he'll return to the old standby of the drow sorceress with 44E breasts. God help you, you thought that had been a mistake the first time you saw it. No. That Guy never makes mistakes. Not of that kind, at least.

You pass the character sheet back before your fingers start to change color. You're fairly certain he must have fudged his dice rolls, his worst attribute is a +3 but God forgive you it's not worth it to argue for twenty minutes and make him roll something else while the rest of the group waits for you to start.

The game begins. A rape joke comes right out of the gate. God dammit, why didn't you see that coming? When That Guy is around, anything and everything is a double entendre, no matter how innocent or how carefully you cache your phrasing. You try to scoot through the RP as fast as you can, before he flips out and kills something out of boredom or else starts off into one of his rants about how his character's not getting enough screen time.

Combat. Every time it comes to his turn he deliberates, scratching at that scraggly thing he likes to call a beard. There's cheeto dust in it now, thanks to his constant snacking and core-built fear of clean hands. After careful consideration, during which you have to marshall your patience and gently ask what he'll do (rather than the saner course of action, which would be to bust a chair over his head and hide the body) That Guy finally settles on the exact same fucking action he tried the last three turns - a called shot to cut the enemy's head from his shoulders.

This time he rolls his 'lucky d20.' It flies across the table and hits your buddy in the shoulder like a frantic little piece of plastic enacting its own escape attempt. That Guy apologizes profusely, mopping a hand across his sweaty brow, and reaches out that selfsame paw so your friend can drop the errant little thing into it. He rolls. 20. It rolled a 20 the last time he brought it out, too. And the time before that. But before you can ask to see it, That Guy quickly snatches it from the table with a victory snort. Suddenly the dice is the furthest thing from your mind as you realize you're not going to be eating any bacon this week.

Time to hand out loot. That Guy insists he's getting gypped even though the two rubies are the same price as the sapphire. A squealing argument begins and you have to add ham to the list of involuntarily proscribed foods for the week.

It finally ends, thank God, and you shepherd them all out before violently spraying down the entire room with whatever air freshener comes to hand first. It almost does the job, but that odor lingers, lingers like a bad feeling in the pit of your gut. The couch doesn't look quite the same color that it did this morning.

God damn it. I hate That Guy. Who the fuck keeps inviting him?

[FaxModem1]

This is why certain RP groups I've been in have a 'shower before game' policy, as we've had to deal with that guy.

[Darksider]

So, as someone who is getting interested in pen and paper RPGs, and is considering joining an RPG group at school next semester, I have to ask. How common is "that fucking guy" anyways? Should I be stocking hand sanitizer just in case?

[Jub]

Common enough, but not overwhelmingly so. Plus, if you're not a wuss, you talk to him directly about the issues instead of just praying he goes away.

[FaxModem1]

Yeah, the majority of RPers are just friendly nerds. The worst you'll have to deal with is a character sheet with cheeto dust, probably.

[bilateralrope]

Common enough, but not overwhelmingly so. Plus, if you're not a wuss, you talk to him directly about the issues instead of just praying he goes away.

If he keeps turning up without fixing the issues, you always have the option of refusing to play with him. If that means walking away from the game he is in, walk away.

The worst thing you can do is keep playing with him.

[LadyTevar]

Yeah, that Fuckin' Guy is always bad. It's worse when hes' the only one with the books for the game you wanna play, or he's the only one with a house big enough for everyone to fit around the table. Been there. Done that. Showered afterward every single time.

[Kuja]

So, as someone who is getting interested in pen and paper RPGs, and is considering joining an RPG group at school next semester, I have to ask. How common is "that fucking guy" anyways? Should I be stocking hand sanitizer just in case?

How common is anything, really.

That Guy is less of a person and more of a concept - he's everything that aggravates you at the gaming table. He's the guy that argues about minutae or powergames relentlessly. He comes up with ridiculous characters that range from copied movie characters to blatent fetish fuel - or maybe he just makes the same character over and over. He provokes NPCs or members of the party, whether out of boredom or just to troll. He has no brain-mouth filter. You strongly suspect he cheats in some way or another. There's some kind of oder or something about his appearance or behavior that really bugs you. You don't like him, but for one reason or another you can't get rid of him. And so on.

Most That Guys are fairly tame, evincing only a trait or two of what makes a That Guy, and can be kept in line with a little bit of effort or at least tolerated for the few hours you game. The teamkilling/fetish fuel varietes can be more irritating (or downright creepy), but they tend to burn out or drift away if the group makes it clear they won't put up with their crap. Tabletoping with random people can attract That Guy with unfortunate ease, but the good news is it's usually just as easy to get rid of him.

[Satori]

Hmn, I've had very different RP experiences.

Usually for me, That Guy isn't a power gamer. He's the opposite. He's the STOP HAVING FUN GUYS guy.

Nothing outside of core should be allowed, because splatbooks are broken. Never mind that pretty much every compilation of "the top X most broken stuffs in D&D" has been 80% or more core materiel. Never mind that it's more or less impossible to play at high levels with a non-spellcaster without looking to non-core supplements for abilities that will allow you to not be the weaker understudy to the druid's animal companion. Never mind that the latter splatbooks were written with the advantage of hindsight and fan feedback, and therefore had better design, with the game designers themselves admitting that they had no clue how to balance anything when they wrote core.

Psionics shouldn't be allowed because he had a bad experience with psionics back in AD&D. Never mind that in 3.5, psionics is easier to learn, far more balanced, and generally a lot more fun than Vancian magic for most people. And far less broken. Hey, jerkface, we;re not playing AD&D.

Multiclassing is broken. Never mind that the most powerful character around, 99% of the time is straight Druid, til level 20. Never mind that you have to multiclass to actually get the abilities you want for yoru character concept unless you character concept is identical to the class some guy at WOTC has laid out based on a tired fantasy cliche you stoped liking years ago.

And on and on and on.

And don't even get me started on the Pathtards and their whining about 4th edition.

[Jub]

I like pathfinder way, way, better than 4e mainly because 4e felt so sterile. The game's designers couldn't be assed to put more than two lines of fluff together for anything. It wasn't a space issue because they had plenty of room for wide boarders around the ability rules boxes and page counts for fluff aren't a huge cost driver unless you want loads of new art. Speaking of art there also seemed to be less of that than in 3.5 and less of the great 3.5 artists were back.

Pathfinder has flaws as well but the online SRD and large value for money books have really won me over.

[Satori]

I like pathfinder way, way, better than 4e mainly because 4e felt so sterile. The game's designers couldn't be assed to put more than two lines of fluff together for anything. It wasn't a space issue because they had plenty of room for wide boarders around the ability rules boxes and page counts for fluff aren't a huge cost driver unless you want loads of new art. Speaking of art there also seemed to be less of that than in 3.5 and less of the great 3.5 artists were back.

Pathfinder has flaws as well but the online SRD and large value for money books have really won me over.

So you like pathfinder because of art and setting fluff? I like pathfinder's art too, but the game designers need to stop being arseholes. Seriously, they have a standing policy of banning anyone who is even the remotest bit critical of pathfinder on their forums.

Also, 4e is WOTC listening to fan complaints about 3.5 and giving us... well, almost everything we asked to be fixed, mechanically. Albeit, Literal genie style, as their fix in large part is "everyone plays a warlock, just put different flavors on your abilities."

Still, 4th ed designers were listening to the fans. Pathfinder designers appear to hate anyone who isn't a sycophant to their egos.

[Jub]

I like pathfinder way, way, better than 4e mainly because 4e felt so sterile. The game's designers couldn't be assed to put more than two lines of fluff together for anything. It wasn't a space issue because they had plenty of room for wide boarders around the ability rules boxes and page counts for fluff aren't a huge cost driver unless you want loads of new art. Speaking of art there also seemed to be less of that than in 3.5 and less of the great 3.5 artists were back.

Pathfinder has flaws as well but the online SRD and large value for money books have really won me over.

So you like pathfinder because of art and setting fluff? I like pathfinder's art too, but the game designers need to stop being arseholes. Seriously, they have a standing policy of banning anyone who is even the remotest bit critical of pathfinder on their forums.

Also, 4e is WOTC listening to fan complaints about 3.5 and giving us... well, almost everything we asked to be fixed, mechanically. Albeit, Literal genie style, as their fix in large part is "everyone plays a warlock, just put different flavors on your abilities."

Still, 4th ed designers were listening to the fans. Pathfinder designers appear to hate anyone who isn't a sycophant to their egos.

I mainly dislike 4e because it seems that the designers didn't care about building a setting and only cared about robotically building a set of rules. The rules worked, sort of, and I appreciate the fact that the designers worked to fix exploits that became obvious, but there was no variety to anything. You stuck to your defined role, your optimal path through the [strike]reskinning[/strike] class of that role. It wouldn't have been bad if there had been more variety in what you could do mechanically.

I'm not saying that we needed the god like full casters back, but each role felt really confined and mages went from having options to either being a blaster or a controller. You couldn't build to my limited knowledge, utility mages, summoners, characters based around leading a small army... loads of viable options died for the sake of a perfect balance that only a vocal minority ever asked for.

I'm not even going to get into the contraction of the player base under 4e. People wanted to like a new edition, but it cut the player base by as much as 5/6ths of what it used to be.

Pathfinder might not be perfect, and the designers might be dicks (I don't go to the forums), but it feels a lot more like what D&D has been from 1e to 3.5e. 4e just isn't D&D in the minds of most players.

[Satori]

I like pathfinder way, way, better than 4e mainly because 4e felt so sterile. The game's designers couldn't be assed to put more than two lines of fluff together for anything. It wasn't a space issue because they had plenty of room for wide boarders around the ability rules boxes and page counts for fluff aren't a huge cost driver unless you want loads of new art. Speaking of art there also seemed to be less of that than in 3.5 and less of the great 3.5 artists were back.

Pathfinder has flaws as well but the online SRD and large value for money books have really won me over.

So you like pathfinder because of art and setting fluff? I like pathfinder's art too, but the game designers need to stop being arseholes. Seriously, they have a standing policy of banning anyone who is even the remotest bit critical of pathfinder on their forums.

Also, 4e is WOTC listening to fan complaints about 3.5 and giving us... well, almost everything we asked to be fixed, mechanically. Albeit, Literal genie style, as their fix in large part is "everyone plays a warlock, just put different flavors on your abilities."

Still, 4th ed designers were listening to the fans. Pathfinder designers appear to hate anyone who isn't a sycophant to their egos.

I mainly dislike 4e because it seems that the designers didn't care about building a setting and only cared about robotically building a set of rules. The rules worked, sort of, and I appreciate the fact that the designers worked to fix exploits that became obvious, but there was no variety to anything. You stuck to your defined role, your optimal path through the [strike]reskinning[/strike] class of that role. It wouldn't have been bad if there had been more variety in what you could do mechanically.

I'm not saying that we needed the god like full casters back, but each role felt really confined and mages went from having options to either being a blaster or a controller. You couldn't build to my limited knowledge, utility mages, summoners, characters based around leading a small army... loads of viable options died for the sake of a perfect balance that only a vocal minority ever asked for.

I'm not even going to get into the contraction of the player base under 4e. People wanted to like a new edition, but it cut the player base by as much as 5/6ths of what it used to be.

Pathfinder might not be perfect, and the designers might be dicks (I don't go to the forums), but it feels a lot more like what D&D has been from 1e to 3.5e. 4e just isn't D&D in the minds of most players.

Yes, I already mentioned how I don't like the sameness of every class in 4th myself. Do realize that for casual gamers though, 4th is much easier to learn and play.

And that;s not an argument for pathfinder, thats an argument for sticking to 3.5, where at least if you use the latter splatbooks, the mechanics aren't retarded drunk monkey writing.

[Jub]

Yes, I already mentioned how I don't like the sameness of every class in 4th myself. Do realize that for casual gamers though, 4th is much easier to learn and play.

And that;s not an argument for pathfinder, thats an argument for sticking to 3.5, where at least if you use the latter splatbooks, the mechanics aren't retarded drunk monkey writing.

I never found any issues starting with 3e, but 4e would be easier for a new group because it handholds the DM through every aspect of creating a session. Hand out x loot at point y from monsters x & z. It really made the game predictable if you followed those guidelines. I think you could accomplish the same thing with a 3e core only game with an adventure module.

As for pathfinder, I like a lot of the changes they made, but I mainly go by the SRD and not the books so perhaps I'm missing something. I find my Pathfinder/3.5e hybrid game is running smoothly enough though and the only people outshined are people that are sort of new and declined help with getting a character together.

[Satori]

If you play in the "iconic" style for which pathfinder works, then I can see that going well.

Thing is, 3e was never playtested. They had a official playtest, but it ignored half the new rules and none of the players tried to use they new mechanics - they played as if it were just another game of AD&D 2nd with different numbers. Which is why no one notice things like Wildshape being ridiculously awesome, or the fact that there were plenty of 4th level spells that no-selled entire melee combat tactics.

Pathfinder takes this "Lets do what we feel like and never playtest" mindset and took it up to 11, by banning any criticism, and ignoring all the accumulated notes 339 had on game balance in 3.5. They then had the sheer gall to claim that they had improved game balance, despite have done, if anything, the opposite. (That said, I do love the pathfinder SRD for having a much more comprehensive mundane gear listing.) But the pathfinder designers are pretty much all horrible people who are pretty much the epitome of That Guy, if they way they run their forums is any indication.

[Jub]

If you play in the "iconic" style for which pathfinder works, then I can see that going well.

Thing is, 3e was never playtested. They had a official playtest, but it ignored half the new rules and none of the players tried to use they new mechanics - they played as if it were just another game of AD&D 2nd with different numbers. Which is why no one notice things like Wildshape being ridiculously awesome, or the fact that there were plenty of 4th level spells that no-selled entire melee combat tactics.

Pathfinder takes this "Lets do what we feel like and never playtest" mindset and took it up to 11, by banning any criticism, and ignoring all the accumulated notes 339 had on game balance in 3.5. They then had the sheer gall to claim that they had improved game balance, despite have done, if anything, the opposite. (That said, I do love the pathfinder SRD for having a much more comprehensive mundane gear listing.) But the pathfinder designers are pretty much all horrible people who are pretty much the epitome of That Guy, if they way they run their forums is any indication.

Or you can simply have a party that agrees to play things of roughly the same power level instead of pretending balance is the be all end all of table top gaming. I can name systems with way less balance and noob friendliness than D&D 3.5/pathfinder that are still fun.

You assume the devs even look at the forum instead of letting their hired mods do their thing.

[LadyTevar]

This has stopped being a story and became a rant about Gamers. Time to move it.

[Jub]

This should be in GE&C more than fantasy.

[Rogue 9]

I was in the Pathfinder alpha and beta tests, and they were at least civil to people who had problems then. I haven't posted on their boards since, but I guess they decided the test is over?

At any rate, Pathfinder took a targeted nerf at some of the more famous examples of 3.5 caster power (CoDzilla in particular took a huge hit with the changes to Wild Shape and divine power), but left others alone, so if your group is unreasonable and doesn't build in a mutually agreeable manner, casters can still run away with the game. I like what they did with the martial classes, though; particularly my beloved paladin at last feels right.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Heh. The group I joined in college had a bona-fide, card-carrying, shining exemplar of That Guy. I loathed him from day one, everything from his disgustingly boorish attitude, to his blatantly cheated rolls and stats, to his "homebrew" custom character bullshit he got past our novice GM, to his mildly-disturbing fixation on dead and mutilated Sisters of Battle. As the outsider in the group, I was largely powerless to demand his ejection from an otherwise solid group. It took me six months to establish myself as co-GM and finally be rid of this loser.

Not exactly sure how this thread got turned into Pathfinder vs 4th Ed. On that note, I'll concede that 4th Ed serves as a good introduction to D&D for those who've never done tabletop RPGs before. These bizarre claims of brutal oppression of dissent from Paizo and WotC's noble and upstanding conduct in simply "listening to the people" when it came to 4th Ed, however, are a pretty sure sign of an acute addiction to crack. Seek professional help.

[Vendetta]

to his "homebrew" custom character bullshit he got past our novice GM, to his mildly-disturbing fixation on dead and mutilated Sisters of Battle.

You gamed with Matt Ward?

[Tanasinn]

So, as someone who is getting interested in pen and paper RPGs, and is considering joining an RPG group at school next semester, I have to ask. How common is "that fucking guy" anyways? Should I be stocking hand sanitizer just in case?

The REALLY bad ones are not nearly as common as /tg/ or the gaming community as a whole makes out, but they definitely do exist. More mundane 'that guys' are much more common. That Guy that won't stop raping the barmaids. That Guy who creates a minmaxed character for a "just for fun" or "story driven" game. That Guy who creates a goofy concept character for a Gygaxian you will die game. That guy who drinks stuff from your fridge without asking, facebooks on his phone, shows up late, uses your books without asking.

As far as editions go, when it's D&D, I usually roll Pathfinder (which is D&D in everything but name). 3.5 is a mess and 4 is sterile, as others have said. Pathfinder's still not perfect, though (fighters should at least get a bump in skill points per level and take perception as a class skill). I guess the only thing I really liked about 4e was the tie-in comic book, which was funny as hell and an addictive read.

[Satori]

Nerfing a very few bad spells does not make up for doubling the feat tax on melee feat trees and nerfing power attack and pretty much every method of buffing ever. Pathfinder's minor buffs to fighters are pretty negligible, especially with power attack set on fire.

Fighters simply scale up too slowly vis a vis CR appropriate monsters, and only really function with Buffing support- which pathfinder shot in the face because pathfinder hates friends.

Between nerfing or doubling the feat cost of most melee feats and giving casters more Hp, actual class abilities (versus numerical bonuses that scale at a snails pace for fighters) pathfinders has actually managed to make linear-wArriors quadratic wizards *worse*, which is a pretty Astounding feat given how bad 3.5 already was on that score.

[Jub]

Nerfing a very few bad spells does not make up for doubling the feat tax on melee feat trees and nerfing power attack and pretty much every method of buffing ever. Pathfinder's minor buffs to fighters are pretty negligible, especially with power attack set on fire.

Fighters simply scale up too slowly vis a vis CR appropriate monsters, and only really function with Buffing support- which pathfinder shot in the face because pathfinder hates friends.

Between nerfing or doubling the feat cost of most melee feats and giving casters more Hp, actual class abilities (versus numerical bonuses that scale at a snails pace for fighters) pathfinders has actually managed to make linear-wArriors quadratic wizards *worse*, which is a pretty Astounding feat given how bad 3.5 already was on that score.

I'll need to look into your claims, but honestly I don't see you providing any proof or numbers showing how a PF fighter is worse than a 3.5 fighter.

One claim I can debunk right now is that the doubled feat tax is partly made up by feats at every odd level.

[Jub]

This setup will show a very basic 2-weapon fighter from both PF and 3.5e.

Starting Wealth: Average Rolls
Walth by Level: As recommended by source
Stats Used: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 with the human +2 bonus in PF going to Strength

Level 1:

Pathfinder:
Str: 16 Dex: 13 Con: 15 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 8
HD; 1d10+3 (13hp)
Init: +1
AC: 16 = 10 + 5 (Scale) + 1 (Dex)
Speed: 20ft.
BAB/CMB/CMD: +1/+4/+5
BAB/Grapple: +1/+4
Attack: Greatsword +5 2d6+4 19-20/x2 Slashing or Shortbow +2 1d6 x3/20 Piercing or Javelin +2 1d6+3 20/x2 Piercing
Fort: +4 Ref: +1 Will: +1
Skills: Climb +3, Intimidate +3, Perception +2, Ride +2
Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Cleave
Gear: Scale Mail, Greatsword, Shortbow, Arrows x20, Javelins x5, 39gp

D&D 3.5e:
Str: 15 Dex: 13 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 12 Cha: 8
HD; 1d10+2 (12hp)
Init: +1
AC: 16 = 10 + 5 (Scale) + 1 (Dex)
Speed: 20ft.
BAB/CMB/CMD: +1/+3/+4
BAB/Grapple: +1/+3
Attack: Greatsword +4 2d6+3 19-20/x2 Slashing or Shortbow +2 1d6 x3/20 Piercing or Javelin +2 1d6+2 20/x2 Piercing
Fort: +4 Ref: +1 Will: +1
Skills: Climb +2, Intimidate +3, Ride +2, Spot +3
Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Cleave
Gear: Scale Mail, Greatsword, Shortbow, Arrows x20, Javelins x5, 39gp

The Pathfinder version of the fighter has better HP, AC, bonus to hit, and damage at level 1. The D&D fighter has a slightly better chance to a single type of perception in exchange for worse climbing ability.

They can each expect to face Goblins at this level. The PF Goblin has an extra Hit Point, bonus to AC, and Bonus to Ref Saves. The PF fighter comes out very slightly ahead due to dealing more damage per hit against his expected foe as well as getting hit less often.

Power Attack PF: -1/+3
Power Attack 3.5: -1/+2

I'll add more once I refresh my knowledge of fighter builds.