Player can't stop talking Game Mechanics

[dren]

I ban gamespeak at the the table. I give them exp penalties...everything they say to the other characters, has to be in character. If they want to plan or meta-game, I ask them if they need player-time and then I leave the room.

Even worse, it ruins the mood of the game for me if one of the players tell another player what to do. Sure you can ask, but do so when I am helping another player or when I DON"T hear, but NEVER during combat...I give them a rough amount of time (30 seconds or so) and then start counting down on my hand, if it reaches 0, they don't act.

But, if these solutions are too severe for you, just talk to the player. Tell them that their OOC discussions are not appropriate for the mood of the game that you are trying to present. Continued outbursts will result in XP penalties, but if they want to whisper or pass notes (as long as it doesn't slow the game down) to help each other it would be fine.

Groupthink and player interaction is fine...but not during combat, when everything is happening in a heartbeat. If they want to know more appropriate information, they can ask the DM, and he can answer based on their experience, skills, feats, etc...but one player asking should they cast X spell vs Y spell, well, it annoys me. YMMV

 

[Grayhawk]

Here's how we do it: If someone wants to know how injured someone is, they make a Heal check as a free action vs DC 15. If they make it, they get a reply of 'Not Wounded', 'Lightly Wounded', 'Wounded' or 'Badly Wounded' (being at approximately max HP, 3/4 HP, 1/2 HP or 1/4 HP).

Regarding players giving each other advice in combat situations, it's usually just not done. Once in a while, when the really nailbiting, climatic, end-game combats calls for more than usual time for a player to decide his course of action, he may call for a 'time-out' (which we actually call 'Time Stop') to ponder his options. If he's still at a loss, he may ask the DM if he may take advice from the other players, which sometimes is allowed, sometimes not.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

The group I'm with doesn't have nearly the restrictiveness it appears that others do. We can and do freely give advice. Sometimes we take it, sometimes we ignore it. Sometimes the DM gives advice, which isn't always good.

I rarely ask advice, since I've learned that playing something that I just can't wrap my head around (like wizards) is a Bad Thing for me, and I know how to play fighters (and rogues, to a lesser extent).

Brad

 

[Turjan]

Here's how we do it: If someone wants to know how injured someone is, they make a Heal check as a free action vs DC 15. If they make it, they get a reply of 'Not Wounded', 'Lightly Wounded', 'Wounded' or 'Badly Wounded' (being at approximately max HP, 3/4 HP, 1/2 HP or 1/4 HP).

That's some good advice. The problem is that in a real situation it would be very obvious for a party member whether one of his comrades is badly wounded or not. Such information as 'badly wounded' should be accessible. Another way to deliver this information could be a task for the DM: His descriptions of the fights and the damage that the adversaries cause should be evocative enough to give the other players a good estimate of the state of all party members.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The group I'm with doesn't have nearly the restrictiveness it appears that others do. We can and do freely give advice. Sometimes we take it, sometimes we ignore it. Sometimes the DM gives advice, which isn't always good.

You aren't alone, Brad. This is how our group does it too, and we have a ball.

As for DM advice, our DM is hilariously evil with his advice. It's usually the worst possible thing you might do. He tends to advise the wizard (who wins initiative regularly) to rush into the room ahead of the fighters.

 

[WillieW]

Our long-ago group decided to allow a certain amount of out-of-character planning.

As a contributor has alluded to, the player isn't the expert the character may be. Therefore "what comes naturally" to the character may take a bit of thought and preparation on the part of the player. Once the combat is underway, however, I would put severe time-limits on this type of discussion.

"Okay, you don't know what your character is doing. I'll come back to you."

If they still sit there nattering about game mechanics, they lose initiative.

Because time is the enemy of all gaming sessions, the DM really has to insist on moving things along.

The attraction of the game to some players is in its paperwork, so you may be denying the player his chief enjoyment and excitement as the little numbers on the character sheet change and he shares this excitement with others. If you can't some to an agreeable compromose on this with him or her, perhaps you need to tell the player his or her style of play is incompatable with your vision of the way the group should progress and ultimately ask the person to leave. Or, if you as the DM are the only one bothered by this, maybe your group needs a new DM!

 

[Romnipotent]

two words: Session Silence

This will freak him out to no end. Advise the other players to avoid answering anything mechanical rather than getting angry or such. My players are wargamers really, thats how I was brought up on D&D as well, but its a slow and steady process to get them into the more novelesque play. I'm trying my darndest and its working well enough with some of the folk. I for one prefer the players to go off on wild tangents of thought, let them go batpoop insane with ideas about some secretive and calculated neutral contact.
I'm getting all sorts of offline messages from one player, and the best thing is that he's going batty, and come session he will pressure me for answers, which I cant give him
This player is also a bit crunch ridden, Capt Crunch level. Well he wants to know if somethings available, and in full essence it is. But he needs to first perfect his roleplaying, and learn of a secret, which he's on the way to, he just needs be more receptive to what I say and investigate it. Of course this is just one example.

Techplayers/mechplayers/crunchmunchers simply want to expend the least resources for the best effect. As I have restricted the element of magic to a hairpin of a garden rake theres not so much magic-meta-gaming, but if and when they uncover the lost arts then I will be imposing a stringent "no knowledge no talky" basis. I might go so far as to dock XP for people, and I dont give out XP! (They level when I feel they have achieved and progressed enough, some go further than others, some dont move much at all)

Well... Quick reply box, take that!

Romers

 

[shilsen]

As for DM advice, our DM is hilariously evil with his advice. It's usually the worst possible thing you might do. He tends to advise the wizard (who wins initiative regularly) to rush into the room ahead of the fighters.

What do you mean the "worst possible thing you might do"? The DM is the boss, the creator of the world, the uber-god. Any time he gives you advice, it's golden and should be followed instantly. When I suggest to the rogue that he will get extra XP for sneak attacking the closest of his allies in the middle of a tough fight, or tell the wizard that an empowered fireball will get rid of the critters grappling his companions, it's the perfect advice for the moment. It just shows the stupidity of my players that they don't follow it, for silly reasons like it not being "in character" and crap like that! Darn roleplayers

 

[Gez]

Another situation comes up from time to time. The mage casts a fireball into a crowded fight. The player points at the spot he is going to center it on. Suddenly everyone else is like "Wait! wait, why not right here, put it over there so you can catch this guy in the blast..." etc, etc. Now THAT I absolutely do not allow and try to stop right away. Another character will move during combat and show his path, provoking an AoO and everyone chimes in "No, go this way so you don't get an Attack of opportunity". Again, not allowed, but happens often.

You know what I hate the most...it doesn't come up in the game I GM..but does in the game I play....Players telling others what spells to cast...ie a Paldadin telling a Wizard that this or that spell would be most effective here....I hate PC's using out of character knowledge....

While it's annoying when it drags the game down, I have absolutely no problem with players advising each others -- especially when the advised player is a newbie that would otherwise play suboptimally because he (not his character, but he) doesn't know the game well.

Like the player of a 21-Int wizard/loremaster wanting to cast a delayed blast fireball at a red dragon, and the paladin's player telling him: "err, you should know fire attacks will not hurt a fire dragon like this one; try a cold attack instead, do you have a cone of cold ready?"

 

[D+1]

Just wondering how many other DMs out there have players who just cannot stop talking game mechanics at the game table. IMO nothing breaks the mood of the game like a character in the middle of combat asking his comrade "how good is your Reflex save?" or "how many hit points are you down?"

Some of those sorts of questions are legitimate, some are not. "How good is your reflex save?" In the middle of combat - not appropriate. Outside of combat as casual conversation among PLAYERS it's fine. "How many hit points are you down?" Depends on your play approach. There are those DM's who insist on tracking all damage, hit points, etc. personally. [I couldn't STAND that myself as DM or player, but whatever floats your boat.] If that's the case you still need to provide players with plentiful, meaningful assessments of their own physical condition. A PC with 80 hit points who's down to 5 will KNOW they are in extremely serious physical trouble. If you're not giving them that information you need to start.

If you are like most DM's and the players track their own damage and hit points there's a little more gray area but it's not hard to work out. If the PC is a cleric about to cast healing spells AFTER combat there ought to be no problem at all with just dealing with straight numbers. If it's the middle of combat that information should be more vague. Let them relate their hit points as a rough guess in 10% increments. That ought to be enough.

IMO players have the RIGHT to know EXACTLY the numerical status of their characters at virtually all times, excepting only those times when the information is SPECIFICALLY being hidden from the PC or falsified. When and how they relate that information to other players is highly variable. If it's going to affect the players decision on spells, skills, etc. there should be no reason why they can't just be told straight up what the numbers are. Healing, maximizing skill usage or spell effects - just let them talk numbers. But when that sort of thing is being done in time-critical, confusing, or strictly roleplaying situations THAT'S when they need to be told to be more diplomatic in how they relate such information.

"How damaged are you?", "How hurt does the bad guy look?", "How baddly wounded does our fighter look?" are other questions asked both during combat and after. How would you know how baddly someone is injured who is wearing Platemail armor and probably splattered with the blood of his foes anyways?

By the reduced speed and overall nimbleness of his movements, reduced accuracy, repeated cries of pain, clutching wounds, favoring damaged limbs, etc. I never give out hit point totals or other numerical information on NPC's or enemies, but I still give reasonably accurate assessments of what the CHARACTER should be able to ascertain. For me, bad guys often fall into a fairly general assessment as far as their woundedness goes - not very (@25%), about half (50%), heavily wounded (75%), close to death/hanging on by a thread (less than 10% or HP of 5 or less). For PC's as I said before I'll relate it in about 10% increments.

Should the player be able to know exactly how many hit points need to be healed after the fight is over?

YES.

Should they make a Heal skill check? Even then should they know exact Hp totals?

No heal checks. The individual PLAYERs should be allowed to know the EXACT condition of their own characters. What do you want to do? Limit their knowledge of hit points to "Damaged" and "Not Damaged"?

Another situation comes up from time to time. The mage casts a fireball into a crowded fight. The player points at the spot he is going to center it on. Suddenly everyone else is like "Wait! wait, why not right here, put it over there so you can catch this guy in the blast..." etc, etc. Now THAT I absolutely do not allow and try to stop right away.

Generally I do too, but sometimes a little of that is not a problem. Someone else mentioned it already but a player often knows what a PC doesn't and a PC knows what a player doesn't - and more often than people seem to want to think it IS appropriate to cross the line. One player may simply not have guessed the best course of action when his character would and should have. So sometimes I'll allow other players to offer advice like that. Other times it seems more appropriate that they NOT be alllowed to interfere for better or worse in another players decisions for his character.

Another character will move during combat and show his path, provoking an AoO and everyone chimes in "No, go this way so you don't get an Attack of opportunity". Again, not allowed, but happens often.

Actually in my campaigns AoO's seldom come up because I allow this freely. One of the most BASIC elements of combat, it seems to me, would be knowing how to simply move from A to B without being WHACKED by the enemy. It only happens when I see it when nobody else does, when players willfully ignore it (generally for roleplaying reasons), or if it simply cannot be avoided. This aspect of the 3E system IS a tactical wargame and I see no reason why CHARACTERS would routinely be that stupid.