Player can't stop talking Game Mechanics

[Ogrork the Mighty]

There's a couple things you can do. I've been through this before, usually with newer players.

First, let everyone talk and compare their characters before the game. Better yet, let them look at each other's character sheets. That will answer a lot of the questions beforehand.

Second, if a player asks something in a "game mechanics" way, answer in a "role-playing" way. Telling someone to be in-character is never as effective as being in-character yourself, thereby encouraging them to do the same. If they don't get it, suggest they try to look at things from the eyes of their character and not the eyes of the player (some people have trouble distinguishing the two).

Don't beat down players who don't get it. Some people are more rules-minded than others. You can only encourage them to use their imagination more. If it really becomes a problem, maybe your group isn't for them (we've parted ways with a couple players who refused to role-play, to the betterment of the group, IMO).

Good luck!

 

[Voodoo]

In the game I run I do allow other players to advise in combat, though somewhat dependant on the skills the characters have, I have no problem with a player who knows the spells back to front advising a player with a high spellcraft skill.

I don't find that my players advise each other on AoO that much, but most of them are newbies and are only just getting to grips with AoO so generaly I end up giving them advice on AoO. I see no reason why a player shouldnt know when he's about to provoke an AoO (Exceptions for things like Ropers etc). Players should generaly be informed of how reality is portrayed in the game they are playing, telling a player that they have (as opposed to will if they choose to contine with there stated action) provoked an AoO is equivilent to telling the player 'I'm going to penalise for not reading the PHB enough'. Of course if players start saying things like 'no don't move there the roper has a really long reach' then they have to be pulled up, combat moves just to quickly.

Hit Points are a difficult one, being such an abstract representation of a characters health, especial as being on 1 hp doesn't affect your characters abilitys in any way. Generally in combat players refer to there health in terms of fractions or general phrases though once combat is over and the healing spells start I think letting the players talk in terms of numbers is just fine, i'd rather speed up the mechanichs and move on.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Here's the thing.

If you say that looking at someone gets their condition as a fraction of their hitpoints (ie - full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4), then you get this wierdness whereby the wizard could be on 10 hipoints, and be "ok", but the warrior is on 20 hitpoints and is "looking really bad".

Which doesn't help the party at all.

So - perhaps a bit better would be for the players to express it in terms of how much more punishment they could take. Like "I doubt I could fend off an unarmed peasant right now" means "I'm on 2 hitpoints or less".

If the monsters you're fighting do 10-20 points of damage, you might say "I fear I cannot take another blow" when you're at 15 hitpoints.

And if you're at 45, then "I can survive another 3 or 4 blows".

Or if you're fighting a housecat "I can survive another 45 swipes of it's claws".

Or if you're fighting an ogre - "I can survive another 45 swipes of a housecat's claws".

Oh, wait. You just said "I have 45 hitpoints".

Basically what I'm saying is: Hitpoints are SO abstract that you cannot really roleplay them. They could be general exhaustion, representation of fighting ability, health, or anything in between. Just let the players tell each other how many hitpoints they're on, and how many they're down. It really doesn't ruin the game.

As for monsters? Express it however you wish, but be consistent. Don't tell players that a monster is on it's last legs when it's got more hitpoints than an average hit will do. If you say "he's on his last legs" and he then survives 5 more attacks, the monster was NOT on it's last legs.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Basically what I'm saying is: Hitpoints are SO abstract that you cannot really roleplay them. They could be general exhaustion, representation of fighting ability, health, or anything in between. Just let the players tell each other how many hitpoints they're on, and how many they're down. It really doesn't ruin the game.

I agree 237%. I really don't see any problem with players saying "I've only got 10 hit points left." It's simple and straightforward. Far better than having to develop some kind of in-game code in order to say the same thing.

 

[T-Bone JiuJitsu]

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?"

If the 21 Int player tells the party "Hey, I'm going to cast a delayed blast fireball at that red dragon over there" then sure, any other player may tell him that fire attacks probably wont hurt a red dragon.

But... when in the middle of combat, the 21 Int wizard/loremaster tells the DM "I cast delayed blast fireball at the red dragon", no other character or player should know what spell is being cast untill it it cast, which by my standards is cast as soon as it is announced to the DM. There is no time or ability of the other party members to give advice at that point, unless after the fact... "Um... you know that probably didnt hurt that red dragon right? they ARE immune to fire."

As for the hit points, I'm talking about the cleric/healers asking other PC's how many hit points they have in order to min/max thier healing spells, moreso IN combat, and to a lesser extent out of combat. All these questions would not be asked or even known in a fantasy novel or film. The healer would hit you with his best guess of what healing spell would be appropriate or available and be done with it. If it falls short a few points, too bad, that's what natural healing is for. If it's over-kill, great, you fully healed.

I guess I just dont like the players breaking the mood of the game by discussing amongst each other game mechanics that thier "characters" are unaware of, or are not in real life quantifiable.

If all thier talk is going to be game machanics and no "character" why not just string a bunch or random encounters together with "monster #43" ... "this is the one that has a 23 AC and 65 hit points, DR5 beatable by +1 weapons and worth 120 xp." ... run combat, cast healing spells, next encounter... "you see 6 of monster #21 coming at you at a range of 22 squares with difficult terrain between you, player #3 rolled highest initiative, what are you going to do - remember that all your spells are numbered, please refer to them by spell number ONLY and points of damage dealt." real fun. Of course, that is an exaggeration, but It makes my point.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If the 21 Int player tells the party "Hey, I'm going to cast a delayed blast fireball at that red dragon over there" then sure, any other player may tell him that fire attacks probably wont hurt a red dragon.

But... when in the middle of combat, the 21 Int wizard/loremaster tells the DM "I cast delayed blast fireball at the red dragon", no other character or player should know what spell is being cast untill it it cast, which by my standards is cast as soon as it is announced to the DM.

AHHHH, so you have mind control and memory erasing powers. Being able to control the knowledge of the players and all.

Players are not their characters. The player of the 21 int wizard does not, himself, have 21 intelligence. Nor for that fact does he have knowledge arcana (which represents the knowledge that the character has about things magical, and specifically the knowledge he has about dragons).

Not telling the PLAYER that a monster will be immune to his spell when his CHARACTER clearly would know it is being petty and adversarial.

There is no time or ability of the other party members to give advice at that point, unless after the fact... "Um... you know that probably didnt hurt that red dragon right? they ARE immune to fire."

The answer in your bizarre dimension, where characters with 21 int and full knowledge of dragons and spells?

"Oops, I forgot".

As for the hit points, I'm talking about the cleric/healers asking other PC's how many hit points they have in order to min/max thier healing spells, moreso IN combat, and to a lesser extent out of combat. All these questions would not be asked or even known in a fantasy novel or film. The healer would hit you with his best guess of what healing spell would be appropriate or available and be done with it. If it falls short a few points, too bad, that's what natural healing is for. If it's over-kill, great, you fully healed.

OTOH, you slow the game down no end by having to clarify perfectly your descriptions of a character, when the same thing could be accomplished by saying "He's got 10 hitpoints left".

Frankly - I'd consider behaviour such as yours as being a green light on metagaming. Since YOU can't be bothered to keep straight the line between in-character and out-of-character knowledge, why should I?

 

[Acid_crash]

Put me in the boat for those who do NOT like hearing game mechanics at the game table, as a player and especially as a GM. I don't like hearing them, it ruins the plausibility factor for me, and instead of playing a roleplaying game (which this is supposed to be, am I right), I find myself in a miniatures wargame (which this game, DnD, claims it is not).

I'm sorry, but someone asking, "How many hit points do you have?" when the character himself would instead see a wounded comrade and not think of numbers but wants to know "How badly wounded are you?", get a brief description of how badly wounded the person is (like by saying, I am only scratched... or ... I can barely stand on my feet) then you are roleplaying.

I also dislike when, I am trying to speak in character, and another player bursts out, "I have a climb of +8, what's your climb?" then that's not roleplaying, that's metagaming. If he just comes out and says, "I can climb pretty well, how well can you climb?" and answer with something like "I think I am okay," then that's roleplaying.

I am speaking in my own opinion, and I know that there are people who don't mind the game mechanic speak at the table, and that's fine. I put up with it, I don't tell people at the table they are wrong for mechanic speak, and although it ruins the game for me a little bit, I still have fun...and, that is the goal of the game.

But I still dislike it immensely.

 

[Blue Sky]

In my experience, trying to change the way a player plays the game is just a prelude to frustation on both sides. This very well may be the only way he likes playing. I think it is more productive to say "Is this a player I want in my group?"

For example, several people in my "clique" play Magic. One of them always throws a fit if he loses or if multiple people target him. It happens so often that we've even started mocking his fits whenever we come across a difficult situation. Several of us asked him to stop, but he kept doing it. As a result, most of us won't play Magic with him. He's still a good friend, but he made a fun game unfun.

In the same way, you should ask yourself if playing with this player really makes your games unfun. If so, let him go.

I mean, how would you feel if he came to you, and told you that the "over-immersive style of gaming" you play was bugging the crud out of him, and you needed to stop it or he wouldn't have any fun?

In short, if you can't live with his playing, then don't. But don't demand that he change, or else. Just let him know, maturely, that you don't want to play with him anymore.

 

[Blue Sky]

Wow, just reread the initial post, and realized my post was way off what the poster was looking for. Ooops.

In most of the games I've played, I try to keep a balance of role-playing and out of character chatter, but it doesn't always work. I personally play D&D to see how the plot comes out and to develop my character mechanically, so "meta-game chatter" doesn't really detract from my experience.

I can't stand to play in a game where there's no out of character chatter, because I feel that it ignores a whole part of the game (i.e., the rules). As such, I've never met a "deep immersive" game that I enjoyed.

When I'm running a game I tend to play towards my players. If they're all talking about BAB and skill totals, I'm gonna focus more on the rules. If they're all in an uproar about how much they hate the Vicar of Edo, then I'll focus on that.

Hmm. Hopes that helps a bit more than my previous post.

 

[Grayhawk]

Players are not their characters. The player of the 21 int wizard does not, himself, have 21 intelligence. Nor for that fact does he have knowledge arcana (which represents the knowledge that the character has about things magical, and specifically the knowledge he has about dragons).

If that character has knowledge arcana and still choose to chug fireballs at red dragons, it's the fault of the player for not using his character's abilities. ('Say, can I make a knowledge arcana roll to see if my charcter knows anything about red dragons and whether they have any special resistances?').

While it may seem obvious that a 21 Int Wizard should know these things, and that if the player of such a character doesn't, he should just be told, I feel that's a wrong way to go about it. How do you determine what characters know and how much they can figure out, based on their ability scores?

How high level does the fighter need to be, before his player should be pointed out any kind of movement related AoO's he's drawing? At which point is the character with godlike Int and Wis just given the answer to every riddle and always pointed out the most logical, most effecient course of action?

Personally, I prefer for players to try and play their character's as best they can, learning from their mistakes a long the way, and my players feel the same way. The first time their new characters encounter trolls, they'll ask me if they know anything about their regeneration and how to overcome it. If such information is common knowledge in that campaign world, I might just tell them. If it's more obscure, it'll require a successful knowledge roll, and if it's the first anybody ever has seen of a troll in this world, they'll have to figure it out the hard way. And they have no problem roleplaying such ignorance.

I feel that there is such a thing as being good or bad at playing a roleplaying game, and taking away the possibility for players to get better at it and to remove the feeling that they are overcomming obstacles because they, as players, are directing their character's actions and making the most of their abilities, is taking away from what's unique about roleplaying, IMO.

Just to be given the answers 'because you should know' wouldn't give me the satisfaction I would get from actually thinking myself and remembering to use my character's knowledge represented by his skills and experience.

Obviously, there can be extreme examples where a charcater should just be flat out told that he should know better (and the red dragon/fireball example is close to being one, dependant on campaign setting). But even then, I try to remind my players that they should try and think for themselves.

'As your wizard - pulling out the material components for Burning Hands - stares down the closing fire elemental, he gets a nagging thought in the back of his head. Make an Int check. DC 2.'

And at other times I'll just sit by in disbelief as they cast fireballs at red dragons, hoping that they'll learn from their mistakes.

'Why didn't you tell me it was immune to fire?'

'What, you didn't know? And here I was about to put you down for extra RP XP for playing your wizard absentminded, all Fizban-like...'

Of course, YMMV.