Problems with disruptive, video-game style, arguing player

[guileus]

I'm a pretty permissive DM. You know the guy who is always open to you proposing an insane plan to assault the bandit's camp? Or the one who, when your character is about to die, might bring up a way to save him (especially if he sees a sad puppy look on the face of the player)? I'm that. So I'm a bit worried about the campaign game we started a month and a half ago. I had high hopes for the game and so far, everything has been amazing, players have not missed sessions, they think the plot is interesting and enjoy the game. But then, there's this player. He's an amazing DM, but I don't know why, when he's playing as a PC, he has a tendency to be very disruptive.

To give some context: we are playing a highly customized version of the Pathfinder Kingmaker campaign. The general feel of the campaign is the same: I wanted characters to forge their kingdom out of a frontier land, so that's there. But I wanted it to be a mix between low fantasy (in civilized parts, with a lot of war/political intrigues/uprisings being present) and weird fantasy in wilderness areas (with a Lovecraftian touch, Chaos twisted creatures, etc.). As such, the setting is very different and the plot is substantially altered. Also, three games into the campaign, we voted and adopted the Iron Heroes handbook in order to have the grittier, sword and sorcery flavor I was looking for: basically the idea is that characters come from civilized lands, so magic or paranormal creatures are something that they might meet, but shouldn't feel "familiar" with. So I'm basically using the Kingmaker encounters as such, as Iron Heroes characters are supposed to be balanced so that they are of a similar power level as Pathfinder characters of the same level (with their abilities and reserve hit points making up for no to little magic use).

So why am I having problems with this character? He role plays his character very little and basically it feels he plays the game like if it was a video-game. I'm not saying you need to create a character that's useless by investing points in bad abilities, and I'm totally OK with players trying to make the most out of their character. But while other players have a character concept and then try to make the most out of their character around that concept, this guy feels like he just wants to have the best combos and biggest min-max development of the character.

This is coupled with his knowledge of the rules: he knows a lot of it, so he frequently argues with me when something he feels isn't going like he expected in the game. I'm a fan of Gygax's motto of dice being used to make noise behind the screen. Not literally, but more in the sense that I don't care so much about mechanics as about building an interesting story. Mind you: I'm not changing stuff rules or whatever to screw players up. I would understand people being annoyed at things. The problem is that he's the only one who argues with me! So how does this play during the game. A few examples:

- He constantly assumes things in game that are for me to judge, and announces them. If a the barbarian hits an NPC, he will go "ok, he's dead, move on to the next one". I understand that minor bandits will get killed with a single stroke from the barbarian but I find it annoying that he assumes it because that's for me to announce, it takes all the dramatism out of the game and it feels like they are chopping down critters in a MMORPG.

- As he assumes stuff, when one of the bandits didn't die, he started to first argue "how didn't he die? he received X points of damage he should be dead". When I told them that he looked like he was a liutenant of the bandit lord and thus looked like a tougher opponent than his henchmen, he quickly just summed it up with something like "he's probably got some levels so he has +X to his hit points". I don't know if I make sense, but to me, this took the fun out of the moment. Instead of making players feel like the were meeting a villain in the game, a character that is second in command to the bandit lord they've been chasing, it felt more like when you're in a videogame levelling up and then go "oh ok this is the underboss, so he's going to have more HP than regular enemies but not so much as the main boss".

- He min-maxed his character so when I gave them background traits to choose from, he chose "noble". He didn't roleplay any of it. I'm a trusting DM so let them choose their equipment and everything, asking them to be reasonable etc. A couple of sessions into the campaign, I notice that when I ask him is AC, it is ridiculously high and no enemy is able to hit him unless they roll natural 20´s, whereas other characters could be hit. So I ask him what armor he's wearing and he says full plate. I look up the price and it's 1,500 gp, way out of their budget. I tell him and he says that his character is a "noble" so he should be able to wear expensive armor! I took it away of course, but you get what I mean? It didn't feel like he was playing a decadent noble, or a bitter young aristocratic son who's fled his father's manor because he wouldn't inherit his lordship. No. It felt like he chose the background trait that could justify him getting the best AC, that's it. Video-game style. This bugs me because now that he was asking to use a great sword, I felt like he just didn't think the weapon fit his character, but was worried that he was just choosing the weapon on the basis of best damage and critical range.

-He constantly tells other players what to do in the battlefield, going so far as to move their miniatures, playing the whole thing like a video-game battle. Again, my problem is not with being tactical on the battlefield: after all, we use minis to make combat more interesting and not a "I go/you go" thing. But it never feels like he role plays what his character does, but more like he was killing critters in a MMORPG. In the last fight we had, they were battling the liutenant of the bandit lord and an owl-bear burst out of his cage, ready to attack all humans in the room. One of the character jumped to confront the creature and he started telling him he was dumb because, and I paraphrase him "the owlbear has all his HP, so we should kill this guy who's wounded so he can't attack us anymore and then focus on the owlbear".

- He argues and argues. He started complaining that all encounters in the adventure path should be toned down and their AC dropped "because they were designed for Pathfinder, so they're going to be more difficult" (so far they haven't had real problems and in fact I think that I should turn the difficulty up a notch, as most bandits die on a single stroke by the barbarian or his character, and that's without counting cleaves). When he kept arguing that, I gave him the death stare (he had been doing all the above for the whole session) and asked him "why? do you think the npcs at the encounters have damage reduction like you do? mastery feats? (all of this stuff is from Iron Heroes, so their PCs have it but NPCs don't, as like I said they are straight out of the adventure path).

I don't know, he's a good friend and I like all of them coming to play, but he sucks the fun and interest out of gaming sessions. It feels like he plays to *win* the game instead of to have fun and role play. I've tried talking to him and he conceded some points and said that it takes a bit of time to get used to not do that stuff. But then next session he does them.

What would you guys recommend me to do?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Basic answer: This is a social level problem, so talk to him about it. Tell him everything you just posted and discuss it like reasonable adults. There isn't a clever fix solution to get around discussing it with him.

Advanced answer: If you're annoyed by people treating a fantasy tactical combat game like a fantasy tactical combat game then maybe you're playing the wrong game. Something a bit more RP heavy than a d20 derivative might be up your alley.

[guileus]

No problem with players playing a d20 medieval/fantasy game like a d20 medieval/fantasy game, as I said, there are other players (three, besides the player I mentioned) and I don't have any complains about them. Of course I expect them to get into combat, kill enemies, loot them, etc. My problem is when that becomes a mechanistic, MMORPG thing, without the added drama and "story" feeling of an RPG. If the liutenant of the bandit lord is not seen as a villain but more like "mid-tier HP enemy we have to kill before we get to the boss", it kind of defeats the purpose of playing an RPG. I would go and play an MMORPG if that's what I wanted, I think.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Okay, but that's the thing. D&D (and D&D-like systems) don't care about your roleplaying. They're about killing things, getting loot and xp, and then using that xp and loot to kill bigger things. Anything else is window dressing. This guy is annoying you by paying less attention to the window dressing than you'd like, but it doesn't mean he's playing the game wrong.

I think you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you were playing a system in which the roleplaying isn't window dressing. Then you'd be able to point out that he's playing the game wrong, instead of playing the game in a way that you personally dislike.

[CharonsHelper]

This is an OOC problem.

Have a sit-down with him and maybe with the other players and talk it out.

[Kane0]

Grab a beer with him sometime and have a chat. It doesn't have to be all business either, just bring it up and have some dialogue. As a fellow DM he must have some idea of where you're coming from. The better you understand each others viewpoint the better you can come up with a solution together. You are friends after all.

Edit: If the right kind of friendship, link him to this thread after you talk too.

[TheYell]

Just my two cents, but I think you could appreciate a guy who can't RP a newb, and isn't selfish. He's sharing his experience with the others. "Ignore the owlbear" is something many of us wouldn't think of on our own, and I can see that might irritate you, but it's helping the whole party based on what he's learned through experience.

Maybe you should change up what you expect from this game, and from him, and have a little fun with him.

Think of your sessions as a John Wayne movie. Give him back his plate armor, a gift from local nobles who appreciate the awesome job he's doing.

Have the enemy give him a nickname. Have bad guys holler "It's HIM!" Have them unload on him first.

Openly give him a small RP bonus for bringing the rest of the party alive through combats. Tell him he's responsible for their welfare, because he's their leader.

And when he complains, point out the facts: He's a noble, he's expert in killing, he is expert in sizing up a situation, he gives orders to the others, and he hasn't lost yet. He's the Kit Carson of this adventure. He's a legend. That's how he played the role, and he's got to live up to the myth.

[Darth Ultron]

So to start with two overall points:

1.All ways make a copy of each character sheet of each player in the game and keep it updated. This lets you know instantaneously things like the armor a character has. It is always better to know all the character details so you don't have to give things away by asking about them too. It also puts a stop to the players that will ''say'' another number, wink wink. Like the character has leather armor, no dex or anything else but the player will say ''ac is 20''. It does also help the player that does have a ton of armor and are mistakenly saying ''Ac 15'' too.

2.Never argue during the game. Make it clear that anyone can complain any time after the game. If someone wastes game time, say counting the hit points of a foe, just ignore them. (Now I'm a type of DM that when a player whines and complains that a single goblin ''had 11 hit points and that is wrong'' that I'll have rocks fall on that character for lots of damage, but that is just me. And after I kill that players character, and they sit in the corner all night and don't play, and after the game, I will attempt to explain to the character that it's possible for goblins to both take levels in classes and/or the feat toughness to get more hit points.)

Otherwise you just have a video game player. Sure, you can ''talk'' to him. Invite him over for tea. Tell him everything you don't like. He might listen, or more likely, he won't care. Though in any case he might ''say'' he will do things differently.

On a side note....oh, I'd have fun with the ''side table DM '' stuff:

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "My character hits the orc barbarian for 12 damage and drops it to the ground with that damage!"

Evil DM: ''The orc drops down low to the ground."

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "My character turns to target one of the goblin fighters...."

Evil DM: "The orc low on the ground, right next to your character that your character is ignoring, attacks and catches you flat footed and (rolls) hits your character for 17 damage!"

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "What? what? what? That orc barbarian was dead...I said so!"

Evil DM: "I never side the orc your character was fighting was dead. As your character stands there is disbelief that the orc is not dead, the orc, who is most likely not a barbarian, take another attack on your character...(rolls)"

Oh...the endless fun.....fun, fun, fun until the character dies away.

[CharonsHelper]

On a side note....oh, I'd have fun with the ''side table DM '' stuff:

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "My character hits the orc barbarian for 12 damage and drops it to the ground with that damage!"

Evil DM: ''The orc drops down low to the ground."

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "My character turns to target one of the goblin fighters...."

Evil DM: "The orc low on the ground, right next to your character that your character is ignoring, attacks and catches you flat footed and (rolls) hits your character for 17 damage!"

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "What? what? what? That orc barbarian was dead...I said so!"

Evil DM: "I never side the orc your character was fighting was dead. As your character stands there is disbelief that the orc is not dead, the orc, who is most likely not a barbarian, take another attack on your character...(rolls)"

Oh...the endless fun.....fun, fun, fun until the character dies away.

That sounds like about the worst thing that you can do. Especially if you're friends with the player. Because you won't be for long since you are apparently changing rules on the fly in order to screw him over.

[War_lord]

I'm a pretty permissive DM. You know the guy who is always open to you proposing an insane plan to assault the bandit's camp? Or the one who, when your character is about to die, might bring up a way to save him (especially if he sees a sad puppy look on the face of the player)? I'm that. So I'm a bit worried about the campaign game we started a month and a half ago. I had high hopes for the game and so far, everything has been amazing, players have not missed sessions, they think the plot is interesting and enjoy the game. But then, there's this player. He's an amazing DM, but I don't know why, when he's playing as a PC, he has a tendency to be very disruptive.

Let's look at each of these "disruptive" behavours.

So why am I having problems with this character? He role plays his character very little and basically it feels he plays the game like if it was a video-game. I'm not saying you need to create a character that's useless by investing points in bad abilities, and I'm totally OK with players trying to make the most out of their character. But while other players have a character concept and then try to make the most out of their character around that concept, this guy feels like he just wants to have the best combos and biggest min-max development of the character.

His character is a badass fighter, that's the concept. If you want concepts that don't include the word "badass" you need to pick a system that doesn't expect players to try and make the most competent character they can. Nothing wrong with approaching the game as a game, not everyone is super into the amateur theater side of D&D.

This is coupled with his knowledge of the rules: he knows a lot of it, so he frequently argues with me when something he feels isn't going like he expected in the game. I'm a fan of Gygax's motto of dice being used to make noise behind the screen. Not literally, but more in the sense that I don't care so much about mechanics as about building an interesting story. Mind you: I'm not changing stuff rules or whatever to screw players up. I would understand people being annoyed at things. The problem is that he's the only one who argues with me!

Probably because, as a DM himself, he understands the rules and why the rules are the way they are. Again, if the way the system works clashes with your "story" so much, you're using the wrong system.

- He constantly assumes things in game that are for me to judge, and announces them. If a the barbarian hits an NPC, he will go "ok, he's dead, move on to the next one". I understand that minor bandits will get killed with a single stroke from the barbarian but I find it annoying that he assumes it because that's for me to announce, it takes all the dramatism out of the game and it feels like they are chopping down critters in a MMORPG.

What is there to announce? If it's dead, it's dead. Obviously he has hitpoint totals memorized. While I understand that sometimes the death of a strong enemy warrants a description, if you're doing that for every mook, I can understand the urge to preempt the speech. Maybe that's a little rude, but it doesn't seem disruptive to me, just a gap in your expectations vs his. You want to tell a story, he wants to play a game.

- As he assumes stuff, when one of the bandits didn't die, he started to first argue "how didn't he die? he received X points of damage he should be dead". When I told them that he looked like he was a liutenant of the bandit lord and thus looked like a tougher opponent than his henchmen, he quickly just summed it up with something like "he's probably got some levels so he has +X to his hit points". I don't know if I make sense, but to me, this took the fun out of the moment. Instead of making players feel like the were meeting a villain in the game, a character that is second in command to the bandit lord they've been chasing, it felt more like when you're in a videogame levelling up and then go "oh ok this is the underboss, so he's going to have more HP than regular enemies but not so much as the main boss".

Well yeah, he's assuming that a game that he obviously knows back to front actually works how it's meant to. Again, expectation gap, not disruption.

- He min-maxed his character so when I gave them background traits to choose from, he chose "noble". He didn't roleplay any of it. I'm a trusting DM so let them choose their equipment and everything, asking them to be reasonable etc. A couple of sessions into the campaign, I notice that when I ask him is AC, it is ridiculously high and no enemy is able to hit him unless they roll natural 20´s, whereas other characters could be hit. So I ask him what armor he's wearing and he says full plate. I look up the price and it's 1,500 gp, way out of their budget. I tell him and he says that his character is a "noble" so he should be able to wear expensive armor! I took it away of course, but you get what I mean? It didn't feel like he was playing a decadent noble, or a bitter young aristocratic son who's fled his father's manor because he wouldn't inherit his lordship. No. It felt like he chose the background trait that could justify him getting the best AC, that's it. Video-game style. This bugs me because now that he was asking to use a great sword, I felt like he just didn't think the weapon fit his character, but was worried that he was just choosing the weapon on the basis of best damage and critical range.

You told them to take whatever equipment they thought reasonable, he took what he thought was reasonable, you didn't set limits, that's on you.

-He constantly tells other players what to do in the battlefield, going so far as to move their miniatures, playing the whole thing like a video-game battle. Again, my problem is not with being tactical on the battlefield: after all, we use minis to make combat more interesting and not a "I go/you go" thing. But it never feels like he role plays what his character does, but more like he was killing critters in a MMORPG. In the last fight we had, they were battling the liutenant of the bandit lord and an owl-bear burst out of his cage, ready to attack all humans in the room. One of the character jumped to confront the creature and he started telling him he was dumb because, and I paraphrase him "the owlbear has all his HP, so we should kill this guy who's wounded so he can't attack us anymore and then focus on the owlbear".

He's playing the game, you want community theater. Did you actually communicate your expectations to the players before the game began? I would suspect not.

- He argues and argues. He started complaining that all encounters in the adventure path should be toned down and their AC dropped "because they were designed for Pathfinder, so they're going to be more difficult" (so far they haven't had real problems and in fact I think that I should turn the difficulty up a notch, as most bandits die on a single stroke by the barbarian or his character, and that's without counting cleaves). When he kept arguing that, I gave him the death stare (he had been doing all the above for the whole session) and asked him "why? do you think the npcs at the encounters have damage reduction like you do? mastery feats? (all of this stuff is from Iron Heroes, so their PCs have it but NPCs don't, as like I said they are straight out of the adventure path).

Okay, now we have something that could actually be seen as disruptive. And really the only thing to do is talk to him, and explain your rational for the current difficulty level, that they're slicing through everything easily, and that if the other players where as experienced as he his, it would be even less of a challenge. If he can't accept that logic, or come up with a sound counter argument, you just have to ask him if it's really worth his time participating in a campaign he feels is unbalanced.

I don't know, he's a good friend and I like all of them coming to play, but he sucks the fun and interest out of gaming sessions. It feels like he plays to *win* the game instead of to have fun and role play. I've tried talking to him and he conceded some points and said that it takes a bit of time to get used to not do that stuff. But then next session he does them.

What would you guys recommend me to do?

Does he suck the " fun and interest out of gaming sessions" for everyone or just you? Have you asked the other players for their opinion on the matter? I'd wager that, for him, killing enemies and taking their stuff is fun and interesting. And if that's the kind of player he is, of course it's going to be hard for him to embrace a playstyle and mentality that he probably doesn't enjoy or even understand.

I recommend you make a decision. There's two roads you can go down. Either you tell him "Look, I have a certain way I like to play Pathfinder, you have a certain way you like to play Pathfinder. They're pretty mutually exclusive" and basically ask him to leave the game. Or you can try and accommodate his way of play into your game. It really depends on what's more valuable to you, his participation in this group activity, or the game as you envision it, free of any actual gaming.

[Mr Beer]

I don't care about the 'playing like a video game' thing, some people are into the RP-aspect and other people just want to kill and loot.

The arguing thing, I would just it shut down in game. Refuse to debate with him, just say 'I'm not arguing about it' and push on. Force everyone through their turns, when you get to him, if he's still arguing, he misses his go. If it becomes insufferable, you need to have a discussion about how you are not going to spend every session fighting with him, if he doesn't like the game, he doesn't have to play. You can debate stuff before or after the game but not during.

[Darth Ultron]

That sounds like about the worst thing that you can do. Especially if you're friends with the player. Because you won't be for long since you are apparently changing rules on the fly in order to screw him over.

Well, I'd never do it to a friend..but then anyone I'm friends with also would never be an annoying player.

And what changing rules? Your not really saying a player can be all like ''I hit the ancient red dragon for one point of damage and it dies, because I say so'', right?

[CharonsHelper]

Well, I'd never do it to a friend..but then anyone I'm friends with also would never be an annoying player.

And what changing rules? Your not really saying a player can be all like ''I hit the ancient red dragon for one point of damage and it dies, because I say so'', right?

It sounds like the 'it dies' was just an assumption on his part. And it didn't even sound like it was for his own character. Frankly - it sounded like he's just impatient and was trying to keep things moving, albeit in a grating sort of way.

You're changing rules by allowing the enemy to somehow hit him flat-footed for no reason.

[Mikemical]

- Obligatory prick comment -

If you want to go for more roleplay than dice-rolling and killing things, play World of Darkness instead.

- Actually useful comment -

Talk to him about it. He has experience as a DM, so maybe he's still in that mindset as a player, where sometimes the DM doesn't have to justify why the captain of the imperial guard is wearing a golden suit of fullplate and why he's impossible to hit. He's an NPC the players might not even remmeber when they move onto the next town to keep murderhobo-ing.

Also, moving other people's figures and telling them what choices to take tactically is just plain rude. He's not playing a Final Fantasy/Persona game where you have the MC and then you also get to manage the rest of the party's actions in favour of the one plan he came up with.

The whole "he probably has x health" can be considered meta-gaming, which takes the fantasy out of the game if he dumbs it down to math and statistics. Tell him to stop doing that, or you can put a meta-jar and make him put a 1$ bill in it everytime he indulges in acting like what you described.

[Darth Ultron]

It sounds like the 'it dies' was just an assumption on his part.

You're changing rules by allowing the enemy to somehow hit him flat-footed for no reason.

Well, no the ''foe dies because I the player says it does'' is one of the worst jerk forms of side table DMing a player can do. At no time during the game can a player say ''this or that happens because I want it too''. At least in any normal game.

And if a foe is well within the threat range, and a character utterly ignores the foe, lets say by the player being an arrogant jerk and saying the foe is dead for no reason other then they want it to be, does the foe get any sort of tactical advantage?

I guess a nice DM would say ''A character is always aware of all threats, worldwide, and is always ready for combat''. But that would be the least of a nice DM's problems.

Even if you drop the jerk player part, what would you do if a player had thier character ignore a threat? Like say a death knight was standing right next to the character and the player was like ''I want to make a check to read the runes on the door''. Would you give the knight a free attack? Would you be the nice DM and tell the play ''Um, bob, what about the death knight?" ?

In any case the ''flat footed'' does not matter much...the character will soon be dead and the player will soon be sitting in a corner.

[Kish]

If he's the only one who wants to play like it's a video-game and all the other players want to actually roleplay, like you, then tell him it's a problem and that he needs to stop, and if he doesn't evict him from the game. Conversely, if as some people have guessed/assumed he's the one actually playing the way the rest of the group prefers and they all want to treat it like a videogame, tell them you're no longer interested in running it. Either way there's little point in dancing around the problem.

[JNAProductions]

Guileus, word of advice: Don't listen to Darth Ultron. Charitably, he plays in a foreign environment, where every player is just itching to be an *******, and as such, unless you also play with nothing but *******s, his advice is, at best, useless, and at worst, actively harmful.

[Darth Ultron]

Guileus, word of advice: Don't listen to Darth Ultron. Charitably, he plays in a foreign environment, where every player is just itching to be an *******, and as such, unless you also play with nothing but *******s, his advice is, at best, useless, and at worst, actively harmful.

Or listen to my advise, and don't listen to anyone else. Even more so anyone that tells you not to listen to someone.

Free Speech (and text) is one of the greatest things in the world. You can listen to (or read) whatever anyone else says (or types). And, you, have the ability to decide if you will take the advice..or not...it is all up to you.

But for random person X to say ''don't listen to person Y'' is wrong.

And you just got to wonder about someone defending someone like that ''disruptive, video-game style, arguing player''. Maybe they are just like that player. Always arguing with their DM, always trying to change the rules and always trying to side table DM.

[Guizonde]

i had that problem with one player. i told him that the way i dm'd was more about descriptions than cold, hard, numbers. said player is a very competent video gamer, but had never played pen and paper. at first, he assumed when i mentionned "critically injured", the monster had a couple of hp left. that's not how the system worked and he wised up. the rest of the team had little trouble adjusting to it. he played a highly mobile character but during combat spent all of his time staying still and shooting things with his shotgun... not exactly following his character concept of "playing the tf scout but with an smg". his comeback? "yeah, but if i'm in the front i'll get hit, plus an smg does cruddy damage like the medic's pistol! no fair! you nerfed my concept!" ... nevermind that an smg is basically an automatic pistol, his defense was his mobility. took about 15 sessions for him to understand.

your player is side-dm'ing. tell him to leave his dm's hat at home since you're wearing it now. he's got control issues. it may grate for power-hungry people, but that's the way it goes. in my pf campaign, i've got 3 newbies, one veteran of dnd next, two of pf, and i spent years playing 3.5. sometimes a player will argue with the dm. i always quip "dm's call, argue during the debriefing". unless it's about a mechanic that can be checked on the fly, leave it for when it doesn't break the game flow. seeing how out of a group of 7, there are only 2 guys that know the game in and out, it does help to do your homework. it gave me a learning curve, too, especially on cleric and paladin modifications between pf and 3.5. i counsel what my inquisitor would do during a fight(military/navy background), but i can't do anything more regarding abilities. talking is a free action, so that flies. a few players saw it as mathhammer until i decided to jump out of a tree onto an enemy and the dm busted out advantages to hit when i nailed my landing. there's also the intrigue part that becomes vital in preparing for combat.

you've got a meta-gaming beatstick, so best answer is to forego mentionning hp and do it all via description. get a debrief of 15-20 minutes after all sessions, and tell him that if he keeps second guessing, he can be the next dm, but not until then. unlike the rest of the thread, pf is not just "open door, kill monster, loot corpse". there is a huge part of rp that is made to get access to the story and better loot.

[JNAProductions]

Okay, to be more specific, in this instance, Darth Ultron is advocating solving an OOC issue with an IC solution. That won't fix anything-that will either change nothing or start an arms race between the players and the DM.

[dps]

i had that problem with one player. i told him that the way i dm'd was more about descriptions than cold, hard, numbers. said player is a very competent video gamer, but had never played pen and paper. at first, he assumed when i mentionned "critically injured", the monster had a couple of hp left. that's not how the system worked and he wised up. the rest of the team had little trouble adjusting to it. he played a highly mobile character but during combat spent all of his time staying still and shooting things with his shotgun... not exactly following his character concept of "playing the tf scout but with an smg". his comeback? "yeah, but if i'm in the front i'll get hit, plus an smg does cruddy damage like the medic's pistol! no fair! you nerfed my concept!" ... nevermind that an smg is basically an automatic pistol, his defense was his mobility. took about 15 sessions for him to understand.

That's actually almost the exact opposite of what the opening poster is complaining about, though. He's complaining that his player focuses on just the mechanics of the game, while your complaint is that your player doesn't understand the mechanics of his character's abilities and equipment.

[Calthropstu]

Okay, but that's the thing. D&D (and D&D-like systems) don't care about your roleplaying. They're about killing things, getting loot and xp, and then using that xp and loot to kill bigger things. Anything else is window dressing. This guy is annoying you by paying less attention to the window dressing than you'd like, but it doesn't mean he's playing the game wrong.

I think you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you were playing a system in which the roleplaying isn't window dressing. Then you'd be able to point out that he's playing the game wrong, instead of playing the game in a way that you personally dislike.

I'm calling bs here.
I just played an excellent session where rp trumped tactics in combat.
The bad guys had converged on the party in a surprise attack. Half their front line was near death, the magus could have dropped two of them. However, he was a body guard and his charge had an enemy on her so he took attacks of opportunity to slay her attacker.
I prefer players like that over the kind op describes.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm calling bs here.
I just played an excellent session where rp trumped tactics in combat.
The bad guys had converged on the party in a surprise attack. Half their front line was near death, the magus could have dropped two of them. However, he was a body guard and his charge had an enemy on her so he took attacks of opportunity to slay her attacker.
I prefer players like that over the kind op describes.

How did D&D mechanically support this behaviour?

[goto124]

And of all the DnD editions, it's Pathfinder, one of the more crunchy games even by DnD standards. The player is expecting the game to be played according to the rules with little to no deviation, and with plenty of system mastery. It's unclear exactly how much you are fudging rolls or changing around the rules of the system, but it does seem enough to bother even a good GM who has experience running games and can see why one would fudge rolls or bend the rules a bit.

You mentioning him being a good GM suggests he is very much able to play with the type of plot you desire so much, without the kind of mechanical focus you seem to rather dislike. You mentioned "it didn't feel like he was playing a decadent noble, or a bitter young aristocratic son who's fled his father's manor because he wouldn't inherit his lordship." Was all of that from the backstory the player wrote up?

Maybe the plot you present isn't compelling enough for him, and thus he reverts to his other standby - a mechanics-based gameplay? Actually, how did you know he is a good GM? I suppse you played under him?

In addition, what you described were combat situations. Unoptimal gameplay in combat means the death of their characters. Considering that this is Pathfinder, going with unoptimal builds or decisions gets punished very heavily. Okay, I suppose you can deal with optimal builds, as long as they're also roleplayed out outside combat situations.

Looking at your noble background example, did you explain at all (especially before the game actually starts, maybe even during recruitment of the game) that you wanted more roleplay in the game, or how to go about roleplaying it? What went down during character creation? Did you explain what a Noble background means in your setting, or how it ties to the NPCs or the setting? Did any of the NPCs act as people would react to him being a Noble? Does he have Noble responsibilities? While I would assume a GM as plot-focused as you would present your players with many opportunities to roleplay, especially non-combat opportunities, I fail to actually see these roleplay opportunities mentioned in your post and would like to learn more about how the game played outside combat.

Give back the full plate. It's reasonable. You didn't say "if you don't RP your background, it will fail to exist." To the player, you're a DM who strips players of stuff that the DM themself granted in the first place because the player failed to reach some arbitrary standard that wasn't even properly communciated in the first place. The fact that you said "I took it away of course" says a lot about your... attitude. Does full plate break the game in half? Maybe you need to design better or tougher encounters? Maybe you need more non-combat encounters where he can actually make good use of his Noble background?

I noticed you played a 'highly customized' version of the PF Kingmaker campaign. While it's not clear what 'highly customized' means, the term 'campaign' already suggests that there's not much to be had in terms of roleplay, and most of the exciting content is in the combat, the mechanical stuff.

What's this about Iron Heroes?

Do have individual talks with the other players. Just because they didn't complain, doesn't mean they like it. Maybe they just didn't want to make a fuss when one guy already is. Ask how they feel about the way you run the game. What do they think of the player you have beef with?

I think that's enough questions.

[Eldan]

Talk with him. A lot of people have said that. But in the end, if it doesn't get better? Yeah, split the group.

Hopefully, you can all be reasonably mature about it and see it's not working. Play something different with your friend. Get a copy of Descent, or Hero Quest, or Silver Tower or Super Dungeon Explorer, maybe. Or let him run a campaign if he's a good DM, and run your own with other players.

Sometimes, that's just the best solution.

[Darth Ultron]

Okay, to be more specific, in this instance, Darth Ultron is advocating solving an OOC issue with an IC solution. That won't fix anything-that will either change nothing or start an arms race between the players and the DM.

Though note my first suggestion for something to do is to talk to the player. Though I think it's likely to fail....so when it does, move on to my second suggestion. But, if amazingly, the player falls down on his knees and says ''I see the light'' as he picked up a hammer and saw...then everything will work out too.

[Merellis]

I actually do like the idea of having enemies drop and pretend to be dead only to to drive a blade through the back of the one who supposedly downed them. Wouldn't have every enemy do it, but a few times would be hilarious to see happen. Plus they'd never look at a corpse the same way again, same as having a trapped chest go off, doesn't matter if you only have another couple of instances like that, the players will now be cautious over that kinda stuff.

Probably wouldn't add the extra stabbing for standing in disbelief though, sounds overkill and kinda jerkish. :P

But yeah, talk to the players about some of the background GMing stuff and see what the party thinks of someone moving their character for them. (Could also push said player into a commanders role where these sorts of tactic talks and decision making actually have some consequences and stuff if it goes horribly wrong and he loses a squad or something.)

Definitely take away the platemail if there's no way they could afford it at that level.

[KillianHawkeye]

It looks like most of the specific issues have already been covered by other posters, but one thing I'd like to suggest is this:

If you have an enemy on the board who is special or more important than the average mooks, maybe you should describe him/it as such before the players get surprised that it isn't dead? Y'know, like when they first see him/it, if it's something they can tell just by looking. Failing to describe the enemies is tantamount to depriving your players with necessary information that they need to properly inform their decisions and attitudes regarding the situation at hand.

And another thing, assuming that the players had not yet met the actual Bandit Lord, why would you tell them this character is a Lieutenant? He could be the real deal for all they know. You were expecting to introduce an interesting villain, but diminished it by calling him out as a mere Lieutenant. All the players should be able to see is that he is an enemy "commander," i.e. that he is the leader of at least the current group. By informing them that the real boss is elsewhere, you're giving them knowledge that they shouldn't have about the relative importance of the enemies they're facing (again, that's assuming they haven't previously met the Bandit Lord or somehow know who he is already).

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm calling bs here.
I just played an excellent session where rp trumped tactics in combat.
The bad guys had converged on the party in a surprise attack. Half their front line was near death, the magus could have dropped two of them. However, he was a body guard and his charge had an enemy on her so he took attacks of opportunity to slay her attacker.
I prefer players like that over the kind op describes.

How did D&D mechanically support this behaviour?

Ah, KR. Your wit is the soul of your brevity. :)


I dunno it it applies in Calthropstu's case, but aside from the alignment system I dimly recall 5E has some more fine-grained personality-descriptors and metagame currency for role-play, depending on which optional systems you tack on?

[hymer]

I dimly recall 5E has some more fine-grained personality-descriptors and metagame currency for role-play, depending on which optional systems you tack on?

Your recollection is correct. Backgrounds are a part of character creation, dictating some skills and a special ability. They also come with suggested Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals. Playing according to these should net the player Inspiration, allowing them to spend it to get advantage on a d20 roll.