Problems with disruptive, video-game style, arguing player

[Calthropstu]

Nice use of the word 'patches'

Though, does DnD provide those patches? If so, what are they?

Rule zero can act as a patch for anything the gm doesn't like. Disallow any problem abilities fixes overpowered abilities, limiting book choices allows the gm to limit the field to rules he knows well, houseruling allows the gm to alter rules he dislikes.

D&D/PF gives 100% control to the GM giving him free reign to act as he likes to set the game as he wants.

[Calthropstu]

That's a bad analogy. The airbed gives you instructions on how to patch the hole and materials with which to do so.

A better analogy would be if it told you "Sometimes the airbed may develop holes. You have the right to fix it however you want."

Actually, D&D gives you patches... (FAQ, errata etc) but gives you the "Other methods may work, feel free to improvise."

[ImNotTrevor]

The problem here is that you aren't thinking correctly.
"Oh, my pipe is leaking. I will tape it up so that there is no ponger a problem. Problem is now solved."
You are griping that the problem existed, which is silly. Duct tape fixed the problem, so the problem no longer exists.
In the case of D&D, it is more like purchasing an air bed. The air bed comes with instructions as well as some patches. The instructions say that small holes may develop over time, and that the patches will work to fix the issue.
Is the bed worthless because of that? No. Same with D&D.

The existence of a solution does not invalidate the existence of a problem.

And in this case, the bed already comes with holes. It is not unreasonable to expect an airbed to not come with holes in it already that you have to patch before it will work.

The system did not develop all of its holes over time. IT CAME WITH THEM. This is not a positive quality, patches or not.

And again, you have not solved the Non Sequitur.
It is inherently self-contradictory.
"You can't complain about the existence of a problem if you can solve it."
BS.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I'm starting to think my definition of roleplay is completely different than many people on this board. See, I think every in-character decision you make during play is roleplay, because your character is performing the action and you are playing the role of your character. That's anything from choosing between moving to flank for the Rogue instead of patching up the downed Fighter to standing around talking in character about exotic spice trade deals for six hours to rolling Diplomacy to convince someone of something. It's all roleplaying and you can do it in D&D.

And people always hold WoD as High Roleplay but it restricts your play just as much as D&D, just in a different way and while constantly patting itself on the back for being a "storytelling game"

[Boci]

The existence of a solution does not invalidate the existence of a problem.

And in this case, the bed already comes with holes. It is not unreasonable to expect an airbed to not come with holes in it already that you have to patch before it will work.

The system did not develop all of its holes over time. IT CAME WITH THEM. This is not a positive quality, patches or not.

And again, you have not solved the Non Sequitur.
It is inherently self-contradictory.
"You can't complain about the existence of a problem if you can solve it."
BS.

So what would be the ideal system for a political drama game? Because to me, political drama requires a fleshed out world with coherent ideals and competing factions that the players have a stake in, which doesn't really rely on a system.

[goto124]

See, I think every in-character decision you make during play is roleplay, because your character is performing the action and you are playing the role of your character. That's anything from choosing between moving to flank for the Rogue instead of patching up the downed Fighter

Everything in this post is IMO.

Roleplay consists of in-character decisions, right? But they have to be in-character. If I choose to flank instead of heal because my character prioritises taking out the enemy over taking care of my allies, that would be roleplay, for better or for worse. But if I make the same decision because my OOC self thinks taking out the enemy ASAP is the most tactical decision, with no consideration for my character's personality, that is not roleplaying.

I could make my character a tactican master, or someone who has the same level of tactics as I do. But that's isn't roleplaying, that's dodging roleplay altogether because I conciously make a character who is the same as me. Roleplay is about being someone who is different from me and has a decision-making process different from mine. Sometimes the decisions happen to line up, especially in the more clear-cut life-or-death situations, but roleplay should sometimes involve my character making decisions that I the player would not make.

[ImNotTrevor]

So what would be the ideal system for a political drama game? Because to me, political drama requires a fleshed out world with coherent ideals and competing factions that the players have a stake in, which doesn't really rely on a system.

The Burning Wheel.

Your relationships, traits, personality, stereotypes (both that you adhere to and that others place upon you), and intentions have mechanical weight just as much as, if not moreso, than how hard you swing a blade.

These can be leveraged both for and against you in a way that is not just fiat or handwaving, but with predictable effects. The intentions of your actions matter just as much as the What.
(For instance, dueling someone with the intent of impressing the king is A DIFFERENT ROLL than doing it with the intent of killing your opponent, but both will involve your Swordsmanship skill.)
This sort of thing is CRUCIAL to get the sort of double-purpose powerplay actions that occur in political drama without just handwaving and hoping it turns out right.

And of course, those things can exist free of system... but why not have a system that will allow those things to have an actual meaning and effect on your rolls, character sheet, and character development than be bits of scenery?

[Boci]

And of course, those things can exist free of system... but why not have a system that will allow those things to have an actual meaning and effect on your rolls, character sheet, and character development than be bits of scenery?

Because some people don't think mechanics should govern those things?

[ImNotTrevor]

Because some people don't think mechanics should govern those things?

There's a difference between governing and supporting. The rules don't dictate what the relationships should be, their scope, anything about the setting, or any of the important bits.

But they do make it so that being the secret lover of the Duchess' daughter can have actual impact. For instance, it can actually help you (or hinder you, depending on context) in a non-arbitrary way. The fiction turns into mechanics, not the other direction. You figure out the fiction first, in any case.

There's no reason why receiving a bonus to some rolls or having a clear and upfront understanding of the stereotypes affecting your character (and the abikity to turn these into XP) means that the system is governing over those things.

[Spellbreaker26]

I think the reason that this argument keeps arising is that DnD (5e, especially) has room for roleplaying but doesn't demand it. Therefore despite the fact that huge amounts of the rulebook are dedicated purely to roleplaying advice, it isn't vital to play, so either camp can claim that DnD supports or doesn't support it.

People saying "DnD should just be a dungeon/combat simulator" - that's what DnD does really well, but it isn't the only thing that it can do. A little roleplaying can help contextualise the bread and butter dungeon crawling.

Bread and butter is actually the right term. Imagine the combat/dungeoneering as the bread, the roleplaying as the jam. Too much jam and it turns into a big mess; but too little, and it's just bland, and DnD allows a group to adopt the level of roleplaying that's right for them.

[Tanarii]

I'm starting to think my definition of roleplay is completely different than many people on this board. See, I think every in-character decision you make during play is roleplay, because your character is performing the action and you are playing the role of your character. That's anything from choosing between moving to flank for the Rogue instead of patching up the downed Fighter to standing around talking in character about exotic spice trade deals for six hours to rolling Diplomacy to convince someone of something. It's all roleplaying and you can do it in D&D.

I used to say "in-character decision" as well, but that's actually too limited. It's the player making decisions for their character in the fictional environment.

Otherwise you end up excluding people that are playing their character as an avatar of their own personality. And you still have a 'definition' that enables method acting role players to say something is not REAL role playing when it clearly is. Or people that think metagaming* is a real thing to wring their hands and cry about something that's still roleplaying. Or people who can't understand the difference between a board game and an RPG to make bad analogies.

*the metagame is a real thing. But not the way most people use it, as a derogatory about making decisions based on information the character 'can't have', or game rules. That's a BS thing that method actor RPers have invented from the whole cloth.
Edit: Two good articles on what I'm talking about re metagaming and roleplaying
http://theangrygm.com/through-a-glas...er-seperation/
http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metag...is-your-fault/

[Guizonde]

I used to say "in-character decision" as well, but that's actually too limited. It's the player making decisions for their character in the fictional environment.

Otherwise you end up excluding people that are playing their character as an avatar of their own personality. And you still have a 'definition' that enables method acting role players to say something is not REAL role playing when it clearly is. Or people that think metagaming* is a real thing to wring their hands and cry about something that's still roleplaying. Or people who can't understand the difference between a board game and an RPG to make bad analogies.

*the metagame is a real thing. But not the way most people use it, as a derogatory about making decisions based on information the character 'can't have', or game rules. That's a BS thing that method actor RPers have invented from the whole cloth.
Edit: Two good articles on what I'm talking about re metagaming and roleplaying
http://theangrygm.com/through-a-glas...er-seperation/
http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metag...is-your-fault/

i always assumed metagaming was a way of gaming the game mechanics, counting spells expended and what not. things that are not known to the character because they have no knowledge of how to play the game. for what most people call "metagaming" on this board, i use "knowledge: 4th wall", which allows characters to have slightly out of character insight or reactions. it's a powerful tool to be lent by the dm at his discretion, but we play in a survival-horror black-comedy post-apocalyptic world, so the odd jarring humor bit is par for the course.

a typical "knowledge 4th wall" check might be:
pc 1:"i'm pretty sure this dude's got plot armor".
pc 2:"how do you know?"
pc 1:"well, he's been monologuing for 5 minutes in full view of us, and we haven't shot him yet"
dm: do a "4th wall" check.
pc 1: *rolls* 4 degrees of success.
dm: "you're damn right he's got plot armor! i didn't write this speech for the peanut gallery!"

it might also involve call-backs to previous campaigns that happened centuries ago, or visions of the past explaining current events. usually involves drugs and sanity checks, though.

we call out metagaming when somebody is counting bullets or calculating enemy damage reduction, armor points, or things like that. especially when it's in character. so rather than stigmatize all metagaming, we made it a mechanic that enhances the story. it is a homebrew system, after all.

[FreddyNoNose]

From the DMG page 110:

HANDLING TROUBLESOME PLAYERS
Some players will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than in playing
it, and this ruins the fun for the rest of the participants, so it must be
prevented. Those who enjoy being loud and argumentative, those who
pout or act in a childish manner when things go against them, those who
use the books as a defense when you rule them out of line should be
excluded from the campaign. Simply put, ask them to leave, or do not
invite them to participate again.


Peer pressure is another means which can be used to control players who
are not totally obnoxious and who you deem worth saving. These types
typically attempt to give orders and instructions even when their
characters are not present, tell other characters what to do even though
the character role they have has nothing to do with that of the one being
instructed, or continually attempt actions or activities their characters
would have no knowledge of. When any such proposals or suggestions or
orders are made, simply inform the group that that is no longer possible
under any circumstances because of the player in question. The group will
then act to silence him or her and control undesirable outbursts. The other
players will most certainly let such individuals know about undesirable
activity when it begins to affect their characters and their enjoyment of the
game.


Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die,
obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes
by surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the
heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of
charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If
these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and
stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a
problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings.

[Calthropstu]

The existence of a solution does not invalidate the existence of a problem.

And in this case, the bed already comes with holes. It is not unreasonable to expect an airbed to not come with holes in it already that you have to patch before it will work.

The system did not develop all of its holes over time. IT CAME WITH THEM. This is not a positive quality, patches or not.

And again, you have not solved the Non Sequitur.
It is inherently self-contradictory.
"You can't complain about the existence of a problem if you can solve it."
BS.

I guess you don't play many modern video games. Many have 1st day release patches. Games have a different bar than things like beds.
The goal of someone playing a game is to enjoy themselves. I enjoy myself playing D&D. Ergo, in my view it: performs as advertised, gives me what I want from it and is infinitely adaptable.
As such, it is by no means "broken."

[TheYell]

IN MY DAY when the game was broke you bought another game *shakes fist* and it cost a quarter!

[Boci]

There's a difference between governing and supporting. The rules don't dictate what the relationships should be, their scope, anything about the setting, or any of the important bits.

Some people don't like it supporting either, especially if you trust your DM and have a relationship with them going back. For new groups, sure I can see the appeal of having a system to guide them.

[ImNotTrevor]

I guess you don't play many modern video games. Many have 1st day release patches. Games have a different bar than things like beds.
The goal of someone playing a game is to enjoy themselves. I enjoy myself playing D&D. Ergo, in my view it: performs as advertised, gives me what I want from it and is infinitely adaptable.
As such, it is by no means "broken."

1.Videogames with Day 1 patches are harmful to the industry as a whole, so this is a bad argument. No one argues that releasing a shoddy product and fixing it afterwards (kind of) is a good thing. Nobody in the industry, anyways. Criticism of Day 1 patches has a long history, and is exactly as deserved.

2.Fun is not a design goal. Or at least, it's meaningless.

3. "I like it" is not a valid counterargument to anything I've said.

4. D&D is not by any means infinitely adaptable. There will come a point where you are not playing anything resembling D&D.

5. None of what you said addresses the existence of the problems and that fixes to the problems do not make those problems no existant or not the subject of valid criticism.

Are we done here?

[ImNotTrevor]

Some people don't like it supporting either, especially if you trust your DM and have a relationship with them going back. For new groups, sure I can see the appeal of having a system to guide them.

Support =/= guidance, either.

Having trust in your DM is exactly as necessary for games with RP mechanics. Heck, I prefer them as a DM because they put less stress on me. (No RP mechanics means I must arbitrarily rule EVERYTHING. I don't want to expend that much mental energy on top of everything else I already do. )