PDA

View Full Version : Getting a player more interested in mechanics



Craft (Cheese)
2012-04-15, 01:49 PM
A few times a week, my significant other and I play D&D together. He's always a solo player and I'm always the DM. He's always excited to play and looks forward to our games, so that's not the problem.

However, he's more interested in roleplay, while I'm more interested in mechanics.

Now, roleplay's all well and good, and I'm perfectly fine with it, but by "more interested in roleplay than mechanics" I mean, for one adventure he played a wizard who not once ever casted a single spell. I've stopped bothering to stat up NPCs or design encounters because they never, ever see any use. The problem is I want to run encounters and dungeons, but when I play with him I never get a chance to do these things.


I understand that our relationship complicates things and you all won't be able to help with that, and I know the first piece of advice I'm going to get is "Well, you should talk to him about it, duh." My question for you all is, as a DM dealing with a player, what would be the best way to handle this? When I bring it up next session what should I talk to him about?

The Glyphstone
2012-04-15, 01:56 PM
Well, one of the things you should talk to him about is whether he wants to play D&D specifically at all. It is a very mechanic-heavy system, which he's apparently not interested in. You might want to look into free systems like Fudge or FATE, which are extremely mechanics-light but tie their mechanics to their roleplaying strongly. Try to get him hooked on crunch that way, then backdoor back into D&D.

Bastian Weaver
2012-04-15, 02:00 PM
A wizard who didn't cast a single spell? That's awesome.
And I second Glyphstone's words. Try a system that allows running encounters and dungeons through heavy roleplaying. That would leave everyone pleased, unless, of course, you actually want to use D&D mechanics...

Pigkappa
2012-04-15, 02:04 PM
I suggest you switch to another system, too. NWoD or Call of Cthulhu are both less mechanics-heavy than D&D, so they could be good choices.

However, even in those ones, you should eventually cast spells or use abilities. I'd try to do this the hard way; if he's in real trouble, his character'll think about what he can do (or he will suffer an awful lot of trouble, which can be educational too). Don't be afraid to be too harsh on him; playing a Wizard who doesn't ever cast a single spell is really stupid, and he should eventually realize that.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-04-15, 02:12 PM
Well, one of the things you should talk to him about is whether he wants to play D&D specifically at all. It is a very mechanic-heavy system, which he's apparently not interested in. You might want to look into free systems like Fudge or FATE, which are extremely mechanics-light but tie their mechanics to their roleplaying strongly. Try to get him hooked on crunch that way, then backdoor back into D&D.


A wizard who didn't cast a single spell? That's awesome.
And I second Glyphstone's words. Try a system that allows running encounters and dungeons through heavy roleplaying. That would leave everyone pleased, unless, of course, you actually want to use D&D mechanics...

That's actually a curious situation: This was all his idea in the first place, and he's the one who introduced me to D&D. Why would he introduce me to this system specifically if he's not interested in working with its mechanics? I've never actually looked into non-D&D systems before: Are Fudge and FATE adaptable to fit any genre, or do they need significant reworking to work outside of their intended genres? I'll see if I can't find the books and take a look.


However, even in those ones, you should eventually cast spells or use abilities. I'd try to do this the hard way; if he's in real trouble, his character'll think about what he can do (or he will suffer an awful lot of trouble, which can be educational too). Don't be afraid to be too harsh on him; playing a Wizard who doesn't ever cast a single spell is really stupid, and he should eventually realize that.

With his wizard character, I deliberately put forth lots of situations that could easily (and obviously) be solved with a single spell, but he just found ever-more creative mundane means to get past them. He was much more interested in playing a character with a personality and backstory that required being a wizard (a desperate pervert who summons succubi to do... the obvious things with) than actually using magic.


I've also tried this less subtly. In a later adventure he was playing a 15th-level fighter who is haunted by traumatic memories of his mother being horribly slaughtered by a goblin. Eventually, I managed to back him into a corner and have him confronted by the goblin that killed his mother. A single goblin. That he could have easily one-shotted. Rather than just destroy the goblin though, he decided that seeing the goblin that murdered his mother gave his fighter a psychological breakdown and he got on the floor, in the fetal position. I just didn't have the heart to kill his character right there, so I had the goblin just get bored and walk away.

Pigkappa
2012-04-15, 02:19 PM
Anyway, what kind of adventure are you playing? I've never seen a whole D&D campaign which involved no combat at all.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-04-15, 02:39 PM
Anyway, what kind of adventure are you playing? I've never seen a whole D&D campaign which involved no combat at all.

Well, that adventure's over now (we normally don't do anything that lasts longer than a single session or two), but the plot for his Perverted Wizard adventure was that his home city was on the verge of being invaded by an enemy army. The local lord had more than enough soldiers to repel the attack, but mysteriously had instead chosen to keep all of the forces surrounding his own keep and let the rest of the city burn to the ground. The twist was that the lord was murdered and replaced by a shapeshifting Succubus who wanted personal revenge against his character for having used magic to compel her into his... service. She kept doing more and more drastic things just to piss him off, and my plan was that eventually he'd have to kill her... But he seduces her, then they plane shift to an Abyssal City together to get married and live happily ever after. He made no attempt to solve the whole invasion problem, by the way.

Fatebreaker
2012-04-15, 02:43 PM
I just didn't have the heart to kill his character right there, so I had the goblin just get bored and walk away.

Well, there's the problem right there. He has no penalty for ignoring mechanics. You have justified his decision to roleplay everything by removing all mechanical penalties for his actions. When you start applying consequences for his actions, he will take actions which avoid undesired consequences.

If you didn't want the goblin to kill him, then you could have had the goblin tie him up and drag him back to the goblin camp, where the whole tribe gathered around an altar and a cookfire, preparing to sacrifice him... and an old woman, also recently captured. Now, your player must rise above his own inadequacies and traumas to save someone else's mother. With violence!

Yay violence!

I would also second the suggestions to play a game whose mechanics better support roleplaying. Looks like you're already going down that path, so pretend I traveled back in time to say this before you made that decision.

eggs
2012-04-15, 02:43 PM
This player sounds a lot like me. I'd just ask "Hey, do you want to run through this dungeoncrawl?" You might sweeten the deal to meet him halfway by adding some puzzles and non-wargame features.

It's very possible he introduced you to D&D because that's the system he knows. Even among gamers, it's often the one system with name recognition.

On Fudge and Fate, they're both generic systems. I'm a big fan of Fate 2.0, which can be found for free here (http://www.faterpg.com/resources/). Strands of Fate (http://voidstar.squarespace.com/strands-of-fate/) is a heavier mechanics engine, Fudge (http://www.fudgerpg.com/goodies/fudge-files/core/FUDGE-1995-Edition-%28PDF%29/) is lighter and doesn't use Aspects (one of Fate's main draws).

The advantages of Fate here are both its lightness and its non-numerical crunchiness - a character or scene isn't measured by the numerical attributes involved as much as it is by qualitative Aspects that the player gets to invent.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-04-15, 02:53 PM
On Fudge and Fate, they're both generic systems. I'm a big fan of Fate 2.0, which can be found for free here (http://www.faterpg.com/resources/). Strands of Fate (http://voidstar.squarespace.com/strands-of-fate/) is a heavier mechanics engine, Fudge (http://www.fudgerpg.com/goodies/fudge-files/core/FUDGE-1995-Edition-%28PDF%29/) is lighter and doesn't use Aspects (one of Fate's main draws).

The advantages of Fate here are both its lightness and its non-numerical crunchiness - a character or scene isn't measured by the numerical attributes involved as much as it is by qualitative Aspects that the player gets to invent.

OOh, thank you! This saves me a few minutes of googling.


If you didn't want the goblin to kill him, then you could have had the goblin tie him up and drag him back to the goblin camp, where the whole tribe gathered around an altar and a cookfire, preparing to sacrifice him... and an old woman, also recently captured. Now, your player must rise above his own inadequacies and traumas to save someone else's mother. With violence!

Yay violence!

...That actually might have worked, if only I had thought of doing that at the time. Oh well.

Calanon
2012-04-15, 03:30 PM
Ah yes... the Roleplayer Vs the Optimizer... I personally managed to merge the two into one being known as "The Player" :smallamused:

Viewing feats as: Simple to Extraordinary improvements upon your characters base skills (Ex. a Dual Wielder would have the TWF branch of feats, or a Master Artificer would have plenty of cost reduction feats to show how skilled they are with even the smallest items, or perhaps a magnificent Archwizard would have feats that improve there spellcasting and even have the Archmage prestige class)

Viewing Class features as: Abilities that the characters profession provides (Ex. a Rogue's trapfinding might have been earned through years of attempting breaking and entering jobs only to learn the obvious fact that people guard the things they like, or the Cleric's Turn/Rebuke Undead was earned through a special ritual that marks the Cleric as a servant of [insert deity here], or the Paladin's Divine Grace as the truest and most pure/vile gift from his/her god)

Viewing Skills as: The accumulated knowledge of years either adventuring or just sheer study. (No real example for this, if you'd like PM me one and I'll use it)

Anywho! Thats how I managed to merge optimization with RP'ing... Take the philosophy or leave it (or HELL improve upon it if you'd like) :smalltongue:

Fatebreaker
2012-04-15, 03:32 PM
...That actually might have worked, if only I had thought of doing that at the time. Oh well.

Well, there's a lot of ways for stories to go. The important bit is to find a way for both of you to have fun. For him, that's narrative. For you, that's mechanics. To advance the narrative in a mechanical fashion, consequences are a good thing. If he enjoys where an encounter goes no matter what he does, then there's no incentive for him to change his behavior. If you create a better narrative when he uses mechanics, it trains him to start using all those numbers and even, dare I say it, dice!

valadil
2012-04-15, 09:11 PM
If he can get by without casting spells either he's a fantastic roleplayer or your game is much too easy. Give him challenges that you think are impossible and watch him explore those challenges.

Or, play a different system. I'm going to go a different route than some earlier posters and suggest that it's okay to play a rules heavy system. You just need rules that focus on what he's interested in, namely interacting with NPCs. D&D focuses on combat and streamlines NPC interaction. I saw FATE mentioned earlier and that's a great choice. I hear Burning Wheel has an awesome social interaction mechanic, but I've never tried it. Legend also has a cool mechanic, which supposedly can be plucked out and inserted in another game (http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/steal-this-trick-legends-token-and-bidding-system-for-social-encounters), but again I have no personal experience with it.

Gavinfoxx
2012-04-15, 09:24 PM
Just stat out a sheet for him, make sure he has all of the abilities, and then run a pure dungeon crawl.

Tell him ahead of time. Say this is going to be just a little test of the simulation, combat mechanics, skills and stuff. It's going to be a 0% roleplay thing, just this once.

He'll have a limited number of 'lives', and if one character bites the dust, his brother (first character is Aard, second is Bard, third is Card, etc.) comes to complete his work. Just make it over the top and silly. Be silly in the descriptions, but make it overtly numbers stuff.

Have it be scored too. Points based, with different achievements being worth different amounts of points. A bonus if he gets through without dying, etc.

Make sure that, with smart tactics, it can be run with a single character, and that character could reasonably get full completion. Just make it a few rooms, a fairly straightforward dungeon, some secret rooms, a few 'tricks' to get past encounters where you have to roll skills, to get you bonuses on skills, etc. But make it ALL numbers based.

See if he can actually complete the little dungeon crawl, and tell him how many points he is getting as he goes through.

Totally Guy
2012-04-16, 02:56 AM
There are two characters here. One is written on thew sheet, on is in your partner's head. They don't match. You are trying to challenge the character on the the sheet and the character in his head is reacting to those challenges in unexpected ways.

There is a free book online that might help you. It's called The Game Master by Tobiah Panshin and you can find it here (http://tobiah.panshin.net/thegamemaster/).

Knaight
2012-04-16, 03:22 AM
That's actually a curious situation: This was all his idea in the first place, and he's the one who introduced me to D&D. Why would he introduce me to this system specifically if he's not interested in working with its mechanics? I've never actually looked into non-D&D systems before: Are Fudge and FATE adaptable to fit any genre, or do they need significant reworking to work outside of their intended genres? I'll see if I can't find the books and take a look.

There's a good chance that it was this system specifically due to ignorance. Outside of hobbyist circles, D&D and roleplaying games are roughly synonymous, and D&D and Pathfinder (read: more D&D) have something like 98% of the market between them. As such, other systems are more likely to be an unexplored option than a rejected one.

I'd recommend either Fudge or Fate. However, I pretty much always recommend either Fudge or Fate, and probably introduced it to at least one of the other people here recommending it, so my recommending it really doesn't mean much. I'd also add Chronica Feudalis and Warrior Rogue and Mage to the list. The first is sort of like FATE, but fairly light, made for medieval Europe in particular, and using a step-die system instead of a roll and add system. The second is more like D&D, and just very minimalist, and would work well if you personally didn't want to jump into a completely different style of gaming.

There's also the possibility to go way out there, to a system where the mechanics don't necessarily even operate at the character-task level. Dread and Fiasco are the games of choice here. Dread is a horror game where the core mechanic is a Jenga tower, Fiasco is basically a Coen Brother's comedy in game form.

Earthwalker
2012-04-16, 06:21 AM
Well I would say first of all talk to theplayer about this and let him know how you feel.

As for not showing an interest in the mechanics, it seems you are not forcing him to interact with the mechanics at all.

As DM it is perfectly possible to force interation with the mechanics they are there for a reason.

In the example with the mage that didn't cast spells. It seems possible for the shapechanged succubus to send some gaurds to go out and beat up the PC
Make him roll a perception test, if he wins go into combat normally. Roll Iniative as he spots some ner'do wells closing in on him. If he fails start a surprise round.

Once they start attacking he will need to do something.

Limit him to acting as combat rules dictate.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-04-16, 10:31 AM
I've finished reading through the FATE 2.0 book: At a first glance, Aspects seem pretty cool, if a bit overly fuzzy for my liking (watching him come up with weird ways in which his skills/aspects should apply to the situation at hand should be fun!). However the adjective ladders seem like they were designed by and for people with an irrational number phobia and the skill pyramid is a... unique method of discouraging min-maxing. Despite these doubts however I'm willing to try it and see how it works: I'll run the PDF by him and see if he'd be willing to give it a go on thursday. Thanks again everyone for the suggestions!


As for not showing an interest in the mechanics, it seems you are not forcing him to interact with the mechanics at all.

As DM it is perfectly possible to force interation with the mechanics they are there for a reason.

In the example with the mage that didn't cast spells. It seems possible for the shapechanged succubus to send some gaurds to go out and beat up the PC
Make him roll a perception test, if he wins go into combat normally. Roll Iniative as he spots some ner'do wells closing in on him. If he fails start a surprise round.

Once they start attacking he will need to do something.

Limit him to acting as combat rules dictate.

It's not just that he's hesitant to initiate combat: If he can't get around it (and I don't force it often), his next solution is just skipping it. When dice start rolling he gets bored quite quickly.

Here's an example: One time we tried an adventure where he was one member in an adventuring party of DMPCs controlled by myself, and he played as the insipid, annoying Mary Sue character who got on all the other character's nerves. (He thought it'd be a fun reversal of the stereotypical situation with DMPC characters. In retrospect it wasn't that great of an idea, but it seemed like it'd be fun to try at the time.)

When my characters finally got sick of his whiny, glory-hogging, big-breasted, soft-fleshed, purple-eyed, incorruptible sexy "warforged" character and decided to attack, his response was "Okay. They kill me. What do they decide to do after I'm dead?"


I was kinda looking forward to the big epic battle (his character was several levels above mine), but I didn't force it. What was the alternative? "No. The story will not continue until we roll out the battle and your character dies fair and square?" This just screamed at me, both then and now, as being a horrid DM-ing tactic, equivalent to making your players read a 400-page, wooden campaign background story and then quizzing them on it to make sure they paid attention to the small details. It'd be making my player sit through something they don't want to do, purely for my benefit. I don't wanna be "That DM" that everyone complains about on the internet.

Jay R
2012-04-16, 10:43 AM
Shoot first.

He's discovered he can talk his way past all your encounters. If you don't want that, have encounters he can't talk his way past.

The Glyphstone
2012-04-16, 11:46 AM
Shoot first.

He's discovered he can talk his way past all your encounters. If you don't want that, have encounters he can't talk his way past.

And stick to the guns you're shooting first with. If combat initiates, and he won't fight back...kill his character. You may have to do this a few times, till he starts retaliating through survival instinct, if not simply from a desire to not restart the story.

Gavinfoxx
2012-04-16, 01:56 PM
I was kinda looking forward to the big epic battle (his character was several levels above mine), but I didn't force it. What was the alternative? "No. The story will not continue until we roll out the battle and your character dies fair and square?" This just screamed at me, both then and now, as being a horrid DM-ing tactic, equivalent to making your players read a 400-page, wooden campaign background story and then quizzing them on it to make sure they paid attention to the small details. It'd be making my player sit through something they don't want to do, purely for my benefit. I don't wanna be "That DM" that everyone complains about on the internet.


The rules for these games exist for a reason. There is ambiguity in the results. The rules help remove ambiguity so you are not playing a simple game of 'let's pretend'. Which is what you are doing right now. It is completely legitimate to say, "Sorry, I am not having fun with a no-structure 'let's pretend' time. Can we actually play an actual game with actual rules and strategy and numbers and consequences and randomness and variability in results?"

Jay R
2012-04-16, 04:25 PM
When my characters finally got sick of his whiny, glory-hogging, big-breasted, soft-fleshed, purple-eyed, incorruptible sexy "warforged" character and decided to attack, his response was "Okay. They kill me. What do they decide to do after I'm dead?"


I was kinda looking forward to the big epic battle (his character was several levels above mine), but I didn't force it. What was the alternative? "No. The story will not continue until we roll out the battle and your character dies fair and square?" This just screamed at me, both then and now, as being a horrid DM-ing tactic, equivalent to making your players read a 400-page, wooden campaign background story and then quizzing them on it to make sure they paid attention to the small details.

Exactly backward. This situation is a horrid PC-tactic, equivalent to making your DM learn all the 400 pages of rules and then refusing to play. He's not "more interested in roleplay"; he's only interested in talk. That's not the same thing. For one thing, roleplay continues in combat, and he's refusing to do that part of the roleplay.

This action was 100% refusal to play the game unless every detail works his way. There's no D&D going on here.

Also, I think you're on the wrong forum. This issue is not about D&D. It's about what and how you share with him. I wouldn't bring it up at a session; I'd bring it up at another time, about whether you can ever play the parts of D&D you enjoy. If not, find something else to do. D&D isn't important. Communication in a relationship is.

Fatebreaker
2012-04-16, 05:51 PM
It's not just that he's hesitant to initiate combat: If he can't get around it (and I don't force it often), his next solution is just skipping it. When dice start rolling he gets bored quite quickly.

Here's an example: One time we tried an adventure where he was one member in an adventuring party of DMPCs controlled by myself, and he played as the insipid, annoying Mary Sue character who got on all the other character's nerves. (He thought it'd be a fun reversal of the stereotypical situation with DMPC characters. In retrospect it wasn't that great of an idea, but it seemed like it'd be fun to try at the time.)

When my characters finally got sick of his whiny, glory-hogging, big-breasted, soft-fleshed, purple-eyed, incorruptible sexy "warforged" character and decided to attack, his response was "Okay. They kill me. What do they decide to do after I'm dead?"


I was kinda looking forward to the big epic battle (his character was several levels above mine), but I didn't force it. What was the alternative? "No. The story will not continue until we roll out the battle and your character dies fair and square?" This just screamed at me, both then and now, as being a horrid DM-ing tactic, equivalent to making your players read a 400-page, wooden campaign background story and then quizzing them on it to make sure they paid attention to the small details. It'd be making my player sit through something they don't want to do, purely for my benefit. I don't wanna be "That DM" that everyone complains about on the internet.

At this point, I'm not sure why you're playing D&D. Or roleplaying games (emphasis on the game) at all. If he just wants to play pretend, then I think Jay R is right. You need to communicate with him what you want out of a game, and find some common ground with what he wants. Right now, he's not playing with you at all, because each of you is playing a fundamentally different game.

Slipperychicken
2012-04-17, 11:29 PM
The issue could possibly be that he doesn't want to oppose NPCs since they're "you", and he doesn't want to "fight" his SO, even if metaphorically and under the persona of NPCs.

Greyfeld85
2012-04-18, 01:19 AM
While I completely agree with the last couple posts, I just wanted to point something out about this:


When my characters finally got sick of his whiny, glory-hogging, big-breasted, soft-fleshed, purple-eyed, incorruptible sexy "warforged" character and decided to attack, his response was "Okay. They kill me. What do they decide to do after I'm dead?"

The appropriate response to this is, "Is that really what your character would do?"

If he refuses to interact outside of his version of roleplaying, you have to communicate with him in a way that actually draws him into properly continuing the story.

On the other hand, if his reaction to that sort of question is "yes," then he's likely less concerned with roleplaying and more concerned with just getting his own way, in which case you should probably be talking this whole thing out when you're away from the game.

Greyfeld85
2012-04-18, 01:28 AM
While I completely agree with the last couple posts, I just wanted to point something out about this:


When my characters finally got sick of his whiny, glory-hogging, big-breasted, soft-fleshed, purple-eyed, incorruptible sexy "warforged" character and decided to attack, his response was "Okay. They kill me. What do they decide to do after I'm dead?"

The appropriate response to this is, "Is that really what your character would do?"

If he refuses to interact outside of his version of roleplaying, you have to communicate with him in a way that actually draws him into properly continuing the story.

On the other hand, if his reaction to that sort of question is "yes," then he's likely less concerned with roleplaying and more concerned with just getting his own way, in which case you should probably be talking this whole thing out when you're away from the game.