Can you teach someone not to (bad) metagame - (or at least not be rude)

[Agent Oracle]

easy answers to the hard question:

1. Get Exotic.

Dump the standard Monster manual, go out and grab some expanded content stuff. MMII, MMIII, monsters of faerun, Deities and demigods... any of the hundreds of bestiaries created before the big 3.0 crash. A simple perusal should yield dozens upon dozens of useable critters. if the metagamer has a metric tonne of supporting material, you might have to re-evaluate and *gasp* homebrew. That's right. take a good, hard look at whatever encounter you're considering putting the players in, and tweak everything about it. Strip away the flesh and replace it however you feel is appropriate. Would it really matter if the Gnolls were rat-men instead of hyena-men? What about getting oriental and looking at Jang-shi? Japanese hopping vampires? Or simple Oni? No extra abilities required, just a physical description that makes players go "Man What?".

2. Test Every skill.

Oh, he's min/maxed his stats? start throwing situations at him that require _all_ of his abilities. These don't even have to be combat encounters. The best applications involve taking whatever he is deliberately under skilled at, and including it in the next situation:

-Low STR finesse type? give 'em an object which deliberately weighs them down, but has a high intrinsic value so they can't dump it
-Low Dex? moving floor, enemies at range, etc.
-Low Con? ... there are players with a low Con?
-Low Int / Wis? You're on your own.
-low Cha? put 'em in a social situation.

 

[DonTadow]

OK, I'll edit my posts too. POOF! Done.



See, to me, metagaming is a red herring here, and thus teaching the player not to do it isn't the real solution. The guy can't wait his turn and let others have their share of air-time, and even he were in-character, he's probably still find ways to hog the spotlight.

The DMG II covers this pretty extensively, noting that most odious player habits boil down to one thing: selfishness. Do you have this book? Check it out.

Ah, I didnt even think about that. And here I am with two copies. I forgot they had rules on that in there, but I havn't picked up the book in a year. Metagaming is always a wierd subject anyway.

Me, I can let alot of stuff (and do) slide until it starts effecting the other players. FOr instance, this guy is a huge powergamer. I didn't realize that until three weeks ago when he paused game to argue with me for 10 minutes about how his character should be able to cast harm at least 8 times a day. (the only reason i let it go that long is because i was shocked. I'd never had to debate a player in game about anything before). I let it go up until that incident because i know the guy is a nice guy he just gets carried away. After that incident I had a long talk with him about his power gaming because of its effects on the other players.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Sometimes this is metagaming, and sometimes not. I am always befuddled that many Dms seem to think that the inhabitants of a game-world would be at a loss to understand many of the reasonably ordinary threats that exist in their world. Is it metagaming to know that trolls oare susceptible to fire in a world where trolls are an actual threat?

Depends. This one comes up a lot. For relatively green adventurers I see it as:

1. Asking to make a K:Nature check to identify the creature as a 'troll' by virtue of its appearance. Just because you know that trolls are susceptible to fire doesn't mean you'd recognize one for what it was, especially the first time. Consider how many things the word 'troll' (or 'goblin' or 'elf') can describe in common usage. Now, if a troll had been eating people from his village for years, I might handwave this.

2. Asking to make a K:Nature check to know that trolls are susceptible to fire. If they've already positively identified it as a 'troll', or seen some in-game clue (eg it picks up its severed hand and it re-attaches), then that's perfectly permissible.

3. Automatically assuming they know its a troll by description despite the characters having no previous exposure and breaking out the acid flasks and torches on-sight is over the line. At least humor me and go through the motions for a couple rounds before you 'miraculously' figure out how to kill it.

4. If the guy's interrupting someone else's turn to say 'Let me make a K:Nature check so I can tell Player X that its a troll and to use her acid dagger instead of her frost sword' is way over the line. Wait till your own turn, make whatever checks I permit you to make, and then you can tell the other players what you've figured out.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

The metaplayer wanted to use the knowledge to open the door, even though he was off researching in another part of the dungeon. when i said no he wanted to roll a knowledge check to see if his player would have figured out what the other player would have. I said no again.

Don't say "No", say "No metagaming."

Call it what it is. Draw his attention to what he's doing, and why he's being told 'No'.

 

[deltadave]

My apologies to everyone. I really am seeking advice on this, I erased my posts towards felon and put in what i consider metagaming. I'll repost that info in this thread.
1. He talks during others initiative OOC and overtalks them
2. He wants to use knowledge skills to assure theories of his, not for actual knowledge rules. For instance whenever another charachter figures out something or puts two and two together, he, without fail, asks for a roll to see if his charachter figures it out.
3. He uses his player knowledge and OOC comments to the other players about how to defeat certain encounters
4. Asks questions OOC about the plot, encounters, creatures, ect during game.

Some pre-emptive actions for the GM in this case.
1: If he talks during others initiative - that is his turn for the round. When it gets to his initiative say 'I'm sorry, you have already gone' and skip over him.
2: Give him wrong info for the knowledge rolls - follow the results of the roll, but be sure to set the DC pretty high. The worse he fails the roll by, the more inaccurate his conclusions. "Based on the info you have, you think that the correct answer is X" make X wildly inaccurate and insist that the player abide by his conclusions if he really insists on the roll. All following information should modify X, not give the conclusion that the other player has reached.
3. don't give monster names -ever-, use description, but not from the MM books. As was suggested above - change things up. It happens in nature - creatures that look like one thing but are actually totally different.
4. Ask him why he would expect you to answer these questions, then move on.

 

[Felon]

Some pre-emptive actions for the GM in this case.
1: If he talks during others initiative - that is his turn for the round. When it gets to his initiative say 'I'm sorry, you have already gone' and skip over him.
2: Give him wrong info for the knowledge rolls - follow the results of the roll, but be sure to set the DC pretty high. The worse he fails the roll by, the more inaccurate his conclusions. "Based on the info you have, you think that the correct answer is X" make X wildly inaccurate and insist that the player abide by his conclusions if he really insists on the roll. All following information should modify X, not give the conclusion that the other player has reached.
3. don't give monster names -ever-, use description, but not from the MM books. As was suggested above - change things up. It happens in nature - creatures that look like one thing but are actually totally different.
4. Ask him why he would expect you to answer these questions, then move on.

5. If you don't eat your meat you can't have any pudding!!! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

GAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

Item #3 has merit, but the rest? It's passive-aggressiveness taken to a new extreme.

Personally, I find that establishing policies and procedures and rules of decorum and slapping shock collars on people makes the game table feel like a boarding school. Once a policy is established, a consequence for non-adherence has to be attached to it. A game full of punitive measures might be more orderly, but does does anyone think it will really become more fun?

Many problems discussed at ENWorld boil down to being unable to handle confrontational situations appropriately. And not necessarily on the DM's part, mind you. If one player is interrupting other players, they're entitled to say "hey, hold your horses, I"m talkin' here". That can be a lot more effective than shooting pleading looks to the DM so that he'll step in like a father-figure, or sending emails full of gripes after the fact. I'd consider just telling the players to assert themselves when they're getting stepped on. People are much more likely to back down if they know everyone is bothered, not just the one guy (DM or no).

Gaming is a joint effort, and the DM doesn't always have to be the one to fix everyting. Do the guys at a weekly poker game have to appoint someone to establish policies for behavior?

 

[Storm Raven]

Depends. This one comes up a lot. For relatively green adventurers I see it as:

1. Asking to make a K:Nature check to identify the creature as a 'troll' by virtue of its appearance. Just because you know that trolls are susceptible to fire doesn't mean you'd recognize one for what it was, especially the first time. Consider how many things the word 'troll' (or 'goblin' or 'elf') can describe in common usage. Now, if a troll had been eating people from his village for years, I might handwave this.

2. Asking to make a K:Nature check to know that trolls are susceptible to fire. If they've already positively identified it as a 'troll', or seen some in-game clue (eg it picks up its severed hand and it re-attaches), then that's perfectly permissible.

3. Automatically assuming they know its a troll by description despite the characters having no previous exposure and breaking out the acid flasks and torches on-sight is over the line. At least humor me and go through the motions for a couple rounds before you 'miraculously' figure out how to kill it.

Nut that's what I'm getting at. It isn't "miraculous", it is "living in a world where trolls exist". Assuming you know it is a troll (and I'd say that is roughly as difficult as knowing what a giraffe or a seal is, or a wolf or a bear) why is it so outlandish that one would have some sort of idea how to kill the things? Even someone who has never met a troll before. I've never met a bear, but I know that if you run from one, run downhill, because bears have a hard time doing that, or keep a big object like a tree or boulder between you and the bear, as they are less agile than humans and you can avoid their attempts to circle around to you (among other strategies). How is that a lot different from knowing "if a troll is trying to kill you, try to set it on fire, weapons don't work on those green things".

4. If the guy's interrupting someone else's turn to say 'Let me make a K:Nature check so I can tell Player X that its a troll and to use her acid dagger instead of her frost sword' is way over the line. Wait till your own turn, make whatever checks I permit you to make, and then you can tell the other players what you've figured out.

Or, you know, you could use the rule that allows talking out of turn as a free action to tell them to wait until you have idenitified the threat. Of course, trolls should be about as common as grizzly bears, so the characters living in the game world with them should likely know how to defeat them already - even if they have never encountered them before.

 

[IcyCool]

Nut that's what I'm getting at. It isn't "miraculous", it is "living in a world where trolls exist". Assuming you know it is a troll (and I'd say that is roughly as difficult as knowing what a giraffe or a seal is, or a wolf or a bear) why is it so outlandish that one would have some sort of idea how to kill the things?

Because there is a mechanic in the rules for that which sort of blows this out of the water. They need to make an appropriate knowledge check with a DC = 10 + HD of the creature. And you can't make untrained knowledge checks with a DC higher than 10.

The D&D world isn't nearly as well educated as you might imagine.

For reference:

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Also see the sidebar at the bottom of the page about player knowledge vs. character knowledge.

 

[Storm Raven]

Some pre-emptive actions for the GM in this case.
1: If he talks during others initiative - that is his turn for the round. When it gets to his initiative say 'I'm sorry, you have already gone' and skip over him.

Once again, talking is a free action, defined in the rules as something you can do, even outside of your own turn. Why, again, is this metagaming? Or something he should lose his own initiative over?

2: Give him wrong info for the knowledge rolls - follow the results of the roll, but be sure to set the DC pretty high. The worse he fails the roll by, the more inaccurate his conclusions. "Based on the info you have, you think that the correct answer is X" make X wildly inaccurate and insist that the player abide by his conclusions if he really insists on the roll. All following information should modify X, not give the conclusion that the other player has reached.

It is hard enough to get people to spend points of knowledge skills without working out rules that make them less useful. I'd give a player points for creativity if he attempted to use his knowledge skills to help put a theory together.

3. don't give monster names -ever-, use description, but not from the MM books. As was suggested above - change things up. It happens in nature - creatures that look like one thing but are actually totally different.

Sometimes this is appropriate. But, really, do you need to hide the fact that they are fighting an "ogre" or a "goblin"?

4. Ask him why he would expect you to answer these questions, then move on.

You mean like, other than the fact that the DM is the player's sole conduit of information about the world the character lives in?

 

[Storm Raven]

Because there is a mechanic in the rules for that which sort of blows this out of the water. They need to make an appropriate knowledge check with a DC = 10 + HD of the creature. And you can't make untrained knowledge checks with a DC higher than 10.

The D&D world isn't nearly as well educated as you might imagine.

Except that this check is listed as being "in many cases". That means that in some cases you don't have a chance, and in other cases, the roll is unnecessary. I'd say that for the more common monsters, the roll is entirely unneccessary.