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

[IcyCool]

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?

I agree. I'm unclear on exactly what the OP means by "talking during other's actions". Do you mean he's just chatting? Or is he interrupting other players trying to get his character to do more? Could we get some clarification on this?

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.

My understanding of the OP is that the player isn't trying to do that. My understanding is that the scenario is thus:

DM to Player A: "You remember back to your apprentice days and what your master told you."
Metagamer: "I try to use my knowledge skill to know what Player A's master told him."

If that's not the case, then I am again unsure as to what the OP is saying.

 

[blargney the second]

You could get him to play a knowledge-centric character. Then he wouldn't have to restrain the impulses.
-blarg

 

[Crothian]

You could get him to play a knowledge-centric character. Then he wouldn't have to restrain the impulses.
-blarg

A diviner even

 

[IcyCool]

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.

And that would be your perogative as a DM. DonTadow doesn't appear to have the same thoughts about that as you. As it is up to the DM to determine how these get used...

 

[Storm Raven]

And that would be your perogative as a DM. DonTadow doesn't appear to have the same thoughts about that as you. As it is up to the DM to determine how these get used...

Which is why it is important to define what you mean when you say "metagaming".

 

[DonTadow]

This may be rude, but it isn't metagaming. From the rules: "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."

I agree, but he is talking out of character. Example. Its Rg's turn. He's in character and is thinking bout her next move. He blurts out that she should cast "x spell" because that will allow him to do x thing. I've warned him in this game about it, but it seems to happen once a session.

I'm not sure what you mean by "actual knowledge rules". Are you saying that a character cannot use his knowledge skills to confirm a theory in the area covered by the Knowledge skill? I don't even understand what it is you say you are objecting to here.

The knowledge thing is a two part problem for me. First, he has a feat (that i can't remember) that gives him a +10 to all knowledge rolls. (what I need to do is research this feat come to think of it). So he at least gets a +15 on all knowledge checks.

I didnt see any problem with that, but he wants to use it for things not included in the knowledge skill. Despite warnings this has persisted through the 8 sessions he has been with us. For instance, he'll want to use knowledge rolls to substitute other skills such as "identify spell effect and tracking. " Or he'll want to use a knowledge roll to confirm a theory. For instance, though he knows nothing about the dragon kings (failed knowledge check a couple weeks ago) , he has discovered along with the party that there were six of them. He will want to make a knowledge roll because he thinks that there are eight of them and he wants to confirm his theory because there were eight chamber rooms.

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? Especially if you spend time going out and getting into trouble on a regular basis? Even for an inexperienced adventurer, lots of the weaknesses of particular opponents would be fairly common knowledge, just as a result of living in a world where they exist.

I"m not that kinda DM. I wave knowledge rolls and ask them for those instances. That is not what I am referring to. Then again, I don't use regular monsters anymore. I stopped doing that when I started DM'n people who also DM. That is actually the problem. He'll give wrong or misinformation to players during his other metagaming. Such as, oh this is a spectre we can do this and this. Or, you're using a picture of a baskalisk so this creature must do this and this. He'll try to whisper it to the players next to him when i'm distracted which really irks me because at that point i know he knows he's breaking a rule.

So, my position is - the weaknesses of common, or even uncommon monsters is not a secret. The weaknesses of rare or exotic ones might be.

I agree and at level 13, this is pretty much what the fighters are fighting. He constantly argues that he is a super intelligent person and should still be able to know something about even the most obscure creature.

It is metagaming to ask questions? Unless we know what sort of questions you are talking about, I don't klnow what advice I can give. My players ask questions all the time, and it isn't metagaming. Things like "Hey, is this the same innkeeper that told us about the Ebon Eye?" don't seem to me like metagaming - the characters will have a better chance remembering the guy since they actually saw him, as opposed to the players who have only a description to work with, and often have weeks in between meetings that in-game, occur only days apart.

I consider it metagaming to ask questions that you would only ask from a player, not a charchters point of view. I love questions, and I love answering them, but I don't like asking questions such as "Are the daughters of blythe in the dungeon", "What class is X player playing", Is the creature I couldn't identify immune to Ice, His AC is 23 isnt it, Why did my spell fail?,

 

[IcyCool]

Which is why it is important to define what you mean when you say "metagaming".

Trying to use out-of-character knowledge, in-character. That's metagaming. It's not necessarily a bad thing (as the sidebar on the page I pointed out above states), but it isn't always welcome in every group (as the sidebar on the page I pointed out above states).

 

[deltadave]

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?

Its deliberately designed to be passive agressive - the direct approach hasn't worked, so I'm suggesting some options that have worked for me in the past. There are other, more agressive actions to take if these don't work.

The whole point of this discussion is that the player won't conform to the social contract of this group, the DM doesn't want to give him the boot, and the direct talking approach hasn't worked. I'm shooting off ideas that may spark others in the DM.

 

[IcyCool]

I agree, but he is talking out of character. Example. Its Rg's turn. He's in character and is thinking bout her next move. He blurts out that she should cast "x spell" because that will allow him to do x thing. I've warned him in this game about it, but it seems to happen once a session.

Ahh, the puppet master. Were I the player he was "giving advice to", I'd eventually just hand him my sheet and dice. When he asks why I did that, I'd say "because you obviously want to play my character."

That, or you could explain to him that while suggestions are fine, he should really not try to play other people's characters. If it's just table-talk that frustrates you, that might not ever go away. Do the other players mind when he does it?

The knowledge thing is a two part problem for me. First, he has a feat (that i can't remember) that gives him a +10 to all knowledge rolls. (what I need to do is research this feat come to think of it). So he at least gets a +15 on all knowledge checks.

+10 to all knowledge rolls? What. The. Hell.

I didnt see any problem with that, but he wants to use it for things not included in the knowledge skill. Despite warnings this has persisted through the 8 sessions he has been with us. For instance, he'll want to use knowledge rolls to substitute other skills such as "identify spell effect and tracking. " Or he'll want to use a knowledge roll to confirm a theory. For instance, though he knows nothing about the dragon kings (failed knowledge check a couple weeks ago) , he has discovered along with the party that there were six of them. He will want to make a knowledge roll because he thinks that there are eight of them and he wants to confirm his theory because there were eight chamber rooms.

No on the knowledge-as-other-skills. That's pretty easy. For the other thing, you could do something that I did, let his knowledge check provide him something like: "You don't recall any of the books you've poured over in your research mentioning more than 6 dragon kings. You do remember mention of several cults that sprang up around them, one of which housed a great deal of lore about the dragon kings. It was based in Arthrasia, and the lore base purported to have been lost when the Knights of the Iron Flame razed their headquarters to the ground. Some of the books are rumored to have survived. Perhaps if you visited Arthrasia, you might be able to find some of those lost tomes?"

I"m not that kinda DM. I wave knowledge rolls and ask them for those instances. That is not what I am referring to. Then again, I don't use regular monsters anymore. I stopped doing that when I started DM'n people who also DM. That is actually the problem. He'll give wrong or misinformation to players during his other metagaming. Such as, oh this is a spectre we can do this and this. Or, you're using a picture of a baskalisk so this creature must do this and this. He'll try to whisper it to the players next to him when i'm distracted which really irks me because at that point i know he knows he's breaking a rule.

Have you told him this?

I agree and at level 13, this is pretty much what the fighters are fighting. He constantly argues that he is a super intelligent person and should still be able to know something about even the most obscure creature.

Make him roll for it. If he fails the roll, then there really isn't any arguement on that. If he succeeds, give him the information the skill says he can get (knowledge of one special power or vulnerability + 1 more per every 5 points he exceeds the DC by).

 

[iwatt]

... the DM doesn't want to give him the boot,...

which actually has been the cause of Don's troubles for the last two years. Every two month's or so he posts a new problem with one of his players, with the caveat that he can't/won't get rid of his problem players.

Which in his case seems to be every single one of them

I'm with Felon when he said:

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.

If you have a problem with the way a friend is acting, TELL THEM. If they're a friend and you're request is reasonable, they'll change. If the request is reasonable and they don't change, then they aren't much of a friend in the first place.