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

[deltadave]

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?

The problem isn't in character talk - it is disruptive, OOC talk. Seems like a reasonable DM action to me that the character is concentrating more on the other characters actions than on his own. and is therfore preoccupied and using his action. Also remember that a round is only six seconds long... I, personally, don't allow long dramatic in character dialogs during combat - short one or two sentence speech is about it.

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

Perhaps what the characters call an 'ogre' is actually called a 'giant' where they currently are, or a 'troll' is called an 'orc'? The idea isn't to hide the identity, but to avoid the verbal shorthand of calling something by a particular name. It has the effect, the first time its used, of obscuring the identity of creatures but works well for dramatic effect.

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?

Again, the problem is OOC information, not in character information.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

It seems like a lot of the problem is not the meta-gaming per se, it's the unwelcome interaction with the other players. In that case, I'd think you'd be better served by having them address the issue directly with the problem player. Start with a semi-polite 'Thanks, but I know what my character is going to do' and progress to 'I don't appreciate your trying to run my character for me -- butt out' if necessary. So long as he's not getting negative feedback from the 'beneficiary' of his superior gaming skills, he's going to continue.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

And my response to this is - and . . . ? This doesn't seem like a problem, if his character has an idea what the other character could do, why is this not something that someone would be able to communicate?

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.

Well, your first problem here is allowing a feat you apparently didn't research yourself first. Blame yourself for that, not him. Assuming that the feat is kosher, and allowable, my response is, once again - and . . . ? So he's good at knowing things. Why is this a problem? More to the point, why is this metagaming?

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.

Okay. Where is the metagaming here? His character has a theory. He has failed a roll in the past, but he has gotten new information since then. he wants to use his knowledge skill along with the new information. I still don't see metagaming in your example.

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.

Well, first of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "ask them for those instances".

Second, he's not actually doing any harm here, unless they pay attention to him. If the monsters don't react the way he thinks they should, that's his problem, not yours. If you just ignored his whispering, and didn't worry about the misinformation, then the problem would stop by itself from lack of results. He's really only causing himself problems here, assuming the rest of the party knows enough to ignore him.

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.

At that point make him roll knowledge rolls to see if he does. That cures the problem right there.

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?

These are easily ignored, or answered by a "you don't know" (as in "what class is X player playing" is easy to answer with "you don't know, he doesn't have it stamped on his forehead", and so on).

These problems are likely to self-correct quickly. Just ignore them. Stop drawing attention to them. He will lose interest in asking and getting no answer, or answers devoid of information. He will stop trying to pass on creature stats when it turns out not to work. And so on.

 

[Storm Raven]

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).

The problem is that different people have different ideas about what is "in-character' knowledge and what is "out-of-character". And, because the game cannot function without out-of-character knowledge being used all the time, the real defintion really boils down to using out of character knowledge inappropriately. And different people have wildly different ideas concerning what is appropriate and what isn't.

 

[IcyCool]

And different people have wildly different ideas concerning what is appropriate and what isn't.

According to the OP, he's already spoken to the player and laid that out.

 

[bento]

Don - you keep saying this guy is nice and all, but admit to him being a power gamer as well as a metagamer.

Sounds like this guy is "playing to WIN" at the expense of you and all the other players. Despite his courtesies, he's stacking the deck to put himself on top.

Look past the niceness and realize that despite what you and everyone else at the table wants, this guy isn't after the same thing.

I'd suggest you talk to the guy about finding another group to play with. Better yet, buy him a copy of WOW and wish him a nice life with the other uber-players online.

 

[Storm Raven]

According to the OP, he's already spoken to the player and laid that out.

No, he's said that he's told the player not to metagame, and apparently tried to bring up a few instances, but it may simply be miscommunication. He's having a hard time describing what is metagaming and what isn't in this thread - several of his complaints about the "metagaming" seem to me almost to not deal with metagaming at all, but rather with differing expectations about character capabilities. Which gets us back to the crux of the problem - what sort of out-of-character knowledge is inappropriate, because I don't think the OP has said he spelled that out to the player in question on other than an ad hoc basis (and apparently ignores it a lot too).

 

[billd91]

And my response to this is - and . . . ? This doesn't seem like a problem, if his character has an idea what the other character could do, why is this not something that someone would be able to communicate?

I agree that a PC should be able to shout out to another PC suggestions on how they can coordinate their actions. Of course the enemy will hear it too...
But the main thing is to not be disruptive or a jerk about it. And, if that's the table rule, do it in character.

Okay. Where is the metagaming here? His character has a theory. He has failed a roll in the past, but he has gotten new information since then. he wants to use his knowledge skill along with the new information. I still don't see metagaming in your example.

He may have more information through observing the environment, but that doesn't necessarily translate into getting a retry. I'd only do that if I could determine his bonus had actually increased. In the case of hearing of 6 dragonkings, findinging evidence of where they lived, and finding 8 living spaces, I wouldn't allow a reroll for that. I'd probably tell the player "Well, what do you make of it?" and let him make his own conclusions. Then, if he raised his modifier or got to a place where research could reasonably net him a circumstance bonus, then I'd let him reroll to determine if there were supposed to be 8 dragonkings.
Alternatively, I'd give him that reroll to remember if there was definitive word that there were 6 and only 6 dragon kings, not that there were, in fact, 8. If he didn't know that before, he won't know it now, but he might realize that the topic was really more open ended than original thought.

Second, he's not actually doing any harm here, unless they pay attention to him. If the monsters don't react the way he thinks they should, that's his problem, not yours. If you just ignored his whispering, and didn't worry about the misinformation, then the problem would stop by itself from lack of results. He's really only causing himself problems here, assuming the rest of the party knows enough to ignore him.

But he is doing harm. He's being disruptive. That behavior should be corrected. Tell him to stop being disruptive and if he fails, start throwing dice at him whenever he whispers around. If he doesn't get the picture, put him on probation. If he still doesn't at least try harder, kick him to the curb.

 

[IcyCool]

No, he's said that he's told the player not to metagame, and apparently tried to bring up a few instances, but it may simply be miscommunication.

Well, talking to the player is the only way to "fix" this problem. DonTadow, have you spoken to the player and explained to him what you do and don't consider appropriate? If you haven't, you need to do that. Also, if the other players aren't having a good time, then you should inform him of that. If he's the nice guy you say he is, those two things should pretty much correct any issues you are having.

He's having a hard time describing what is metagaming and what isn't in this thread - several of his complaints about the "metagaming" seem to me almost to not deal with metagaming at all, but rather with differing expectations about character capabilities.

Well, no, not really. The only example of those listed which isn't meta-gaming Which gets us back to the crux of the problem - what sort of out-of-character knowledge is the player's attempts to use his knowledge skills in place of other skills.

As you said, a certain amount of meta-gaming is necesary to play the game, but telling others how to play their characters, quoting monsters stats, and making knowledge checks to "win" aren't amoung them, IMO.

 

[Janx]

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.

Let's take the word 'metagaming' out of the conversation.

1. Interrupting other playes during THEIR turn is bad. Tell him, he will have to wait until his turn, and don't answer anything he says, until it is his turn

2. I'm not sure if this is a problem. Obviously, it must be causing a problem for you. Adopting a stricter interpretation of the knowledge skills, such as it will tell you factual data, but not confirm anything might help. It might tell you "black lotus blossums are poisonous", "black lotus blossums have completely black flowers". It might tell you that the flower you are holding is indeed a black lotus.

3. Disallow kibitzing. No telling others how to do something, unless you spend a combat round doing so (and thus, are within range to do so).

4. This seems simple, you can't tell the player any info outside of what their PC experiences. Thus, if his PC isn't there, or hasn't been there, he can't learn more about it. It may be ok, for some memory refreshes, aka, what race was that NPC we met on the road yesterday. Assuming, his PC was present for that encounter.


It sounds like this guy interrupts others, tries to run other's PCs, and tries to influence encounters his PC is not involved in, tries to milk getting information about anything to bolster his situation.

I'd say interrupting others is the worst problem.

Influencing encounters he's not involved in, (effectively being in 2 places at once) is a problem, but depending on the group, not that bad. Some groups are pretty loose about strategizing

Trying to run other's PCs can be a problem, as it depends on the other players, and the extent. Most players do this to varying extent (influencing others is the very nature of the game, while else do PCs talk to each other, "you go left, I'll go right" is a form of this). The problem is when it is overdone, and it takes away other people's fun.

I'd work from a list of the specific behaviors, and give a warning the first time, and start giving XP penalties. The basic rules are:

No interrupting another player during their action
No sharing information with players if their PCs aren't in the same place
During combat, follow the 6 word per round limit, to talk to other players
No using game knowledge that your PC doesn't have

Give XP bonuses for good behaviors, such as limiting dialogue to "in character", excepting obvious stuff.

Give XP penalties for breaking the behavior rules, use a small amount, odds are good, everybody breaks the rules at some point, the naughty player should stand out by sheer number of offences, and thus get the punishment by quanity of dings