D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[Lanefan]

A bunch of questions:

First off, how did the other players know what you were doing? Was your solo chat with the old man not done by note, or in private between you and the DM? If you're playing a stealth scout-type character, particularly one with a nasty bent to it, keeping your actions hidden from the other players (and their characters) is essential! Players will, unfortunately, often act on what they know but their characters do not.

Also, do the other players know you're an Assassin or do they just think you an ordinary Rogue? Assassins aren't always the most welcome addition to some parties, so just writing "Rogue" on your character sheet and keeping your real class a secret between you and the DM can help a lot.

And...call me old, but...what are roofies?

The rest of it all makes sense. You left yourself too exposed and they ran with it. I'm surprised, in fact, that your character is even still alive; and it's worth noting that your party did keep you around when they could easily have killed you and rid themselves of what they see as a nuisance (which would 99% of the time have been the outcome in my game were this to happen here).

Note this is all coming from someone who - unlike many others here - doesn't mind PvP at all. You just have to be smart about it, and not complain when you lose nor gloat when you win.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

But those social issues are being acted out in the game world. It's not like the OP is complaining that the other players drink all his beer. Their characters are messing with his character in the game world and the DM doesn't seem to give a crap. That's bad DMing IMHO. The DM should not be oblivious to players enjoyment of the game.

Lots of people love that kind of pvp stuff. I don't. I hate it. But I'm not that DM or those players and (I assume) you aren't either. The solution "Talk to the DM and let him solve your problems" is bad advice in my view because (1) it might not be a problem for anyone but the OP and (2) the DM isn't in charge of resolving social problems at the table, just in-game ones. The underlying problem is one player is having an issue with the other players. So I think it better advice to talk it over directly with them and, if you can't find a mutually agreeable solution, bolt. The DM is just another player of the game in this particular situation. It isn't his responsibility to address the issue in my view.

 

[Lanefan]

But those social issues are being acted out in the game world. It's not like the OP is complaining that the other players drink all his beer. Their characters are messing with his character in the game world and the DM doesn't seem to give a crap. That's bad DMing IMHO. The DM should not be oblivious to players enjoyment of the game.

Well, in fairness there's some things we don't know.

For example, is the OP simply miffed that his own attempts to put one over on the party were (in his view unfairly) thwarted? I mean, he's playing an Assassin who (badly) cheats at dice and wants to kill and loot the old man by himself - we're hardly talking about a paragon of virtue here. I'm halfway prepared to take this as a case of live by the sword, die by the sword...only for some reason his party kept him alive, which seems odd.

That said, this is one case where the DM's best course of action is to simply go with whatever the players/characters decide to do, while keeping a close leash on player knowledge vs. character knowledge and making sure the rules etc. are consistently applied. I know this as a veteran of many such firefights both from the DM side and the player side of the screen; some games (or even some particular parties within larger games) just work out that way, and done right it can be highly entertaining and amusing* for all.

* - not long after my current campaign started I had to DM two party members selling (well, actually giving away) two other party members into slavery, after a hilarious session-long sequence involving escalating bribes to the authorities as some party members tried to get other party members arrested...long story, still told with laughter to this day.

Lanefan

 

[robus]

Lots of people love that kind of pvp stuff. I don't. I hate it. But I'm not that DM or those players and (I assume) you aren't either. The solution "Talk to the DM and let him solve your problems" is bad advice in my view because (1) it might not be a problem for anyone but the OP and (2) the DM isn't in charge of resolving social problems at the table, just in-game ones. The underlying problem is one player is having an issue with the other players. So I think it better advice to talk it over directly with them and, if you can't find a mutually agreeable solution, bolt. The DM is just another player of the game in this particular situation. It isn't his responsibility to address the issue in my view.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the DM does have a responsibility to the players on two fronts: to run a fun and fair game. A DM who doesn't see that a player is being bullied by the other players at the table is failing IMHO. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is right that we don't know the full story, but I really can't accept that a DM has no role to play in facilitating a resolution to this issue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It may not be the DM's "job" to resolve social conflicts at the table, but the DM does have a lot of tools in his toolbox to mitigate the sort of conflicts described by the OP. Failure to use those tools suggests some combination of complicity, ignorance, and weakness.

 

[Shiroiken]

There are many ways to run games, from a tyrant DM to nearly non-existent ones. Usually the way is determined by a balance of DM and Group desires, and I guess the modern term for this is the "social contract" of the table. From what I can gather, the DM allows PvP, and this player gets messed with a lot. We don't know how much he messes with the others, nor if everyone else is good with this type of gaming. Obviously this is a fairly immature group who find a lot of entertainment in pranks; this is not necessarily a bad thing, but is for the OP.

I would talk to the DM first, since it's his game. The DM may not enjoy the fact that the group goes off on tangents, which takes away from adventuring time (or he may enjoy it very much, we don't know). If the DM has no issues with the way things have been going, or just doesn't want to get involved, the player needs to talk with the other players. It's also quite possible that the OP is the black sheep, and is better off finding another group that fits his play-style better. If finding another group isn't really an option (especially if the group is your high school friends), then you need to accept the PvP and conspire with another player against the rest of the group... basically get them before they get you. If none of these work, then the only resort would be to quit playing.

 

[zaratan]

Well, you're the assassin, split the group and kill them one by one with your stealth and surprise a surprise round. Loot them and they dead body will respect you.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, this.

As the Angry DM says, problems with so-called "metagaming" is usually a sign that not everybody at the table is in agreement about what constitutes "fun".

I don't see eye to eye with Angry DM on a number of issues, but I do regard this as one of the best written blog posts on the subject of metagaming, particularly his conclusion that it's a symptom of a bigger problem surrounding the social contract of the various participants.

I would advise you to talk directly about your grievances with the group, DM included. Make your expectations of the game clear. Express your dissatisfaction with how the game is going, particularly as it relates to your sense of fun.

 

[iserith]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the DM does have a responsibility to the players on two fronts: to run a fun and fair game. A DM who doesn't see that a player is being bullied by the other players at the table is failing IMHO. @Lanefan is right that we don't know the full story, but I really can't accept that a DM has no role to play in facilitating a resolution to this issue.

Notably, I have never said the DM has no role to play, only that it's not the DM's responsibility to solve the problem. It's the player who has the problem who needs to voice it and seek resolution with the other players, one way or the other. The DM doesn't get to be at the top of the dominance hierarchy just because he or she is DM.

 

[iserith]

It may not be the DM's "job" to resolve social conflicts at the table, but the DM does have a lot of tools in his toolbox to mitigate the sort of conflicts described by the OP. Failure to use those tools suggests some combination of complicity, ignorance, and weakness.

Like [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION], you appear to be making a judgment on the validity of that style of play. Others, like [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] are just fine with pvp. (I'm not, as I have stated.) The DM was at least being honest to the OP when he stated that there's not much he can do about it. Perhaps that's just how they D&D. Now it's on the OP to work it out with the other players.