is this GM bad or am i just a wuss?

[Elf Witch]

This sounds like a very hamfisted approach to a 'problem' that could probably be solved in a more diplomatic way.

I wouldn't play in that game. For one, I'd lose about a character per session, at a guess. For two, that rule just makes wonder "What other playstyle differences that might come up are going to be handled with in-game beatsticks?" And three, isn't that rule sorta metagamey itself?

To be honest I would not do this but I have never really seen diplomacy break a player of metagaming. I can understand the temptation to do something like this.

I handle it with XP. I reward players who role play with extra XP. So if your first level character who has never seen a certain monster before knows exactly the right thing to do then expect me to be a little displeased.

 

[Pentius]

I've never seen diplomacy stop metagaming in a player who has done it for years, and leans toward the harmful types of metagaming(like the monster example), but I've seen it clear up a lot of issues with people who aren't really trying to gain an unfair advantage, but are just used to table conventions being a bit different.

And I generally solve the monster one by avoiding monsters with easily passable gimmicks("use fire on the troll" type stuff) unless they're either easily recognizable to the characters, or something I've homebrewed so that the players won't have encountered it before anyways.

 

[pemerton]

I can understand why he does this. Nothing spoils a game faster then a lot of metagaming.

Iif your other GM finds metagaming to be cheating (which I can certainly see why he would, depending on the game and the style), him punishing it by cheating better makes sense to me.

This sounds like a very hamfisted approach to a 'problem' that could probably be solved in a more diplomatic way.

<snip>

that rule just makes wonder "What other playstyle differences that might come up are going to be handled with in-game beatsticks?"

My reaction to this is similar to Pentius's. And I expect a lot of metagaming from my players - I exepcted them to deliberately build and play their PCs in ways that will push the story forward, for example. And - within somewhat intangible limits - I design and present scenarios and encounters expecting the players to recognise, pick up on and play with genre tropes.

There are lots of different ways for a group to approach an RPG, so each new group has to come to some sort of mutual understanding. The GM trying to enforce that through ingame penalties strikes me as a clumsy approach (and the advice in Gygax's AD&D to do it this way strikes me as some of the weaker advice in that book).

 

[Elf Witch]

My reaction to this is similar to Pentius's. And I expect a lot of metagaming from my players - I exepcted them to deliberately build and play their PCs in ways that will push the story forward, for example. And - within somewhat intangible limits - I design and present scenarios and encounters expecting the players to recognise, pick up on and play with genre tropes.

There are lots of different ways for a group to approach an RPG, so each new group has to come to some sort of mutual understanding. The GM trying to enforce that through ingame penalties strikes me as a clumsy approach (and the advice in Gygax's AD&D to do it this way strikes me as some of the weaker advice in that book).

Playing within genre tropes is not metagaming. Building a character build for a certain type of campaign is not metagaming.

Metagaming is using player knowledge that the character does not have. And I find that is something that spoils the fun of the game. Players who do this are more concerned about winning then role playing.

Trolls are a perfect example I remember when I first encountered them none of us knew what the heck was going on we had to use trial and error to get them to stay dead. It is one of the exciting parts of the game dealing with new creatures.

But the more you play the more knowledge you get and it gets harder to keep it fresh. One way I do it is by changing the monsters. But players who are role playing should try and not use knowledge their characters would not have.

Like I said I don't punish metagamers I reward role players.

 

[aboyd]

Epicbob, I can see you've got 5 pages of replies to this question. I've not read them; I'm simply going to answer your original question. These are my observations regarding 9 of the points from your post.

when we're taking a long time to figure out a solution to problems (for whatever reason), he tends to get mocking and sarcastic because HE (and/or his other experienced friends) would have long solved that situatition.

That doesn't sound fun to me. I mean, if it's playful because you guys really are acting listless and aimless, then sure, I can see some friendly ribbing to get you guys to engage. However, if he's just gloating or something, that doesn't impress me. I was running a game for some friends, and they were at a loss regarding the next step for a quest. Rather than mock them, I left them hanging for about 10 minutes, and when it was clear they were banging their heads against the wall, I said, "OK, everyone roll intelligence checks. I will see if any of your characters have more insight than you do." With a couple of decent rolls, I handed out a hint. It wasn't a flat out answer, but it indicated a line of thinking they could explore. They did, and eventually found a good course of action.

I believe a good GM will do things to keep the game moving. A GM is not running a fun game if he mocks players as they get stuck and the game crawls to a standstill.

in combat, he's nitpicky about pointless stuff. for example :

DM : Which Goblin do you attack?
Me : (with my bow) The closest one.
DM : That's not specific enough.
Me : fine...Goblin number 1.
DM : Dude, i shouldn't have to tell you that you have to choose betwen the melee Goblins and the ranged Goblins. you have to make sure you know this and if you can't understand my subtle hints, it's your problem.
Me : (to myself) are you ing serious???

To be fair, this sounds like shared stupidity, all around. On the one hand, it really is reasonable for a GM to expect players to know the game rules -- if they don't at first, OK, explain some as they come up. However, you have written that you are on your 3rd campaign with him. You should have shown some curiosity and initiative about the rules, so that you can take care of your own character and his actions.

For me personally, I will babysit new players for a while, which can be as short as 1 game or as long as 20, depending upon charisma (of the player). However, there is a point when I expect them to either crack open the book or bow out of the game from disinterest. "I want to keep playing but don't want to read anything" is not an approach I'll accept from players after a while. Players that are like that are not invited back.

On the other hand, he keeps inviting you back and then whines. That's annoying. If he wants you there, he needs to let you crash and burn instead of nagging you like a bitter spouse. If you say "closest one" to me in a game, then I'm going to take it literally -- the one with the fewest spaces between you two is the one you shoot. If that's sub-optimal, so what? You said what you wanted to shoot, so I let you. And I try not to be a jerk -- if other players chime in with hints, that's fine, you can restate your action (so long as it's still your turn and you have not yet learned the outcome of your decision). I certainly wouldn't go on a mini-rant about how I'm giving you hints and you're not picking up on them. I don't like playing "gotcha" games -- if something is so badly executed that I feel compelled to whine about it, I'd prefer of myself that I simply speak plainly and say, "Wow, you know that's a minus 8, right?" or whatever.

the rest of the fights, we almost always start toe-to-toe with the enemy, making my archery Rogue entirely POINTLESS.

If your game is D&D, you should know that 5' steps are free and don't provoke attacks, which means you can generally get back from melee and fire the bow without worry. Also, the tumble skill will get you into a free spot to shoot from, with no attacks as well. Harking back to the previous comment, if you didn't know that, it's not your DM's fault. He's doing it right by letting you play an archer sub-optimally. It's on you to get better at the rules that affect your capabilities.

If it's not D&D, then I have little to say. I don't know other rule sets. However, if those rule sets have a way for rogues to get through battle and shoot bows, you should know those rules by this point.

we get chased by Frost Giants...at level 1.

This is great! This is awesome! I think your GM is very cool for doing this. Why? Because I tire of safe, boring, balanced worlds. They lure the players into a lull of mindless fights where the assumption is that battles can always be won, so there is little need for critical thinking.

My campaigns do the same, though I make it clear to the players that they can avoid such risks by engaging their minds and being shrewd. For example, I ran a game where the players knew full well that the mountains were overrun with Frost Giants, but there was absolutely no need to head into the mountains. (The main quest path was somewhat balanced; it's just the outside regions that were more unpredictable.) Point is, if they wanted to pick a fight (or, commit suicide), they knew where to go. They chose to avoid the mountains.

I also left my random monster encounters unbalanced, as that's just the way the world is. If they got a 12-headed hydra at level 1, well, sucks to be them. The story of those heroes either ends rather un-heroically there, or else is about how they fled like hobbits from the nazgul, surviving to redeem themselves another day. I'm OK with this, and the players know I make my world like this. So when a monster appears, they ask about it. They say, "Can I do a knowledge check? Did that first attack look like it was the best it could do?" and so on. They are sometimes genuinely afraid of monsters, and that's fun.

Having said that, they also may get 5 wimpy kobolds ambushing them when they are level 12. Those are honestly some of the most hilarious, enjoyable encounters we experience. It's rare, but fun. Overpowering monsters all the time wears me out as a player. Everyone needs to experience variety.

during a mission for a dwarven mine, we get captured by Drows because we didn't specify we were Silent Moving.

That absolutely cannot be assumed in any game I run, so yeah, if you didn't specify, you didn't do it. I assume you move, breathe, and eat normally. Any time you are doing something different, you need to state the exception.

I had a player who was exploring a haunted house. He opened the door to a room and saw shelves on the opposite wall, lined with potions. Eagerly, he said he searched the shelves. Searching rules state that you have to search 5' squares one at a time as you move, so to execute the search, he was moving into the room. I said, "As you begin your search, you trigger a trap and...." he cut me off. He tells me he didn't go into the room. I counter that he had to, to execute the search. He says he really meant he was spotting from afar. Well, unfortunately Mr. Player, now that you know the outcome of moving into the room, and since you said one thing but meant another, you're stuck. Trap is triggered; be more careful next time.

the rest of the campaign was us getting carried to jail and publicly executed. he also spent a few hours on this sequence. which means we spent the REST of the session jerking off because there was NOTHING we could really do.

That sucks. That is utterly boring and railroady. I probably would have left halfway, or at least not returned for subsequent games.

we just left the region, got ambushed by way more bandit than we could handle (7 to 1 ratio), were left naked (except for a stick i found) and peniless. we walked to a nearby town where we went to a church an asked for charity. turns out the priest fetched a few guards to kick our ass (luckily we won). apparently the particular deity didn't like us or something. we dropped this campaign altogether.

I can't tell from the wording if the GM dropped it, or if the players said, "No, thanks." However, I'd be on the players' side here -- if they said no to being forcibly outmatched, robbed, and beaten by different groups (who seem to be unrelated but coincidentally were all ganging up on the characters), I'd have to agree with them. I can handle a bad thing happening. I can handle a short railroad off-stage (meaning, if the GM opens the game with a narrative about how the group was robbed and play picks up immediately afterward). However, having multiple bad things happen that undermine my character, and having them all happen as if unrelated enemies are magically coordinating their efforts, and having them all be forced failures even though I'm (ostensibly) playing, would drive me nuts. I'd probably stop the GM at some point in there and say, "It sounds like this is more of a story you're telling than a game I can affect, so I'm going to drop out now, OK?"

one was the sleeping quarters for the goblins with a high level DC that i BARELY managed to lockpick (you'd think one of the goblins we killed would have the keys to their own SLEEPING QUARTERS).

If this is D&D (and since you mentioned a natural roll of 20 later in your text, I'll assume so), then I have to say that lockpicking can be a "take 20" experience. It takes 20 times longer than a normal attempt, so instead of 1 round it's 20 (or 2 minutes), but nonetheless, it ensures that you get the best score possible. Again, this is something on you to know. The GM is not wrong if he did not tell you this, and it's not unusual to have doors that are off-limits initially, or at least which require a take 20.

Yes, it's weird that kobolds could get locked out of their own sleeping quarters. However, it's likely that they knew a secret knock or something to get it. Really, I wouldn't feel entitled here, as if the game or GM is rotten for not handing this to you. Bash the door down. Take it off the hinges. Stone shape the wall around it, or bash the wall itself. Get underneath the room and blow up the ceiling, giving you access. Charm a kobold and order him in. Turn invisible and slip in when someone else opens the door. I'm sure all these options were not available at the time, but at least some were, and if we want to sit here for another 5 minutes, I can come up with 20 more ways to bypass that obstacle.

That's part of role playing. Get inventive, think outside the box, try stuff and see what works.

so i ask...am i just weak or is the DM too unreasonable?

Both.

 

[pemerton]

Playing within genre tropes is not metagaming.

<snip>

Metagaming is using player knowledge that the character does not have.

But isn't there an overlap here?

Often the players can infer how a particular scenario might be structured, for example, because of their knowledge of the genre, or the monsters in the game, or whatever - if the PCs are going into the underdark, for example, and they've heard rumours that the ruler of a dwarven outpost has gone mad, they are likely to expect mindflayers even if their PCs wouldn't know to do so. And I have nothing against this - to a signficant extent, my game relies upon it.

Another example. In my session yesterday, some piece of backstory came out in an conversation between PCs and NPCs. Surprisingly for the players, it related back to a different NPC whom the PCs had rescued when, on an earlier occasion, they had been temporarily sent 100 years into the past. One of the players said (out of character) something like "What's going on with this NPC coming back onto the radar - is it just a coincidence?". And another replied "There are no coincidences - there's only plot!"

I'll agree that there can be something a bit cheesy about players whose low level, ignoramus PCs unload on trolls with their flaming arrows the first chance they get. But that's only a small part of the total range of possible metagaming. And if the players didn't opt for the flaming arrows, but rather set up an attack which just happened to push the troll into the party's campfire, then I wouldn't even regard it as cheesy. I'd see it as clever play that brings the PCs' knowledge into line with the players' knowledge.

Which is why I think that there are lots of different ways that particular groups can approach the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

But isn't there an overlap here?

Often the players can infer how a particular scenario might be structured, for example, because of their knowledge of the genre, or the monsters in the game, or whatever - if the PCs are going into the underdark, for example, and they've heard rumours that the ruler of a dwarven outpost has gone mad, they are likely to expect mindflayers even if their PCs wouldn't know to do so. And I have nothing against this - to a signficant extent, my game relies upon it.

Another example. In my session yesterday, some piece of backstory came out in an conversation between PCs and NPCs. Surprisingly for the players, it related back to a different NPC whom the PCs had rescued when, on an earlier occasion, they had been temporarily sent 100 years into the past. One of the players said (out of character) something like "What's going on with this NPC coming back onto the radar - is it just a coincidence?". And another replied "There are no coincidences - there's only plot!"

I'll agree that there can be something a bit cheesy about players whose low level, ignoramus PCs unload on trolls with their flaming arrows the first chance they get. But that's only a small part of the total range of possible metagaming. And if the players didn't opt for the flaming arrows, but rather set up an attack which just happened to push the troll into the party's campfire, then I wouldn't even regard it as cheesy. I'd see it as clever play that brings the PCs' knowledge into line with the players' knowledge.

Which is why I think that there are lots of different ways that particular groups can approach the game.

If the party hears about the insane dwarf why would they think mindflayers if they had never heard of them? That to me is metagaming and bad. Now if they decided to research things that could make someone go insane then I don't see that as meatgaming.

As for the troll example if it is handled with creativity and it is not done ham handed then I don't mind if they "accidentally" use metagame knowledge but it really does not look like it.

Another example of metagaming I don't like is this. Well I have X amount of hit points and falling does this much damage so even if max is rolled I will live so I am going to go jump off the roof on the 60 foot wall to see if I can fly.

That just ruins it for me nobody in their right mind should be willing to jump off a 60 foot high wall onto stone unless they are desperate.

It is the same when confronted with 25 city guard with crossbow aimed at your heart you don't blink because you metagame the they are this level and I am this level and they can't kill me.

My games does not rely on the party having certain knowledge. I expect my players to use skills and investigation for some of the things they need to know.

 

[aboyd]

In the dragged-out jail sequence, I said in a previous post that we were manacled and had ice cold water thrown on us to keep us numbed. Plus a corrupted Dwarven official who assumed we were enemies of the country.

The way I see it, he was making it clear we WEREN'T getting out of there.

My guess as to how I'd handle it.

GM: "You're manacled, and numbed. It's impossible to do anything."
ME: "OK, Mr. Game Master, what are our options here? Or if you don't wish to provide hints, can you at least clue me in as to what my character sees as possibilities?"
GM: "Did you miss where I said it's impossible to do anything?"
ME: "OK, great, so then I'd like to request that we fast-forward all the way to the point where we can affect the story. OK? Let's skip ahead."

If he won't skip, he's just boring us with self-indulgent monologue. Not interested. I'd excuse myself. If he will skip, well, fine, we move on. I don't mind inevitable stuff, I just want to get back to being interactive quickly. If he skips us ahead to "you're all dead," then thanks but I'm done gaming with you, Mr. Game Master.

The conversation could go another way. Like this:

GM: "You're manacled, and numbed. It's impossible to do anything."
ME: "What are our options here?"
GM: "Well, the manacles aren't sized right and are rusty, so it's possible that Escape Artist checks or pure Strength checks could have an affect. You also notice that one guard in particular is obviously thin and not eating well. Make of that what you wish."
ME: "Hmm. We could try to grab him while chained and tear him apart for keys, since he's so wimpy. However, I'd rather strike a deal. I'll try working on him, slowly, to convince him that we pay better and treat our employees better than the deal he has now. Maybe we can turn him, and escape with him."

It still might not work -- some of this is up to the dice and how many points my character has in conversational skills. But if the DM is offering info, at least it's something to go on. That's fun.

My point is, there may be ways to get something conclusively good or bad here. I'd take it upon myself to direct these interactions, rather than accepting whatever the DM says without input. I'd get involved, ask direct questions, and then make decisions. If the DM has bad answers, that's OK, I can leave. I'm not scared or bothered by doing that. So go for it, Epicbob. Take matters into your own hands, be assertive but friendly, and see if there is a good path for you in these games. If there isn't, kindly back out and find new games. Good luck.

 

[pemerton]

If the party hears about the insane dwarf why would they think mindflayers if they had never heard of them? That to me is metagaming and bad.

Well, this is kind of my point. When I set up a situation like that, I expect my players to start thinking "mindflayers" and getting ready for a psionic rumble. I don't see it as bad. I see it as getting into the game.

As for the PCs - who knows what they're thinking? Part of the expectation at my table is that the players will come up with some account, hopefully not absurdly contrived, to explain why the PCs are doing whatever they're doing as a result of the players' metagame knowledge.

This is why I agree with Pentius that these differences in expectation and approach are better off being discussed out-of-game then handled via ingame penalties.

Another example of metagaming I don't like is this. Well I have X amount of hit points and falling does this much damage so even if max is rolled I will live so I am going to go jump off the roof on the 60 foot wall to see if I can fly.

That just ruins it for me nobody in their right mind should be willing to jump off a 60 foot high wall onto stone unless they are desperate.

It is the same when confronted with 25 city guard with crossbow aimed at your heart you don't blink because you metagame the they are this level and I am this level and they can't kill me.

This particular issue was discussed at some length on a couple of recent threads - In defence of the theory of dissociated mechanics, and Uhealable injuries.

I personally find it hard to discern the line here. A PC is meant to be prepared to face a firebreathing dragon, even if not desparate but just greedy, although the only reason the player knows this is viable is because of the hit point and saving throw mechanics - but the same PC is meant not to be prepared to jump off a cliff. I'm not sure I see the difference. In both situations I'd expect the player to be able to say something in character if pressed, even if it was no better than "Hey - I'm feeling lucky today!"

 

[epicbob]

If you say "closest one" to me in a game, then I'm going to take it literally

And that's perfectly fine with me. If my turn comes up and I answer right away, it's because I know what I'm doing. If I choose to attack the closest enemy, I'm willing to live with the consequences.

As for the rules, I have a good enough grasp that I only need to look at the rule book if it's a relatively obscure rule.

Also, the tumble skill will get you into a free spot to shoot from, with no attacks as well.

After checking the PHB, I'll have to talk to my DM about that one because I did attempt a tumble around an enemy in one fight and I got opportunity attacked. I think he said the roll was only to decide if I would land behind the enemy at the end of my tumble.

This is great! This is awesome! I think your GM is very cool for doing this. Why? Because I tire of safe, boring, balanced worlds. They lure the players into a lull of mindless fights where the assumption is that battles can always be won, so there is little need for critical thinking.

I'm not expecting to be given victory on a silver platter but still, I don't like letting a dice decide what I'm facing next. Especially if it's a high LVL monster with no realistic way to escape from.

As for constant victory, I don't see how that can be bad if some of them cost you more than others. As in : "Whoops! That last fight cost us most of our healing supplies. We better be more careful". But being forced to take on severely overpowering CR enemies because the dice said so?

That absolutely cannot be assumed in any game I run, so yeah, if you didn't specify, you didn't do it. I assume you move, breathe, and eat normally. Any time you are doing something different, you need to state the exception.

Fair enough. Though it could be argued that we were still learning the game at that time.

That sucks. That is utterly boring and railroady. I probably would have left halfway, or at least not returned for subsequent games.

I did start pacing around the room from impatience. When he asked me what I was doing, I told him the sequence was dragging on too long for my tastes.

I can't tell from the wording if the GM dropped it, or if the players said, "No, thanks."

It was more of a mutual agreement thing.

If this is D&D (and since you mentioned a natural roll of 20 later in your text, I'll assume so), then I have to say that lockpicking can be a "take 20" experience.

At that point in time, the DM said we couldn't take 20 because our characters hadn't confirmed that the area was clear of enemies.

Really, I wouldn't feel entitled here, as if the game or GM is rotten for not handing this to you. Bash the door down. Take it off the hinges. Stone shape the wall around it, or bash the wall itself.

We tried to force it open with a crowbar but the door was too tough. I tried to break a window to get in but it was reinforced with steel bars. Bashing the wall itself? Considering the DM, it would have failed miserably. As for the secret knock thing you mentioned, when I DID unlock the door (finally), the entire building was EMPTY. There was no one to "secret knock" to. I only deduced it was the sleeping quarters because it had items that hinted towards the Goblins' ownership.

That's part of role playing. Get inventive, think outside the box, try stuff and see what works.

As long as I don't have to endlessly search every square foot everywhere I go. That game's going to drag on for a long time...