How to punish a metagamer?

[tylermalan]

But he doesn't see the problem as you said yourself... he asked about metagaming, but you say he just don't likes the player. Best solution would be trying to talk with each other and that there colliding game styles / personalities will diminish the fun for both of them...

What I mean is that the OP inherently knows what the problem is (personality conflicts), and even answered his own question with the correct answer when he suggested giving this player the boot. He didn't ask about metagaming; he mentioned metagaming and then described a bunch of essentially social issues. He then gave the group's hitherto solution when he said, "We are thinking about clamming up and not saying anything and just passing notes the entire time." This is a social response to a social problem in a social game. The OP knows, and it is silly to assume that he doesn't.

 

[SlyDoubt]

The attempts at in-game solutions are absurd. It's a problem with a player, not a character.

Tell the guy he's being a prick and needs to consider the rest of the people at the table. This has nothing to do with alignment or anything. It's someone being a self-centered jerk who needs to be put in their place.

If they want to act like a child then treat them like a child. Give them a time-out and tell them they can rejoin the adventure when they've thought about things.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I mean, I guess if you want to hijack the OP's thread to discuss Meteor Swarm (or something else that has nothing to do with the real problem)... go right ahead, buddy.

What if every time the problem player sits down at the table, someone casts a real-life meteor swarm on him.

Would that help solve the problem?

 

[Walking Dad]

The attempts at in-game solutions are absurd. It's a problem with a player, not a character.

Tell the guy he's being a prick and needs to consider the rest of the people at the table. This has nothing to do with alignment or anything. It's someone being a self-centered jerk who needs to be put in their place.

If they want to act like a child then treat them like a child. Give them a time-out and tell them they can rejoin the adventure when they've thought about things.

Did you read the thread? The player isn't necessarily a prick. Why should he be called childish and be 'booted' from the game? And is it less self-centered to say: "Yes, he is a prick, cast a spell on his character to take him over! That will teach him not to give his found magic items to another character I like more!"

They should do the only sane thing, departing from each other without trying to find the guilty and find groups/players more suited to their game styles.

 

[Alishea]

What I mean is that the OP inherently knows what the problem is (personality conflicts), and even answered his own question with the correct answer when he suggested giving this player the boot. He didn't ask about metagaming; he mentioned metagaming and then described a bunch of essentially social issues. He then gave the group's hitherto solution when he said, "We are thinking about clamming up and not saying anything and just passing notes the entire time." This is a social response to a social problem in a social game. The OP knows, and it is silly to assume that he doesn't.

SHE!

LOL I guess it's fitting to assume that I am a man since us women are outnumbered in RPGs.

 

[Alishea]

And I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this thread, I'm pregnant and we've had some craziness at my house.

We just decided to part ways. We told him that our playing styles weren't a good match and he agreed. Now we are working with the 4 people we have. But it's been a lot better, we are actually good friends and do stuff outside of gaming as well.

So the story at least has a happy ending

 

[SlyDoubt]

Did you read the thread? The player isn't necessarily a prick. Why should he be called childish and be 'booted' from the game? And is it less self-centered to say: "Yes, he is a prick, cast a spell on his character to take him over! That will teach him not to give his found magic items to another character I like more!"

They should do the only sane thing, departing from each other without trying to find the guilty and find groups/players more suited to their game styles.

I read the OP.

I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek because the responses trying to work things out in game are just silly. If someone isn't on the same wavelength as the rest of the party there needs to be a discussion.

I'm saying the same thing as you, you just put a more moderate and rational spin on it. Either they can stay and discuss with the group what's up and why their actions are a problem. Or if they think that's stupid they should be asked to leave the group and go find one more suitable.

Edit: That's good everything worked out as it should.

 

[Felon]

Did you read the thread? The player isn't necessarily a prick. Why should he be called childish and be 'booted' from the game? And is it less self-centered to say: "Yes, he is a prick, cast a spell on his character to take him over! That will teach him not to give his found magic items to another character I like more!"

Oh, how dearly human beings love to have scapegoats. We gleefully denounce people as people as "pricks" for creating conflict, but we actually love responding in kind. Especially on the internet, and especially in this autism-magnet hobby of ours.

The rules certainly do allow characters to know when a spell has been cast on them, and there are verbal and somatic components to charm person, so I don't see the problem with the fighter knowing that the wizard tried to cast a spell on him. Furthermore, I don't see where the hallowed precepts of good role-playing prevent him from coming to the conclusion that the spell in question was some sort of enchantment. He can't know for a fact, but enchantment would be an easy conclusion to jump to.

I believe the DM has allowed herself to be sucked into the conflict and become a part of the problem, because none of the above is particularly inobvious. Moreover, it is not particularly reasonable to think a player ought to let an attempt by another player to subjugate them pass without consequence. Yet, she deems punishment to be in order.

Player 1: "You know that potion you just drank? The one I just gave you? It's loaded with poison. Make a Fort save lest you shed this coil mortal!"
Player 2: "I rolled a 20. Feeling dizzy, nauseous, and a little bleary-eyed, I decry you as a poisoning cur."
Player 1: "Now now, dearest friend, you have no way of knowing that you were poisoned. Perhaps that chicken you had for dinner was a bit undercooked. Salmonella is frighteningly common in the old world, you know. In fact, seeing that your character isn't feeling well, I now proffer another potion for your consumption. Purely out-of-character, I would have you know that it is laden with an even deadlier poison. It is my sincere hope that you perish so I may pilfer your belongings at my leisure. Your character, being oblivious to this, should be a good fellow and quaff it down blithely; to do otherwise would be to reveal yourself as a bad role-player. Chin chin."
Player 2: "Having always had a bad feeling about this cretin standing before him, my character concludes that he was poisoned and retribution is in order. I am clearing leather. Roll initiative."
Player 1: "Oh, you just HAPPENED to come to that conclusion. That's convenient. Metagaming, that's what that is. You sir, are a bad role-player! Consider yourself denounced."
DM: "INDEED! Fooey upon you, you nasty, metagaming little pischer! Had you up-ended that bottle, you'd have earned my esteem. Instead, let me consult the stoic and just folk of ENWorld to devise a fitting punishment."

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Hunh, that's a bit of an overdone example huh Felon? (Who ever exclaims "Fooey upon you" anyways?)

Has it been said whether the wizard cast the spell behind the fighter's back or not? I'd argue that if the wizard cast it at him from right in front of him then yeah he'd certainly have a good shot at figuring out what had happened, but if on the other hand a spell was cast that he didn't see, he might not realize it.

 

[Felon]

Hunh, that's a bit of an overdone example huh Felon? (Who ever exclaims "Fooey upon you" anyways?)

You suggest that my short one-act play is overwrought? And here I left out the chorus of ENWorlders denouncing Player 2 as a munchking, minmaxer, CN bunghole, and a few other choice references to male anatomy.

Has it been said whether the wizard cast the spell behind the fighter's back or not? I'd argue that if the wizard cast it at him from right in front of him then yeah he'd certainly have a good shot at figuring out what had happened, but if on the other hand a spell was cast that he didn't see, he might not realize it.

A character realizes when he is the target of a failed spell. It is not intended that the lot of fighter players be to walk around as the servile toadies of unscrupulous wizard players.